Existing Construction Studies Syllabus

Note: I reluctantly resigned from my role as the Irish Universities Representative on the subject development group for this specification on 19.02.25 because I could no longer endorse its work. Here’s (some of) what I think needs to be fixed. 

1. Get rid of the practical test…

The Additional Assessment Component 2: Craft Skills Assessment (now worth 20%) is a rebranding of the current Practical Test. There are several problems with this assessment:

1. it’s an additional exam that disadvantages students - it’s well established in education that the more test components a student has to pass, the lower their overall grade will be. This is sometimes called the "multiple hurdles effect" or "conjunctive assessment." Statistics from the State Examinations Commission (SEC) tell us that over the past 5 years, a student was more likely to get a H1 in higher level Maths (two theory papers), higher level Physics (one paper) or higher level Accounting (one paper) than they were to get a H1 in higher level Construction Studies (one paper, one project, one practical test). Why? Because those subjects don’t have multiple types of tests.

   Incidentally, it used to be the same for Home Economics and Art (subjects with similar additional practical tests) but they gradually shifted their marking over the past few years and now a greater percentage of of their students are getting higher grades. Of course, some will argue that the practical test pulls up scores, but this is a disingenuous argument; if students didn’t spend so much time on woodworking skills they’d have more time to spend on the theory and would likely do better on this part of the exam. Whatever your opinion on this, the bottom line is that when every other subject (excl. Engineering) is moving to an exam plus project model, Construction students will have an extra exam.

2. it’s forcing students to perfect craft skills that are no longer relevant - many of the woodworking processes that are learned and practiced for the skills test are redundant. They have been replaced by power tools and CNC/ laser machinery. How can getting students to spend valuable time in class chopping mortices by hand be justified when there is a mortice machine right there? Why are they processing timber by hand when it can be done faster and more accurately using power tools and machines? Of course, there is an inherent value in craft practices, but forcing every student to do an extra 3 hour exam to prove they can do them is the wrong approach. Let those students who want to do this type of learning do it through a craft based project of their choosing - don’t force it onto everyone.

3. it’s the ‘tail wagging the dog’ - a compulsory practical woodwork test forces every teacher to spend a significant amount of class time teaching woodwork skills regardless of whether they or their students have much interest in this side of the subject. This subject is Construction Technology not Leaving Cert Wood Technology; teachers and students shouldn’t be forced to do woodwork; it should be a choice (see point 2. below).

4. it is completely disconnected from the design driven approach of the Junior Cycle Wood Technology specification. Many of these students will have spent 3 years learning about design thinking and will have developed their design skills through the completion of increasingly complex projects culminating in their Junior Cycle project. Now, in Leaving Cert, they are being given a prescribed task and being told to make exactly what’s in the drawing. Having been told for years how important it is to think independently and creatively they are now being told to forget all of that and just make what’s in the drawing! That makes no sense whatsoever.

5. a practical test may have made sense when the current syllabus was written in the early 1980s and it was envisioned that most of our students would be going into a trade. Things have changed; some students will, of course, go into a trade, but many will not. Those that do, will learn the skills they need for their trade when they do their apprenticeship.

2. …and give students a choice of projects instead (one project brief for each strand)

The draft specification describes the Additional Assessment Component 1 (the project worth 30%). The draft outlines an assessment that “it is envisaged” will take 3 hours to complete, involving interpreting drawings, marking out, making and assembling; so the same old, same old.

Instead, there should be multiple project briefs (like there are for Junior Cycle Wood Technology) with a brief that maps onto each of the strands. This way the students (not the SEC) could choose which area of the syllabus they want to study in more depth.

The way the draft sets it up, the SEC will set a brief each year. This means the briefs will likely vary significantly from year to year ensuring that Strands 1, 3 & 4 each get examined in turn (assuming the practical test covers strand 2). This could easily mean that students (in TY) considering studying Construction will see what students in 6th year are doing and think ‘I’d like to do something like that’ but by the time they get there, the brief they get could be completely different and they could end up having a very different (and unsatisfactory/ demotivating) learning experience.

