extra subjects at home-projects!

ehmcgarry

Just started fifth year, doing 7 subjects, all higher(so far!), but want to do two extra subjects;ag. science and ag. economics. I'm wondering can anyone shine some light, i want to do these subjects myself with no teachers at home, but how can i go about doing the projects, because you need a teacher to monitor and sign off on it, and there's no ag teachers in my school. Will i need to arrange with a grinds teacher, or will any teacher do i.e. a biology teacher to do the ag science. If this isn't the case, anyone know an ag. economics teacher??

randylonghorn

ehmcgarry wrote: »

Just started fifth year, doing 7 subjects, all higher(so far!), but want to do two extra subjects;ag. science and ag. economics. I'm wondering can anyone shine some light, i want to do these subjects myself with no teachers at home, but how can i go about doing the projects, because you need a teacher to monitor and sign off on it, and there's no ag teachers in my school. Will i need to arrange with a grinds teacher, or will any teacher do i.e. a biology teacher to do the ag science. If this isn't the case, anyone know an ag. economics teacher??

Firstly, please note that Ag. Science and Ag. Economics are two different subjects.

If you're talking about Ag. Scence, have a detailed read of this thread.

unmoeglichkeit

Also, if you're already doing Economics you can't do Ag Economics too.

SEC wrote:

Subject Exclusions
Candidates may not take any of following subject combinations:

1. Physics and Chemistry and either of the separate subjects, Physics or Chemistry.
2. Economics and Agricultural Economics.
3. Classical Studies and Latin.
4. Classical Studies and Ancient Greek.

rainbowtrout

There was an article in the Farmers Journal this week about Ag Economics. Only two places in the country are doing it as far as I know. One in Cork and one in Dublin (Leeson Street) so while you will probably be able to find an Ag Science teacher, Ag Economics teachers are practically non existent, not to mind the fact that there's no book and the syllabus is 2 pages long.

There was a thread on ag economics on here a while back and an ag economics teacher posted on it. Do a search and see what they had to say about it.

chickcharnley

which farmers journal issue was it? re: ag economics leaving cert i.e. what date on the front as i may want to buy it. thanks

rainbowtrout

chickcharnley wrote: »

which farmers journal issue was it? re: ag economics leaving cert i.e. what date on the front as i may want to buy it. thanks

I think it was last weeks issue. It would have been dated for Saturday. Prob still in the shops

teach88

chickcharnley wrote: »

which farmers journal issue was it? re: ag economics leaving cert i.e. what date on the front as i may want to buy it. thanks

Just spotted it myself. It's in this week's edition of the Country Living supplement. Looks like Cork is the place to be for Ag Ec.

chickcharnley

just bought a copy thanks for that, on the article I dont like the principal of that school implying that the subject is an easy A, this it most certianly is not; there are no easy a1s in the leaving cert! that article is no more than a sales pitch for a private repeat/grind school, I dont think the chief examiner for ag economics will take to kindly to her comments either!

rainbowtrout

chickcharnley wrote: »

just bought a copy thanks for that, on the article I dont like the principal of that school implying that the subject is an easy A, this it most certianly is not; there are no easy a1s in the leaving cert! that article is no more than a sales pitch for a private repeat/grind school, I dont think the chief examiner for ag economics will take to kindly to her comments either!

Very wise, there is no easy A in the Leaving Cert. Having said that you kinda have all the information available to you now about doing Ag Economics, so if it doesn't suit you (geographically more than anything else) you might need to consider another subject.

spurious

Be aware that you can't just get any old teacher to sign off on a project. They have to attest that they know it is all your own work and that you followed a course of study for the subject, one that reaches the Department's standards.

chickcharnley

on the subject of exams with projects i.e. ag science and ag economics it would be much fairer in terms of access if there wasn't a project involved like business or economics then geographical location wouldn't matter; a lot of so called projects for ag science are plagerised from what ive heard anyway

rainbowtrout

chickcharnley wrote: »

on the subject of exams with projects i.e. ag science and ag economics it would be much fairer in terms of access if there wasn't a project involved like business or economics then geographical location wouldn't matter; a lot of so called projects for ag science are plagerised from what ive heard anyway

It's up to schools to offer a subject if there is demand and they have a teacher qualified to teach it. Practical work demonstrates a different set of skills from learning off reams of theory.

chickcharnley

a proper independent accessible practical test is good but dubious projects i have my doubts

rainbowtrout

chickcharnley wrote: »

a proper independent accessible practical test is good but dubious projects i have my doubts

