' Learning and student ~bil&: Another View The editorial in a recent Journal of Chemical Education reflects a wwerful and oervasive view of education..in eeneral. ~~-~~~ and chemical education, in particular.' The main thrust of that editorial was that learning at the colle~elevel requires bothdiligenceand ability, and that recent events have led to course reauirements that favor dilieence over abilitv. I wish to challenge several points made Tn that editoriai and to sueeest some alternative a ~ ~ r o a c hto e scurrent educational prokems. These alternativ& rest on a view of education that does not see anv conflict between abilitv, and - . diligence, equality of opportunity. The word abilitv, as used in that editorial, seemed to be synonymous with capability, i.e., the inherent set of talents possessed by an individual. While education should allow and kncourage ail students to develop their talents, I contend that there is a basic armment against an educational system based primarily on studknts' capabilities: just how arethose capabilities to be measured? I t is an impossible task. T o assume that you can measure a student's capability is to assume that you know the limits of that human being. No measure, including the often misused I.Q., has yet been devised to do that. What educators can and do measure is ~erformancebv students on a specified series of tasks that they, the educatok, have devised. While it is hooed that student oerformance on those tasks is related in some way to the capihilities of those students. such nerformance in a more direct wav ~ r o b a b l v measures the work the student has done related ioihe tasks and the use of the student's abilities rather than an absolute measure of whether the student can do the tasks, given the right learning environment 'This is no; to say that educators do not make judgements about students' apparent capabilities, particularly in relation to one another. Some students will appear to be more capable of learning than others, particularly wirh respect to how rapidlv those individuals orocess information and how e a d v-thev, retain it. Hut to view this apparent base set of capabilities alone with diligence as the main determinants of student lear&ng seemsio me a curiously restricted view of the educational process. Both are complementary, but also incomplete. In addition to these, one can think of other desirable and necessary student attributes and skills which contribute significantly to a student's success: quality of past educational experiences (including facility with test taking), depth and extent of background material relevant to concepts and principles taught, whether the student's learning style and information gathering and processing system match those of the teacher, and so on. Diligence and "ahility" alone cannot begin to account for the great variability in student accomplishment. If nerformance is to be the basis for an educational svstem. e the lAgical question then is performance on what? ~ o w k we to evaluate student learning. and on what tasks? No one will argue that ideally educationshould lead to and reward genuine understandine. inteerate. -. and the abilitv to oreanize. - . analyze, synthesize, and reflect productively on the material being learned. However, few of us understand the evaluation process well enough to evaluate unambiguously such qualities. And. in spite of anvnostalgic vearnine for the -eood old days. - . I seriousfy doubt ihether &ahy ever Aid. Certainly there are pressures today that mitigate against ~
~
~~
.
attention to the higher order tasks of synthesis, a n a h i s , and generalization. However, the root of those pressures &e to be found not in the desire to be "fair" to less capable students, but in the sheer number of students now entered in our educational system. Are exam questions really being made more trivial (for the moment assuming that thev have been) in order to allow the less "able" to pass,& because such questions are easier to erade? T o test for hieher and more comnlex understanding; given the number of students that mist be dealt with, reauires creativitv and skill in evaluation techniaues that are not bften taught in the chemistry curriculum.*~hereswnse to an exam auestion which attempts to measure hieher level skills cannot be evaluated in the same way as a J ~ C S abstract. I t is difficult. Perhaps we should not be surprised that this creativity is in short supply now (as it has always been in the past). There is no evidence to support the idea that teaching used to be better in the past. In fact, there is considerable evidence to suggest that i t was worse, albeit its unquestioned status in more tranquil times. Moreover, an educational system which is based on students' oerceived caoahilities mav lose an i m ~ o r t a nincentive t for im1;rovement. ~fteachersview students, pkicularly failing students, as being somehow limited in their ability to learn, then the responsibility to those students is limited. Satisfactory reason and explanation for student failures is found in the students'lack of ahility to learn, and teachers need look