It will also likely mean the end of the traditional ‘furniture’ type projects. While I am not a big fan of these type of projects, there is a real lack of logic to this. On the one hand the new specification is placing a strong emphasis on craft skills and ensuring this is in place by forcing students to do a 3 hour practical exam, but then the specification is taking away a student’s ability to choose what type of project they would like to complete. In practice, many students who would like to do a craft project won’t be able to do one if the brief is about something else entirely. It takes agency away from the students and it makes no sense whatsoever.

3. Make the content more real world/ industry based and STEM based

The omission of the Passivhaus standard is a huge step backwards when the new specification should be taking a step forward!

Cairn Homes, the biggest builder in the country, has recently decided to move to the Passivhaus Standard. They are doing this as it is “the most sustainable way to build” and to “future proof the homes that we build for everyone”.

The Passive House standard has been included in the leaving certificate Construction Studies higher level exam paper many times since first appearing in 2012, (see Q.5. 2012, Q.5. 2016, Q.10, Q.5. 2018, Q.5. 2019, Q.10. 2019, Q.6. 2020, Q.5. 2021 & Q.5. 2022).

Now, having established the Passive House Standard as the ‘best practice’ standard for new build and the (Passivhaus) Enerphit Standard as the ‘best practice’ standard for retrofit in the subject over the last 14 years, the Passive House standard is being dropped. The new specification does not include the Passive House standard - only the “Building regulations and standards” are included - instead, the new specification refers to generic “principles of passive design”. There is huge difference between the general principles of passive design (which the Romans were doing thousands of years ago) and the Passivhaus standard.

Similarly, in relation to STEM content, the draft specification has essentially dropped two of the three core higher level topics in the current syllabus - light and sound.

Sound insulation is a very important element of home design and construction in Ireland today, especially as more and more people are living in higher density housing. Yet, in the draft specification, sound insulation is only mentioned once - in a list of design principles. In the draft, it is not given anything like the level of treatment it should be given in a contemporary construction syllabus. There should be core content in there about how floors/ ceilings and party walls are sound proofed.

Light is the other core area of learning for higher level students in the current syllabus. The easiest way I can make this point is to say that there is a question on the 2023 higher level paper (see Q.9 2023) that could not be asked in future! Imagine, future students of Construction Technology knowing less about the fundamental issue of natural light in homes than students who studied a syllabus first taught in 1983. How can this be happening?

While, heat energy is included in the draft content, it has been simplified (dumbed down) compared to the current syllabus… which brings us to an uncomfortable truth. Over the past twenty years, the focus of the exam paper has shifted away from the scientific foundation (the STEM principles) that underpin this subject. And because these topics rarely get examined (and can easily be avoided when they come up) many teachers have become unfamiliar/ uncomfortable with this content.

There are three problems arising from all of this:

1. the subject will no longer attract a broad range of students at second level (e.g. future architects, technologists & engineers),

2. we risk sending a generation of learners out of the classroom with little or no knowledge of scientific principles underpinning construction technology/ building design,

3. there is a real danger now, with the removal of most of this higher level scientific content, that third level programmes will not accept Construction Technology as a subject for matriculation/ entry requirements onto their programmes.

4. Design the content so it can be taught/ learned

The content of the draft is very poorly structured. The titles of the Stands have been more or less borrowed from the 25 year old Architectural Technology syllabus that was never introduced. That syllabus, although now very dated, at least had a coherent design philosophy: a core and options with assessment aligned with the options: “The examining authority will, annually, nominate a number of themes at each level (Higher and Ordinary) from which a student selects one.”

The new model, represented by a meaningless graphic, lacks coherence and integration. This reflects a lack of a well-grounded philosophy driving the design of the specification.

