5.3.8 The technology subjects
5.3.8 The technology subjects
This section combines the four technology subjects: Applied Technology and Leaving Certificate Technology; Engineering; Graphics and Design and Communication Graphics (DCG); and Wood Technology and Construction Studies.
Data from state examinations in the period 2016 to 2020 shows a significant increase in the uptake of higher level in Senior Cycle Technology Subjects (Table 5.21 - Table 5.24). Uptake of the corresponding Junior Certificate subjects at higher level remained steady. The Junior Cycle specifications for Applied Technology, Engineering, Graphics and Wood Technology will be examined for the first time in 2022.
Table 5.21: Numbers of students taking Technology examination in Leaving Certificate and in Junior Certificate: 2016-2020
| Leaving Certificate Technology | Junior Certificate Technology | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Higher level | Ordinary level | Total candidates | Higher level | Ordinary level | Total candidates |
| 2020 | 91.3% | 8.7% | 1,857 | N/A* | N/A | N/A |
| 2019 | 90.6% | 9.4% | 1,871 | 85.5% | 14.5% | 4,575 |
| 2018 | 93.2% | 6.8% | 1,534 | 87.8% | 12.2% | 4,070 |
| 2017 | 89.5% | 10.5% | 1,527 | 88.5% | 11.5% | 3,576 |
| 2016 | 87.9% | 12.1% | 1,415 | 88.2% | 11.8% | 3,576 |
Source: State Examinations Commission *As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Junior Cycle 2020 examinations were cancelled.
Figure from page 157
Table 5.22: Numbers of students taking Engineering examination in Leaving Certificate and Metalwork examination in Junior Certificate: 2016-2020
| Leaving Certificate Engineering | Junior Certificate Metalwork | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Higher level | Ordinary level | Total candidates | Higher level | Ordinary level | Total candidates |
| 2020 | 87.2% | 12.8% | 6,105 | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| 2019 | 88.0% | 12.0% | 5,415 | 80.5% | 19.5% | 7,997 |
| 2018 | 88.8% | 11.2% | 5,254 | 80.2% | 19.8% | 8,035 |
| 2017 | 86.9% | 13.1% | 5,275 | 79.6% | 20.4% | 7,824 |
| 2016 | 83.5% | 16.5% | 5,379 | 79.3% | 20.7% | 7,887 |
Source: State Examinations Commission
Table 5.23: Numbers of students taking Design and Communication Graphics (DCG) examination in Leaving Certificate and Technical Graphics examination in Junior Certificate: 2016-2020
| Leaving Certificate DCG | Junior Certificate Technical Graphics | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Higher level | Ordinary level | Total candidates | Higher level | Ordinary level | Total candidates |
| 2020 | 83.6% | 16.4% | 5,646 | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| 2019 | 81.7% | 18.3% | 5,591 | 71.8% | 28.2% | 13,665 |
| 2018 | 83.1% | 16.9% | 5,393 | 72.4% | 27.6% | 13,046 |
| 2017 | 79.7% | 20.3% | 5,575 | 71.8% | 28.2% | 12,412 |
| 2016 | 78.8% | 21.2% | 5,523 | 72.8% | 27.2% | 11,931 |
Source: State Examinations Commission
Table 5.24: Numbers of students taking Construction Studies examination in Leaving Certificate and Materials Technology (Wood) examination in Junior Certificate: 2016-2020
| Leaving Certificate Construction Studies | Junior Certificate Materials Technology (Wood) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Higher level | Ordinary level | Total candidates | Higher level | Ordinary level | Total candidates |
| 2020 | 88.2% | 11.8% | 9,709 | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| 2019 | 87.6% | 12.4% | 9,010 | 82.2% | 17.8% | 17,886 |
| 2018 | 86.1% | 13.9% | 8,248 | 83.8% | 16.2% | 17,467 |
| 2017 | 85.2% | 14.8% | 8,750 | 82.8% | 17.2% | 17,083 |
| 2016 | 82.9% | 17.1% | 8,553 | 83.2% | 16.8% | 16,381 |
Source: State Examinations Commission
Teaching and learning in the technology subjects were of a high quality. The use of digital technology to support learning was a strength noted in many inspection reports in these subjects
| r all as ed re y | ||
|---|---|---|
| g r | ||
quality of students’ learning in the four subjects to be good or very also found to be good or very good in 98% of these inspections.
were used to encourage student participation. As noted in a small teachers in cases where students had access to an online contentsharing platform. Such platforms were used to share recordings of demonstrations as an additional way to support students, including those who were absent from lessons.
The four Junior Cycle technology subjects were introduced in to subject planning, and the placing of the student at the centre of the planning process. A number of inspection reports commented developed to provide detail about learning outcomes, resources, teaching methodologies and modes of assessment. In particular, resource, developed by the Junior Cycle for Teachers (JCT), to plan than on just covering content.
High-quality oral feedback in the technology subjects should be complemented by constructive and developmental written feedback
The practical nature of the technology subjects leads to much rich interaction between teachers and students and among students themselves. Most of the inspection reports noted that teachers provided very good oral formative feedback to students. However, this feedback was often not recorded, and opportunities to reinforce learning were not utilised. As a result, the use of assessment to support learning was found to be less than good in 26% of the lessons observed. To ensure the incremental development of key learning skills, such as critical thinking, creativity and freehand sketching (graphical communication), students should be encouraged to record and reflect on their design journeys from conception to realisation on all projects. Teachers should also provide detailed written formative feedback on this work to support students’ learning and to enable them to assess their own work.
Pages 157–160 · View in original PDF