K.P.Mohanan

When teachers get together and the conversation turns to the thinking ability of their students, they often complain that students exhibit a deplorable inability to think for themselves. I have heard it in Singapore, India, Korea, and US.

Whose fault is it? I would like to suggest that we the educators are responsible. By “educator”, I include teachers, textbook writers, people who have the power to make decisions on syllabuses, and examinors. I do not know much about primary and secondary education, but I would say that with a few rare exceptions, the statement would apply to all tertiary institutions and educators all over the world.

Let me be specific. As I see it, the primary causes that discourage thinking and encourage regurgitation are:

A. Teaching: the exclusive use of the lecture mode in the classroom, and
B. Testing: the exclusive use of content based questions in the examination (essays,
“objective” type, mechanical applications).

What I am saying is not as preposterous as it sounds. Let us take a brief look at the standard strategies of teaching and testing

Teaching Strategies 

The time-honoured mode of teaching is called “lecturing”. In a lecture, the teacher speaks on a selected topic for a certain period of time. Students typically listen passively, and take down notes. The purpose of taking down notes is to commit to writing the important “points” that the teacher makes, so that students can reproduce the points in the final examination. Now, students know that they get credit for good presentation. Being students, they are not confident about their own powers of expression, so the safest bet is to express the points in the words and sentences of the teacher. As a result, taking down the points turns into taking down the sentences uttered by the teacher. Reproducing the points turns into reproducing these sentences. Since the teacher talks non-stop, the students concentrate on converting into writing the spoken words of the teacher: they have no time to think through the content of what the teacher is saying, let alone respond to it in an intelligent critical manner. Hence, given the mode of functioning that students are often forced to adopt, the lecture method has the result of deactivating the thinking faculty of students.

I am not saying that the lecture mode should never be used in classrooms. Lecures are useful ways of summarising or transferring knowledge, but they are not particularly useful in inculcating productive modes of independent thinking. Used exclusively in a teaching context during the formative years of students, the lecture method can have the effect of causing the unused potential for independent thinking to weaken and disappear.

Examination

The Motiviation

Before we turn to the design of questions in the final examination, and grading criteria, it would be useful to examine the motivation for higher education in a competitive society. Why do students seek admission to the university? Let us be honest. They want to get a good degree, in order to get well-paying jobs. In other words, the majority of humans are motivated by the *external* rewards of money, power, and prestige. It is only a handful of humans who are motivated by the *internal* reward of the joy of learning. Let us make explicit the connection between education and money:

Learning --> High marks in the exams -> Highly paid jobs -> High income

What really matters for students is how they fare in the job market. They know that what is important for the job market is the marks they get in the examinations. Hence, in a highly competitive set up, we can conclude that students would concentrate exclusively on what they perceive as the strategies that lead to better marks in the examination, and ignore activities that do not maximise their chances in the examination. The bottom line is:

*It does not matter what teachers emphasise in their teaching;
students will pay attention only to those things which are directly
relevant for the examination.
The examination determines what the students learn from a course. *

Let us see how this result, when combined with the design of examination questions and marking criteria, influences student behaviour.

The Design of Examination Questions 

Let us take a brief look at examination questions. The most favourite type of examination question, particularly in the humanities and social sciences, is the *essay*. The essay is closely tied to the “topics” listed in the syllabus, and discussed in the lectures. In most subjects, the activity of teaching and testing can be summed up as the listing of the topics in the syllabus, giving lectures on each of these topics, and asking students to write essays on some of these topics. Both students and lecturers feel secure with this routine.

Let us suppose that the topic of the fifth lecture in a particular course was the depletion of non-renewable natural resources as a cause of social conflict. We can ask any of the following direct essay questions:
“Critically evaluate the proposal that the depletion of non-renewable natural resources
is a cause of social conflict.”
“According to Austin Weider, the depletion of non-renewable natural resources
is the primary cause of social conflict. Discuss, with examples that you are
familiar with.”
“Discuss the proposal that the depletion of non-renewable natural resources
is a cause of social conflict, with reference to the current situation in Bangladesh.”

Alternatively, we can use a quotation from some author, and ask students to discuss or critically evaluate the material in the quotation. It does not matter how we phrase the question. The important cue for the student are the phrases “depletion of natural resources”, and “social conflict”. Given these cues, the student knows that what the examiner wants is a summary of lecture five. It would make no difference to the answers if the demand is stated as:

“Tell me what I told you in my fifth lecture.”

which is as good as saying,

“Please regurgitate.”

The so called “objective type” questions are also transparent in their demand for regurgitation. If the students have been told in the lectures that the English language has only two tenses, not three, then a question of the form “Say whether the statement ‘The English language has three tenses.’ is true or false.” demands nothing but regurgitation. Similarly, a question that asks students to explain what an isomer is, or give the structural formula for the molecular structure of butane, requires the student to regurgitate the material in a chemistry textbook.

Questions which call for the application of knowledge can also push students towards regurgitation. Take, for instance, examination questions on logical fallacies. Traditional textbooks on logic often contain a chapter on examples of bad reasoning called “fallacies”. For example, the reasoning in

All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore Socrates is mortal.

is correct, but the reasoning in

All men are mortal; my dog is mortal; therefore my dog is a man.

is incorrect. The error of reasoning illustrated above is called the Fallacy of Division in logic textbooks. Suppose students are given a lecture on logical fallacies, and are trained to identify and label logical fallacies in a tutorial class. We now ask an examination question which requires students to identify and label logical fallacies. Given the derivation ”All Texans are American; Californians are American; therefore Californians are Texans.”, a student who says that it is a Fallacy of Division will get full marks.

