JC Science Coursework B

fintan109

Just looking for some advice on Coursework B of the JC science curriculum..

When are the titles for Coursework B released to schools and when is the final date for submission?

When would you start the investigations with your classes? Is after the mocks the best time? Also how long does it usually take and how many classes/weeks would you set aside for the planning, experiments and writing up?

Thanks

RealJohn

We usually get them shortly after the mid-term break (I assume it's the same for everyone else) and I'd recommend you start them as soon as you can as they always seem to take longer than planned. You'll also probably have students who won't be in or just won't/can't keep pace with the rest of the class and will need more time.

The date they're supposed to be "submitted" is usually around the end of April but since they're kept in the school to be submitted with the written paper you probably have some leeway anyway, unless your principal/head of department isn't inclined to be flexible. That being said, you're better off making that date the deadline in order to focus yourself and hopefully instill a sense of urgency in the kids.

bdoo

RealJohn wrote: »

We usually get them shortly after the mid-term break (I assume it's the same for everyone else) and I'd recommend you start them as soon as you can as they always seem to take longer than planned. You'll also probably have students who won't be in or just won't/can't keep pace with the rest of the class and will need more time.

The date they're supposed to be "submitted" is usually around the end of April but since they're kept in the school to be submitted with the written paper you probably have some leeway anyway, unless your principal/head of department isn't inclined to be flexible. That being said, you're better off making that date the deadline in order to focus yourself and hopefully instill a sense of urgency in the kids.

I do not agree with carrying out any work after deadlines have passed. It makes little of the students who have made an effort to submit work on time.

It also creates an uneven playing field when some teachers insist on sticking to deadlines and others don't.

What you call inflexible is in fact called following the rules to maintain the integrity of the examinations system. This kind of carry on is exactly what will undermine any potential for the new junior cert to be successful.

The idea of coursework is to assess areas which cannot readily be assessd in an exam. Part of it is time management and an ability to plan a procedure, carry it out and reflect on results.

If there are unofficial extensions given then the marks obtained are not a true reflection of the student's capacity in the subject. The results are not worth the paper they are written on.

seavill

bdoo wrote: »

I do not agree with carrying out any work after deadlines have passed. It makes little of the students who have made an effort to submit work on time.

It also creates an uneven playing field when some teachers insist on sticking to deadlines and others don't.

What you call inflexible is in fact called following the rules to maintain the integrity of the examinations system. This kind of carry on is exactly what will undermine any potential for the new junior cert to be successful.

The idea of coursework is to assess areas which cannot readily be assessd in an exam. Part of it is time management and an ability to plan a procedure, carry it out and reflect on results.

If there are unofficial extensions given then the marks obtained are not a true reflection of the student's capacity in the subject. The results are not worth the paper they are written on.

+1 on above

If you want to be flexible set a false deadline a month beforehand and have the pressure then, it will then allow you to run over without exceeding the actual date.

Unless there is a genuine reason (being in hospital etc.) there is no excuse for teachers breaking SEC rules.

I know of Construction Studies teachers who set their practical exam for the 2nd week so they can get in a bit of extra "practice" time, its no coincidence that they magically happen to practice the joints that happen to be in the actual practical exam, where as silly old me sets it for the first day and does it properly, putting my students at a disadvantage it seems.

We are supposed to be professionals

rainbowtrout

seavill wrote: »

+1 on above

If you want to be flexible set a false deadline a month beforehand and have the pressure then, it will then allow you to run over without exceeding the actual date.

Unless there is a genuine reason (being in hospital etc.) there is no excuse for teachers breaking SEC rules.

I know of Construction Studies teachers who set their practical exam for the 2nd week so they can get in a bit of extra "practice" time, its no coincidence that they magically happen to practice the joints that happen to be in the actual practical exam, where as silly old me sets it for the first day and does it properly, putting my students at a disadvantage it seems.

We are supposed to be professionals

It's very strict in my school too for all coursework in all subjects. Everything has to be submitted to exam secretary and signed off on the deadline. Tough luck to latecomers.

Had a couple of students who refused to write up their science experiments for me this year. Outright refused. Come deadline day the exam secretary came to my science class to pick up coursework booklets etc and all the paperwork and one of them started whinging that he wanted to write up his experiments and could he have time next week... this is after months of refusing to do the work..... he got short shrift from both of us and lost the marks. The students in my school know they won't get extensions and as a result it works for us. Everything comes in on time.

derb12

I think they are normally released in November or so, but we don't go near them until after the mocks. We normally set aside 2 lab classes for each of the investigations (so 4 weeks right there) and then the students are writing drafts and re-writing the reports for about another week after that - probably a 4-6 week window overall, with just small bits of revision going on in the background.
I know in some schools they take the students out of normal classes for two whole days and just work on the science investigations. That is certainly less tortuous but I don't know if you get the best learning outcomes and you have the problems of kids who happen to be out those days.
We are very strict about the deadline too. If the school was inspected there would be big trouble if all the deadlines hadn't been adhered to (or so I am told). In any case, it is normally a relief to get the blasted things finished and get back to good old exam paper revision.

