Click here for Part 1
By Farhan Noor
In previous post, I spoke about how the 21st century higher education system is almost the same system as the 18th century higher education system, going back as far as the 11th century in history, and even earlier, in some aspects.
In this post, I will go into the details and explain how that is so
***
To illustrate, consider the following 5 mutually reinforcing, interlocking components of the current Higher Education System developed centuries ago and which still exists today: i) Knowledge Transmission as Educational Goal; ii) Lecture as Instruction Strategy; iii) Textbooks as Instruction Resource; iv) Rote Learning to Pass Examinations; and v) Grades as Motivation for Learning.
1. Knowledge Transmission as Educational Goal:
By and large, since Ancient Times and through Medieval Age and Industrial Age till today—a span of roughly 5,000 years starting 30th century B.C.—the primary goal of education has been to transmit and transfer a set of approved knowledgebase or skillset from the instructor to the student for the purpose of making the student an economically productive citizen of the society.
Education—or is it actually schooling—was and is highly ‘content-centric’ and ‘teaching-focused’. It is about deciding what to teach and how to teach. This concern with the content and the process of teaching, and its separation from each other, took root in the 16th, and more strongly in the 17th centuries in Europe.
It is interesting to note that there is a technical word for the art, craft, and science of teaching, but not for learning! The word Pedagogy is defined as “the art, science, or profession of teaching”. Whereas the word Andragogy is defined as “the methods or techniques used to teach adults”. What does this fact imply? That our focus has indeed been on knowledge transmission and the means of achieving this goal—isn’t it?
Thus, education has been seen and used as a platform for inculcation and indoctrination of students’ minds by systematically implanting in them certain Truths and approved ways of thinking. How would you achieve this objective? Through imparting critical thinking skills? Most certainly not! You would but encourage repetition, memorization, and recall.
The 21st century higher education system is effectively all about knowledge transmission as its primary educational goal even though you may not agree with it.
The problem with this approach can best be understood from a story told by D.N. Perkins—an Educational Researcher at the Harvard University—in his article titled “The Science and Art of Transfer”[1]. He writes about a disappointed professor of Physics who tested his students in the final exam on their understanding of fundamentals of physics. During the lectures, he discussed the following stock question: “A ball weighing 3 kg is dropped from the top of a 100 meter tower. How many seconds does it take to reach the ground?” Students were taught to recognize that the weight of the ball has nothing to do with the problem; it is a distraction. The answer depends only on the acceleration of gravity. On the final exam, however, the professor posed the same question differently. The question was: “There is a 100 meter hole in the ground. A ball weighing 3 kg is rolled off the side into the hole. How long does it take to reach the bottom?” To his shock, the students were unable to recognize the connection between the ‘tower’ problem and the ‘hole’ problem! One student even came up after the exam and accosted the professor with a complaint: “I think that this exam was unfair. We never had any ‘hole’ problems!”
Bottom line: Mere knowledge transference or information supply is the outcome of our current higher education system—even if un-intended—and that it doesn’t work to the benefit of the students at all.
2. Lecture as Instruction Strategy:
Instructors have used Lectures as the main instruction strategy since times immemorial[2] and despite innovations and technological advancements over the centuries. They would lecture i.e. read from a main book—whether verbatim or plainly—while the students listened and took notes.
Books, before the 15th century, were rare and inaccessible to public at large and therefore lecturing made perfect sense. Instructors simply read passages from the books available only to them with the objective to transfer that information to the students; the students were expected to record that information as faithfully as possible.
Joe Redish, a professor of Physics at the University of Maryland, said “Before printing, it was very difficult to create books, and so someone would read the books to everybody who would copy them down.” Little is wonder that the word “lecture” comes from a Latin word meaning “to read”; it doesn’t mean “to teach!”
Fast forward to the 18th and 19th centuries, and with the advent of industrialism, and commercialization of books like never before, information was readily accessible to a wider audience. The Instructor and the student both had copies of the textbook. Yet, the Instructor continued to lecture.
The late 20th century then saw the age of globalization of commercial computing and internet. Computerization and digitization made information cheaper and conveniently available. One expected a change in instruction strategy. But only cosmetic changes were made. The Instructor continued to lecture i.e. read, but this time not from a book and instead from PowerPoint slides based on that book; the students continued to take notes faithfully. Not much changed really.
Why? Is it because there is no better instruction strategy other than a lecture?
