(This paper was published in the Journal of Education, 2011, Vol. 6, No. 2, 22-33.)
Abstract
This paper founded on
empirical research situates the inadvertent repercussions of the current
practices of school science on students’ learning, self-esteem and subsequently
their failure to achieve what they are capable of. This is systemic
underachievement as it is fostered by the formal education and examination
system.
This paper highlights
different types of underachievement that remain unnoticed and unresolved and
attempts to identify some of the systemic factors responsible for this
underachievement. It also underlines the need to implement corrective measures
so as to bridge the gap between students’ potential and actual achievement.
Introduction
In
the last two decades of my research work, I have come across many science students
and science teachers who, with a tenacious focus on examination results,
appeared to be sincerely engaged in the teaching learning process both at
school and after school.
This
educational venture produces satisfactory results with around two thirds of the
students managing to pass the examinations. However, we fail to scrutinize the
quality of these results and cheer with pride the quantitative improvements in
pass percentages. And with equal ease we try to attribute the occasional quantitative
deteriorations to causes such as difficult examination paper, unfamiliar paper
format, stricter marking criteria and other unavoidable logistical constraints
that schools are made to cope with. These reasons rarely prompt us to systematically
evaluate what happens inside a classroom when the teacher and students meet.
Nor do we try to put in place an accountability system with a view to enhancing
the quality of classroom experience for each student.
Moreover,
any questioning concerning the pedagogical significance of school science practices
is difficult. This is partly due to the general consensus regarding the relevance
of science subjects in everyday life, their indisputable special and superior
position in the school curriculum, their perceived difficult nature, their specific
laboratory requirements and the discipline that the study of sciences requires.
Most science teachers work conscientiously in their laboratories.
Also,
the relatively brighter cohort that opts for science subjects and that appears
to be engaged in some promising pursuit further freezes any attempt to evaluate
the pedagogical significance of the practices of school science. We thus accept
school science, its practices, its place in the school curriculum, its role in producing
scientifically literate citizenry and its results per se.
Nevertheless,
during the course of my research on ‘A’ level science practices, students with
good ‘A’ levels in science subjects expressed their dissatisfaction with the
practices of school science (Hunma, 2009). They complained that they sometimes lacked the
crucial knowledge and background to understand topics, that there were not
enough illustrations and practical work for them to understand the principles
and see how these are manifested in practice.
As a result, they were not able to discern the relevance of school
science to everyday life. At other times, they wanted to delve deeper into the
related fields that stretched beyond the confines of the examination syllabus.
This was not always possible because of the inadequate time and facilities
needed for such illustrations and discussions.
They
alleged that their teachers, on the other hand rarely stepped beyond any topic.
Most teachers ‘focused’ on the learning outcomes, completed a topic and then moved
on to the next one without even making sure whether or not most students had understood
the topic. Their priority was to complete the syllabus within the given time
frame. The number of topics covered had precedence over the quality of the learning
that took place.
Most students thus studied the
course for the examination using time tested strategies of working out the past
years’ question papers and rote learning answers to all prospective questions (ibid).
‘Practice makes perfect’ seems to be the guiding principle. ‘Hard work pays in
the end’ being the motto. Such practices and attitudes raise many questions.
The most important one concerns the aims of school science. Why do we study science?
Is it merely to pass the examinations?
Why School
science?
The National Curriculum
Framework of the Ministry of Education & Human Resources (2009) for
secondary education stresses the need for a scientifically literate citizenry
in its rationale for science education.
Scientifically-literate
citizens equipped with skills and knowledge to study and solve complex
problems, are essential to sustain and improve quality of life on earth, to
enhance democratic societies and promote global economy. (Ministry of Education
& Human Resources, 2009, p.84)
Such
objectives place tremendous challenges on school science which then not only
has to communicate the established body
of scientific knowledge effectively but must also help students develop the
skills and abilities that are crucial for solving problems, taking decisions,
research and innovation. These expectations are not new. Similar emphases have been expressed
in previous curriculum frameworks.
However, my earlier research
pointed out the gaps between the practices of school science and the developmental
priorities of the country. Not all these objectives are addressed inside a
science classroom (Hunma 2001; 2003). The main reasons behind the disparities
between the intentions and what gets done in practice include our failure to
reckon the differences between the nature, methods and practices of science and
science education, the system of examination that regulates the access to
further education, and other related pedagogical and logistical factors (Hunma,
2009).
Systemic Underachievement
For the purpose of this
paper, underachievers are defined as those students whose performance does not
reflect their real potential. They can achieve much more given the appropriate
direction and support.