Whoever came up with the layout of that stupid coursework b booklet should be shot. It seems to just suck all the fun out of the investigation process.

doc_17

I took them out of class last year for a day to do the Physics part of coursework B. Worked a treat. They leave class for LCVP, orals, practicals etc and I'm always on the wrong end of that. I think it works better when you can do it on the day.

RealJohn

bdoo wrote: »

The idea of coursework is to assess areas which cannot readily be assessd in an exam. Part of it is time management and an ability to plan a procedure, carry it out and reflect on results.

If there are unofficial extensions given then the marks obtained are not a true reflection of the student's capacity in the subject. The results are not worth the paper they are written on.

First of all, I'd like to point out that I wasn't recommending that people ignore the deadline. I recommended that you make the deadline the actual deadline.

That being said, the idea that there's any integrity in the process is laughable. You all must be teaching in great schools where all the students are excellently motivated but when you teach in a school where several students being absent is the norm, a certain amount of flexibility is a requirement. Without it, a good proportion of students would fail science and be lost to subject before they actually find out if they might have something to offer after all.

They get 10% of their marks for experiments which, unless there's a subject inspection, nobody knows if they've done or not. They're examined on the written paper anyway so why should they get that 10% for free?

Not to mention that the students are told how to do their projects by their teachers anyway and in my experience, most teachers tell them what to write for the majority (if not all) of the reporting booklet so where exactly is the integrity in the system?

Yes, this shouldn't be the case but it is. If the SEC wanted integrity in the system, they should insist that the coursework is sent to the SEC by the closing date rather than just a roll with a few signatures on it. As things stand, it's a joke but don't blinker yourselves and pretend that it's something it's not.

seavill

RealJohn wrote: »

First of all, I'd like to point out that I wasn't recommending that people ignore the deadline. I recommended that you make the deadline the actual deadline.

That being said, the idea that there's any integrity in the process is laughable. You all must be teaching in great schools where all the students are excellently motivated but when you teach in a school where several students being absent is the norm, a certain amount of flexibility is a requirement. Without it, a good proportion of students would fail science and be lost to subject before they actually find out if they might have something to offer after all.

They get 10% of their marks for experiments which, unless there's a subject inspection, nobody knows if they've done or not. They're examined on the written paper anyway so why should they get that 10% for free?

Not to mention that the students are told how to do their projects by their teachers anyway and in my experience, most teachers tell them what to write for the majority (if not all) of the reporting booklet so where exactly is the integrity in the system?

Yes, this shouldn't be the case but it is. If the SEC wanted integrity in the system, they should insist that the coursework is sent to the SEC by the closing date rather than just a roll with a few signatures on it. As things stand, it's a joke but don't blinker yourselves and pretend that it's something it's not.

Shocking post in all honesty.

You are a teacher. You are supposed to set an example for the kids.

I have worked in very tough schools where attendance is a prob but a deadline is a deadline. They miss it tough look.

Basically what you are saying sure its grand to break the rules as long as you don't get caught. What an example to set. Where do we draw the line? Theft? Murder. Sure tis grand if the Gardai don't come asking questions sure no one will know any different and you get away with it.

I'm sure the original idea was that the sec probably thought they could trust teachers to uphold the integrity of the exam system without babying them at every step. Clearly not it seems

RealJohn

I'm just telling it as it is across the country but once again, I'll point out that you've obviously failed to read the first line of my "shocking post".

The crux of your post seems to be "If they're too stupid/disadvantaged to get their work done then **** them, they don't deserve to pass." Does that extend to all students? Let's face it, a kid with Downs syndrome or autism is still a student. Allowing them to get help from a SNA is giving them an advantage other students don't have. Same goes for readers for dyslexic students, spelling exemptions etc. Am I right?

Let's make it a completely level playing field, how about that?

You say you've taught in disadvantaged schools but you seem to have no idea of the reality of life for many of those students.

seavill

RealJohn wrote: »

I'm just telling it as it is across the country but once again, I'll point out that you've obviously failed to read the first line of my "shocking post".