On the contrary. More than 700 research studies have confirmed that lectures are less effective than a wide range of methods for achieving almost every educational goal we can think of[3]. In fact, no alternatives has ever been discovered that is less effective than lecturing, including, in some cases, no teaching at all!
It comes as no surprise that lecturing is widely seen as a poor instructional strategy by many educational researchers.
As a matter of fact, Instructors at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has stopped delivering Introductory Physics course in large-lecture format. Result? Class attendance is up and the course failure has dropped by 50%!
Consider the research carried out by Deslauriers, Schelew, & Wieman of the University of British Columbia in 2011. The researchers compared the amounts of learning achieved using two different instructional approaches under controlled conditions. Those two approaches were: i) a 3 hour traditional lecture given by an experienced highly rated Instructor; and ii) a 3 hour instruction given by a trained but inexperienced Instructor using instruction based on research in cognitive psychology. The comparison was made on 267 and 271 physics undergraduates. Students taught using the second approach i.e. research-based instruction, found to have higher attendance, higher engagement, and achieved more than twice the learning compared to students taught using the first approach i.e. traditional lecture. Given how controlled the study was, and the fact that the two classes really were comparable, the results were published in Science and made it to The New York Times, ScienceNow, and The Economist.
By Farhan Noor
In previous post, I spoke about how the 21st century higher education system is almost the same system as the 18th century higher education system, going back as far as the 11th century in history, and even earlier, in some aspects.
In this post, I will go into the details and explain how that is so
***
To illustrate, consider the following 5 mutually reinforcing, interlocking components of the current Higher Education System developed centuries ago and which still exists today: i) Knowledge Transmission as Educational Goal; ii) Lecture as Instruction Strategy; iii) Textbooks as Instruction Resource; iv) Rote Learning to Pass Examinations; and v) Grades as Motivation for Learning.
1. Knowledge Transmission as Educational Goal:
By and large, since Ancient Times and through Medieval Age and Industrial Age till today—a span of roughly 5,000 years starting 30th century B.C.—the primary goal of education has been to transmit and transfer a set of approved knowledgebase or skillset from the instructor to the student for the purpose of making the student an economically productive citizen of the society.
Education—or is it actually schooling—was and is highly ‘content-centric’ and ‘teaching-focused’. It is about deciding what to teach and how to teach. This concern with the content and the process of teaching, and its separation from each other, took root in the 16th, and more strongly in the 17th centuries in Europe.
It is interesting to note that there is a technical word for the art, craft, and science of teaching, but not for learning! The word Pedagogy is defined as “the art, science, or profession of teaching”. Whereas the word Andragogy is defined as “the methods or techniques used to teach adults”. What does this fact imply? That our focus has indeed been on knowledge transmission and the means of achieving this goal—isn’t it?
Thus, education has been seen and used as a platform for inculcation and indoctrination of students’ minds by systematically implanting in them certain Truths and approved ways of thinking. How would you achieve this objective? Through imparting critical thinking skills? Most certainly not! You would but encourage repetition, memorization, and recall.
The 21st century higher education system is effectively all about knowledge transmission as its primary educational goal even though you may not agree with it.
The problem with this approach can best be understood from a story told by D.N. Perkins—an Educational Researcher at the Harvard University—in his article titled “The Science and Art of Transfer”[1]. He writes about a disappointed professor of Physics who tested his students in the final exam on their understanding of fundamentals of physics. During the lectures, he discussed the following stock question: “A ball weighing 3 kg is dropped from the top of a 100 meter tower. How many seconds does it take to reach the ground?” Students were taught to recognize that the weight of the ball has nothing to do with the problem; it is a distraction. The answer depends only on the acceleration of gravity. On the final exam, however, the professor posed the same question differently. The question was: “There is a 100 meter hole in the ground. A ball weighing 3 kg is rolled off the side into the hole. How long does it take to reach the bottom?” To his shock, the students were unable to recognize the connection between the ‘tower’ problem and the ‘hole’ problem! One student even came up after the exam and accosted the professor with a complaint: “I think that this exam was unfair. We never had any ‘hole’ problems!”
Bottom line: Mere knowledge transference or information supply is the outcome of our current higher education system—even if un-intended—and that it doesn’t work to the benefit of the students at all.
2. Lecture as Instruction Strategy:
Instructors have used Lectures as the main instruction strategy since times immemorial[2] and despite innovations and technological advancements over the centuries. They would lecture i.e. read from a main book—whether verbatim or plainly—while the students listened and took notes.
