The study, which followed a group of undergraduates from 24 different colleges and universities, tracked the development of critical thinking, reasoning, and writing skills. After two years, forty-five percent of the students showed no significant improvement in these skills. After four years, the percentage dropped slightly to thirty-six percent. Students who majored in the liberal arts showed higher gains in these skills than other majors. Conversely, business, education, social work, and communications majors showed the least improvement over the course of the study.
One possible explanation for this trend is that some universities and colleges now promote a highly specialized learning process: general knowledge and reasoning is discarded in favor of teaching the student as much as possible about his or her individual career field. This method, while making the student more marketable for employers, severely limits their adaptability. Professors also often teach to the tests, rather than giving the student a comprehensive understanding of the subject material. It seems that the actual knowledge behind a degree has diminished in recent times, due to these changes.
Do students nowadays gain enough general knowledge? Which teaching method do you prefer: learning the material and how to apply it, or simply being taught how to pass the tests?
Student's do gain enough general knowledge today. If a student chooses to not make use of the vast resources available, that is their decision and not the institutions fault. The teaching method that I prefer is learning the material and how to apply it. There is no point in me learning something and not being able to make any applicable use of it. Also, one other thing to consider. we can't compare the education of all the institution in America equally. Someone in MIT or Stanford could have an advantage over, say a student in one of the newer colleges, so we need to judge accordingly.
ReplyDeleteI belive that students do not gain enough general knowledge. Testing has always been a memorization process rather than achieving a full understanding of the material. Memorization is something that doesn't last in our long term memory though, it is something that we only use for the testing. This education method is not used at every college though. I believe smaller colleges/ liberal art colleges probably use the method of learning and how to apply it. I prefer this method because it gives students a chance to come up with their own ideas rather than what the textbook states. I believe that larger colleges need to adapt to this learning style in order to have their students excel in the real world.
ReplyDeleteI don’t fully agree. I think at all universities there are definitely situations where students simply memorize and regurgitate material but other situations where we learn how to apply what we are learning. I think Virginia Tech classes, as a larger university, for the most part succeeds in teaching us how to apply what we learn. Some classes however are not application classes, but rather history and facts. Therefore, I don’t think the problem is that university teach for the test but rather that some students don’t give the class their full potential and simply cram the material in their mind for the time being. I think if most students analyzed their study habits honestly they would admit that they have at least one class where they only memorize the material rather than learn how to apply the material. I know I can. In my humanities class it is less about application and more about memorizing the facts about Greek civilizations. I find the material interesting but I don’t find it applicable to everyday life or my future. Contrastingly, when I study for ACIS or ECON I spend a lot more time going back to the basics and understanding the processes/principles from the ground up because these classes will have a big role in my future.
DeleteI would say yes, in our undergraduate degree we receive more than enough general knowledge. I’m a computer engineer and yet I have to take Chemistry, English, History, and plenty of other classes that are not directly related to a major, giving me a fairly broad pool of general knowledge. One of the major goals of college is to prepare us for the “real” world so that we can get jobs and be successful in our chosen profession. If this requires our learning curriculum to be more specific to compensate for the fact that the human body of knowledge is constantly expanding, this is not necessarily a bad thing because it allows the college to produce the highly trained professionals. However, teaching to pass a test does not adequately prepare us for the challenges we will encounter in the workplace so I am more in favor of teaching to instill actual knowledge.
ReplyDeleteBasically, students get out what they put in. If they put forth a reasonable effort in their studies, they should increase their knowledge. I definitely want to build a knowledge base of what I need for my future. For instance, in English class, there are no tests but papers you have to write that you use the skills you've been growing and developing in since elementary school. Skills are being taught in English that will benefit you in your future, regardless of your career choice. I am a terrible test-taker and I don't enjoy just being taught things that are going to be on the next test and then stressing over the test when I'm not satisfied with the outcome. I would much rather be taught how to put to use the knowledge I gain.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Megan and Debbie! I definitely think that it's MY education and I can make it worthwhile. Or I can make it to just be about memorizing for the test and then forgetting about the material the next day. I believe it's ultimately up to the student and how they take each class. I know for my ECON class I have to know the concepts and put multiples together to form one idea and one answer. Therefore, I don't think in that case my professor is teaching for the test, but for the real world. There are other professors who do just teach for the test, but they do teach the concepts. It's up to the student to learn and develop those thoughts and not just study to pass. I study to succeed in life, because college is what prepares us, but ultimately we all have to develop those skills either now or later!
