hi heavenly sword nice to see u blogging again.

cheers

Just thought I shall add something my lecturer in my course said about teaching (paraphrased of course).

She said that while the common thinking is to say rote learning is bad and that we should have engaging, student centered learning, all this is based on Western philosophy and Western research. She suggests that it is a result of many non-Western countries assuming that if it comes from the West, it is the best way (or "the West is best" as she puts it). One other interesting thing brought up in the class was that we need to remember that all this pedagogy like student-centered learning or collaborative learning (which MOE tells us will make learning more fun) is constructed in the West based on Western cultures and are being sold to other countries in order to get people to hire their trainers or buy their books.

Of course not all who promote certain pedagogies are evil, money-minded people. But I think when we happily take things from the overseas we need to see if it is really what Singapore needs. And many of my Australian classmates do think that the students in Australia have too much fun in school.

I'm not saying it is all bad though. Some fun is important in learning. Fun all the time is not. And fun lessons which actually teach something are very time-consuming to prepare. In my class, if I want to do something simple (and possibly only a teeny bit fun) like a mix-and-match exercise, I will need to print things, cut them up, mix them up etc. And the cutting will easily take up an hour of my time which I could have spent marking.

Perhaps I am a little optimistic but I do think that most teachers do try, within constraints, to make their lessons fun. It is quite depressing to teach a class full of bored students.

I do agree with your view on ICTs though. I hate them although I personally love my computer and all the things it can do. I hate it because it requires hardware which not all schools have. I hate it because people think that if they put something on powerpoint it suddenly becomes fun. I hate it because I am forced to do it in xx% of my lessons, whether it is relevant or not. I hate it because I end up spending all my time teaching kids how to use MS Word or MS PPT while the IT lessons are spent teaching them how to do 3D modelling. But it is not a fad that will disappear any time soon. In fact, all these fads just keep piling up on each other.

Please lah! If I take out any "Dragon penknife", it will be a massive case of pot calling kettle black... Anyway, good to see you back.

On ICT--computers and whatnot can be very powerful tools. But they are *tools*. Trouble comes when people mistake mere tools as ends in themselves and forget the purposes they are supposed to serve--purposes in light of which we might, at times, have to *not* use ICT.

I recall reading recent research concluding that Powerpoint slides are the absolute worst way to learn anything from.

Being a computer geek, I'm an unabashed technology lover. However, it should never be forgotten that technology exists for human needs, and too often people seem to use technology for technology's sake.

HS's observation that certain people wish to appear high-tech is a case in point. I can squarely say, bureaucrats need to justify budgets, and there's no better way to justify a huge budget than by trumpeting what high-tech purchases can do for education.

In turn, certain business behave like parasites and leech on to the bureaucratic gravy train by publishing technobabble on how great and wonderful their technology is in giving children the great advantage that they're supposed to have in education. I think M$ is particularly guilty of such deceptive conduct.

Personally I think not only is this misguided, it is also a waste of taxpayer dollars flowing into the coffers of undeserving businesses like M$ (SMU apparently is an all-M$ operation) simply because the technology sucks and is not user-friendly at all.

Han - do you mind sharing with us some details on the research report? I will like to read it. Thanks

I think what u refer too as fun is charisma. Or the capacity to come across as an engaging character. You make it sound as if it is easy to be fun or charismatic. I really dont think you understand what it means to be a first class educator. I have been teaching for the last 40 yrs in some of the leading universities of this world.

In my experience, the ppl who have the highest pull factor are those who.

(1) Engage the audiences at a very deep spirited level. By this I mean it goes beyond just a transactional relationship. They usually come across as very real and genuine. So when one is too academic or professorial, that's a turn off.

(2) They have very unique characters which stand out from the crowd. Infact they dont follow the herd and they are not afraid to dissent rationally.

(3) They all have a deep sense of justice and fair play. This is the part most people I think are lacking in Asia. That is why we like to back stab ppl so much.

Sze Meng>> ok =)

Here's the news report:

Research points the finger at PowerPoint - Technology - smh.com.au

And here's the university press release:

UNSW: The University of New South Wales - Sydney Australia - News - Help! My brain is overloaded!