A teacher who knows their students should be able to tell the difference between an original project and a plagiarised one.

chickcharnley

my point is in the interests of fairness, accessibility and tranparency a written exam to which anybody can sign up for is best. many people would like to do ag science or ag ec or but cant due to the whole project thing; for practical assesment a practical test which is accessible and independent would be much fairer

rainbowtrout

chickcharnley wrote: »

my point is in the interests of fairness, accessibility and tranparency a written exam to which anybody can sign up for is best. many people would like to do ag science or ag ec or but cant due to the whole project thing; for practical assesment a practical test which is accessible and independent would be much fairer

You can argue the same for any other practical subject: art, music, home economics, metalwork, woodwork.

The structure of ag sci and ag economics requires a practical component. It is planned in the new syllabi for physics, chemistry and biology to have a practical component also. There will always be accessibility issues in minority subjects because of the lack of schools offering them. Removing a practical component won't change that if students can't find teachers to teach them. I don't know of any schools in my area offering Latin so even though it doesn't have a practical I'd say students in my school wouldn't be able to find a teacher if they wanted to take it.

teach88

chickcharnley wrote: »

my point is in the interests of fairness, accessibility and tranparency a written exam to which anybody can sign up for is best. many people would like to do ag science or ag ec or but cant due to the whole project thing; for practical assesment a practical test which is accessible and independent would be much fairer

Whatever about external and mature candidates, etc, the Leaving Cert exam is designed primarily for students in the school system, i.e. under the tuition of a teacher. Subject assessment methods are not drawn up with a view to enabling students to study the subjects on their own and sit them as an extra subject.

Projectwork is a means of assessing students in a way that is broader than the one-day written exam assessment (although this is still where most of the marks are in the Ag subjects). The argument re plagarising, copying, etc, is irrelevant as the DES has already acknowledged with the new JC that projectwork is acceptable as a means of assessment and is the way to go.

chickcharnley

teach88 wrote: »

Whatever about external and mature candidates, etc, the Leaving Cert exam is designed primarily for students in the school system, i.e. under the tuition of a teacher. Subject assessment methods are not drawn up with a view to enabling students to study the subjects on their own and sit them as an extra subject.

Projectwork is a means of assessing students in a way that is broader than the one-day written exam assessment (although this is still where most of the marks are in the Ag subjects). The argument re plagarising, copying, etc, is irrelevant as the DES has already acknowledged with the new JC that projectwork is acceptable as a means of assessment and is the way to go.

the a level system in the uk is/are making moves towards less project work and more towards exams, this I feel is a step forward; they have realised that a terminal exam is a fairer system the irish second level system is constantly dropping in the oecd ratings and with more emphasis on projects a further drop will ensue.
the step taken by the doe on the jc towards continuous assessment is a mistake and creates bias with teachers marking thier own students work, my point on access for all I believe to be fair one and is in line with claims for special needs students etc

rainbowtrout

chickcharnley wrote: »

the a level system in the uk is/are making moves towards less project work and more towards exams, this I feel is a step forward; they have realised that a terminal exam is a fairer system the irish second level system is constantly dropping in the oecd ratings and with more emphasis on projects a further drop will ensue.
the step taken by the doe on the jc towards continuous assessment is a mistake and creates bias with teachers marking thier own students work, my point on access for all I believe to be fair one and is in line with claims for special needs students etc

But fair access for all would include different methods of assessment to allow students show their skills and talents. This is especially important for practical subjects and I feel a necessity.

So you could take the student who has learned everything out of a book, produced a ream of revision notes and gets an A in ag science but you put them on a farm and they don't know how to put that theory in practice or you could take the student who is not as good at learning things off word for word but you put them on a farm and they know how to grow potatoes, they know how to handle an animal because they have the practical experience....

If I was looking for one to work on a farm I know which one I'd be going for.

spurious

There is no problem with using project work to assess a student's learning.
There is no problem with teachers correcting their own students.
The big problem is when there is no external monitoring of this. That is a recipe for disaster.

chickcharnley

rainbowtrout wrote: »

But fair access for all would include different methods of assessment to allow students show their skills and talents. This is especially important for practical subjects and I feel a necessity.

So you could take the student who has learned everything out of a book, produced a ream of revision notes and gets an A in ag science but you put them on a farm and they don't know how to put that theory in practice or you could take the student who is not as good at learning things off word for word but you put them on a farm and they know how to grow potatoes, they know how to handle an animal because they have the practical experience....

