A thought. Because the practice here is for teachers to circulate to rooms, I often enter a class to find the remnants of the previous lesson on the blackboard. A few times now that previous lesson has been history, and what I see on the board is a list of dates and terms. Now of course I have no idea what is being discussed, but based on the way my students react to what is written on the board, I can pretty well assume how that class went.
From the beginning I noticed that students were either writing down everything that I said, or copying what I put on the board word for word. Early in the year I decided to test this; I wrote a vocabulary word on the board, the first letter quite large, and each succeeding letter smaller. Later in the lesson, I casually circulated, eyeing students’ notebooks. Sure enough, many of them had written the word just as I had. I had neither given reason nor received question regarding my strange styling.
I’m trying to fit this small observation into a larger picture. Now, when countries are compared regarding certain educational competencies among the student population, the U.S. tends not to fare so well. Case in point is the fact that our math and science students tend to under perform their counterparts from abroad. Now, although this is oft bandied, the fact does remain that American students, by in large, tend to emerge from a decent education well suited in regards to creative, critical and independent thought. It is hard to deny our ability to foster the innovative spirit, thereby affording our students one of the greatest all around qualities they could possibly possess.
But again, there is that nagging reality that when it comes to fundamental building blocks, American students are somehow lacking. So I wonder if there aren’t two large and very different dynamics which we can ascribe to the educational process. If the American system is less concerned on fact/rote information and places a greater emphasis on personal exploration, then perhaps the result of this system will be to inspire individual creative thought to the detriment of a solid knowledge of relevant precedent. In other systems, more concerned with the learning of facts, there exists a uniform pressure among all students to get the material. Although admittedly such learning is not deep or meaningful, if facts can be appropriated for long enough, come exam time, this form of short term memorization will be rewarded.
As such, both systems have grave disadvantages. The former may not be firm enough regarding the learning of fundamentals – note this article – passing students who, while creative, lack a solid foundation for their creativity. The latter, although it stresses learning these “essentials,” does so in a way that ultimately short circuits meaningful learning, and thus does little to encourage students to move beyond the foundational stage. The first question is, which is worse, an elaborate structure lacking a solid foundation, or a solid foundation lacking anything built upon it? Of course these analogies and this entire line of thinking is simplistic, but since this is a rumination on methodology, things must be overly general. It seems that both systems sell students short in a way. But if I were to chose between the two, I’d certainly chose the former.
So how to reconcile the two? Even the most math/science/technology oriented minds need encouragement to dare and go beyond what is already known in order to truly excel. And yes, even the most artistically inclined must have a grasp of fundamental concepts and a working vocabulary relevant to any particular field of study.
This conundrum reminds me of two professors in college. On liked to ask, “what do you think?” quite often; in fact, so often, I felt that I would be perfectly content to tell myself what I thought without paying him to listen. He didn’t help lay a foundation that I felt was necessary in order to have a more meaningful discussion of what, indeed, I thought; therefore I remained hesitant in class. On the other hand, I had a professor who was so obsessed with getting out all the little factoids, that she missed many opportunities to venture into more philosophical discussions which the class so desperately wanted. In that case, one becomes resigned to passive absorption.
As a teacher myself, sometimes of American History, sometimes of “conversation,” I have to remember this often. My job as a teacher is primarily to convey information, but I want my students to 1) be able to really learn it, not just write it down exactly as I do and, 2) give them the space and incentive to build upon that which I convey. It hasn’t always worked, and I blame myself partly (this is after all my first year teaching,) but I also blame the system. Because of the unique situation I am in, my emphasis is on building creative-thinking and critical capacity. But, not receiving such impetus from their other teachers, I worry about coming across as the, “what do you think” professor.
I can’t give a pat answer to this one. Perhaps this is but a part of why teaching itself is such a challenging profession – teaching in the Peace Corps is maddening in fact. So I open this one up for comment, from teachers and lay people alike. How have you learned? What has left you excited and what has left you flat? How do you teach? What leaves your students bored and what gets them asking more after the final bell?
It’s 2:16 AM and I have class at 7:00… better go now.