Dr. Tim Desmond:

Observations on that are twofold. The first thing is to stay with English. In the context of junior cycle reform, we are satisfied that within a two-hour allocation, there is adequate time for us to set tasks which give candidates the opportunity to display the skills they have achieved and the things they know. Within that period, we can elicit adequate information to make a judgment on a candidate's level of achievement at the end of it. As far as exam duration is concerned generally, our position is that there is adequate time. Exams are not a race against the clock albeit there must be some time constraints on them in so far as there are problems with leaving candidates there indefinitely. Without time constraints, one will get the approach which is to write everything one knows. That is not educationally or assessment sound because what one needs people to do is to answer the question that was asked. The response to that is judged against the time available. To do that, the higher order skills of being able to analyse a question, draw conclusions and synthesise an answer are important.

In our view, the most important people to look at the clock in the first place are us and our setters to determine what questions we can ask which can be meaningfully answered within the allocated time and whether the array of those is such that we can elicit the information we need to say a candidate has achieved to a certain level. We work within that. Within junior cycle reform, the spirit of it and the change of philosophy there, we are certainly comfortable that a two-hour examination gives candidates adequate time to show what they have achieved in the three years without it being a race. If one makes examinations very long, they become marathons for other reasons. There are other issues at that stage and they become endurance tests and marathons. Within the context of it, two hours is fine.