Towards a Better Future

Recommendations

Info

Chapter Five: Transition from Second Level to Higher Education about improving examination performance. When the results are issued in August every year, any student who so wishes may view his/her marked script or scripts. This gives further information on how marks are allocated. As a result of this transparency, students and teachers are now acutely familiar with how examination scripts are marked and they know what types of answers are likely to result in high grades. As they approach the examination period, they focus more and more on exam techniques and are reluctant to engage with any form of learning which will be not be rewarded in the examination. 5 (See Chapter 1 of this report). Another source of debate among students, teachers and the media each year is the variability in the marking/grading of different subjects. There is a perception that some subjects are marked more leniently than others are and that, by taking these subjects, students are more likely to get higher grades. (Kellaghan and Millar, 2003 and MacAogáin, E, 2005). Some students base their subject choice for Leaving Certificate on the perceived likelihood of getting a high grade, rather than on their aptitude for the subject or its relevance to their higher education course of choice. More than fifty years ago, Benjamin Bloom suggested a taxonomy (classification) of educational objectives, which for many generations of educationalists has proved to be a useful and relatively simple tool for defining and assessing the various levels of thinking skills and educational outcomes. The following diagram summarises the different levels of thinking skills as set out in Bloom’s Taxonomy: Bloom’s Taxonomy 5. A research study carried out in Cork in the 1990s found that second-level teachers and students were willing to engage in creative and innovative teaching and learning methodologies in First and Second Years and in Transition Year and Fifth Year but were not willing to get involved in such activities during the Junior Certificate or the Leaving Certificate years (i.e. the final year of schooling) as they were of the view that such activities would not be recognised or rewarded by the Junior or Leaving Certificate examinations (Hyland, 1999). — 87 —
Towards a Better Future: A Review of the Irish School System Bloom’s Taxonomy is sometimes used (implicitly or explicitly) by curriculum and examination designers to ensure that a broad range of thinking skills is included and assessed. For example, the template used by the Indian Board of Secondary Education authorities for the marking of the national end of Senior Cycle examination in that country – an examination that is taken by millions of students, is based on Bloom’s Taxonomy (Central Board of Secondary Education, India, 2015). The following matrix 6 was suggested by Professor Áine Hyland at an NCCA/HEA conference in 2013 as an aid to ensuring that both lower and higher-order skills are assessed and rewarded and that there is broad consistency of marking across different subjects (Hyland, 2013). While recognising that there would have to be flexibility in applying this matrix, such a matrix could be useful in drafting examination questions, developing subject marking schemes for the Leaving Certificate, and devising rubrics for defining grades. Assessment Grid Framework Higher Order Thinking Lower Order Thinking A1 A2 B1 B2 B3 C1 C2 C3 D1 D2 D3 E F Higher Order Thinking EVALUATION SYNTHESIS ANALYSIS APPLICATION COMPREHENSION KNOWLEDGE Lower Order Thinking Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Inadequate GRADING THE LEAVING CERTIFICATE During the first fifty years of the existence of the Leaving Certificate (from 1924 to the 1970s), candidates received the actual mark which they were awarded by examiners for each subject. In the 1970s, a grading scheme was introduced and candidates’ results were subsequently made available on a seven-point scale – A, B, C, D, E, F and No Grade. In the late 1980s, a more refined grading scheme was introduced and 6 The authors are indebted to Dr. Jennifer Murphy, Admissions Officer, University College Cork, for her work in developing this matrix. — 88 —
Page 1 and 2:
Towards a BETTER FUTURE A Review of
Page 3 and 4:
Published in Ireland by IPPN (the I
Page 5 and 6:
Towards a Better Future: A Review o
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52: Towards a Better Future: A Review o
Page 101: Towards a Better Future: A Review o
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
show all

Towards a Better Future

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?