Having taught college-level history for nearly 40 years, I can empathize with Tiya Geiger's March 10th Gen Z(eal) column, “Neglecting Curiosity in Education.”
A well-written column by JP McCaskey High School Year 12 student makes two main points. The first is students' “lack of engagement” with school. This is partly due to the fact that she often has “only one well-defined answer” to a given question.
Implied here is a fact-based teaching approach, of which many teachers are probably aware of its shortcomings. This method focuses on information retention, highlighted by answers to four common questions: what, when, where, and who. Consciously or unconsciously, it promotes rote learning. Yes, facts are important. But they are not ends in themselves.
More valuable is an approach that emphasizes two other questions: “how” and “why.” This approach encourages students to analyze, discover, and understand something rather than just memorizing it.
For example, suppose you are trying to determine who was responsible for the outbreak of World War I in 1914. Simply, in 1914 he would do well to create a detailed chronology of the actions of several European countries and their rulers from late June to early August. That year, mainly these facts began to speak for themselves. It is more useful to consider how events are connected and why they unfolded the way they did.
The logical follow-up to this analysis methodology is interpretation. Consciously or not, we all interpret information and draw conclusions, often to which alternative views are presented. Historians thrive on interpretation. More than a century after 1914, they still cannot fully agree on who was responsible for the decisions that led to the war.
Why not apply such techniques more broadly to the learning process itself (and not just to history subjects, by the way)?
Tiyya's other main point concerns grades. As she observed, grades, whether written or numerical, “are not an accurate representation of intelligence.” Students may not realize it, but most teachers would agree. They generally hate grades as much as their students. But they are a necessary evil because there is no equivalent to academic evaluation.
Grades are always subjective. For example, how do you tell the difference between an A minus and a B plus when there is only one equivalent number? So-called “objective” tests can be short answer, true/false, or multiple choice. Even so, it is insufficient as a measure of knowledge, much less as a measure of understanding. Essays and assigned papers may be better at this, but it is more difficult to assign grades that reflect student effort.
Nevertheless, grades may be the only option in determining a student's eligibility for graduation and awards. Moreover, without them, it would be nearly impossible to successfully apply for a job, university, law or medical school, or an officer position in the military. Even if it is incomplete, evaluation is necessary to avoid confusion.
That said, students need to accept the reality and necessity of grades, but they do not have to accept that grades are more important than learning and understanding. If you make a serious effort to “engage with the material,” you're much more likely to escape the boredom trap than if you tell yourself in advance that you'll get bored. This is not always easy, but it is doable. It is essential to accept that grades are subordinate to learning.
Such an approach promotes academic integrity and reduces the temptation to cheat. As Tiyya pointed out, some students resort to cheating to maintain their GPAs, while others “believe it's okay to cheat in classes they don't enjoy.”
Students need to realize that cheating is not only unethical, but also self-defeating. After all, you can't cheat in life.
Teachers, for their part, need to embrace the importance of innovative teaching methods rather than relying on old routines that may no longer meet current needs. This includes encouraging students to think in class and on tests and papers, rather than simply relying on recall. Oral exams in small groups might be one way for him to do so. The goal is to make learning more interesting and exciting, and to stimulate students' natural curiosity. Many teachers are already using these or similar approaches. Everyone should be encouraged to do so.
Conclusion: Good grades may get you a job or admission to university, but unless there is something behind the grades (study/study skills, ability to adapt to new and unexpected situations) , success in these endeavors may be temporary.
Are these ideas too simple? Maybe. Yet, as is the case, grades are not an end in themselves, but a means to an end. Its purpose is an “educated mind.” The beneficiaries are both students and teachers, and ultimately society as a whole.
Lancaster County resident Gene Miller taught history at Penn State Hazleton from 1969 to 2004.