The crux of your post seems to be "If they're too stupid/disadvantaged to get their work done then **** them, they don't deserve to pass." Does that extend to all students? Let's face it, a kid with Downs syndrome or autism is still a student. Allowing them to get help from a SNA is giving them an advantage other students don't have. Same goes for readers for dyslexic students, spelling exemptions etc. Am I right?

Let's make it a completely level playing field, how about that?

You say you've taught in disadvantaged schools but you seem to have no idea of the reality of life for many of those students.

No I read the full post. You don't do it but you spend the rest of the post justifying it.

I know exactly what they endure. I came from the exact same place if you must know so maybe don't be so quick to judge.

So it's ok for them to bring in a few cheat notes into the exams in June. Just cause of who they are. No of course not. So why is this ok? Same principle.

All projects etc are given a huge timeframe to be completed in our system. Too long in many subjects. This is there to account for people who miss days etc.

There were two of us teaching jc mtw the other teacher had no regard for dates. I did. The kids knew that. Knew I would not go one day past. I has the weaker, more troublesome group of the two classes. All got their work done in time. They knew they had no choice. No help at home attendance poor at times but they knew my stance on it so even the worst of them worked to this.

You can try justify it all you want with this excuse or that excuse but the students are cheating you are cheating and setting a shockingly bad example in the process.

Why bother with dates at all

rainbowtrout

RealJohn wrote: »

That being said, the idea that there's any integrity in the process is laughable. You all must be teaching in great schools where all the students are excellently motivated but when you teach in a school where several students being absent is the norm, a certain amount of flexibility is a requirement. Without it, a good proportion of students would fail science and be lost to subject before they actually find out if they might have something to offer after all.

No. I teach in a fairly middle of the road school, we have some excellent students, some with special needs and a lot that fall in the middle. We have to do our coursework B during class time. I usually end up doing over the course of 6 weeks. Sure, there are students that miss days but it's highly unlikely that they will be missing every science class for 6 weeks.


Nobody said here that does an all day affair for the coursework that the student won't be able to do it. We have all said that we adhere to deadlines.

Regardless of a student's ability in science or any other subject, adhering to deadlines and getting their work done on time is something that will be expected of them in the real world in any job. That is a skill they can learn in school by learning about the consequences of being late. Students also learn that lateness will not be tolerated. There are very few students with mitigating circumstances (death in the family, serious illness) where lateness is acceptable and even in those circumstances they are not likely to be absent from school for the whole period where coursework is being completed.

RealJohn wrote: »

They get 10% of their marks for experiments which, unless there's a subject inspection, nobody knows if they've done or not. They're examined on the written paper anyway so why should they get that 10% for free?

Not to mention that the students are told how to do their projects by their teachers anyway and in my experience, most teachers tell them what to write for the majority (if not all) of the reporting booklet so where exactly is the integrity in the system?

I, as a science teacher, will not allow any of my students to tick a box for a science experiment which they have not written up. As I already outlined I had two such students this year. To the point that the SEC rang the school in August and message was passed to me to ring back. Very nice person at the SEC told me that two of my students had forgotten to mark off their experiments as complete and couldn't be awarded their 10% but a fax from me signed to confirm that they had actually completed them meant they could rectify the situation and award the marks. I could have easily sent this off and they would have been given the marks for free. I stated in no uncertain terms that the students had not completed the work and as a result were not allowed to fill in that section in the coursework booklet. So the SEC were happy with that. I wasn't having two students getting marks for free when the rest did all the work for 10%.

I am aware that some teachers do not get students to write up the coursework, some may not even do the experiments. I am not one of them. I have professional integrity, something you seem to suggest many of us are lacking. Something I'm pretty disgusted by.

RealJohn wrote: »

They get 10% of their marks for experiments which, unless there's a subject inspection, nobody knows if they've done or not. They're examined on the written paper anyway so why should they get that 10% for free?

I do agree that the coursework should be sent to the SEC, if nothing but to check that it has been done. However the 10% is awarded for practical work and skills, not just for retention of facts.

RealJohn wrote: »

Not to mention that the students are told how to do their projects by their teachers anyway and in my experience, most teachers tell them what to write for the majority (if not all) of the reporting booklet so where exactly is the integrity in the system?

Yes, this shouldn't be the case but it is. If the SEC wanted integrity in the system, they should insist that the coursework is sent to the SEC by the closing date rather than just a roll with a few signatures on it. As things stand, it's a joke but don't blinker yourselves and pretend that it's something it's not.

Again, don't tar every teacher with one brush. The fact that teachers come on here and post about educational issues suggests that the cohort of teachers on boards are interested in teaching and education that they do this in their spare time. You are dealing with professionals who realise that not every teacher is going to do things by the book, but don't come on to the forum and start slagging off all teachers. We have After Hours for that.