Books, before the 15th century, were rare and inaccessible to public at large and therefore lecturing made perfect sense. Instructors simply read passages from the books available only to them with the objective to transfer that information to the students; the students were expected to record that information as faithfully as possible.
Joe Redish, a professor of Physics at the University of Maryland, said “Before printing, it was very difficult to create books, and so someone would read the books to everybody who would copy them down.” Little is wonder that the word “lecture” comes from a Latin word meaning “to read”; it doesn’t mean “to teach!”
Fast forward to the 18th and 19th centuries, and with the advent of industrialism, and commercialization of books like never before, information was readily accessible to a wider audience. The Instructor and the student both had copies of the textbook. Yet, the Instructor continued to lecture.
The late 20th century then saw the age of globalization of commercial computing and internet. Computerization and digitization made information cheaper and conveniently available. One expected a change in instruction strategy. But only cosmetic changes were made. The Instructor continued to lecture i.e. read, but this time not from a book and instead from PowerPoint slides based on that book; the students continued to take notes faithfully. Not much changed really.
Why? Is it because there is no better instruction strategy other than a lecture?
On the contrary. More than 700 research studies have confirmed that lectures are less effective than a wide range of methods for achieving almost every educational goal we can think of[3]. In fact, no alternatives has ever been discovered that is less effective than lecturing, including, in some cases, no teaching at all!
It comes as no surprise that lecturing is widely seen as a poor instructional strategy by many educational researchers.
As a matter of fact, Instructors at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has stopped delivering Introductory Physics course in large-lecture format. Result? Class attendance is up and the course failure has dropped by 50%!
Consider the research carried out by Deslauriers, Schelew, & Wieman of the University of British Columbia in 2011. The researchers compared the amounts of learning achieved using two different instructional approaches under controlled conditions. Those two approaches were: i) a 3 hour traditional lecture given by an experienced highly rated Instructor; and ii) a 3 hour instruction given by a trained but inexperienced Instructor using instruction based on research in cognitive psychology. The comparison was made on 267 and 271 physics undergraduates. Students taught using the second approach i.e. research-based instruction, found to have higher attendance, higher engagement, and achieved more than twice the learning compared to students taught using the first approach i.e. traditional lecture. Given how controlled the study was, and the fact that the two classes really were comparable, the results were published in Science and made it to The New York Times, ScienceNow, and The Economist.
Further, Donald A. Bligh, in his highly acclaimed research-based book titled “What’s the Use of Lectures?” (in higher education), concluded, “Use lectures to teach information (i.e. transfer facts). Do not rely on them to promote thought, change attitudes, or develop behavioral skills if you can help it.”
Despite the overwhelming evidence against the usage of lectures to achieve any educational goal, lectures continue to remain the primary instructional strategy worldwide. The only reason given for this is because lectures are cost-effective and that is the only way we know how to teach!
But surely that is no justification by any means!
3. Textbook as Instruction Resource:
Instructors use textbooks to base their lectures on. The lecture and textbook duo, in fact, has been the dominant force in universities transcending time, space, culture, and beliefs.
Why? Is it because textbook is by far the most effective instructional resource at our disposal?
Despite the overwhelming evidence against the usage of lectures to achieve any educational goal, lectures continue to remain the primary instructional strategy worldwide. The only reason given for this is because lectures are cost-effective and that is the only way we know how to teach!
But surely that is no justification by any means!
3. Textbook as Instruction Resource:
Instructors use textbooks to base their lectures on. The lecture and textbook duo, in fact, has been the dominant force in universities transcending time, space, culture, and beliefs.
Why? Is it because textbook is by far the most effective instructional resource at our disposal?
The concept of textbooks were developed centuries ago and continue to exist, more or less, in its same form, usage, and purpose. That is at least true since the last century.
In terms of its form, textbooks are structured and organized into chapters, topics, and sub-topics. Content, largely textual in format, is developed in such a way that one whole information is disjointed and broken-up and dispersed and scattered over hundreds, if not thousands, of pages. The end-of-book Index is a testimony to this fact. That means a student must himself create a unified sense of the big picture or the complete picture for a given topic using the Index—a highly labor intensive and time consuming exercise. Further, textbooks only include the “known” parts of knowledge of the topic in discussion and that too only a selective fraction of it. Textbooks rarely discusses the “unknown” and almost never discloses the “known” that was omitted or ignored. Perhaps the worst aspect of a textbook is that it is written in a third-person narrative deprived of all emotions and feelings and personal thoughts which makes it an extremely boring, depressing, and painful read. That is why the students have continued to take lecture notes for themselves even when the same information had been made available to them in the form of textbooks!