ReplyDeleteI believe that it truly depend on the class with the way it should be taught. Classes like English or I have a Plants and Green Spaces in Urban Communities class; these need to not just be taught but applied. Other classes like math or chemistry can usually just be taught verbatim unless it needs to be used with the career of choice. If a student is a English major they don't need to apply math to their lives. College Professors, for the most part, do what they can with the material they have to teach. For instance with a class of 300 for chemistry it's going to be a lecture where the professor shows you how to work a problem and you do it, simple as that. In classes like my Plants and Green Spaces class you can't learn the material without applying it to real life situations. I don't think that you can pinpoint a certain way you prefer to lean; I think it depends on the material being taught.
ReplyDeleteI personally prefer being taught to the test, but that's only because it's easier to do well in a class when you're taught exactly what you need to know. I agree it is much more beneficial to learn the material and how to apply it, it is just more difficult. It teaches students to adapt to situations and apply the knowledge they know to solve problems. Although general knowledge of these students didn't significantly improve, it doesn't mean they didn't learn much from college. If I am an engineering major, I expect to go to college to learn primarily about the field of engineering I will be studying, not general problem solving skills.
ReplyDeleteI agree that critical thinking today is not where it could be at the college level. But I also am not surprised by this because of the way our education system is set up. I see a very short three month window of time for professors to teach and test on the material. This is enough time for someone who has no background in the topic to establish a background and learn the basics. The ability to think critically about a subject requires a relatively large knowledge of the material and that is just not feasible for most students in such a short period of time.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is better for students to be taught how to use the material instead of just how to pass a test. I currently take a math class at the math emporium and I do not learn anything. I either find short cuts or patterns in the answers or I use knowledge from taking calculus in high school. A lot of college is just learning material and I think that it is better to learn how to apply the knowledge instead of just memorizing it in order to pass a test.
ReplyDeleteTaking into account our capacities for retaining the overall knowledge from the age we learn to read to the day of our final graduation, i believe that yes we do learn how to think critically and we do have a broad sense of general knowledge. Learning how to pass a test is just as useful as learning how to cheat a driver's test. Assuming that is how you get through your education, all your degree stands for is a minimal GPA and a waiting time of 4-5 years. It is more pragmatic to learn the information and its applications in order to be one step ahead in the career of your choice.
ReplyDeleteStudents I believe are being taught a lot of things in school to be a well rounded person. I aspire to be an engineer and I was taught all about government even though I don't need to know anything about it in my major. I also think that high school conditioned us to learn how to cheat as well haha. It taught us more knowledge all around and not just education wise. IN college, it prepares us more for the real world so I believe that a college degree is invaluable. Being taught to pass tests won't prepare us for the real world, that's why in college we have workshops and labs to give us hands on experience.
ReplyDeleteI get extremely irritated with bad professors. Some professors have the personality of lobsters and this clearly reflects in their way of teaching. I did not come here to pass tests, I came here for knowledge. Professors who gravitate their classes around exams are doing the job wrong. It is thrilling when you are in a class that is engaging and interesting. This is what all professors should strive for and this is why we came here!
ReplyDeletestudents in todays world gain plenty of general knowledge. We learn thing that are to in depth for young children to learn. I like being taught how to pass the test but in the real worl it isnt just as easy as what do i need to cram to get an A. You have to know the theory behind things and undertsand why.
ReplyDeleteI believe that students do learn enough general knowledge in college. If we are not learning enough knowledge in college then why do we still go to college? There is obviously more information to be learned other than real world experience. For instance engineers must know Calculus and Physics, because these are fundamental parts of their fields. My preferable style of teaching is to be taught for comprehension versus just for a test. I feel this way because in general when a teacher teaches their students for comprehension they typically have more passion for their student’s success. This rubs off on the students, and in my experience have gotten better performance from the students.
ReplyDelete