no further. If you cast your pearls of wisdom before your students, and they cannot use them in the appropriate manner, then the fault must lie with the students and their deficiencies in inate ability. Thus, there is little incentive to improve the educational process. However, ieal improvenient can come when edueatora view student failures as being their failures as well. If teachers are really convinced that most students have the inatecapability to learn, particularly if the teaching content and style makes the learnine efficient and even nossible. then there is real impetus for innovation and hopefully improvement. As Brunner would nut it. i t is ~ossihleto teach almost anv concept at any levei in some honest way.2 What is sienificant about the mowth of mind in the student is to what degree growth depenlds, not upon capacity, but on the unlockine of e a ~ a c i t vbv- a .. ~ o r. o ~ r i aeducational te techniqies. The i&ovakons that were implicated as promoting the shift of rewards from ability to mere diligence are those which perhaps hold out hope for the future. Chemical educators are justifiably dissatisfied with what is happening in their classrooms; they are searching for something better. If initial attempts at self-pacing seem to reward rote mastery and minimal understanding, perhaps second or third generation self-paced materials might make the quantum jump (or a t least a few hesitant steps) toward development of higher level skills. Why are we surprised that educational programs concentrate on walking (i.e., low level skills) before running (i.e., higher level skills). As chemists, we are tolerant of unsophisticated experiments using new chemical or instrumental techniques that involve large chance of error. Yet as chemical educators, we expect every educational innovation to produce spectacular results; when it does not, it is rejected as worthless or harmful. The decline in student performance on national normed achievement tests has also been related, a t least tangentially,
-
;cry
Volume 54, Number 3, March 1977
/ 159
to the reward of diligence over ability. However, there have been alternative reasons proposed for such a decline. Let me mention inst two. The first is that the educational background of many of the studenb now takine such tests mav be considerably different i sdue from that which the tests propose measure. ~ h i ~not to increased testing of students from poorer schools, who have not traditionally had collegiate aspirations and did not take such tests in large numbers in the ~ a s tbut , ~rather may reflect changes in emphasis in high school content and teaching patterns that are not yet reflected in the standardized tests. A second possibility is that variations in scholastic aptitude scores partially reflect trends in family size and the spacing of children, that children horn into large families with births closelv soaced exhibit lower intellectual ~erformance.and that this poorer performance is at least pariially the result of increased rhild-child vs. child-adult interactions.' Thus, the increased number of children now in schools who come from such homes are felt to be res~onsiblefor the decline in achievement scores. With the iower birth rate and smaller families seen recentlv, the trend in scores should reverse in the
..
I am not seriously suggesting that these reasons (particularly this last reason) are primarily responsible for the decline in scholastic aptitude scores over the laat decade. Undoubtedly there is no single, overwhelming reason, and neither of the above may even be significant. What is important is that we remain unsatisfied with easy, quick, simplistic reasons for and solutions to such complex problems. The term "behavior modification'' was used in the editorial to characterize the process that encourages growth in students' use of advanced intellectual skills. The term itself may confuse more than clarify. Educational psychologists do not agree totally on its meaning. Since chemists, in general, are not particularly well read in educational psychology, it is probable that the range of meanings attributed to it by readers of this Journal will he impossibly wide. However, that phrase, at least for me, conjures up visions of rewards and punishments which are used in turn to cause changes in students' actions. While all probably agree that the change from use of lower to higher intellectual skills is desirable, there is less agreement as to how this is to be accomplished. What particular rewards and punishments will work with individual students? In mass educational systems, large numbers of students are subjected to the same experiences. One student's reward may he another's punishment. We ate far from agreeing on how to stimulate the most effective and efficient learning: (1)by leading students to achieve psychological equilibrium, reducing tension and conflict between what is being leamed and what is already known,5 or (2) by inducing psychological disequilibrium, the deliberate introduction of such conflict~.