What we have here is an example of a problem solving exercise that requires the application of knowledge in a limited sense. However, all that it calls for is a mechanical application, not independent thinking. Students who are in the habit of learning by rote can still be successful in coping with examination questions of this kind. The regurgitation involved in mechanical application is not dramatically different from the regurgitation of a lecture as an essay.

It has been my experience that a majority of examination questions fall into one of the three types illustrated above: essay type, objective type, and mechanical application. Given examination questions that require regurgitation, it is natural that students do precisely that.

Grading Criteria

An additional factor that encourages regurgitation is the grading criteria implicit in the way teachers mark assignments and examinations. The criteria that are typically used in marking essays are:
1. Coverage of important points discussed in the lectures, textbook, or literature;
2. Evidence that the student has understood the points;
3. Organization of points;
4. Originality: novel points not discussed in lectures, textbook or literature;
5. Language: Style of presentation, grammar.

On the basis of discussions with many teachers about marking criteria, I summarise the archetypal marking scheme as follows:

If the essay has covered all the important points (item 1), give a B.
If, in addition, the essay also indicates that the student has understood the points (item 2)
give a B+
If, in addition to both, the points are well organised (item 3), give an A.
If, in addition to 1-3, the essay also contains some original points (item 4), give an A+.
Deduct marks for infelicitous expressions, errors of grammar, etc. (item 5).

There are minor variations of this scheme, but with a few stray exceptions, an essay can get a high B or even an A if all the points are covered in an organised manner. In other words, an essay that limits itself to regurgitation is rewarded with a high B or A. This is true of objective type and mechanical application questions as well.

Imagine for a moment that you are an intelligent student, perfectly capable of independent thinking. If you make an original point (item 4), there are two possible outcomes. The examiner may be pleased with what you say, and you may get an A+ instead of an A, or an A instead of a B+. However, there is also the danger that the examiner may be displeased, because what you say goes against his/her personal convictions. Typically, when a teacher comes across something that contradicts his own convictions, he considers it “wrong”. Would you take the risk and make your original point? No. The safest bet is to refrain from saying anything that is likely to displease the examiner. Hence it is best to repeat what the teacher or textbook says.

Even Thinking Teachers can Promote Regurgitation

To arrive at a clearer picture of what is going on, let us imagine that one of my lecture topics for a course I am teaching is regurgitation in the university, and that I cover the points raised above in that lecture. I have the satisfaction that I have been very “critical” of the existing state of affairs, and that I have sufficiently exercised my faculty of analytical and critical thinking. In other words, the lecture that I give is an example of independent thinking in action. Will this trigger independent thinking among students? Let us see. Their task is to write down the points I have made, convert them into a good essay, and reproduce it in the examination. Will they dare to disagree with me, and suggest that my diagnosis of the situation is flawed? Never, because they are sure that they will get a D if they do. Will they be adventurous enough to add a new point that I have not covered? Too risky, because I might dislike that point. The safest bet is to regurgitate the result of my thinking.

What I am saying, in other words, is that it is not enough for the teacher to engage in the activity of critical thinking. Given conventional lectures and examinations, a thinking teacher can still be the instrument of promoting regurgitation.

Students can easily sense what kinds of answers are risky, and what kinds of answers are safe. They know it is safe to regurgitate, and unsafe to venture into original thinking. If the scenario that I have sketched above is even partly true, we teachers have to acknowledge that the lectures, examination questions, and the marking scheme employed by a majority of teachers is a recipe for regurgitation. We, the educators, have no one to blame but ourselves.

A Possible Solution

If the perception I have articulated is accepted as legitimate, the next question is: can we do something to improve the situation? I believe we can, provided we are willing to change the modes of lecturing and examining that we are used to.

The first step is to change what happens in a “lecture theatre”. A lecture in which the teacher speaks and the students listen can easily be replaced by a videotape. If knowledge transfer is all that we are aiming at, a set of videotaped lectures produced carefully by the best lecturers is a better and more profitable alternative to hiring a large number of lecturers with mixed abilities. What can a lecturer do that a videotape cannot do? The answer is to adopt an interactive mode of teaching in which there is an ongoing dialogue between the teacher and students, and discussions among students. The students cannot be passive listeners any longer.

The second step is to change the design of the examination questions and marking criteria such that rote learning does not help in examinations. If examination questions call for critical and creative thinking, and students are convinced that they will simply *fail* if they rely on memorisation, they will be forced to explore alternative modes of learning.

Let me take an example. Take the topic of abortion. Let us suppose that a teacher has given one or two lectures on the issue of abortion, and has provided a reading list that contains various views on abortion. If the examination question is something like the following, it is a guaranteed recipe for regurgitation.

“Abortion should be made illegal, except in cases where the pregnancy threatens
the life of the mother.” Discuss.

If on the other hand, the question is something like the following, it will discourage regurgitation, and test thinking abilities.

Assume that Pat Blinkins is five weeks pregnant. There is a rudimentary nervous
system, but the brain has not been formed yet. Assume also that there is evidence
to believe that the fetus has a defect: if develops into a child, it will not be able to see,
hear, touch, or move. Assume a moral code that justifies meat eating, and discuss
whether abortion is morally justified for Pat Blinkins.

The construction of questions of this kind require time, energy, and imagination, which is probably why we relapse into recycling old questions.