AI risks making Senior Cycle reform redundant – teacher

With just weeks to go before the rollout of the long-anticipated reformed Leaving Cert Senior Cycle, there is growing concern within the teaching profession over whether the proposed changes can withstand the rapid rise of artificial intelligence (AI).

Eddie Duffy, a teacher with 30 years’ experience in economics, graphics and history, warns any failure by the Department of Education to confront the realities of AI risks making the curriculum outdated and even functionally redundant.

Major changes

The revamped Senior Cycle features redesigned curricula in core subjects such as Biology, Physics, Chemistry, and Business, alongside new options including Drama, Film and Theatre Studies, and Climate Action and Sustainable Development.

A key change is the introduction of an Additional Assessment Component (AAC), which counts for at least 40% of a student’s final grade. The aim is to reward continuous learning and lessen the emphasis on end-of-year exams.

When first proposed in 2019, this shift toward project-based work was viewed as progressive.

‘A good idea, in principle’

“A good idea, in principle,” reflects Mr Duffy, who teaches at St Patrick's College in Cavan Town and often shares his thoughts on the subject on social platform X. He acknowledges that nobody could have predicted the advent or impact of AI within such a short timeframe.

“Nobody could have seen that it would be as powerful and as useful a tool as it is.”

No training, no tools

According to Mr Duffy, the reform is proceeding with “zero AI training” for teachers, no clear guidelines for handling suspected AI-generated student work, and no reliable detection tools.

In the years ahead, he fears students will face a new risk: being falsely accused of using AI in their AACs.

“Let’s say you’re doing history, for example, and you’re very good at it, but maybe you get nervous during exam time. So it was decided for you to make a project, and you can get up to 40%, like the pass mark. So, if your project is even reasonably good, the chance is you’re going to pass before you’ve even put pen to paper in the exam.”

Outdated approach

That approach made sense in 2019, but not today, and without a proper framework to accommodate or regulate AI use in assessments, teachers are being put in an impossible position, Mr Duffy believes.

“Instead of reacting, they [the Department] seem to have instead buried their heads in the sand.”

The dilemma now for teachers is they want students to learn and succeed, but fully expect to be asked: “Can I just get ChatGPT to write my project?”

The honest answer? “Yes, probably,” Mr Duffy tells the Celt.

AI in minutes

“We’re facing into a situation where students can just use AI, and with a few prompts, knock a project out in five minutes. Will they do that? Yes, probably is the answer, because there are no tools that can reliably check whether your work is AI-generated or not.”

Mr Duffy is far from anti-AI. In fact, he has been an early adopter and an advocate for integrating the technology constructively.

AI in the classroom

“No two ways about it. It has the ability to be an incredible learning tool, to get people engaged in asking questions and looking for answers,” he says.

Mr Duffy has tested numerous AI platforms over the years. He was an early adopter and often uses the tech in creative ways with his students.

He recalls one particular instance when a struggling economics student couldn’t grasp a key concept. Mr Duffy suggested the student try running the term through AI.

“It was brand new, going back to 2022, and you see the key thing with AI is the prompt.” After several refinements, AI explained the term in a way that the student could finally understand — “like speaking to a 12-year-old”.

The student went on to score a H2 in his final exams.

Too perfect?

Ironically, AI’s usefulness may also now work against students.

“What students will have to do going forward to avoid being accused of using AI is to drop in a couple of well-placed mistakes.”

Now, Mr Duffy says, to write a perfect project is “basically a confession”.

“Two years ago, if you wrote a great project for economics or history, nobody batted an eyelid… Now, if a fella writes the very same project all on his own, and it’s word perfect, people will say ‘Oh, that’s probably AI’. Just put in the odd mistake, you know, don’t put in a full stop someplace or misspell ‘Cavan’, and that might be all it takes to get you over the line.”

Rethinking assessment

“We have to ask the question now - how are we serving students of the future?”

Ignoring AI is not realistic, Mr Duffy argues.

“We have to accept the fact that AI is here and it’s here to stay. There is also no way to really detect it.”

Other countries and third-level institutions are already adapting.

“They’re moving away from projects entirely,” he says. “They’ve said, we can’t beat this. There’s no point. Projects are over.”

New methods

Mr Duffy believes project-style learning can be preserved if paired with an oral assessment.

“I’m well aware that plenty of people don’t like the exam system. But what you can have instead - let’s just take my subject of economics - I would love to see an oral in economics,” he suggests.

“Now, from September to Christmas, you can AI it… but in January, there will be an oral of 15 minutes let’s say, and I will ask you to tell me now what is the biggest problem with FDI in this country. No notes, you talk.”

Mr Duffy sees AI as part of a major historical turning point in human progress. “You’ve got the Phoenicians inventing writing, Gutenberg’s printing press in the 1400s, the internet in the ’90s — and now AI.”

Teachers under threat?

Taking the thought further, Mr Duffy suggests AI could even displace teaching roles.

“I can see that we’re going to have, for example, general AI account engineers that'll take a fella through some subject you didn’t even study in school. And with a bit of prompt engineering, show them how to create their own notes or simplify any term needed. Refer you to any experts in a given field and even conjure up videos that'll explain something more simply — as good or better than the best teacher you ever had.”

His message to the Department of Education is simple: Adapt or fall behind.

“It certainly seems to me that in five years from now, at the current rate of improvement in AI, it’s very hard to see how there will be a demand for teachers as we currently are.

“We need to neutralise the threat by accepting AI and adjusting our methods. Let students use it if they want - just assess them differently.”

Mixed reactions

On May 30, 73% of TUI members voted in favour of the implementation measures for Senior Cycle redevelopment. A week later, 68% of ASTI members rejected the same proposal. In a separate vote, 67% also supported potential industrial action against the programme’s rollout.

Minister for Education and Youth Helen McEntee said the vote would not derail the changes: “The Senior Cycle Redevelopment has always focused on student needs. As the world changes, we must ensure students gain the skills needed to thrive after school.”