The economic development and social growth of a country is greatly associated with education (Leigh and Blakely, 2013). Educated states are less vulnerable to negative factors like poverty, inequality, injustice, gender degradation and social disparity (Cosin, Freeman and Hales, 2013). The importance of education can never be undermined especially when it comes to the betterment of nation as a whole. No country can prosper whose people are not educated.
Gupta, (2013) explains education cannot help in achieving desired levels of prosperity unless the issue and loopholes with in the current system are thoroughly investigated and ultimately addressed using appropriate approaches. Revising the education system means revisions in the curriculum, modifying the teaching methodologies and making education ‘available’ to all.
Fichman, Santos and Zheng, (2014) advocates improving the education system includes developing techniques and methods in accordance to current innovations that are available for transfer of knowledge from instructor to student. Two basic approaches are witnessed when teaching methodologies are the first and foremost task is to rework on the components that builds the system. The current essay explores two approaches, which are traditional approach that is widely being used in the current education system and approach of constructivist methodology that can become panacea to the current dismay of education system.
Chipman and Segal, (2013) explain that the traditional model of education that has been followed through the years has a less positive output in generating the required cognitive skills. It is solely based upon one-sided communication in which knowledge is only crammed into students’ memory. It generates a negative sense of competition amongst students rather them teaching them to work as a team. It also encourages the rote memorization method of learning in which the students only have data installed in their minds as question/answer leaving behind the concept and understanding of the respective topic.
It refrains the students’ ability of critical thinking disabling them to experience the newness of knowledge. Students act as passive learners rather than being directly involved in their roles that is to congregate information. Also, many questions of the students are left unanswered halting them from learning.
Arguments (Educational Philosophies)
A prominent change is witnessed nowadays in the conventional methodology of information deliverance. The static classrooms are now transforming into much interactive learning hubs. The adoption of this practice benefits the learner as it integrates the knowledge in a more responsive manner. Thus, this methodology unleashes each and every student’s thinking and ideas that adds positively to the development of State. Improving the education system means improving the teaching methodologies and finding the best possible technique to deliver knowledge that is both understandable and affective for students.
First Argument
The first argument against improvement of teaching methodology originates from the curriculum approach. Syllabus is designed for all the students of a specific class and one instructor delivers lecture to the whole audience in a particular method. The course schedule once designed does not have to be changed for individual students or smaller groups, thus, less time and the delivering person requires effort. Course work material is only poured into the minds of students regardless of the factor that there is very little or less understanding of the subject matter by the student (A-yong, 2012).
Also, it is financially efficient with less tuition fees, decreased construction costs for infrastructure development and lesser logistics cost. The major setback of such methodology is that the lecture is not adjusted in accordance with the slow students who require detailed illustration and increased time of the lecturer. