TEACHERS agreed that yesterday's higher level French paper was reasonable and appropriate, but there were conflicting views about the ordinary level paper.
Ms Ann Weafer, TUI subject representative, said that the pattern that has seen the ordinary level paper as the one that causes problems continued this year. "It just doesn't seem as if the examiners who set the paper are really in touch with the level of student taking the ordinary level paper," she said.
In the aural section, ordinary and higher level students listen to the same tape, but they have separate sets of questions to answer. After listening to a sports report, Ms Weafer said, higher level students were asked for the score of a match, whereas ordinary level students were asked which team won. Ironically, the way in which the relevant sentence was couched made the ordinary level question the more difficult one, she said.
Ms Margaret Le Lu, ASTI subject representative, noted that ordinary level students had to listen to a large amount of extraneous material. Separate tapes for ordinary and higher level would be a good idea though she appreciated the logistical difficulties, she said.
Ms Weafer commented favourably on the improved layout of the ordinary level paper, with most questions taking a full page. However, there was still room for improvement, she said, as the text was still relatively cramped. The sophisticated, complex language in question 5, which gave a set of rules for a library, was difficult for many students, she said. Also, the exercise following it, which asked students to match eight rules with eight English phrases, did not make it clear that this was not a one to one situation, as is usual. The English phrases made no reference to rule five. Instead, two phrases came out of rule eight. "This was a bit unfair and needless," Ms Weafer said.
M.. Le Lu agreed with these criticisms. She said that the language was not suitable for that level of student and that the matching exercise may have thrown some students off, as they would have expected each phrase to correspond with, one of the rules.
Ms Weafer criticised a number of questions for being open ended and said ordinary level students found it easier to deal with more definite questions.
However, Mr Peter O Murchu, a teacher in Scoil Eoin, Rathstewart, Athy, Co Kildare, said that there was nothing unusual in the ordinary level paper and that most students would have been happy with a well balanced paper. The word recognition was fairly standard, he said, and the language used in the small ads, where students wrote to a magazine, was very much what the ordinary level student would understand.
The tape was very clear and the questions for ordinary level students were more straightforward than those to be answered by the higher level students, he said.
At higher level, Mr O'Murchu said, the vocabulary used in the reading comprehension was standard. Most students would have covered a museum, a restaurant and types of food.
In the written expression section, students had to write a letter and a note. Students hoping for the more popular postcard option would have been disappointed, he said. Ms Le Lu noted that all Junior Cert papers to date had offered the choice of a postcard or a note. This year's note was quite precise and demanding, both in terms of time and verbs, "she said, but it was a fair question.
Ms Weafer had no quibbles with the higher level paper. "It was testing enough but quite acceptable," she said. Ms Le Lu praised the emphasis on food, a useful topic which pervaded both papers. She said that, overall, the higher level paper was quite manageable.