Here's the staff profile page of the Professor, which has a link to his research:

UNSW-Arts-School of Education- Staff - Prof John Sweller

The specific research paper that we are looking for is here [PDF].

And of related interest is this book I found on Amazon which seems to go in a similar direction:

Amazon.com: The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint: Pitching Out Corrupts Within, Second Edition: Books: Edward R. Tufte

The author Edward Tufte is a professor emeritus of some information presentation and design thingy at Yale.

Edward Tufte = information design, ie. how the info is presented to the target audience.

You have highlighted a very important element - attitude. It makes a great difference to how an individual approaches schooling/ teaching or education in general and ultimately what or how much he/she contributes or takes away with him/her.

I have just learned from tonight's news on TV that two 16-year-old Australian schoolgirls apparently killed another girl because they wanted to experience what it was like to commit murder! Not sure if that is the actual reason or some lame excuse, but it reflects to a certain extent on an upbringing or culture that focuses too much on personal gratification, and a neglect/ disregard of what is right or wrong.

That is why whenever somebody says that values or morals are subjective and relative, I cringe. It is because of this belief in "relativity" that many of the young ones today are seemingly callous and oblivious to the consequences of their actions and their effects on others. What is so wrong with having a set of moral standards to live by and standing by them? Because you shouldn't be riding on a moral high horse and imposing your values on others, they tell you.

Liberalism and human rights is often abused as an excuse for irresponsible behavior. And the hi-tech fast-paced pop culture today encourages it. I once read a book by an American youth worker who attributed the restlessness of modern youth to the "instant gratification" syndrome brought about by advances in technology. And I would add to that, the indiscriminate pursuit of liberalism for the sake of it.

So, like expectations, thresholds for gratification are also constantly rising and people fall victim to the upward-spiraling vicious cycle of an endless surge of adrenaline. Teachers' jokes are no longer funny but lame, lessons boring, pranks are kids' stuff, smoking is cool, shoplifting becomes a thrill...

Who knows one day, what the Australian students did might just happen in Singapore, if we lose track of cultivating the right attitudes and values, but instead adopt the "everything western is good" or the "everyone else is responsible for my happiness" mentality.

On take-home exams or open-book exams:

They can be more effective than closed-book exams if the problems are set correctly. They should not be simple and direct enough for students to be able to copy answers for it. I feel that I learn more from take-home exams if the questions are good, because then one has to creatively apply the information in the book rather than simply regurgitate what one has stored in one's mind. A truly challenging take-home exam separates those who understand the subject deeply from those who understand it only superficially. To the extent that instructors aren't competent enough to design such problems, then they shouldn't set take-home exams.

Greetings, everybody! :)

Inspir3d: Thanks! :)

Piper: Thanks for your interesting comment, which I agree with esp. the first part. It's very important not to blindly follow everything that's being tried out elsewhere. But Singapore tends to be like that most of the time... :)

On ICTs, yeah there's a lot of 'hidden work' involved. These tools are often marketed as tools that will only help us save time. But often, they just give us more work. :)

HuiChieh: 'Dragon penknife'? That's cute. I want to buy one too! :) I think there is almost an 'ICT Imperialism' now - if you don't use ICTs (e.g. put your lectures on powerpoint), students might just complain! We tend to focus on what we gain when we use ICTs and not to consider what we lose in the process of using them...

Han: Thanks for the links - they are very interesting! Personally I love Powerpoint, so I will have to dismiss that prof's research. Hehehe... The 'corporate interest' aspect you (and Piper) highlighted is a very important factor. Almost everywhere, I see a big PUSH for implementation of e-learning tools and this assumption (in the way they talk about them so enthusiastically) that if the university doesn't use it then it must be out of its mind...sigh...

Kishore: I think what u refer too as fun is charisma. Or the capacity to come across as an engaging character. You make it sound as if it is easy to be fun or charismatic. I really dont think you understand what it means to be a first class educator.

Charisma is certainly one way/method/tool to come across as fun. But my argument is more complex than you've interpreted it to be. Let me try again :)

1) Let's focus on 'come across as fun' as the outcome, regardless of whether it's by being charismatic or by using other methods (ICTs, games, etc). My argument is that we shouldn't cultivate an entire generation of students who yearn to be entertained (for reasons that I presented in the post). Because if that's the case, you'll need too many people who are 'born charismatic/entertaining presenters' to pull it off (i.e. audience's expectations are too high). I'm talking about the system as a whole (not an individual class/lecture).

