Sir, – Prof Jim Gleeson argues that "the need for radical Leaving Cert reform is more obvious than ever", that the Leaving Certificate "rewards surface rather than deep learning", with "Leaving Cert grades having no educational meaning other than their currency on the CAO 'stock market'" ("Leaving Cert grades have no meaning beyond CAO", Opinion & Analysis, February 9th).
For almost a century, repeated revision of the syllabuses has allowed the Leaving Cert to function as the means of assessment of student attainment on completion of second-level education while also serving as the screening process for entry to further education.
In later years, less academic courses, such as the Leaving Cert Applied and post-Leaving Cert courses, have provided other options for students, while “access programmes” in universities provide entry for students who are generally under-represented at third level.
Adjustments to the assessment process, such as submitting assignments, portfolios or projects, were introduced and have played some part but are fraught with problems of plagiarism or unfair assistance by another.
It is difficult to perceive a fairer, standardised, objective, or transparent (marking schemes provided) way of assessment than the current system where the student sits an exam with the student and examiner unknown to each other.
Knowledge is the fundamental basis needed for higher-order cognitive processes, such as understanding and application, to operate.
While all types of information are at our fingertips through the internet, we need knowledge to know the questions to ask and to critically interpret information accurately.
Rather than casting the current Leaving Cert format to the rubbish bin, modification is warranted in some subjects to phrase exam questions requiring skills in answering that involve analysis, evaluation, and critical thinking.
Parts of questions involving mere recall are always necessary for students who experience difficulty with higher cognitive learning.
Try answering a Leaving Cert chemistry or maths question without being able to analyse or evaluate!
Prof Gleeson’s contention that currently it is the teacher’s task “to cover rather than illuminate the syllabus and to deliver the curriculum so that students can get an education as against being educated” is a very narrow assessment of the broad educational interaction that takes place between teacher and student in the classroom.
All education occurs in the context of that interaction where the syllabus is essential for standardisation purposes and knowledge and enlightenment of the subject are vital. – Yours, etc,
KEVIN
McLOUGHLIN,
Ballina,
Co Mayo.