BOTH technical drawing papers - engineering applications and building applications - were well received by teachers and students.
Mr Padraig Kirk, the national secretary of the Engineering and Technical Teachers Association, said the higher-level engineering-applications paper was manageable but time-consuming. Question 1, the universal joint, had come up in the mock exam, so students were well-prepared. Questions 2 through 5 were all "regular questions with no surprises", but question 6, on CAD, was a little long as it contained five parts, he said.
The ordinary-level engineering-applications paper was also time-consuming, especially question 1, where students had to contend with "a lot of lines, dimensions, conventions and symbols". Questions 2, 3 and 4 were as expected and the student who was familiar with past papers should have no problems, according to Mr Kirk, who teaches in O Fiaich College, Dundalk, Co Louth.
There were a lot of circles in part (a) of question 5, while part (b), which was concerned with CAD, was pitched at the right level, he added.
Mr Philip O'Callaghan, ASTI subject representative and a teacher in CBS, Naas, Co Kildare, said students were quite happy with the higher-level building-applications paper. "Any student who had covered the course fully had ample opportunity to display their knowledge in the exam," he said.
At ordinary level, students were pleased with a paper that was similar in style and content to previous years.
Mr Philip McLaughlin, TUI subject representative and a teacher in Carndonagh Community School, Co Donegal, agreed with this analysis of the ordinary-level building applications paper. At higher level, he said, the paper was time-consuming as always. He singled out questions 5(b) and 6(c) as particularly difficult, but said that overall it was a fair paper.