Sir, – Prof Jim Gleeson appears to be advocating a "learning outcomes" approach for our second-level system (August 29th). Learning outcomes are statements that identify precisely what students will know, and be able to do, by the end of a course or programme. They are, in my view, a misguided attempt to provide precision when education is inherently "fuzzy". The use of learning outcomes is widespread in the third-level sector, and while the outcomes approach imposes a very substantial administrative burden on lecturers, possibly stifling innovation in the process, there is no evidence, to my knowledge, that the learning outcomes approach does, in fact, lead to better outcomes.
A more fundamental point, however, needs to be asked about second level and it is this: what exactly is second-level education for? In my view it must do two things. First, it must educate young people in the traditional sense by providing them with the opportunity to acquire a wide body of knowledge that will ultimately enhance their lives. Second, it must prepare them for higher and further education. Second level is not the place for obsessing about “real-world problems” whatever they are. The classic example of this fallacy is the Project Maths initiative in which students supposedly tackle “real-world” maths problems at secondary school but end up being unable to cope with third-level mathematics.
From a narrower perspective, Prof Gleeson’s letter is interesting because it is just the latest in what has become an annual barrage of comment and opinion in which the basic message, repeated over and over, is that the Leaving Certificate is not fit for purpose.
My own experience of teaching university students is that the Leaving is a good measure of overall intelligence and, crucially, work ethic. Performance in the Leaving is not a particularly good predictor of individual performance at third-level but ask any lecturer which they would prefer – a class full of 500-pointers or a class full of 350-pointers, and I am quite confident that they will go for the former.
Group dynamics play a very important role at any level of education and it is easy and highly rewarding to teach a class full of hardworking, enthusiastic 500-pointers. When the entry points drop to the 350 mark, the job becomes much more difficult and maintaining standards is a challenge.
Finally, it is worth commenting on a commonly held belief among those who deride the use of end-of-year exams. There seems to be a view, most recently articulated by Clive Byrne ("Leaving Cert reform should focus on 'real world' skills", Opinion & Analysis, August 26th), that there are significant numbers of "brilliant young people" who just cannot perform in exams and these people are being disadvantaged by a system that does not make use of alternative forms of assessment. Thirty years of lecturing at third level tells me that such people, brilliant rather than having some very specific talent that is not tested in exams, are very rare indeed. – Yours, etc,
Dr GREG FOLEY,
Associate Dean for Teaching
and Learning,
Senior Lecturer,
School of Biotechnology,
Dublin City University.