Actually I'd go so far as to say, based on how things operate in my school, that if management tightened up on practices around collection and submission of coursework in schools and adhered to deadlines it would force teachers to come into line in terms of getting coursework in on time.

bdoo

Same happened with us rainbowtrout. Incomplete coursework booklet got a phonecall from the sec wondering was there a mistake!

What needs to happen is that inspectors hit schools to check all project work the first week in may if its not there then there should be consequences. I don't know what conseques but there should be some.

I had an inspector from the sec land into the bench test last may, bit of a pr**k mind, but he checked that everything was in order and I had to show Jim where all the construction project work was stored.

Of course everything was alright because I follow the rules but I know of schools where project work goes on until June. It's not fair and it does no favours for the kids.

RealJohn

seavill wrote: »

No I read the full post. You don't do it but you spend the rest of the post justifying it.

I wasn't justifying anything. I was pointing out that the situation isn't black and white. If we're going to go down that route, why should a death in the family be an acceptable excuse, like rainbowtrout suggested?

seavill wrote: »

I know exactly what they endure. I came from the exact same place if you must know so maybe don't be so quick to judge.

I judged you based on what you posted and I stand by that judgement. I didn't say you don't know what they endure, I said that you seemed not to know and claiming you do (whether true or not) hasn't changed my opinion.

seavill wrote: »

So it's ok for them to bring in a few cheat notes into the exams in June. Just cause of who they are. No of course not. So why is this ok? Same principle.

That's not the same and you know it's not. Or at least, if you don't know it's not then there's little point in continuing this discussion.

seavill wrote: »

All projects etc are given a huge timeframe to be completed in our system. Too long in many subjects. This is there to account for people who miss days etc.

Yeah, on that, the science coursework B represents 25% of the marks and we typically get it around early November. Surely that implies that we should spend all of the time between November and April on it (and even then, we wouldn't be spending 25% of our time on it).

seavill wrote: »

There were two of us teaching jc mtw the other teacher had no regard for dates. I did. The kids knew that. Knew I would not go one day past. I has the weaker, more troublesome group of the two classes. All got their work done in time. They knew they had no choice. No help at home attendance poor at times but they knew my stance on it so even the worst of them worked to this.

Again, this varies greatly from school to school and from teacher to teacher. I'm sure you did an excellent job with your students. You might have a very good relationship with them. You might well be one of those teachers that students naturally want to work for. It isn't the case for everyone and it isn't he case for every subject. Typically, students choose metalwork (I assume that that's what mtw is) and typically the students who choose it do so because they see how it is applicable to their futures (and the weaker students especially see the likes of metalwork and woodwork as subjects that are likely to be important to them in a way that they don't see science). Science by contrast is usually forced on students as it is compulsory in most schools in the country to junior cert and as with many compulsory subjects, students are not inclined to apply themselves unless they have a good relationship with the teacher and/or they like the subject.
Science coursework is not in the same boat as metalwork coursework.

seavill wrote: »

You can try justify it all you want with this excuse or that excuse but the students are cheating you are cheating and setting a shockingly bad example in the process.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't accuse me of cheating. At no point have I said I allow students to work past the deadline.
That being said, what about a teacher who starts the coursework late, either by choice or because of being delayed for some reason. In what way is starting late and allowing students to work past the deadline giving those students any kind of advantage?

seavill wrote: »

Why bother with dates at all

Well if they're not going to be actively enforced by the department, why bother indeed? As long as the coursework is in on time to be sent off with the written paper, what difference does it make to anyone at the end of the day? It's an arbitrary deadline anyway so why not just make it the end of the school year?

rainbowtrout wrote: »

No. I teach in a fairly middle of the road school, we have some excellent students, some with special needs and a lot that fall in the middle. We have to do our coursework B during class time. I usually end up doing over the course of 6 weeks. Sure, there are students that miss days but it's highly unlikely that they will be missing every science class for 6 weeks.

They don't have to miss every class for it to severely disrupt their ability to write their report. A weaker student misses a few days and they barely remember doing the experiment, not to mind what exactly they did or why they did it and this tends to be the kind of student who misses days when they have important exam material to be working on.

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Regardless of a student's ability in science or any other subject, adhering to deadlines and getting their work done on time is something that will be expected of them in the real world in any job. That is a skill they can learn in school by learning about the consequences of being late.

