IT WAS back to the drawing board yesterday for technical drawing students as they faced paper 2 of their exam, following last Friday's paper on basic principles.
Mr Paul McDonnell, a spokesperson for the Association of Materials Technology and Graphics Teachers and vice-principal in Bishop McEgan College, Macroom, Co Cork, described the higher-level technical drawing (building applications) paper as "fair overall, in that people could have been reasonably satisfied with the questions proposed".
Mr Patsy McVicar, ASTI subject representative and a teacher in Pobolscoil Cloich Cheann Fhaola, Falcarragh, Co Donegal, described the higher-level exam as "a good fair paper highlighting the basic geometric principles as applied to building applications. It was reasonable in terms of time and challenging for the most able of candidates, but had no tricky or unpleasant surprises."
Mr Philip McLoughlin, TUI subject representative and a teacher in Carndonagh Community School, Co Donegal, described the higher-level paper as "reasonably fair".
In question 1, on perspective projection, Mr McVicar said the "circle-on-circle" was quite testing and time-consuming. "It was difficult, but that is to be expected at higher level," he said. "In order to make some allowance for the simplicity of the design a curved element was introduced," he noted.
Question 2 was in line with recent years, though "a good understanding of oblique surfaces and dihedral angles was required to set up the given details before determining the required angle," Mr McVicar said. Mr McLoughlin called it "difficult enough".
Question 3, on shadow projection, concerned a reservoir. Mr McVicar noted that students had to read the question carefully, since the shadow was only required to be shown on the plan view and there was a danger that students might have tried to find the shadow on elevation, which was very difficult and, more importantly, was not required.
Question 4, on conoidal roof surface, required the minimum of tedious drawing and was, Mr McVicar said, a very good question. In question 5, on contouring, both holes were skew while students might have expected one to be vertical, Mr McVicar said.
Question 6, on a hyperbolic paraboloid, concerned a memorial or commemorative stone. Section A was straightforward and required a minimum amount of drawing to test the fundamental principles, Mr McVicar said. Section B was specific in its requirement of the traces, thus focusing attention on a particular solution.
Mr McLoughlin described the ordinary-level paper as "fair enough" and said his students were happy enough with it. He described the figure in question 3, on cast shadow, as "quite intricate" and the interpretation of the drawing took quite a while. He felt a pictorial sketch would have been a benefit here for the weaker student.
Mr McVicar described the questions as "fairly pitched for the ordinary-level student", but said the paper as a whole was demanding in terms of time. Question, 4 on the hyperbolic parabaloid, and question 5, on isometric projection, were both demanding on time, he said, and while question 6(a), on shell surfaces, was straightforward, question 6(b) was "quite tedious and slow".
In the technical drawing (engineering) exam at ordinary level, questions 1 and 2 were straightforward, according to Mr Padraig Kirk, a teacher in O'Fiach College, Dundalk, and the national assistant secretary of the Engineering and Technology Teachers' Association. Question 4 differed from the norm in that students were given a template in which the drawings were incorrect and were asked to produce a correctly dimensioned template.
Meanwhile, question 5(b), the CAD/ CAM area of the course, continues to grow in popularity with candidates as more and more computers come into schools. "Anyone with a computer in front of them during the year would have loved that," Mr Kirk said, concluding that overall students managed the paper well.