In terms of its usage, textbooks help Instructors more than the students. Instructors follow the textbook format, extract, and copy-paste important points onto Projector & Screen or PowerPoint slides and employ it to assist and value-add their lectures. Thus, textbooks influences the material covered and the depth at which it is covered. And it is well understood by students that as long as they master those points, even if they never open that textbook, they will achieve an ‘A’ grade. Because, again, it is common belief that textbooks are packed full of so much material and in such dry language that the Instructor does not even expect students to read it. Textbook reading assignments are mere formalities and never followed up by Instructors. Recently, a study was conducted to find out how engineering students used their textbooks. The results, published in the Journal of Engineering Education, were thus: “Most of the students’ time spent with textbooks involves solving problems and much less time spent reading for content. These findings contrast with many Instructors’ expectations and beliefs, for they often instruct their students to read the textbook, advising that reading it will lead to better course performance.”
In terms of its purpose, textbooks seeks to plug a perceived void in the scheme of education or to fulfill a legal or quality assurance requirement. It is, for all intent and purpose, not considered for being an effective instruction resource! Beverlee Jobrack, a lifelong textbook editor, Editor-in-Chief at The Center for Experiential Learning, Leadership, and Technology (CELLT), and author of “Tyranny of the Textbook”, says “My products earned a host of awards for design, innovation, sales, and editorial excellence. They never earned any awards for effectiveness because to my knowledge, awards for effectiveness do not exist.”
Textbooks continue to exist in the 21st century having undergone only superficial and artificial changes. For example, it now comes with much more color, better design, additional learning features such as summaries, examples, etc., advanced and improved indexes, glossaries, etc. and a long list of end-of-chapter references which nobody ever uses, ever.
Textbooks are now also published online and accessible via variety of tablets and mobile phones.
However, the core issues raised above have not yet been taken up.
Consider this: In a paper titled “The Perceived Value of College Physics Textbooks: Students and Instructors May Not See Eye to Eye”[4], in 2006, Noah Podolesky and Noah Finkelstein of the University of Colorado, described a comprehensive study of a textbook use in 4 introductory college physics courses. Students were surveyed to find out how much they read their physics textbook, its effect on their performance, and whether different Instructors/textbooks made a difference. Survey results indicated that while over 97% of students buy the required textbook, less than 41% regularly read, 60% read after lecture rather than before, and there is little (or no) correlation between reading habits and course grade. These results were strikingly similar across different types of physics courses with different Instructors and different textbooks.
It would definitely come as a surprise but the University of Chicago—a preeminent educational institution—does not make use of textbooks at all! In fact, the university disregards textbooks in favor of original texts!
4. Rote Learning to Pass Examinations:
It all started in Ancient China. “The Imperial Examination” system originated during the Han dynasty between 206 BC and 220 AD and lasted for 1300 to 1500 years till the 20th century. Rote learning was fundamental to success in the exam.
The Imperial Examination system had extensive influence worldwide. After Great Britain’s successful implementation of the systematic, open, and competitive examinations in India, in the 19th century, other implementations were undertaken in other Western nations.
Has anything changed since then? Judge it for yourself:
That examinations continue to serve one and only one purpose: can students give the right answers? And approved answers? A perfect recipe to inspire rote learning! Multiple Choice Questions (MCQ), True/False, Matching Answers, etc., are tools that generally call for memory, rather than intellect.
That examinations has never been about facilitating learning per se but rather about assessing the quality and quantity of students’ learning in order to grade and categorize them—yet another perfect recipe to inspire rote learning. The facts that exam questions remain hidden and undisclosed, and are conducted in a closed book/notes set up, and descriptive feedback other than final marks, percentage, or grade is not provided, and are assessed by Instructors alone, are more the reasons for students to memorize rather than understand. Should this matter? Yes, because otherwise we would simply be asking the students this incredibly wrong question: can you pass this exam?
That examinations takes place at a distinct time separate from learning activities e.g. at mid-term or end-of-term, etc. In other words, whatever feeble feedback that exams boast about—whether in terms of Instructors describing the students’ performance or students evaluating themselves—is postponed and delayed until it becomes irrelevant and worthless. This is similar to ‘justice delayed is justice denied’ concept. What happens is that students do not participate in the learning process on an ongoing basis until examinations are nigh. Then, they start cramming—read rote learning—using yellow highlighters and flash cards.