Again, all well and good for good students but a student who is late every day for school is not very likely to think much of a deadline for a project. Also, many of them won't learn anything from their teacher refusing to allow them to submit their project late because by the time they get their result in mid September, not being allowed to finish their project nearly 5 months earlier is not at the forefront of their minds. They'll see their E and they won't think "I'd have passed that if I'd been more organised", they'll see their E and say "Ah sure I'm no good at science anyway" (and the same goes for the C/D and B/C divides too to a lesser extent).

rainbowtrout wrote: »

I, as a science teacher, will not allow any of my students to tick a box for a science experiment which they have not written up.

That's admirable and it's the way it should be. You're in the minority though.
Less than 10% of the Junior Science exams I marked this summer lost any marks on coursework A and judging by the overall standard of answering, most of my papers this year weren't coming from high achieving schools. It simply isn't believable that over 90% of honours junior cert science students don't miss any experiments, is it?
And to how high a standard must an experiment be written up for it to be deemed worthy of a tick? Should they student be expected to provide their own conclusions and have them assessed for validity by their teacher? Or are they just copying down what the teacher tells them (and if this is the case, what exactly is the value of it anyway)?

rainbowtrout wrote: »

I am aware that some teachers do not get students to write up the coursework, some may not even do the experiments. I am not one of them. I have professional integrity, something you seem to suggest many of us are lacking. Something I'm pretty disgusted by.

Be disgusted. You should be. Just don't be disgusted at my assertion so much as at the fact that it's the reality, again based on what I've seen over the last five years marking junior science coursework.
You might well have professional integrity. I have no reason to think you don't. I have every reason to think you're in the minority though and not a large minority at that.

rainbowtrout wrote: »

I do agree that the coursework should be sent to the SEC, if nothing but to check that it has been done. However the 10% is awarded for practical work and skills, not just for retention of facts.

Even it their lab copies were sent to the SEC it would still prove nothing. Anyone can copy down an experiment. It needs to be examined in order to know if they've actually learned any skills or if they're capable of carrying out that practical work. If they want to insist on that, there needs to be a practical exam. They do it in other subjects so why not in science?

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Again, don't tar every teacher with one brush. The fact that teachers come on here and post about educational issues suggests that the cohort of teachers on boards are interested in teaching and education that they do this in their spare time. You are dealing with professionals who realise that not every teacher is going to do things by the book, but don't come on to the forum and start slagging off all teachers. We have After Hours for that.

I'm not tarring all teachers with the same brush, I'm merely pointing out that in my experience, the majority of the teachers do not approach coursework in the spirit intended (not necessarily entirely by their own choice - in the last school I taught in, the principal instructed me to make sure that the coursework was of a high standard one way or the other, the underlying meaning of which I largely ignored but I had the luxury of having a relatively small class of relatively strong students for the most part so the standard wasn't bad anyway). The current system simply doesn't work because it's far to open to abuse and it is being abused.

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Actually I'd go so far as to say, based on how things operate in my school, that if management tightened up on practices around collection and submission of coursework in schools and adhered to deadlines it would force teachers to come into line in terms of getting coursework in on time.

This might well be the case and I agree, this is how it should be. It isn't though and until it is, we shouldn't be blinkered to the reality of the situation.

seavill

a

RealJohn wrote: »

I judged you based on what you posted and I stand by that judgement. I didn't say you don't know what they endure, I said that you seemed not to know and claiming you do (whether true or not) hasn't changed my opinion.

Says it all really. Making me out to be a liar, fair play, mature discussion eh. Horrible

MTW is Woodwork not metalwork, and if you had any cop you would realise that half the students are only in there, not out of interset in their future as you claim, but becuase they are not academic and didn't want to choose French etc. They are only there to avoid being anywhere else.

To be honest I am very annoyed at your comment above and really have no interest in futher discussion with you

bdoo

Realjohn.


There was a thread recently about Irish where you maintained that students didn't like Irish because it was poorly taught.

Here you say science teachers may be warranted in bending the rules to get kids over the line as they are forced to study science.

Your views on practical subjects are quite antiquated and show a real disconnect between what you know and what you think you know.

How is science coursework and metalwork coursework so different? If anything practical coursework is more difficult, the student can write on their booklet at any time, they can only do practical work in the specialist classroom with a teacher present.

Don't try to defend the indefensible by looking down on practical subjects.

You also suggest that there should be no deadline at all. Have you noticed that all the deadlines are neatly the same week in April? Have you noticed the pressure on the students to get work done? Let it go another month and see how it goes.

Really.

RealJohn

@seavill
I never made you out to be a liar. I merely pointed out that stating that you understand doesn't mean that you do and that your post didn't give me the impression that you do, whether you feel you do or not.