Unlike other new, well designed, specifications (e.g. Business), there’s no unifying strand (e.g. Investigating Business) and there are no cross-cutting themes showing how the learning connects and makes sense for the student (or the teacher). Note also how, in the Business model, the student is at the centre of the learning design.

Taking a closer look at the strands we see…

Strand 1 “The Built Environment”, begins with design principles, then moves onto heritage (which is mixed up with environmental issues), then back to design (urban and rural mixed together - even though they are very different), then on to health & safety (mixing up classroom safety with site safety) and then back to design (universal design)… who would teach this content in this order?

Strand 2 “Design, Craft Skills, and Materials“ begins with two lists of content related to construction technology, “Sustainable use of materials” and “Materials: properties and use“. From there the rest of the strand is almost entirely geared toward design and make type learning leading to a project outcome. What is left unsaid is that the rationale for including the Additional Assessment Component 2: Craft Skills Assessment (the new version of the practical test) is to assess this strand - the project (Additional assessment component 1: Exploring the Constructed Environment) won’t ever be about this strand.

So, instead of having a strand on Construction Materials that underpins the rest of the specification and links to the wider learning we have a strand that essentially justifies the inclusion of the practical test. If a focus on woodworking is the goal, this strand could be rewritten to be so much more relevant to the students of Construction Technology. There is a long, well established link between furniture design and architectural design. Many architects design furniture for their buildings (E.g. Frank Llyod Wright, Le Corbusier, Mies Van Der Rohe, Zaha Hadid). I proposed a strand built around the study of furniture design (designers/ movements, design process, ergonomics, furniture making etc.) that would lead to an option to do this type of leaving cert project. It was ignored.

Strand 3 “Building Fabric“ really shows how little thought has gone into how a teacher is expected to teach this specification. It begins with two lists of content that cover a lot of the same stuff - but the order of the learning outcomes is often completely backwards, with higher order learning outcomes (e.g. “3.1. analyze important principles of in the design of the building fabric”) coming before lower order outcomes (e.g. “3.5. identify elements of the building fabric”). Similarly, the learning outcome on retrofitting (3.4) comes before the learning outcome on how walls are built (3.9). This is learning outcomes 101. I’d complain if one of my UL students got this wrong on school placement.

Then, there’s a list of substructure/ superstructure that appears thrown together and includes terms that I’ve never seen used in 25 years teaching Construction Technology, e.g. “composite external wall” - a completely meaningless term that seems to be just made up!

No mention of newer technologies like insulated foundations (e.g. Kore) or Green Roofs or triple glazing (never mind the WEP (Window Energy Performance) Scheme).

No mention of soils, bearing capacity, the water table, site surveys, radon, radon membranes or radon prevention or mitigation.

Having then covered all of the structures content, the spec then goes back to design stuff - introducing (out of nowhere) the principles of passive design (which gets a single learning outcome) and then resilient design (two learning outcomes). Then another section on design (most of which should be in the next strand) and then a section on materials which should be in the previous strand.

It is quite clear that there are some serious gaps in this Strand, some of what is here shouldn’t be here and there is no logic to the order in which it is presented. Again, no coherent design philosophy.

It’s simply not good enough!

Strand 4 “Services and Control Technology” is missing some very important content. As outlined above, there is nothing here on the natural and artificial lighting of homes. Nor is there any section on sound in buildings. This is a major flaw in this specification. Questions that have appeared on the higher level paper for decades will disappear - this is a deliberate dumbing down of the subject.

There is no content listed in the ‘students will learn about’ section for Airtightness and Ventilation. For example, on airtightness students should learn about the difference in standards (building regs versus Passivhaus), energy loss, permeability testing, checking for air leaks etc. and on ventilation they should learn about topics like cross ventilation, stack ventilation, air change rate, the coanda effect, air quality, humidity control and filtration. They should also learn about ventilation systems including, natural ventilation, mechanical ventilation, centralised/ decentralised systems & mechanical ventilation heat recovery systems.