~ Whichever model the reader may prefer, note that both involve knowing where students are a t the time they enter the classroom: their level of intellectual functioning, how much background in the subject matter they possess, etc. Particularly a t the high school or lower division college levels, the ranee in student ore~arationcan be tremendous. But note, toorthat neither model concerns itself with the possible internal limits to student accom~lishment,but rather with attempts to unlock whatever potential is present in each student. I t ma9 not be possible, except in rare and fortunate circumstances, for teachers to gain this knowledge about the majority of their students; thelarger the number of students, the less likely the possibility. However, if a teacher cannot learn where any individual student is when he or she begins a course, the option remains of providing a wide range of learning materials of differing levels of complexity and with differing approaches. The more heterogeneous the class, the 160 1 Joumal of Chemical Education
more the necessity of individualizing the curriculum, if all students are to have a reasonable chance at intellectual growth and mastery of course content. Providing learning materials for students at differing entering levels can be expensive in time, resources, and money. Few teachers have unlimited amounts of any of these. However, that should not be used as an excuse to do nothing. Teachers need more than anything to seek answers within their own situation to questions such as: Do I know what I exoect students to be able to do? Have I olanned for broad as will as more limited objectives? What are the higher level intellectual skills that students should develop? How can I help students learn them? How can I tell my students more clearly what I expect them to he able to do? What materials can 1 provide (commercially availableor homemade, sophisticated or quick-and-dirty)that give them adequate experiences to be able to perform satisfactorily? Does the course begin at too high a level for some students? Can some students le- better from a more concrete, hands-on type of approach, than the highly abstract, traditional, theoretical approach? Do some students need a more snatial or visual rather than primarily verbal presentation? 'Are there enough of such students to iustifv the orenaration of soecial materials for them? who& c a n i learn frbm to improve my teaching? Can two or more of us teachine toeether oresent a more flexible. creative course than each of us separately? What are my constraints: time, money, resources, energy, my own lack of attention to improving the course? Manv students cannot easilv learn from the traditional formats. They often do not have the flexibility to adapt their learning stvles and skills to the educational system. If those studen& a& to be challenged to devlop LO their full potenrial (without our attempting to delimit that potential), then the system must adaptto the students. An educational system that is "committed to educating everyman [everyperson?] in a climate of fairness and equal opportunity"' does not have to choose between rewarding diligence or capability. The diligent student will improve his or her ~erformancein an educational settine that will permit and encourageeach to develop even the high& level ski& Too often, however,. hv to ed. insisting on onlv . single . ao~roaches .. ucation, equality of opportunity, like affirmative action, remains merely a popular myth of this de~ade,farfrom reality.? Open door policies in higher education are often revolving doors. Students from culturally diverse t~ackgmundsare often admitted to colleges and then olaced in inflexible educational settings with fewsupport serhces to help them develop the learnine skills aonrooriate .. . to the universitv. Until such services are available w all students who need them, panicularly at the hieh school or lower colleeiate level.. eaualitv . .of oooor.. tunity cannot exist. All students deserve a chance for success within the educational system. If they fail, the cause may lie not in their oresumed limited abilitv, but in our inabilitv to unlock the system so that they c& function. When this happens, the student mav have failed a course, but i t is we, as educators, who are the-failures.
-
-
Literature Cited (11 Lippinmtt, W. T.,J.CHEM. EDUC., 53.136 (19761. (21 Bruner, S. J., "The coumo of cognitive GroMh: in -Language and Education: Routledgeand Kegan Paul, London, 1972, p. 166. (3) McCandl=s=. S. A., gaper presented at thewestern regionalmeetingaf thecollege ~ n trance Examination Board. Ssn Frsncism, 1975. (4) Zajonc, R. B., "Family Configuration and Intelli~once,"Scisn~e,132,227 (1976). (51 Tyler, Ralph W., J. Raaeorch in Sci. Teach., 11, 133 (1974). (6) Bertalanffy, L.. '"Robots,Men and Minds: George Braziller. New Ywk, 1967. (7) The 1976 Annual Meeting of the American h i a t i o n for the Advancement of Seiencp in Baston held a four day Symposium on Opportunities in Seienee. Sessions devoted to t o p i s such as Minorities in Science, Problems of Minorities a t Majority Institutions, and Affimafive Action: Myth or Reality
Ellrabeth S. Kean The University of Wisconsin Madison 53706