If I was looking for one to work on a farm I know which one I'd be going for.

geographical inaccessability to something is a form of institutionalised discrimination

teach88

chickcharnley wrote: »

geographical inaccessability to something is a form of institutionalised discrimination

Rubbish. Lack of teachers is the reason for the lack of Ag Economics classes. There is nobody in the DES plotting ways of keeping you out of a class.

teach88

spurious wrote: »

The big problem is when there is no external monitoring of this. That is a recipe for disaster.

The monitoring is excellent in the Ag subjects. The monitor goes through the projects in great detail.

In the new JC, it doesn't seem to be at all sufficient though. I hope they formalise a more stringent procedure before the new course is rolled out.

spurious

teach88 wrote: »

The monitoring is excellent in the Ag subjects. The monitor goes through the projects in great detail.

In the new JC, it doesn't seem to be at all sufficient though. I hope they formalise a more stringent procedure before the new course is rolled out.

I'm involved in monitoring myself, though not for an Ag. subject. I know how effective it is.
Unfortunately, it seems from reports that the 'new' JC will not have any monitoring, against the advice of the NCCA (who are supposed to be the experts on this).
It's doomed to failure if that is the case.

chickcharnley

spurious wrote: »

I'm involved in monitoring myself, though not for an Ag. subject. I know how effective it is.
Unfortunately, it seems from reports that the 'new' JC will not have any monitoring, against the advice of the NCCA (who are supposed to be the experts on this).
It's doomed to failure if that is the case.

certainly it is spurious, unfair on teachers too to be put under pressure from over zealous parents about marks for their offspring's work; which goes back to my original argument; best to have a fairly marked independent exam both practical and theoretical which is accessible for all. anyways i've said my piece on this i'm not for projects at second level for reasons previously mentioned others will disagree. well that's it from me over and out I think weve talked this one to death

rainbowtrout

chickcharnley wrote: »

geographical inaccessability to something is a form of institutionalised discrimination

No it's not. The population of an area will determine all sorts of resources available or not available to it. If you have a relatively small secondary school in a rural area it will be limited to a certain number of staff and the management of that school will make decisions as to what subjects are available.

Do you also think there should be a university in every county in the country? Because according to your definition we all are victims of institutionalised discrimination.

Bottom line schools offer a range of subjects. They are obliged to provide certain subjects to enable them to receive government funding. After that they provide what they feel are the range of subjects that will cater for the widest range of students and within the constraints of their staffing levels. After that it's up to you whether you attend that school or go elsewhere.

chickcharnley

rainbowtrout wrote: »

No it's not. The population of an area will determine all sorts of resources available or not available to it. If you have a relatively small secondary school in a rural area it will be limited to a certain number of staff and the management of that school will make decisions as to what subjects are available.

Do you also think there should be a university in every county in the country? Because according to your definition we all are victims of institutionalised discrimination.

Bottom line schools offer a range of subjects. They are obliged to provide certain subjects to enable them to receive government funding. After that they provide what they feel are the range of subjects that will cater for the widest range of students and within the constraints of their staffing levels. After that it's up to you whether you attend that school or go elsewhere.

like I said this has been talked to death, please don't put words in my mouth I didn't say the above or imply it this topic has been exhausted see ya later

randylonghorn

chickcharnley wrote: »

like I said this has been talked to death, please don't put words in my mouth I didn't say the above or imply it this topic has been exhausted see ya later

She didn't put words in your mouth, she pointed out that if we test the hypothesis which you have been promoting in such a blinkered fashion in a broader context, the inherent flaws immediately become more obvious.

chickcharnley wrote: »

best to have a fairly marked independent exam both practical and theoretical which is accessible for all.

So we should ignore decades of educational research around good assessment practice in the interests of geographical accessibility.

Ok, let's take a test-case.

Let's (hypothetically) abolish the project for Ag. Science, and substitute it with a practical exam as you suggest.

How do you envisage that practical test working?

Take students out to farms in groups of say 10 for a day with an examiner, and set them tasks to do?

How / where do they practice for that test? Where do they garner the necessary experience in order to be able to perform well in the practical test?

How does this make the subject any more accessible to those who live in the heart of a city?

spurious wrote: »

The big problem is when there is no external monitoring of this. That is a recipe for disaster.

Agreed. But we've seen FETAC and now QQI going that route, and relying on huge and cumbersome Quality Assurance policies for every centre instead.

And realistically what happens is that the creation of the Quality Assurance policy becomes the priority, rather than the quality assurance itself.