5. Be clearer about what will actually be assessed and how it will be assessed

For decades now, Construction Studies has been defined by the exam paper. This has been a mixed blessing.

On the one hand it has allowed the examiner to introduce new topics (e.g. Timber Frame construction or the Passivhaus Standard) that ensure the subject has remained up to date with the building regulations and in line with what’s happening in the industry. We have been lucky to have examiners that keep an eye on the industry and use the influence of the paper to keep the subject relevant; after all, ‘what gets examined gets taught’.

On the other hand it has meant that the exam (not the syllabus) has also come to define the subject. There is a lot of content in the current Construction Studies syllabus that never gets taught because it never ever gets examined (e.g. Calculation of total heat gain in a structure. Radiant temperature, dry bulb temperature and wet bulb temperature. Humidity and relative use of psychrometric chart. Effect of varying ventilation rates.). This is, I believe a reflection of what the examiner was comfortable with.

And there is a lot of content in the current Construction Studies syllabus that hardly ever gets taught because it only occasionally gets examined (e.g. light, electricity). I know this because every year I ask my UL student teachers for a show of hands on who has been taught the topic electricity for leaving cert and no hands go up. I think in over 20 years less than 5 hands in total have gone up (that’s out of around 1300+ student teachers). We all know this to be the truth… again, ‘what gets examined gets taught’.

The way the draft specification is designed, this situation is set to continue. Particularly in relation to the Additional Assessment Components. It will take several years for a clear picture to emerge as to what these will look like. How or will a single brief will focus on one strand? Will it rotate from strand to strand every year in turn? Will it be random? Will teachers and students wait every year to see what comes out of the hat? How will the type and focus of the briefs influence how the theory is taught? Will the time spent on the project and the practical test continue to eat into the time available to teach/ learn the theory?

None of this is clear and the current draft makes the same mistake made in the past. No matter how well intentioned the people writing the brief, no matter how well thought through the brief, no matter how clever the design; a single brief that ties every student into the same project is a gale force wind blowing all boats in the same direction. The subject, its teachers and most of all its students deserve better. They deserve a choice.

Similarly, there is no clarity in relation to the place of drawing/ graphics in the subject. The second strand lists “scaled drawings” and “CAD modelling” and states that “Students should be able to… 2.16. communicate design ideas and concepts using a variety of graphical communication techniques.” Taking this at face value, and the statement that, “The written examination paper will include a selection of questions that will assess, appropriate to each level: the learning described in the four strands”, one would expect a drawing question on the exam paper… but what about CAD? Will that be in the project? There’s nothing in Table 3. on p.27 to suggest it will. Again, so much uncertainty that could be cleared up with a clearer approach to the project briefs.

One final point on assessment, in the current marking scheme the theory paper is worth less to ordinary level candidates (i.e. 200/500 marks or 40%) while it is worth more of a higher level candidate’s total mark (300/600 marks or 50%). This, as we all know, recognises that ordinary level candidates do better in the project & practical aspects than they do in the theory paper. The draft specification appears to do away with this accommodation - this seems to disadvantage ordinary level candidates in the future.

In conclusion, I want to acknowledge that what I have written here is quite critical and it will likely cause offense to those involved in the writing of the draft. This is not my intention and I regret the offense caused, I really do. It is not my intention to hurt anyone’s feelings or to make anyone look bad.

Pretty much everything I have said here, I have already said in the room; it won’t be news to those involved in writing the draft. In fact, I provided a complete alternative draft of the theory specification outlining my suggestions (including a detailed list of sequenced learning outcomes) in an effort to improve it. My only hope now is that I might somehow, even at this late stage, bring about the change I failed to bring about earlier.

But this isn’t about me or anyone else involved in writing the draft - it is about what is best for the second level students who will study this subject and the teachers who will teach it. They will have to live with this specification for years to come. We owe it to them to speak the truth; this is mine. Trevor.