On woodwork students being there because they don't want to be in French, that more or less agrees with the point I made. They can see woodwork being more useful to them (or simply easier/less difficult) than their alternatives and are therefore tend to have less of a negative attitude to the subject.

seavill

As I said I have no interest in discussing anything further with you

bdoo

RealJohn wrote: »

@seavill
I never made you out to be a liar. I merely pointed out that stating that you understand doesn't mean that you do and that your post didn't give me the impression that you do, whether you feel you do or not.

On woodwork students being there because they don't want to be in French, that more or less agrees with the point I made. They can see woodwork being more useful to them (or simply easier/less difficult) than their alternatives and are therefore tend to have less of a negative attitude to the subject.

No. They see it as the least worse option.

RealJohn

bdoo wrote: »

Realjohn.


There was a thread recently about Irish where you maintained that students didn't like Irish because it was poorly taught.

This has no relevence here, though I did notice that many of you who criticised me there are also criticising me here. I suspect some of you are allowing your personal feelings to cloud your judgement.

bdoo wrote: »

Here you say science teachers may be warranted in bending the rules to get kids over the line as they are forced to study science.

I merely pointed out that the situation wasn't black and white.

bdoo wrote: »

Your views on practical subjects are quite antiquated and show a real disconnect between what you know and what you think you know.

Well go on then, don't just say it, explain why I'm so wrong. Though I don't think you're actually picking up on what I'm saying correctly anyway, judging by what you said in the next quote.

bdoo wrote: »

How is science coursework and metalwork coursework so different? If anything practical coursework is more difficult, the student can write on their booklet at any time, they can only do practical work in the specialist classroom with a teacher present.

I wasn't commenting on the coursework itself (something you appear to have missed) but more on the students' inclination to participate in it and apply themselves to it.

bdoo wrote: »

Don't try to defend the indefensible by looking down on practical subjects.

When did I look down on practical subjects? I have no problem with practical subjects.

bdoo wrote: »

You also suggest that there should be no deadline at all. Have you noticed that all the deadlines are neatly the same week in April? Have you noticed the pressure on the students to get work done? Let it go another month and see how it goes.

Don't you think that it would make more sense to space the deadlines out, if they're going to have deadlines?

I think it's also worth pointing out at this point that there have been three posts actually answering the OP with advice/information (including my original reply) and roughly ten posts criticising my initial reply, complete with the usual sycophants "thanking" those posters who criticised me for being honest with the OP. Pat yourselves on the back.

rainbowtrout

RealJohn wrote: »

@seavill
I never made you out to be a liar. I merely pointed out that stating that you understand doesn't mean that you do and that your post didn't give me the impression that you do, whether you feel you do or not.

On woodwork students being there because they don't want to be in French, that more or less agrees with the point I made. They can see woodwork being more useful to them (or simply easier/less difficult) than their alternatives and are therefore tend to have less of a negative attitude to the subject.

Quite often they don't see woodwork as being any more useful to them than French, it's just the lesser of two evils, it doesn't mean they want to be in that class any more than they want to be in French.

In the school I work in there used to be a cohort of students (boys)who typically didn't go on to third level. The school was formed from an amalgamation and in the boys school this cohort typically chose Construction/Engineering/Tech Drawing/Ag Science as their subject combination. I teach Ag Science. Myself and the technology teachers always had very similar fifth and sixth year groups due to this subject combination. Plenty of them chose those subjects because they liked them, but plenty of them chose them because they didn't like the other subjects on offer on that subject block and this was the best of a bad lot, but also students ended up in those classes because other teachers didn't want the weaker disruptive students interrupting their academic predominantly higher level classes so told them to go and do woodwork/ag science etc.

I've had situations where my blood is boiling from having students land to my door saying 'I've been kicked out of French/History/Accounting' and they have no more interest in Ag Science or farming but I'm stuck with them because no one else wants them. I have no problem taking on a weak student, or one with learning difficulties etc, but I do have a problem with teachers shipping out students they don't want in their classes out to the 'less academic subjects'. I've had teachers take the same attitude as you 'but they'll find it more useful, they choose Woodwork so they want to be there' when often they don't. I've had teachers say 'Johnny Murphy in third year told me he was thinking of taking History for LC. I told him that would be a bit hard for him (read - I don't want him in my class) so I told him to do Ag Science, that would suit him better' WTF, like the history teacher knows anything about ag science? And guess what, Johnny Murphy is getting poor grades in science as well as history so what makes you think my class is a better place for him when he clearly stated he wanted to pick history?

