Junior Cert: science The revised science syllabus made its debut before approximately 45,000 students yesterday but the new exam format, which compels students to undertake all nine questions, was sharply criticised by teachers.

Prior to yesterday's two-hour examination, students had already completed 35 per cent of the exam through mandatory practical work and investigative experiments during the academic year.

However, Mattie Finerty, an ASTI subject representative and teacher in St Martin's secondary school, Cashel, Co Tipperary, said the syllabus committee may now have to review the decision to make all questions compulsory.

Such concerns were shared by Pat Hanratty, a subject expert with Skoool.ie. "Only time will tell if this is fair. Most teachers would feel there should be an element of choice," he said.

Despite the limited choice on yesterday's higher-level paper, teachers welcomed it as an exam that reflected the practical and relevant ethos of the revised curriculum.

"Every question would have brought students right back to their work in the labs. If they did their practical work over the last three years, students would have done very well," said Mr Finerty.

All nine compulsory questions were divided into the three scientific areas of biology, chemistry and physics, with chemistry emerging as the most difficult of the examined areas yesterday.

Whereas biology delved into the standard topics of waste management, the human heart and the food pyramid, the chemistry section posed questions on chemical equations, an element Mr Finerty believed the new syllabus had moved away from.

A question on Hooke's law in the physics section exemplified the need for students to know and understand the entire course, according to Mr Finerty.

"Teachers have been generally very pleased with this new syllabus but we are still demanding the laboratory assistants which were promised to us", he said.

Gerry King, a TUI representative and teacher in Davitt College, Castlebar, Co Mayo, reasoned that while the lack of choice on the paper was of concern for students and teachers alike, the higher paper was, however, a fair first instalment.

However, the ordinary-level paper was described by Mr King as "extremely difficult", with inappropriate and difficult language employed in many sections.

He pointed to one question in which students had to identify the femur bone as a topic that had not been covered on the ordinary-level syllabus. Added to this, the physics section included questions which were almost identical to the higher-level paper and therefore failed to differentiate between the higher- and ordinary-level student.