This unfulfilled potential
is not due to any inherent weaknesses in the students themselves but due to the
external pedagogical factors and their consequent impact on students’ affective
characteristics. This results in limited cognitive engagement by these
students. They half-learn many things and are not in a position to effectively
apply this learning to solve problems, take decisions, innovate, as they are
expected to.
This is systemic
underachievement for it is prompted and fostered by the formal education and
examination system.
However, not all underachievers
are the same; they have different learning difficulties and require attention
that is specific to their needs.
2.
Research Study
This paper is an offshoot of a research carried out in 2006
and 2007 to capture the views of students regarding current practices and
provisions of school science. Students’ answers to three questions of the study
namely: ‘what are the topics you enjoy
and why?’, ‘what are the topics you
find difficult and why?’ and ‘any
other comments that you would like to make regarding the practices and
provisions of school science’, hinted towards limited achievement. These
answers were then explored further in interviews for this study.
Sample of the study
The sample of this study was selected in two stages. It started
with a sample comprising 130 University
of Mauritius (UoM) and 108 MBBS Year 1 students of the Sir Seewoosagur
Ramgoolam (SSR) Medical College. They had all studied science subjects
up to ‘A’ level. The purpose at this stage was to gather information on the
practices of school science. It
is important to state here that the sample was not a representative sample of
the school population as it included mainly those who had obtained good results
in their HSC/ ‘A’ level science courses.
It was felt that these students
were in a better position to reflect objectively and freely on their school
science learning now that they were out of the school system and also evaluate
this learning in the light of the demands of their tertiary courses and their
ability to cope with these. The students in the sample were asked to reflect on
their experience of school science to respond to the questionnaire and
interview. A quarter of the sample was interviewed either individually as they
handled practical work in the UoM science laboratories or in groups constituted
by a Professor of Anatomy at the SSR Medical College.
Table 1: Sample of the study
Year |
University of Mauritius |
SSR Medical College |
Total |
|||||
|
|
Boys |
Girls |
Country |
Boys |
Girls |
|
|
2006 |
B.Sc. 1 |
15 |
23 |
|
- |
- |
38 |
|
2006 |
B.Sc. 2 |
5 |
11 |
|
- |
- |
16 |
|
2006 |
B.Sc. 3 |
11 |
26 |
|
- |
- |
37 |
|
|
|
|
|
MBBS Year 1 |
|
|||
2007 |
B.Sc. 1 |
11 |
14 |
India |
16 |
16 |
57 |
|
2007 |
B.Sc. 2 |
- |
- |
Mauritius |
36 |
32 |
68 |
|
2007 |
B.Sc. 3 |
2 |
12 |
South Africa |
2 |
6 |
22 |
|
Sub total |
|
44 |
86 |
|
54 |
54 |
|
|
Total |
|
130 |
|
108 |
238 |
|||
Underachievers
The sample for the second
stage comprised 20 (mostly girls) students studying at the University of
Mauritius. They were identified on the basis of their responses to the items in
the questionnaire and the interview and also their performance at the ‘A’
levels and at the University (as reported by them). It was apparent that they
were not achieving what they were capable of. It is important to state here
that no psychological tests were administered to identify underachievers.
The medical college students
were not selected for this part of the study though some of their responses (very easy, not challenging enough, we worked
very hard, you prepare for the examination, …chemistry is so boring, there is
so much to cram, there is no link to everyday life, I could have joined the
medical college without studying any science at school, it is not helping me, …)
were explored with the sample of underachievers.
3.
Research findings
Three
distinct groups of underachievers emerge from the study.
Group
1: Students who focus on examination success
This
first group of students comprises those who are rarely labeled as underachieving
for the simple reason that we measure achievement in terms of examination
results. We often accept the results at face value and at best hold the students
responsible for their performance. And in this way, we ignore the gaps between
students’ potential and their attainments and do not examine the factors
underlying their performance (Hunma, 2005). We also overlook the gaps between
the intended, the implemented and the achieved curricula.
This
group comprised highly motivated students from ‘good’ secondary schools. These
schools enjoy the reputation of producing good results at the HSC examinations.
These students worked with a clear focus on scoring good marks in the examinations.
They took private lessons so as not to miss out on any of the examination
requirements. They unanimously agreed that the main aim before them was to
score good grades and then move on to the next level, till they finally obtain “a
good job”. With ‘passing the examination’ as the main aim, it made perfect
sense to neglect all that was not amenable to examinations. Why waste time?
