Wednesday, February 19, 1997
EDUCATION:
Memorizing materials doesn’t help develop reasoning skillsBy
Adam Reed
It’s finally over! The anguish-filled week of sleepless nights,
nervousness, and tension has been brought to a close with the last
midterm on Friday! Only three more weeks to go, and then we get to
do it all over again. I can hardly wait. As I was trying to study
for midterms this quarter, I suddenly realized why I was feeling
frustrated as hell. Unfortunately, the answer seems to lie with a
problem that is all too common for many of us. It seems
increasingly evident that the majority of teachers that I have
encountered would rather that the University of California, Los
Angeles be renamed the University of California for Higher
Memorization. At least, that is what their teaching strategy
implies.
It would seem to me that at an institution as highly regarded as
UCLA, the teachers would be conscious of the ways in which students
learn best. However, in my time here, I have unfortunately found
evidence to the contrary. There is a simple distinction that any
teacher should be able to make  one between active and
passive learning. Active learning involves in-depth thinking about
the material, applying it, discussing it, and understanding the
ways in which we can use it in the real world. This is the form
that seems to be so absent on our campus. Passive learning involves
memorizing the material and regurgitating it on a test, without
having to apply or really understand it. This is the type of
teaching that many students encounter all too often at UCLA.
This is best demonstrated in describing two of my classes this
winter. The two classes shall remain nameless. The first class, a
basic communication studies course that anyone can take, as
evidenced by its 450 student enrollment, epitomizes a passive
teaching strategy. As soon as class starts the teacher goes through
his same routine, day in and day out, with no surprises. His
lecture consists of taking the material and putting it into
categories, subcategories, and sub-subcategories in order for us to
"understand" it. This way we can memorize the tremendous amount of
information, regurgitate it on the test, and then forget it days
later.
What does this teach us? What are our grades truly reflecting?
How well we can memorize. This teacher seems to be continuously
baffled at the fact that there are hardly ever any questions asked.
He seems to plead with the class to come by his office during his
apparently lonely office hours. The reason for the absence of
questions and lonely office hours is that his teaching style does
not permit for any in-depth discussion, application, questioning,
or deep thought about the issues. His tests are straightforward,
and if you are good at memorization, prepare to get an "A" in the
class, because that is all he is measuring. The tests do not call
for any thought, reasoning, or analytical skills whatsoever Â
skills which are sorely needed and treasured in most careers and
businesses.
The active teaching style is demonstrated through another
communication studies course. This class only has 120 people in it,
yet the teacher’s style is remarkably different and disgracefully
rare at UCLA. We are asked and encouraged to take opposing views
with the instructor and critically think, analyze and discuss the
issues we are learning about. Discussion and questions in this
class are free-flowing and non-stop. The teacher does not have to
encourage his students to come by his office hours. He always has a
line of students waiting to talk with him and further discuss the
material we went over in class. His tests do not consist of
mindless questions that ask us to regurgitate memorized material.
Instead, we are asked to expand, criticize and develop the issues
we discussed in class by writing two separate papers. This process
of active learning prepares us for the world that awaits us. The
teacher asks us to think and think hard about our discussions.
After all, isn’t that what a university is supposed to do?
This teacher knows his material and knows how to teach it, just
ask any of his students who cannot seem to get enough of his class.
There are those teachers who would blame it on the material. Maybe
in math and science it is a valid point; however, almost every
other subject can be taught actively to promote thinking, reasoning
and analyzing. There is no reason that we as students should stand
for this kind of teaching.
We mobilize for fights against social, political and moral
issues, yet for some reason we are too scared to mobilize against
the very system that is supposed to be preparing us for survival. I
urge all of you to speak to your teachers who promote passive
teaching and ask them what they feel we will learn from it. At the
same time, make sure that teachers who promote active learning are
praised for their efforts. It is truly a shame to think that in a
great institution such as UCLA, our hard-earned money is being
spent to teach us how to memorize, regurgitate and forget. It is no
wonder that the faculty is appalled at students’ writing abilities.
Passive teaching may make it easier on students to achieve a higher
grade point average, but, in the long run, those who promote its
use are only hurting the students that they are being so generously
paid to help.
P.S. For those teachers who are truly interested in preparing
their students for the future, go by Dodd Hall, Room 121, Mondays
and Wednesdays from noon-2 p.m. and observe the active teaching and
learning process in action.