I've been in the situation a couple of times where a subject block is put on in fifth year where an ag science class is put on opposite the foreign languages. That's it, no other choice. As you can imagine most students keep on a foreign language to keep their third level options open. Anyone not interested in going to college ends up in my class. What message does that send out? What typical student demographic are in the group that tend not to go to college? Most of them that ended up in my class that year weren't in there for the love of the subject, they were there because they had no interest in French, German etc and once they heard a few more of their friends who were not known for their work ethic had moved to ag science they switched over to ag science. Cue two years of working with students who hated the subject, had no interest in being in school and had an extremely negative attitude to doing classwork or coursework (25% project for Leaving Cert).

Construction and Engineering in my experience gets a substantial portion of this cohort also.

RealJohn

Choosing the best of a bad lot is still a choice though and is still going to result in the student having less of a negative opinion of the subject.
And if the history teacher (or whoever) tells the student that history is too hard and that ag science would be easier, set them straight and give them a few examples of the hard stuff they'd have to do in ag science. If I found out a teacher of any subject was trying to dump difficult students on me, it would be addressed in no uncertain terms, in front of the school authorities if needs be.

On an aside, I don't think any school should allow the students to drop foreign languages entirely for another subject but I suppose that's an entirely seperate issue and it's probably best not to add that one to this thread which is now way off topic.

rainbowtrout

RealJohn wrote: »

Choosing the best of a bad lot is still a choice though and is still going to result in the student having less of a negative opinion of the subject.
And if the history teacher (or whoever) tells the student that history is too hard and that ag science would be easier, set them straight and give them a few examples of the hard stuff they'd have to do in ag science. If I found out a teacher of any subject was trying to dump difficult students on me, it would be addressed in no uncertain terms, in front of the school authorities if needs be.

On an aside, I don't think any school should allow the students to drop foreign languages entirely for another subject but I suppose that's an entirely seperate issue and it's probably best not to add that one to this thread which is now way off topic.

Sorry, I can't agree with you on that one. If you are a student who has zero interest in school but are stuck there until you've done your Leaving Cert because your parents make you attend, but really that's as far as their input goes, do you pick: (and this would be from the teenager's point of view)

A) French, class full of hard working students, probably those you think are nerds and not cool, not the type of people you hang around with at break

or

Ag Science, predominantly populated by your friends, who share the same lack of work ethic, so regardless of how hard the teacher works, you're not going to feel pressurised because the class share your same views on school, i.e. they don't want to be there either.



I've had students tell me that they hate Ag Science, but also hate French.


As for difficult students not being accepted by certain teachers. Mine wouldn't be the only school it would happen in, and sometimes it's supported by management. Often school politics comes into play. It doesn't happen as much anymore, but you also can't control what is said about subjects by other teachers in their classrooms. If a student asks me 'which is harder, history or ag science?' I'll tell them what I know about the topics on the history course, but couldn't comment on the difficulty. I can't prevent another teacher saying 'history (or whatever) is much harder than ag science' as an off the cuff remark, but one that sticks with the student. I don't often have junior science either, so I don't know the students very well/at all when I get them in fifth year, but quite often the students that come up over and over again in the staff room as disruptive/ difficult will be on my roll.

bdoo

RealJohn wrote: »

bdoo wrote: »

Realjohn.


There was a thread recently about Irish where you maintained that students didn't like Irish because it was poorly taught.

This has no relevence here, though I did notice that many of you who criticised me there are also criticising me here. I suspect some of you are allowing your personal feelings to cloud your judgement.

bdoo wrote: »

Here you say science teachers may be warranted in bending the rules to get kids over the line as they are forced to study science.

I merely pointed out that the situation wasn't black and white.

bdoo wrote: »

Your views on practical subjects are quite antiquated and show a real disconnect between what you know and what you think you know.

Well go on then, don't just say it, explain why I'm so wrong. Though I don't think you're actually picking up on what I'm saying correctly anyway, judging by what you said in the next quote.

bdoo wrote: »

How is science coursework and metalwork coursework so different? If anything practical coursework is more difficult, the student can write on their booklet at any time, they can only do practical work in the specialist classroom with a teacher present.

I wasn't commenting on the coursework itself (something you appear to have missed) but more on the students' inclination to participate in it and apply themselves to it.

bdoo wrote: »

Don't try to defend the indefensible by looking down on practical subjects.

When did I look down on practical subjects? I have no problem with practical subjects.

bdoo wrote: »

You also suggest that there should be no deadline at all. Have you noticed that all the deadlines are neatly the same week in April? Have you noticed the pressure on the students to get work done? Let it go another month and see how it goes.

Don't you think that it would make more sense to space the deadlines out, if they're going to have deadlines?