As
far as the examination results are concerned, some managed to get the grades
they aimed for and some did not. The credit for those who managed to get good
grades goes to their hard work and to their teachers who managed to decipher
the examination success code more accurately. This is not a difficult task as
all information regarding examinations is readily available in the form of learning
outcomes, past years’ question papers, practice papers, marking criteria, mark
schemes, model answers and examination reports. In addition, over the years and
with the increase in the number of candidates, there has been a simplification
of examination demands with objectivity, reliability and management priorities
overriding the validity concerns. One example is the introduction of the SC/’O’
level written alternative to the practical paper.
Against
this backdrop, it was not surprising when this group confessed that it had not
acquired some of the crucial knowledge, understanding and skills that could
have facilitated their transition to the university. It was not easy for them
to adjust and learn. The courses were new, the place was new and not all
lecturers were willing to ‘spoon feed’ them.
Group
2: Students who give up due to boredom
It
is important to understand how teaching takes place in most classes before we discuss
this group of students. Good teachers select a topic and its learning outcomes
and plan their lesson. They focus on the importance of each outcome, its many
salient features that may appear in the forthcoming examination paper and also
the logistics, which include the facilities and the time available for the class.
Often
in the process, the emphasis shifts to the smaller and more trivial parts and
many questions, how, why, why not, under what conditions, what if, … relating to
the wider theme are postponed for the ‘next class’ when the topic would be
dealt with again or remain unexplored. It is not that the details are not
important but on their own they are insignificant and blur the bigger picture.
This absence of a perspective negatively affects students’ interest and makes
learning tedious.
This
second group of underachievers thus comprised students, who gave up bored
because they found the tasks so unchallenging and irrelevant to their needs and
to everyday life. They saw no point in handling them and deliberately stopped
engaging in learning. There were not many opportunities for them to explore and
pursue their interests and queries. Nor was there any encouragement or time for
what is often seen as unproductive digressions.
This
group did the minimum that was needed to survive the class. Soon they managed to
acquire the labels of ‘average ability,’ ‘weak’ or ‘not interested.’ They appeared
to be indifferent to these labels.
Group
3: Students who give up feeling dejected
At
some point in their school cycle, for some reasons which include medical, late
admission, peer group pressure, extra- curricular activities, teacher behaviour
and prejudices, students of this third group either missed some classes or did not
learn some lessons. With no focused attempt from teachers to help them catch up
with what they had missed, they started lagging behind and eventually
experienced failure in class work, home work, and class tests.
This
failure had an adverse effect on their self-concept. They started questioning
their capacity to handle the demands of the science course, stopped making adequate
efforts to understand their learning and gave up feeling dejected. The research
work of Black & Harrison (2000) has also shown similar cases of ‘retire
hurt’ students who they state “avoid
investing effort in learning which could lead to disappointment.” (p. 32)
These
students, with little faith in their own abilities to succeed, continued with
their studies because there was no other alternative. They could not opt for
another course. Nor could they drop out of the course.
It
was not difficult to identify these students in the UoM practical classes where
they pretended to be involved in some important work from which they could not
be disturbed. They started fiddling with the apparatus, noting observations or
taking readings that were not there each time they saw their teacher
approaching. They did not want their teachers to know of their failings and
difficulties.
However,
behind this façade they had already accepted failure. It was hardly surprising that
they stated that they rarely sought help to understand a topic. Instead, they accepted
their weakness. They receded into their shell when faced with difficulties. The
signs of ‘learned helplessness’ (Seligman, 1975) among students of this group
were easily recognisable.
It
is important to point out that most of these students were from secondary
schools with relatively poorer academic reputation which is judged in terms of
the ‘laureates’ the school produces. They lived up to the relatively poor
expectations of their performance and confirmed the labels assigned to them on
the basis of their performance in the CPE examination.
The
existence of such ‘Pygmalions’ (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968) was further
confirmed when some students even told me that they were of ‘average intelligence’
and could not achieve better results. The data on which such judgments were made is
certainly questionable. A rough estimate
would indicate that with elimination at different stages (CPE, SC and HSC), all
students who reach the university level would be at least among the top 20
percent of the student population.
When I insisted that they
could improve their learning by changing their study habits, some of them promptly
replied, “It is not easy to learn science.”
They conveniently used the public perception of science as a difficult subject
as an excuse not to work harder. They thus tried to remain unaccountable for
their attainments.
4.
Discussion: School
science silo - an end in itself!
It is clear from the above
that the system initiates and then perpetuates underachievement. The sampled
students repeatedly indicated their narrow view of science which they allegedly
failed to enjoy, to understand and to relate to their everyday experience.
Why has science assumed such
a narrow role? An attempt is made in the following paragraphs to explore some
underlying factors that may be responsible for this.
