Leaving Cert biology higher level even stumps teachers with the term ‘innominate bones’

Margaret McGagh, an Association of Secondary Teachers’ Ireland (ASTI) subject representative, felt 99pc of students would not have known the term.

In the question, students were asked what innominate bones were more commonly known as. The answer is pelvis.

But despite a lack of familiarity with that term, Ms McGagh, of Dunmore Community School, Dunmore, Co Galway, said, overall, the paper was “very nice. The whole syllabus was covered, with plenty of choice” .

She said students really appreciated that human biology and plant biology weren’t mixed together in the same question as has happened other years. They did feature as options within a question, but there was choice.

Liam Hennelly of the Studylix website, and a teacher at Belvedere College SJ, Co Dublin, described it as “a very student-centred, fair and current paper that would have been well received.”

He said that students had plenty of choice across all three units of the course but the questions were challenging in places and required an in-depth knowledge of subject material.

Mr Hennelly agreed that students may have been thrown when asked to give the common name for the “innominate bones” while in Q8 b, he said students may have struggled to name theTullgren Funnel piece of apparatus.

But he noted that the paper featured “a very topical and accessible passage on ash dieback disease”.

Wesley Hammond, a teacher at The Institute of Education, Dublin, described it as a “wide-ranging paper that allowed students to navigate by their strengths” and one that would have delighted those familiar with past papers.

“While in places it was a little tougher than last year, a prepared student will have met a paper that posed no shocks or upsets.”

He noted the heavy emphasis on human biology and reproduction, both plant and human.

Overall, he said, “ thanks to the ample choice afforded, students would have been able to answer a full paper while avoiding less popular topics completely. There was great clarity within many questions, both in terms of phrasing and focus, as there was minimal mixing of topics.

Mr Hammond said while there were “trickier questions, those who took the time to read through the paper will have been able to navigate them”.

He said some questions had a sting in their tail, particularly in Section C , which “had many moments that tested the finer details of topics in a way that would really distinguish the H1/H2 students”.

As an example, he cited the ecology question on the nitrogen and carbon cycles, while he said other questions were “rather verbose or wordy in a way that would likely be off putting for a weaker student. However, on careful reading, these sections were very manageable if you gave yourself the moment of composure”.

He said while much of this paper was anticipated, there were a few surprises – both positive and negative.

“The debut appearance of a question on the function of apparatus for surveying animals in Section B might have given students pause; they wouldn’t have recognised it from their revision.

“ While on the other hand, those who studied reproduction (both human and plant), which makes up only two chapters of course, will find that they could answer 30pc of the paper.”

The ordinary level paper was equally well-received.

Ms McGagh said, like higher level, Section C had plenty of choice, including a “nice genetic question on blue eyes and brown eyes . But she said students might have been put off by the part of the same question about tissue culture.

She said the ecology question, while it had “nothing really difficult, it was a bit technical”. She commented that the ecology questions can be a “a bit wordy,” which can challenge ordinary level students.

Mr Hennelly agreed about the wide selection of questions and his overall verdict was that it was “a very fair and accessible paper”.