3 Ways "We" Have Destroyed Young People's Ability to Think

Here are three ways education has undermined thinking in theyounger generations:

The primary education system has changed quite a bit in thelast 50 years and many of those changes have resulted in young people'sinability to think critically and instead to rely on cues and memorization.

1 - Memorization

For decades we’ve been lulled into believing that memorizingand recalling information is learning. And perhaps, in anindustrialized world, recall was all that was necessary. When theindustrial age was ruled by manufacturing and work was repetitive, perhapsremembering the steps in a process and executing them properly was "theskill." We are now in a knowledge economy (and have been for at least 20years!). We pay people to think. We pay people to make decisions,solve problems, innovate and synthesize. In direct opposition to this, oureducational system (and generally our corporate training system) focuses onteaching learners to memorize information so that, with the proper prompt, itcan be recalled; educating/training does not teach us how to useinformation in a variety of ways and circumstances or (heavens!) use it in away that wasn’t taught at all (extrapolating).  

2 - Cramming

Somewhere along the line, we have lured young learners intobelieving that “cramming” is a proper methodology for learning. Duringexam week at colleges, the libraries and dining halls stay open around theclock to accommodate the learners who are staying up around the clock studying– this only reinforces the idea that the last-push to learn is a crucial time.

Typically young people prepare for a test or exam the day beforethe exam – which means that they are simply working from short term memory,which generally is good enough if the measure of one’s learning is being ableto spot the right answer on a multiple-choice test - but not enough if weexpect them to use that knowledge "out in the real world."

Real-world application is built from learning over multipleexposures to a concept or process, not a cursory review of the keypoints. 

3 - Testing

Thanks to the introduction of Scantron Bubble Sheets in the50's and 60's - everything became a multiple-choice test. The bubble sheetswere extremely helpful to teachers and administrators as class sizes grew andrecord-keeping became more stringent.  Unfortunately, they took morethan they gave. This type of testing fueled the usage of the 2"learning" strategies discussed above AND undermined the value of theteacher's input into student's testing.

Prior to a machine grading tests, teachers had to read eachresponse, giving the answer critical thought. Very often they would addcommentary to the grade, rather than simply marking an answer wrong. They mightremind the student where the correct information was found or help them toremember how the concept they got wrong was similar to what they werethinking. Sometimes they would give partial credit if the student was onthe right track but then veered off before their final summation (this is theonly way I passed geometry, believe me).

Prior to a machine grading tests, even when a student got ananswer wrong - they were learning. They had coaching, correction andrefinement from their teacher based on how the teacher graded thetest. Once the Scantron bubble sheet became de rigueur in public schooleducation, students simply received their grade with little to no explanationor intervention.

Unfortunately, I can spot factors that led to the demise of thinking skills (and there may well be more that you are thinking of!) but I am not sure what the remedy should be to reverse the trend. Given class-size and teacher pay, it's not reasonable to take efficiencies away from public school teachers. Instituting "study skills" classes in college is smart - but it's usually an elective and addresses a small population of the students (plus, by the time students are in college, it is remedial - we should be teaching study skills at about age 11 and continue it until the end of high school - see my article on 3 Keys to Ensuring Learning for more on this topic).

I think the rise of AI and machine learning will make theseshortcomings even more apparent in coming years, as all of the "easy tospot" answers will be gobbled up by robots and the critical thinking willbe the domain of humans.

Your thoughts?

Note: This article was originally published on LinkedIn.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/3-ways-we-have-destroyed-young-peoples-ability-think-miner-ed-d-

Why Testing is Detrimental to Thinking

We all know that just because you've passed a test, you haven't really learned anything (when I passed the test to get my motorcycle permit, I had never even ridden a motorcycle!).

But did you know that testing processes can actually INHIBIT your thinking and learning ability? Read on to learn more...

Do you remember the Scantron bubble sheet from your school days? It's the familiar number-two-pencil- fill-in-the-circle-which-corresponds-to-the-answer-you-have-chosen test. The filled-in card is then run through a computer which compares your bubbles to the correct answers and scoreds your test in mere seconds. When it was first introduced in the 1930's, the Scantron bubble sheet was extremely helpful to teachers and administrators as class sizes grew and record keeping became more stringent.

Unfortunately this technological wonder has been quite detrimental to developing the ability to think for two reasons:

1  Lack of teacher involvement in grading.

Prior to a machine grading tests, teachers had to read each response, giving the answer critical thought. Very often they would add commentary to the grade, rather than simply marking an answer wrong. They might remind the student where the correct information was found or help them to remember how the concept they got wrong was similar to what they were thinking. Sometimes they would give partial credit if the student was on the right track but then veered off before their final summation (this is the only way I passed geometry, believe me). Prior to a machine grading tests, even when a student got an answer wrong - they were learning. They had coaching, correction and refinement from their teacher based on how the teacher graded the test.