Many people believe that our education system has long moved away from rote memorization-and-recall and towards examinations testing students on their conceptual understanding of critical topics. Far from it. In reality, rote learning is integral and essential to success in current higher education. In the words of Noam Chomsky, “A student can do magnificently well on a test and understand very little… We’ve all had the experience of ‘acing a test’ and forgetting everything two weeks later.”
Consider this: According to the United Nations Arab Human Development Report for 2004, rote learning is a major contributing factor to the lack of progress in science and research & development in the Arab countries.
It is my strongest belief that even today, in the 21st century, any student can pass any examination through a combination of rote learning, smart guesswork, and exam taking strategies, skills, and techniques which also involves becoming friends with Instructor—all of which has nothing to do with true learning.
5. Grades as Motivation for Learning[5]:
Perhaps the greatest grades-as-motivation-for-learning example is the Chinese Imperial Examination System that lasted 1,300 to 1,500 years, starting somewhere between 206 BC and 220 AD. Technically speaking, that was not a grade-based system; examinees were either judged passed or failed. But the concept was the same: students undertook the studies not to learn, but to pass. And that is why cheating became rampant in the system, almost an art in itself!
There is a truly unbelievable story about the relationship between grades (one where passing the exam becomes far more important than learning itself) and the second bloodiest rebellion in the human history. Hong Xiuquan, of 19th century, desperately wanted to pass the Chinese Imperial Exams but kept failing on four separate occasions. As a result, he fell mentally ill, and later created a movement which resulted in the Taiping Rebellion—a civil war—that lasted 14 years and cost over 20 million lives! A warning from history against grade as motivation for learning, is it?
Grading—those letter based and number based classifications—came to Europe and US in early 19th century. It came about as a response to the rapidly increasing number of students and the need to certify their accomplishments in different subject areas.
Historically speaking, since Ancient Egypt and Babylonia, motivation for learning was the fear of harsh physical discipline and flogging. Today, it is the psychological flogging in the form of grades that serves as motivation for students to make an effort and learn. As a matter of fact, fear and rewards are but two sides of the same coin of motivation.
Grade-driven learning continues to thrive in the 21st century. So the obvious question is: what exactly is wrong with it?
An Education Expert, Alfie Kohn has made a compelling case against Grades in his best-selling book titled “Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A’s, Praise, and other Bribes”, 1999. Drawing from hundreds of research studies, Kohn demonstrates that students actually do inferior work when enticed with or motivated by grades or other similar incentives and rewards. Kohn explains:
That Grades Reduce Students’ Interest in the Learning Itself: “One of the well-researched findings in the field of motivational psychology is that the more people are awarded for doing something, the more they tend to lose interest in whatever they had to do to get the reward… Some research has explicitly demonstrated that a ‘grade orientation’ and a ‘learning orientation’ are inversely related. More strikingly, study after study, has found that students—from elementary school to graduate school, and across cultures—demonstrate less interest in learning as a result of being graded.”
That Grades Reduce Quality of Students’ Thinking: “At least two dozen studies have shown that those who were motivated to complete a task successfully simply did not perform well as those who expected nothing. This effect is robust for young children, older children, and adults; for males and females; for rewards of all kinds; and for tasks ranging from memorizing facts to designing collages to solving problems. In general, the more cognitive sophistication and open-ended thinking that is required for a task, the worse people tend to do when they have been led to perform that task for a reward.” Grades in particular have been found to have a detrimental effect on creative thinking, long-term retention, interest in learning, and preference for challenging tasks. “One series of studies found that students given numerical grades were significantly less creative than those who received qualitative feedback but no grades. The more the task required creative thinking, in fact, the worse the performance of students who knew they were going to be graded. Providing students with comments in addition to a grade didn’t help: the highest achievement occurred only when comments were given instead of numerical scores.” “In another experiment, students told they would be graded on how well they learned a social studies lesson had more trouble understanding the main point of the text than did students who were told that no grades would be involved. Even on a measure of rote recall, the graded group remembered fewer facts a week later.”
That Grades Reduce Students’ Preference for Challenging Tasks: “At least 10 studies have shown that people offered a reward generally choose the easiest possible task. That is because they are encouraged to think about grades and as such as less inclined to explore ideas, think creatively, and take chances. However, in the absence of awards, students are inclined to pick tasks that are just beyond their current level of ability.”
