In light of the recent solar eclipse, I found myself reflecting on the physics and aerospace engineering degrees I'm pursuing. We reflect on the teaching methods employed in these subjects and consider whether we are approaching education correctly, or at least effectively. The general idea in these fields is to aim for the best possible grades by performing well on exams and assignments from the moment you teach the relevant content. Success is celebrated and failure is punished. But grasping content on first encounter has never been a true measure of intelligence.
This sentiment pervades STEM education, with students across disciplines feeling pressured to prioritize grades over authentic learning experiences. While this educational approach may have been sufficient in the past, the current research and industrial landscape demands that students develop a deep understanding of their field.
We need a shift in the educational paradigm where real learning is valued above all else. In recent physics courses, many students often worked on complex concepts several hours before submitting their assignments. There is little opportunity for thorough understanding due to time constraints imposed by other coursework. As a result, if you don't understand a concept quickly enough, you won't be able to regurgitate or synthesize what you've encountered within 24 hours, and you'll be penalized for homework inaccuracies. Punishing students for inaccuracies due to lack of immediate comprehension undermines recognition of the diverse learning styles and paces at which individuals absorb information. We unintentionally prevent students from grappling with difficult concepts and hinder their ability to develop the resilience and problem-solving skills essential to success in academia and other fields. Instead, fostering an environment where mistakes are viewed as opportunities for growth and students are encouraged to overcome challenges will result in more meaningful learning outcomes.
Even if you understand the information, the way it is delivered is completely useless as lectures are one of the least effective teaching methods. A research study revealed that undergraduate students in STEM courses that utilized traditional lectures had a 1.5 times higher risk of failing exams than courses that incorporated more interactive learning approaches. Ta.
Maintaining balance in this regard can prove difficult. How can we reward growth while preserving academic rigor? Some have suggested allowing students to retake assessments or reattempt homework problems, but this increases the rigor of the course. Some people claim that it makes it less intense. I choose to believe the former argument. All pioneers in their fields, especially his STEM fields, have encountered numerous setbacks throughout their careers. Our current system, which rewards perfectionism, does not foster the sustained curiosity that defined great physicists like Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking. Both faced numerous setbacks during their illustrious careers. Einstein suffered from his speech delay in childhood and faced rejection from academic institutions early in his career. Similarly, Hawking battled a debilitating motor neuron disease that gradually limited his physical abilities. Despite these challenges, both men continued their pursuit of knowledge and made groundbreaking contributions to their respective fields.
Our modern education system, due to its emphasis on performance and perfectionism, often fails to produce individuals like Einstein and Hawking. This discourages students from taking risks, exploring new ideas, and overcoming obstacles. This was a key characteristic to the success of Einstein and Hawking. By changing our approach to education, we can better develop the next generation of innovative thinkers and problem solvers.
We need to value persistence and adopt systems that foster deep and meaningful understanding of the subject of study. The overwhelming consensus within the educational literature points to one such strategy: standards-based grading. In this system, the material is broken down into standards that students must meet. Lectures, homework, and assessments are tailored to teach and assess these skills. A key principle of this scoring approach is frequent and concise assessments. For example, if in one week he covers seven standards, a student will be assessed with a short quiz at the end of the week. Traditionally, each assessment question relates to one of her criteria and is rated on a scale of 1 to 4, with “1” indicating minimal understanding and “4” indicating mastery. If a student demonstrates complete understanding of all but one of her standards, she will be allowed to retake her one standard that she failed.
I was lucky enough to experience such a system in my high school AP chemistry course. It turned out to be the toughest class I've ever encountered. However, because the emphasis was on actual understanding, not just grades, I was able to absorb more than any other class I've ever taken. This experience is not isolated. Research overwhelmingly shows that students learn more and, as a result, perform better when taught using standards-based assessment systems. Research shows that in schools that transition from traditional grading to standards-based grading, students in classrooms that use standards-based grading consistently achieve higher levels of performance than students in traditional grading systems. It has been shown to demonstrate academic growth and proficiency. Additionally, students assessed using this system have greater persistence of curiosity, as evidenced by their willingness to seek feedback, revise assignments, and participate in independent learning activities.
Some professors are nervous about switching systems because it requires more work on their part to actually create these standards and create a more appropriate format for the curriculum. This may be a challenge for some, as this teaching style typically requires professors, especially in STEM fields, to become familiar with research and spend more time creating curriculum to achieve maximum learning. It's a difficult change. But we have a right to expect that of them. Indeed, if AP chemistry teachers can manage standards-based grading without complaint, surely faculty at the nation's best public universities can rise to the challenge, too. If we truly want to be seen as leaders and the best, we should strive to have the best education system in place.
Seth Gabrielson is an opinion columnist who studies physics, aerospace engineering, and philosophy. He writes about the intersection of culture, religion, and science. Contact him at semiel@umich.edu.
