Saturday, May 13, 2023

School Science and Underachievement

 

(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.



[1] This paper was published in the Journal of Education, 2011, Vol. 6, No. 2, 22-33

 

No comments:

Post a Comment