Students had to think carefully about what they were being asked on the higher-level chemistry paper, teachers have said.
Tara Lyons, a chemistry teacher at the Institute of Education, said a real grasp – rather than a rote understanding – of the periodic table is at the heart of heart of chemistry.
“This paper represented that perspective in a manner that demanded the students really think about the material on which they are being asked,” said Ms Lyons.
“There were no twists; neither strange inclusions nor excess verbiage to disturb the diligent. Students who spent the time going back over the past papers will recognise the core concerns of each one of these questions.”
Leaving Cert chemistry: No room for waffle as paper gets straight to the point
Leaving Cert Spanish: A ‘good’ paper with lots of choice, despite some tricky moments
Carl O’Brien: ‘Jonathan Anderson shows passion - not CAO points - is what matters’
Leaving Cert agricultural science: Some curveballs but lots of choice
John O’Sullivan, head of chemistry at TheTuitionCentre.ie, said the paper was fair, with ample choice and few surprises.
“Its language and style mirrored previous years, making it manageable for students,” he said.
In section A questions, which focused on mandatory experiments, the iron tablet – a topic last seen in 2009 – appeared. Rates of reaction, which featured on last year’s paper, were also on the paper.
“Overall, section A questions were mostly fair and straightforward, and practising past papers benefited students, especially for calculations and graph analysis,” said Mr O’Sullivan.
Mary Mullaghy, ASTI subject representative for chemistry, said the inclusion of familiar topics, including clove oil and reaction rates, were reassuring for students.
“It was also encouraging to see contemporary relevance reflected in question 6(b), which referenced hydrogen gas as a potential future fuel source - highlighting the paper’s effort to connect chemistry with real-world applications, Ms Mullaghy said.
Ms Lyons said that, unlike some previous years, the questions on this paper were “quick and to the point”.
“In other years long blurbs would have students trying to decipher what they were really being asked to do. In this case, questions got straight to the point. There was no room to waffle out a correct answer. Either you could state Avogadro’s law and explain the term “biochemical oxygen demand” or you could not.”
Atomic theory played a large role on the paper, accounting for over 100 marks (25 per cent), said Ms Lyons, while organic chemistry appeared in multiple questions and accounted for 180 marks.
“Elsewhere the span of material was in line with previous years,” she said.
“The stoichiometric calculations were consistent in the demands of the students and even when novel variations were introduced, they were simply extensions on what they would already be doing in that scenario.
“This continued elsewhere in a question on tracking a radioactive water molecule, tasking students to simply pay attention to the factors in a process they would already be applying.
“As the emphasis of the papers is always the extra step beyond mere iteration or rote reciting of definitions, students are always pushed to really think about what they are doing,” Ms Lyons said.
Ordinary level
Ms Mullaghy said the ordinary level paper was well-balanced and thoughtfully constructed.
“It offered broad coverage of the syllabus and appeared appropriately pitched for its target cohort, providing students with a fair opportunity to demonstrate their understanding,” she said.