That Grades Encourage Students to Cheating[6]: “Researchers have found that the more students are led to focus on getting good grades, the more likely they are to cheat, even if they themselves regard cheating as wrong.”
As seen above, studies after studies have shown that there is no correlation between grades and learning.
As long as learning is tied with an external incentive or reward, learning will not take place. And this was proved again only recently. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), UK, conducted an intensive £1.6m study[7] in 2014 involving 10,000 students at 63 schools in deprived areas across England to find out whether offering rewards such as cash payments or free trips improved their exam results. Professor Simon Burgess, who helped design the study, said: “I was very disappointed with these results. I thought the incentives would have had an impact on grades.” Kevin Collins, Chief Executive of Education Endowment Foundation, which funded the study, said “The best evidence currently available suggests that the most powerful driver of achievement in schools is great teaching, particularly for students from low-income families.”
***
[Click here for the Last Part]
[1] URL: http://learnweb.harvard.edu/alps/thinking/docs/trancost.htm
[2] Lecturing came into practice at a time when one Instructor had to teach many learners at a time. Otherwise, the very first model of education was one based on the concept of mentorship where the learned conversed with handful learners individually and at a very personal level.
[3] “Lectures don’t work, but we keep using them”, URL: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/lectures-dont-work-but-we-keep-using-them/2009141.article
[4] See URL: http://www.colorado.edu/physics/EducationIssues/textbooks/Podolefsky_Textbooks.pdf
[5] For a more detailed look at the issue of Grade-driven learning, please see Alfie Kohn’s books “Punished by Rewards” and “The Schools Our Children Deserve”
[6] Refer to Alfie Kohn’s article “Who’s Cheating Whom?” , URL: http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/cheating.htm
[7] “Major study found that incentives made students work harder in class but had no impact on exam performance.” URL: http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/oct/03/student-rewards-cash-free-trips-fail-improve-gcse-results
In terms of its form, textbooks are structured and organized into chapters, topics, and sub-topics. Content, largely textual in format, is developed in such a way that one whole information is disjointed and broken-up and dispersed and scattered over hundreds, if not thousands, of pages. The end-of-book Index is a testimony to this fact. That means a student must himself create a unified sense of the big picture or the complete picture for a given topic using the Index—a highly labor intensive and time consuming exercise. Further, textbooks only include the “known” parts of knowledge of the topic in discussion and that too only a selective fraction of it. Textbooks rarely discusses the “unknown” and almost never discloses the “known” that was omitted or ignored. Perhaps the worst aspect of a textbook is that it is written in a third-person narrative deprived of all emotions and feelings and personal thoughts which makes it an extremely boring, depressing, and painful read. That is why the students have continued to take lecture notes for themselves even when the same information had been made available to them in the form of textbooks!
In terms of its usage, textbooks help Instructors more than the students. Instructors follow the textbook format, extract, and copy-paste important points onto Projector & Screen or PowerPoint slides and employ it to assist and value-add their lectures. Thus, textbooks influences the material covered and the depth at which it is covered. And it is well understood by students that as long as they master those points, even if they never open that textbook, they will achieve an ‘A’ grade. Because, again, it is common belief that textbooks are packed full of so much material and in such dry language that the Instructor does not even expect students to read it. Textbook reading assignments are mere formalities and never followed up by Instructors. Recently, a study was conducted to find out how engineering students used their textbooks. The results, published in the Journal of Engineering Education, were thus: “Most of the students’ time spent with textbooks involves solving problems and much less time spent reading for content. These findings contrast with many Instructors’ expectations and beliefs, for they often instruct their students to read the textbook, advising that reading it will lead to better course performance.”
In terms of its purpose, textbooks seeks to plug a perceived void in the scheme of education or to fulfill a legal or quality assurance requirement. It is, for all intent and purpose, not considered for being an effective instruction resource! Beverlee Jobrack, a lifelong textbook editor, Editor-in-Chief at The Center for Experiential Learning, Leadership, and Technology (CELLT), and author of “Tyranny of the Textbook”, says “My products earned a host of awards for design, innovation, sales, and editorial excellence. They never earned any awards for effectiveness because to my knowledge, awards for effectiveness do not exist.”
Textbooks continue to exist in the 21st century having undergone only superficial and artificial changes. For example, it now comes with much more color, better design, additional learning features such as summaries, examples, etc., advanced and improved indexes, glossaries, etc. and a long list of end-of-chapter references which nobody ever uses, ever.
Textbooks are now also published online and accessible via variety of tablets and mobile phones.