2) My point is in fact the opposite of what you said I said (which means both of us actually agree on the same point!). I was saying that it's not easy to find educators who are 'born (charismatic/fun/whatever) presenters', and so MOE has to devote more effort and also make sure that teachers have more time on hand to make the necessary preparations, to make classes fun. And precisely because it's not easy to find such educators, we need to manage audiences' expectations (re point 1). I quote reader Shoestring's comment above, for s/he said it well:

"So, like expectations, thresholds for gratification are also constantly rising and people fall victim to the upward-spiraling vicious cycle of an endless surge of adrenaline. Teachers' jokes are no longer funny but lame, lessons boring, pranks are kids' stuff, smoking is cool, shoplifting becomes a thrill...

3) While 'charisma' is part of 'fun', in my post, I really wasn't referring to charisma alone. But anyway, my point is this: it's not healthy to cultivate a culture of 'focusing on form rather than substance', in which entire generations of students only like fun/entertaining/charismatic/whatever teachers/lecturers. In fact, one of the main arguments of my post is precisely that a first-class educator should NOT be defined as a necessarily charismatic one, and more generally one who can 'come across as fun' (using whatever methods, e.g. ICTs, games, visual aids, etc). You can have very charismatic presenters who teach nothing of substance, don't you think so?

Hi Shoestring: Very well-said!!

Twasher: Hm...interesting. I think maybe these exam formats make more sense at the higher levels (e.g. Honours year/masters). Not so useful for first year modules at university. I also feel that if one knows the stuff, they should be able to (a) select the few important things to remember for the 2-3 hour closed-book exam, and (b) actually remember those things (is their memory so 'jialat' (bad)?) My point is: is it really so bad to have to make an effort to remember things? (Also, it's a good skill to have in the real world!)

Gidday Shoestring and Heavenly Sword,

Well stated. Another reason, why the leaning towards conservatism in older persons arises due to people with radical liberalism tends to get hit with reality or real life.Especially if you have worked overseas before and not just a tourist.

Regards

I disagree with a focus on either 'fun' or 'rote-learning'. I'm a fundamentalist when it comes with learning, the focus should be on 'knowledge'. But if you happen to have 'fun' along the way, why not?

I intensely dislike rote-learning, because while a student can go through the motions of knowing X, that student does not actually know X. Rote-learning is ultimately form over substance, and it's not even fun. The reason our education system requires such intensive use and can get away with rote-learning is 1) Exams 2) The fundamentals/first principles are not taught 3) Emphasis is on fixed procedures and key words.

I disagree that rote-learning is essential in the earlier phases. Jargon is best dealt with by knowing what it means. The rest you can work out from a few key concepts, of which most are so basic you only need intuition to grasp (e.g. mathematics, physics), unless the field is basically black-box testing (e.g. biology, chemistry), in which case some memory work is involved, but constant reference to certain key facts would make you naturally 'remember' them anyway without rote. If you ever need to resort to rote-learning, there is a huge gap in your knowledge somewhere.

Most ICTs are designed to cause pain but hey, don't knock on video lectures! Personally, I never used them, but I got friends doing the 'distance learning' thing and they seem more productive at home, so it's good to give them options. Universities nowadays also give out notes, so no one selectively jots down stuff any more or even listen attentively, blame those instead.

RSE,

I think rote learning is necessary sometimes. How else do you propose to teach the multiplication table to a young kid without rote learning? Certain fundamentals require rote learning. I think the problem is that people see rote-learning as an end in itself and stop there, rather than to see it as part of the overall learning process.

HS:

As to whether it is reasonable to expect students to remember certain things, that obviously depends on the subject. To take an example from physics, it is more than reasonable to expect students to remember Schroedinger's equation, but not the full set of Clebsch-Gordan coefficients. Therefore, the latter are often given as part of the formula sheet of an exam. There are equations that you should know because they are conceptually crucial. But there are other equations that might be needed to solve problems (for purely practical issues) but are not conceptually essential, and contain so many raw numbers that it is unreasonable to expect students to memorise them.