Once the Scantron bubble sheet became de rigueur in public school education, students simply received a grade; rarely did you get the bubble sheet back. And, let's be honest, there is no youngster motivated enough to follow through on a wrong answer and figure out why they got it wrong.

2  Everything became a multiple choice test.

The only way for the bubble sheet to work is if every question has only one right answer. Not only did this focus make learning seem easy (just look for the right answer) but it eliminated an individual's need to put any critical thought in to the answer. Essays went by the wayside. “Explain your answer," was no longer the final instruction of a test question. Once the "outcome" only had to be one right answer, it was much easier to look for an answer you could recognize than to pull one up from memory or reason it through.

More complex questions, such as "Using your knowledge of bees and migration, how would you explain the Hylaeus bee species on the island of Hawaii?" became impossible.

You can learn more about the demise of thinking skills - and more importantly, how to solve it - here.

5 General Rules for Workplace Tests Part-5

Rule #5

Ordering Questions

You may wish to group evaluation questions by topic or you may mix them up. Back on the job, the work people encounter won't show up in any kind of logical sequence – so mixing questions up has its merits.

On the other hand, keeping questions grouped allows you to easily spot if a learner just "didn't get" a particular topic. If all the questions on a similar topic are grouped together and the learner answers all or almost all of them wrong, either he needs retraining or the topic itself was poorly presented. If your same-topic-area questions are interspersed throughout the exam, it might be harder for you to spot a problem.

5 General Rules for Workplace Tests Part-4

Rule #4

Use Key Words

Key words assist the test-taker in figuring out the answer.

• Who triggers the respondent to look for a person or position

• What triggers the test taker to look for a thing or a process

• Where triggers them to look for a place or location

• When triggers them to look for a date or a period of time

• Why will signal them to look for reasoning.

5 General Rules for Workplace Tests Part-3

Rule #3

Stick to the Facts

Do not include trivial information - the only intention of which is to confuse the test taker. For instance: Bob and Ed left their office on K Street in Washington DC at 4:45 pm to travel to BWI airport for a 9:00 pm flight - how far is the airport from their office? The times given have nothing to do with the correct answer; in fact, Bob and Ed are irrelevant, too. 4

A better phrased question would be:

Using (a calculator, a map, an internet site) calculate the distance between K Street in downtown DC and the BWI airport.

5 General Rules for Workplace Tests Part-2

Rule #2

Give Adequate and Specific Instructions

Instructions are critical. Do everything you can to make sure test takers know WHAT to do, and WHEN and HOW to do it.

Examples:

• If there is a time requirement, state it. e.g. you must finish this section in 30 minutes

• If a tool or resource is allowed, state it. e.g. you may use a calculator for questions 11 – 20. The opposite is true as well - you may NOT use a calculator to complete this section. For each item in column A there is ONLY ONE correct answer in column B.

• It's also quite helpful to read the instructions out loud at the start of the test even when they are clearly written on the test itself. This will ensure that everyone hears, sees, and interprets the directions the same way and allows for questions before anyone begins.

5 General Rules for Workplace Tests Part-1

RULE #1

Do Not Trick Them

If you have not taught “it” in the training, it should not be on the test. In addition, your test questions should be stated in the same manner they were stated/taught in the class. For example: if you teach the three characteristics of steel, don't ask: Which one of these is NOT a characteristic of steel. It's hard for most people to have success with "null" answers and more importantly, why reinforce what you don’t want them to remember?

Basic Rules of Test Creation

With the recent popularity of LMS systems that call for testing and tracking of student results, our participants are starting to see a lot of quizzes, assessments, and certifications that are designed by a course designer or – worse – a subject matter expert.

Very few trainers (and no SME’s) have had training in how to create tests that are fair to the participant and legally defensible for the organization. Creating an equitable test is more than just asking 20 questions about the content. A test for knowledge is constructed quite differently than a test for skill. Tests for knowledge, such as paper and pencil tests, need to be constructed in such a way that the correct choice is unambiguous. They should not confuse or purposefully stump the test-taker.

Performance tests need to assess the participant’s skill as well as knowledge of the task or process. Often a person can prove they know what to do – but cannot actually perform the task.

Before inflicting an “exam” process on your participants, you must know what you are testing, why you are testing, and what you intend to do with the test results because the impact of testing is far reaching and can often be damaging to individuals as well as organizations.