However, the core issues raised above have not yet been taken up.
Consider this: In a paper titled “The Perceived Value of College Physics Textbooks: Students and Instructors May Not See Eye to Eye”[4], in 2006, Noah Podolesky and Noah Finkelstein of the University of Colorado, described a comprehensive study of a textbook use in 4 introductory college physics courses. Students were surveyed to find out how much they read their physics textbook, its effect on their performance, and whether different Instructors/textbooks made a difference. Survey results indicated that while over 97% of students buy the required textbook, less than 41% regularly read, 60% read after lecture rather than before, and there is little (or no) correlation between reading habits and course grade. These results were strikingly similar across different types of physics courses with different Instructors and different textbooks.
It would definitely come as a surprise but the University of Chicago—a preeminent educational institution—does not make use of textbooks at all! In fact, the university disregards textbooks in favor of original texts!
4. Rote Learning to Pass Examinations:
It all started in Ancient China. “The Imperial Examination” system originated during the Han dynasty between 206 BC and 220 AD and lasted for 1300 to 1500 years till the 20th century. Rote learning was fundamental to success in the exam.
The Imperial Examination system had extensive influence worldwide. After Great Britain’s successful implementation of the systematic, open, and competitive examinations in India, in the 19th century, other implementations were undertaken in other Western nations.
Has anything changed since then? Judge it for yourself:
That examinations continue to serve one and only one purpose: can students give the right answers? And approved answers? A perfect recipe to inspire rote learning! Multiple Choice Questions (MCQ), True/False, Matching Answers, etc., are tools that generally call for memory, rather than intellect.
That examinations has never been about facilitating learning per se but rather about assessing the quality and quantity of students’ learning in order to grade and categorize them—yet another perfect recipe to inspire rote learning. The facts that exam questions remain hidden and undisclosed, and are conducted in a closed book/notes set up, and descriptive feedback other than final marks, percentage, or grade is not provided, and are assessed by Instructors alone, are more the reasons for students to memorize rather than understand. Should this matter? Yes, because otherwise we would simply be asking the students this incredibly wrong question: can you pass this exam?
That examinations takes place at a distinct time separate from learning activities e.g. at mid-term or end-of-term, etc. In other words, whatever feeble feedback that exams boast about—whether in terms of Instructors describing the students’ performance or students evaluating themselves—is postponed and delayed until it becomes irrelevant and worthless. This is similar to ‘justice delayed is justice denied’ concept. What happens is that students do not participate in the learning process on an ongoing basis until examinations are nigh. Then, they start cramming—read rote learning—using yellow highlighters and flash cards.
Many people believe that our education system has long moved away from rote memorization-and-recall and towards examinations testing students on their conceptual understanding of critical topics. Far from it. In reality, rote learning is integral and essential to success in current higher education. In the words of Noam Chomsky, “A student can do magnificently well on a test and understand very little… We’ve all had the experience of ‘acing a test’ and forgetting everything two weeks later.”
Consider this: According to the United Nations Arab Human Development Report for 2004, rote learning is a major contributing factor to the lack of progress in science and research & development in the Arab countries.
It is my strongest belief that even today, in the 21st century, any student can pass any examination through a combination of rote learning, smart guesswork, and exam taking strategies, skills, and techniques which also involves becoming friends with Instructor—all of which has nothing to do with true learning.
5. Grades as Motivation for Learning[5]:
Perhaps the greatest grades-as-motivation-for-learning example is the Chinese Imperial Examination System that lasted 1,300 to 1,500 years, starting somewhere between 206 BC and 220 AD. Technically speaking, that was not a grade-based system; examinees were either judged passed or failed. But the concept was the same: students undertook the studies not to learn, but to pass. And that is why cheating became rampant in the system, almost an art in itself!
There is a truly unbelievable story about the relationship between grades (one where passing the exam becomes far more important than learning itself) and the second bloodiest rebellion in the human history. Hong Xiuquan, of 19th century, desperately wanted to pass the Chinese Imperial Exams but kept failing on four separate occasions. As a result, he fell mentally ill, and later created a movement which resulted in the Taiping Rebellion—a civil war—that lasted 14 years and cost over 20 million lives! A warning from history against grade as motivation for learning, is it?
Grading—those letter based and number based classifications—came to Europe and US in early 19th century. It came about as a response to the rapidly increasing number of students and the need to certify their accomplishments in different subject areas.