I think it's also worth pointing out at this point that there have been three posts actually answering the OP with advice/information (including my original reply) and roughly ten posts criticising my initial reply, complete with the usual sycophants "thanking" those posters who criticised me for being honest with the OP. Pat yourselves on the back.

I don't think that pointing out bad advice is unhelpful.

It makes no difference to me who posts it.

My point about Irish is that you blamed teachers because kids don't like it but blame the compulsory nature of JC science to defend pupil disinterest.

I think you are so wrong about practical subjects because kids don't enjoy them any more than they do science. Im sure you have kids who love science and do all their work so have I, equally I have kids who hate my subject but are there because of timetabling.

I do agree that deadlines should be spaced better. Personally if I could get wood briefs now and finish in Feb I would. My point is that work expands to fill the time available and kids will work coming up to the deadline regardless of when it is. If they know an extension is coming they will start working later - it's human but lessons can be learned. I'd sooner have one of mine find out at JC than at LC.

My original post did point out that deadline and their abuse had massive potential to undermine the proposed new JC. School A follows rules kids get reasonable results that reflect ability, school B break rules kids get results that do not reflect ability.

It's not about helping kids achieve more, it's about crunching numbers and getting grades for the teacher as far as I can see.

This has serious implications for schools in the long term and more than a personal issue with you realjohn.

rainbowtrout

bdoo wrote: »

My original post did point out that deadline and their abuse had massive potential to undermine the proposed new JC. School A follows rules kids get reasonable results that reflect ability, school B break rules kids get results that do not reflect ability.

I too have wondered how this will pan out with the new JC curriculum with coursework in every subject and with the new short courses where they will be assessed in house.


In terms of JC Coursework for Science there should be a practical assessment but as Science is core in the vast majority of schools I'd say organising practical assessment would be a nightmare to get the whole country covered in a two week period as is normal for most practical/oral assessments in other subjects. All of those other subjects (except LC Irish) are optional so the numbers taking them wouldn't be as high.

For JC Irish we did the optional oral this year. The onus is on the school to employ an examiner to come in and conduct the orals and mark them, rather than having one assigned by the department. Even if this type of practice was in place for JC science so neighbouring schools could swap teachers for the assessment, it would be a step up from ticking boxes to say experiments were complete.

Even if a practical assessment involved a student lighting a bunsen burner, making up a slide to view under microscope, filtering a solution, testing pH, making up a simple electrical circuit. i.e. common lab skills using equipment that is generally available and tasks that don't take half the day, so many students could be carrying them out at the same time, it would be a vast improvement on what currently exists.

RealJohn

bdoo wrote: »

I don't think that pointing out bad advice is unhelpful.

It makes no difference to me who posts it.

What bad advice did I give? I said that the practical work should be started as soon as possible and that the official deadline should be considered the actual deadline.
I pointed out that in many cases, you can get away with going over that deadline (which is true) but I advised against doing this. What part of that was bad advice?

bdoo wrote: »

My point about Irish is that you blamed teachers because kids don't like it but blame the compulsory nature of JC science to defend pupil disinterest.

I didn't blame secondary teachers for kids disliking Irish, I blamed primary teachers who have them for eight years and still don't manage to produce even a small majority of students with at least functional Irish.
I wasn't disputing the fact that Irish being compulsory contributes to the students' dislike of the subject (it probably does) but that they only dislike the fact that it's compulsory because they haven't any level of competance in the subject (after all, english is compulsory too but nobody blames that when students can't spell).

bdoo wrote: »

I think you are so wrong about practical subjects because kids don't enjoy them any more than they do science. Im sure you have kids who love science and do all their work so have I, equally I have kids who hate my subject but are there because of timetabling.

There are of course students who feel forced into any subject and don't enjoy them but I would put money on the proportion of those students in woodwork/metalwork being signigicantly lower than in science (or most other subjects that are typically compulsory).

bdoo wrote: »

My original post did point out that deadline and their abuse had massive potential to undermine the proposed new JC. School A follows rules kids get reasonable results that reflect ability, school B break rules kids get results that do not reflect ability.

I think that it will be a long time before coursework in Ireland can be trusted (unless it's assessed very differently to the way it currently is) judging by what I know from marking junior science and what I've heard about home economics and cspe coursework.

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Even if a practical assessment involved a student lighting a bunsen burner, making up a slide to view under microscope, filtering a solution, testing pH, making up a simple electrical circuit. i.e. common lab skills using equipment that is generally available and tasks that don't take half the day, so many students could be carrying them out at the same time, it would be a vast improvement on what currently exists.

Have to agree with this.