From a vocational to an academic subject
Historically, the vocational
bias of science subjects was recognised and special classes were organised at the
Royal College of Mauritius. H.A. (1842) wrote:
Enfin, prenant en considération l’état de nos
manufactures, de nos usines, et la nécessité de donner à notre agriculture le
plus grand développement possible, on devra doter le college Royal de divers
cours où l’on enseignera la chimie et la mécanique appliquées aux arts, la
théorie des machines à vapeur, & c. ... L’importance des cours d’Histoire
Naturelle, de Physique et de Chimie est trop évidente pour avoir besoin d’être
démontrée. On ne saurait donc moins faire que d’ouvrir une fois par semaine, tous
les jeudis, de 8 à 10 h., des cours spéciaux pour l’enseignement de ces trois
sciences si essentielles. (p.10)
Such utilitarian
concerns prompted the Royal College of Mauritius to open a ‘Modern’ section in
1861. Science subjects were introduced as part of the Natural Philosophy curriculum.
The Annual Report of the Royal College of Mauritius
for the Year 1861 states:
The college is divided into classical and a modern section, with a
view of enabling the students to follow one or the other accordingly as he may
be destined either for a learned Profession or for a career where the higher
classical attainments are not considered indispensable.” (The Royal College of
Mauritius, 1861, p.5)
This low status of science subjects was in line with
the contemporary thinking of those days where “science was seen as a subject that was utilitarian, intellectual but
inferior because it was not cultural.” (Nott, 1997, p.55)
The status of science subjects changed when the Art. I and II of Ordinance 15 of 1892 stipulated one
English Scholarship for the Classical side and one for the Modern side students
(Council of Education, 1893). However, with this, the teaching and learning of
science subjects became academic, bookish and insulated from technology of
local import. Ward (1941) observed:
The emphasis in the
science course should be shifted so as to provide for the needs of the country
in which the agriculturist is the chief user of a scientific knowledge and
technique. I do not imply that commercialism should govern the curriculum…. The
existing college curriculum goes almost to the extreme of remoteness from
everyday life and could be recalled with advantage. (p.40)
This has
remained the case.
From natural philosophy to
many sciences
Moreover, over
the years, with the expansion of knowledge, we have moved from Natural
Philosophy to many distinct branches of science. Each branch acquires its significance
by isolating itself from other branches. Different
branches may deal with the same topic in different ways. Different topics may
not have any linking strands at all, even in the same branch. In fact, it appears that school science has achieved
such levels of sophistication that in some schools even Form I science is
taught by three different teachers!
Within this framework, the
emphasis obviously shifts to communicating the mere knowledge of each branch
for there seems to be a lot of content to transmit. There is little time for
exploring the links between science and technology and the history and
philosophy of science that could have helped students acquire a larger perspective.
This bigger picture is crucial to understand the nature, relevance and methods
of science. However, we tend to cut out the frills and communicate the
essentials. Kuhn (1977) describes the practices of normal science education in
the following words:
Information
about how that knowledge was acquired
(discovery) and about why it was
accepted by the profession (confirmation) would at best be extra baggage”
(p.186)
Classroom practices
As stated earlier in the introduction, we seldom evaluate
the pedagogical significance of the classroom practices. Science teachers
remain in their lab, preparing, teaching, working hard. Rarely do we ask them:
What aims/ learning objectives are they trying to achieve? What are the
conditions under which these have to be achieved? What strategies are they using?
Are these the most appropriate ones? What support do they require in their work? How would they know if their students have
achieved the objectives? What corrective measures (formative assessment) would
they take on the basis of this evaluation?
Moreover, science subjects
are taught and learnt using the same old strategies that gave wonderful results
in the past when only a select few (or the best) became teachers and students.
The same old strategies are now expected to work with huge numbers in a mass
education system. This is a daunting task for many reasons. The use of technology,
for one, which makes life easier in all other fields and which can make science
more accessible to the technology-savvy youth, remains absent.
Science learning for examination success
In this way, science
subjects have come to be taught and learnt in isolation while exclusively
focusing on examination success. There is nothing wrong in aiming to get good
results except that with so much content to transmit the emphasis has shifted
towards teaching it a as ‘rhetoric of conclusions’ (Schwab, 1962). There is no time to
address the ‘extra baggage’ (Kuhn, 1977).
We teach what gets tested in
examinations and we test what is reliably measurable. It would be worthwhile to
question this limited view of science and also the validity of examination
results. Validity is not merely concerned with the extent to which the
examination covers the curricular objectives but goes on to encompass, as
Messick (1989) explains, the inferences drawn and actions that are taken on the
results. The usefulness and appropriateness of the inferences become equally
important. This raises serious assessment and pedagogical concerns as well as
psychological, social and moral dimensions of the ensuing actions.