Historically speaking, since Ancient Egypt and Babylonia, motivation for learning was the fear of harsh physical discipline and flogging. Today, it is the psychological flogging in the form of grades that serves as motivation for students to make an effort and learn. As a matter of fact, fear and rewards are but two sides of the same coin of motivation.
Grade-driven learning continues to thrive in the 21st century. So the obvious question is: what exactly is wrong with it?
An Education Expert, Alfie Kohn has made a compelling case against Grades in his best-selling book titled “Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A’s, Praise, and other Bribes”, 1999. Drawing from hundreds of research studies, Kohn demonstrates that students actually do inferior work when enticed with or motivated by grades or other similar incentives and rewards. Kohn explains:
That Grades Reduce Students’ Interest in the Learning Itself: “One of the well-researched findings in the field of motivational psychology is that the more people are awarded for doing something, the more they tend to lose interest in whatever they had to do to get the reward… Some research has explicitly demonstrated that a ‘grade orientation’ and a ‘learning orientation’ are inversely related. More strikingly, study after study, has found that students—from elementary school to graduate school, and across cultures—demonstrate less interest in learning as a result of being graded.”
That Grades Reduce Quality of Students’ Thinking: “At least two dozen studies have shown that those who were motivated to complete a task successfully simply did not perform well as those who expected nothing. This effect is robust for young children, older children, and adults; for males and females; for rewards of all kinds; and for tasks ranging from memorizing facts to designing collages to solving problems. In general, the more cognitive sophistication and open-ended thinking that is required for a task, the worse people tend to do when they have been led to perform that task for a reward.” Grades in particular have been found to have a detrimental effect on creative thinking, long-term retention, interest in learning, and preference for challenging tasks. “One series of studies found that students given numerical grades were significantly less creative than those who received qualitative feedback but no grades. The more the task required creative thinking, in fact, the worse the performance of students who knew they were going to be graded. Providing students with comments in addition to a grade didn’t help: the highest achievement occurred only when comments were given instead of numerical scores.” “In another experiment, students told they would be graded on how well they learned a social studies lesson had more trouble understanding the main point of the text than did students who were told that no grades would be involved. Even on a measure of rote recall, the graded group remembered fewer facts a week later.”
That Grades Reduce Students’ Preference for Challenging Tasks: “At least 10 studies have shown that people offered a reward generally choose the easiest possible task. That is because they are encouraged to think about grades and as such as less inclined to explore ideas, think creatively, and take chances. However, in the absence of awards, students are inclined to pick tasks that are just beyond their current level of ability.”
That Grades Encourage Students to Cheating[6]: “Researchers have found that the more students are led to focus on getting good grades, the more likely they are to cheat, even if they themselves regard cheating as wrong.”
As seen above, studies after studies have shown that there is no correlation between grades and learning.
As long as learning is tied with an external incentive or reward, learning will not take place. And this was proved again only recently. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), UK, conducted an intensive £1.6m study[7] in 2014 involving 10,000 students at 63 schools in deprived areas across England to find out whether offering rewards such as cash payments or free trips improved their exam results. Professor Simon Burgess, who helped design the study, said: “I was very disappointed with these results. I thought the incentives would have had an impact on grades.” Kevin Collins, Chief Executive of Education Endowment Foundation, which funded the study, said “The best evidence currently available suggests that the most powerful driver of achievement in schools is great teaching, particularly for students from low-income families.”
***
[Click here for the Last Part]
[1] URL: http://learnweb.harvard.edu/alps/thinking/docs/trancost.htm
[2] Lecturing came into practice at a time when one Instructor had to teach many learners at a time. Otherwise, the very first model of education was one based on the concept of mentorship where the learned conversed with handful learners individually and at a very personal level.
[3] “Lectures don’t work, but we keep using them”, URL: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/lectures-dont-work-but-we-keep-using-them/2009141.article
[4] See URL: http://www.colorado.edu/physics/EducationIssues/textbooks/Podolefsky_Textbooks.pdf
[5] For a more detailed look at the issue of Grade-driven learning, please see Alfie Kohn’s books “Punished by Rewards” and “The Schools Our Children Deserve”
[6] Refer to Alfie Kohn’s article “Who’s Cheating Whom?” , URL: http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/cheating.htm
[7] “Major study found that incentives made students work harder in class but had no impact on exam performance.” URL: http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/oct/03/student-rewards-cash-free-trips-fail-improve-gcse-results
No comments:
Post a Comment
Use of any abusive or inappropriate language will give us a reason to delete your comment.