Nor do I see how any policy, no matter how many hundreds of pages it inhabits, substitute for external monitoring and cross-moderation.

chickcharnley

randylonghorn wrote: »

She didn't put words in your mouth, she pointed out that if we test the hypothesis which you have been promoting in such a blinkered fashion in a broader context, the inherent flaws immediately become more obvious.

So we should ignore decades of educational research around good assessment practice in the interests of geographical accessibility.

Ok, let's take a test-case.

Let's (hypothetically) abolish the project for Ag. Science, and substitute it with a practical exam as you suggest.

How do you envisage that practical test working?

Take students out to farms in groups of say 10 for a day with an examiner, and set them tasks to do?

How / where do they practice for that test? Where do they garner the necessary experience in order to be able to perform well in the practical test?

How does this make the subject any more accessible to those who live in the heart of a city?

Agreed. But we've seen FETAC and now QQI going that route, and relying on huge and cumbersome Quality Assurance policies for every centre instead.

And realistically what happens is that the creation of the Quality Assurance policy becomes the priority, rather than the quality assurance itself.

Nor do I see how any policy, no matter how many hundreds of pages it inhabits, substitute for external monitoring and cross-moderation.

inaccessability to do a a subject for the leaving cert is a major flaw of the programme, as regards practical tests it could be the osci model(go look it up) as used in medicine and nursing; and words were put in my mouth, which i deny, i dont want to be dragged into pantomeine stuff of oh I said this oh no you didnt etc im off better things to be doing

randylonghorn

chickcharnley wrote: »

as regards practical tests it could be the osci model(go look it up) as used in medicine and nursing

Do you mean OSCE?

I don't have to look it up, thanks, I know something about assessment methodologies.

Interesting. So how would you conduct this OSCE?

Bring everyone doing AgSci together nationally like the ploughing championships? Or perhaps regional centres? If so, aren't we back to geographical issues?

Or would you have travelling teams of examiners to tour the schools setting up stations?

Would students ever see actual real farm animals as part of this OSCE? If not, do you not see a problem with people achieving an A1 in AgSci who ma never have encountered a farm animal?

If yes, how are they incorporated into the OSCE in a way that is fair to candidates, ensuring that all candidates get a similar experience? Human patients in OSCEs are provided with a script and thoroughly briefed so that the experience for each candidate at the station is as similar as possible. How do you propose to brief a heifer?

Again, how do students practice for the exam in a meaningful way?

Have you considered the resource implications of all this?

chickcharnley wrote: »

and words were put in my mouth, which i deny

If you took the time to understand what was actually said, no, they weren't.

chickcharnley wrote: »

im off better things to be doing

I'm sure you have.

I'm sure you do them better too.

As to your assertion which I read this morning, and you edited before I had an opportunity to reply, that those who disagree with you had a vested interest and were only interested in project work as a "cash cow" ... I'll leave that to the regular readers of this forum to judge for themselves.

Given that all who have been arguing with you regularly give up their time voluntarily on this forum to answer questions and support students who they do not know and will never meet ... I suspect most will be very skeptical of your implication that they are interested only in their own pocket.

chickcharnley

randylonghorn wrote: »

Do you mean OSCE?

I don't have to look it up, thanks, I know something about assessment methodologies.

Interesting. So how would you conduct this OSCE?

Bring everyone doing AgSci together nationally like the ploughing championships? Or perhaps regional centres? If so, aren't we back to geographical issues?

Or would you have travelling teams of examiners to tour the schools setting up stations?

Would students ever see actual real farm animals as part of this OSCE? If not, do you not see a problem with people achieving an A1 in AgSci who ma never have encountered a farm animal?

If yes, how are they incorporated into the OSCE in a way that is fair to candidates, ensuring that all candidates get a similar experience? Human patients in OSCEs are provided with a script and thoroughly briefed so that the experience for each candidate at the station is as similar as possible. How do you propose to brief a heifer?

Again, how do students practice for the exam in a meaningful way?

Have you considered the resource implications of all this?

If you took the time to understand what was actually said, no, they weren't.

I'm sure you have.

I'm sure you do them better too.

As to your assertion which I read this morning, and you edited before I had an opportunity to reply, that those who disagree with you had a vested interest and were only interested in project work as a "cash cow" ... I'll leave that to the regular readers of this forum to judge for themselves.

Given that all who have been arguing with you regularly give up their time voluntarily on this forum to answer questions and support students who they do not know and will never meet ... I suspect most will be very skeptical of your implication that they are interested only in their own pocket.

we will have to agree to disagree on the above