5.
Conclusion
The limited educational opportunities for secondary and tertiary education and the associated external examinations to select the ‘best’ for further education have transformed the system into what it is today.
The
stringent examination-driven preparation not only results in a neglect of all
that is non-examinable but also offers a narrow view of science. As a result,
students may not acquire certain knowledge, abilities and skills that are crucial
to becoming responsible users of science in everyday life. Sadly, some remain
ignorant of their limited learning while others find this examination-driven
process uninspiring and give up bored.
Moreover, there is a group
of students that does not get the support it requires, gives up dejected and
accepts failure with the belief that it cannot do anything about it.
It is therefore important to
review the practices of school science, especially when we know that the sample
of the study comprised the top 20% of the CPE cohort. There is no doubt that
these practices have yielded results needed to get admission to tertiary level
courses and jobs. But beyond that, the questions that emerge are as follows: Do
they help students in sustaining their further learning? Do they help them
acquire skills and abilities crucial to innovate, explore, and solve problems? Do
they help them become responsible users of science in their everyday life? Do
they help them realise their own potential? The list of questions is long.
This review is all the more necessary
at a time when the Government is stressing the need to enhance access to tertiary
education, develop Mauritius into a knowledge hub and promote scientific
research of local relevance (Government Programme 2010-2015). We cannot allow
any student to lag behind.
Consequently, it becomes
important that we take appropriate remedial measures to effectively bridge the
gaps between the intended, the implemented and the achieved curricula, between
students’ potential and their actual achievement.
References
Black, P. J. & Harrison, C., 2000, “Formative
Assessment”, in Monk, M. & Osborne, J.,
(eds.), Good practice in science
teaching, Buckingham, Open University Press, pp. 25-40.
Council of Education, 1893, Minute Number 6, Port Louis, Colony
of Mauritius.
Hunma,
V., 2001, “Examinations, Scholarships and Higher School Science Practical Work”,
Journal of Education, 1(1), pp.
11-20.
Hunma,
V., 2002, “Secondary School Science and Technology in Mauritius”, Science & Education, 11 (5), pp. 497-511.
Hunma,
V., 2003, “Do ‘A’ Level science laboratory practices in Mauritius cater for the
requirements of Cambridge International Examinations?”, Journal of Education, 2(1), pp. 9-28.
Hunma,
V., 2005, “Assessment for assessment’s sake or for learning: what can trigger
the change?”, Symposium Report, Reduit,
Mauritius Examinations Syndicate, pp. 53-67.
Hunma,
V., 2009, “Chemistry education for socially responsible and sustainable
development: What are the challenges for a developing country?”, in Gupta Bhowon, M., Jhaumeer Laullloo, S., Li
Kam Wah, H., Ramasami, P., (eds.),
Chemistry in the ICT Age, Springer Publications, pp. 377-392.
http://www.springer.com/education+%26+language/science+education/book/978-1-4020-9731-7
Kuhn,
T. S., 1977, The Essential Tension,
Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Messick,
S., 1989, “Validity”, in Linn, R. L., (ed.),
Educational Measurement, London, Macmillan, pp.12-103.
Ministry
of Education and Human Resources, 2009, The
National Curriculum Framework: Secondary, Republic of Mauritius, Ministry
of Education & Human Resources. http://www.gov.mu/portal/goc/educationsite/file/Secondary%20Curriculum%20Framework.pdf Accessed on 20.01.11
Nott,
M., 1997, “Keeping scientists in their place”, School Science Review 78
(285), pp.49 - 60.
Republic of Mauritius, 2010, Government Programme
2010-2015, http://www.gov.mu/portal/goc/assemblysite/file/GovtProgramme2010-2015.pdf Accessed on 20.01.11
Royal College of Mauritius, 1861, Rules and regulations of the Royal College of Mauritius, Port
Louis, General Steam Printing Company.
Rosenthal, R. & Jacobson, L.,1968, Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher
expectations and pupil’s intellectual behaviour, New York, Holt, Rienhart
& Winston.
Schwab,
J. J.,1962, The teaching of science as enquiry, in Schwab, J. J. & Brandwein, P. F. (eds.), The teaching of science, (pp. 3-103). Cambridge, MA, Harvard
University Press.
Seligman,
M.,1975, Helplessness: On Development,
Depression, and Death, New York, W. H. Freeman.
Ward,
W. E. F., 1941, Report on education in
Mauritius, Port Louis, Colony of Mauritius.
No comments:
Post a Comment