Hi Twasher, thanks for your comments. I agree with you on this. When I was writing my post, I had in mind those open-book exams for introductory modules like "Intro to Computing" where students can just flip to the correct section in the textbook can cut-and-paste the stuff into the exam booklet. I think it's not a v good way to test students and to see who are the really good ones...

Aaron,
Personally, I only rote learned my times tables up to 4 'cos teacher made me. The rest I memorized through repeated use while solving other problems anyway. :p

Also, I disagree with the idea that the multiplication table is a 'fundamental'. It isn't, but multiplication is. It is a kind of, to use a computing term, lookup table (stuff you memorize so you can save time instead of computing). You see, my knowledge of what multiplication is (actually, there are many operations called 'multiplication' in math) helps me until today, when my math is more greek alphabet, graphs and squiggly stuff rather than digits, unlike my knowledge of the times table :(.

Maybe a better example would be all those Chinese characters you were forced to write over and over again as a child.

If a piece of knowledge is not used sufficient enough for you not to memorize it, you are wasting your time remembering it via rote; if you can remember it via repeated use, rote learning is not essential. I will give it to you that it is necessary for memorizing really random information, like the digits of pi. To those hard core math geeks out there: Yes I know that you can actually compute them using a series, OK?!

Woops, forgot to reply to WANG, RSE, and Aaron... :)

Will do so later tonight...! Going for makan now... :)

Hi WANG, thanks! Would you like to elaborate? :)

RSE, I think the rote-learning debate is a big one. Twasher rightly pointed out that we've to take into account the subject being studied. Ideally, pple should be able to acquire knowledge without having to use the rote-learning method. At times/for certain subjects, one may need to remember/'rote-learn' something (e.g. meaning of a term) first in order to understand the overall meaning of the text/theory - and after achieving the latter goal, the meaning of the term also becomes clearer. It's like a bridge, which one can discard after crossing the river...

Aaron: Yeah this is what I mean - rote-learning can be one of the means. (Another e.g.: if Aaron wishes to recite a highly elaborate love poem to his loved one(s), how else can he do it apart from rote-learning it?) ;)

HS

Unsure of which portion.
So will take a stab at both.

For ie 80% on the IQ scale that is the slightly above average, below average. Rote learning on a sliding scale up to say Sec 2 or 15 years old or at max Sec 4(say) 30%^,would be ideal for 2 reasons:-
a)it provides the foundations.
b)trains the memorisation skills required for daily life.
c)it is training discipline (eg with power/knowledge , it is required to have both responsibility & wisdom)
In a sense,it reinforces the reality that daily life is not 100% fun.
After that, they would need to be thought lateral thinking and creative skill sets. Hence, I would send my child to overseas for college/university training not that it is better but for the experience and for them and me to learn to let go.

In regards to my throaway comment, ergo the recent debate on Sec 377A, the problem is that no holistic mode of measures is given to address the concerns on both sides of the table such as the casino debate.To me, it just shows the relativity of the arguments.
The liberals will say it is not good and etc and no basis to conservatives concern. However, due to also the same wonders of the internet, the conservatives would be able to see the measures taken by the liberal elite in the so called developed countries to suppress conservatives in their own areas to continue their services eg Catholic adoption in UK, Pastors both male & female eg in Sweden who speak out against promiscuity & homosexuality(not advocating violence) in the pulpit being jailed because it is not in line with the thinking of society. Look at the advocacy piece in 2 steps from twilight.Frankly,to a neo-conservative, the arguments given are also polemics as well, dressed up as logical rheotoric. Hence, to me, it is a political struggle.

Eg, I believed? in ideal freedom of speech and social welfarism when young and before I went overseas to Australia, NZ, UK. However, it was quite noticeable that all the newspapers before the advent of cable tv and internet would always slant any good conservative news item in a bad light and that it did not display the bad effects on family and societal life and the judicial activism of both ends but especially liberal which is more predominant in those ends. This than resulted in my reexamination of the liberal ideals and the consequences from both reading, discussions and experience in the unions and the workplaces there.

Hi WANG, I was referring to the 2nd comment but thanks for the elaboration on both. :)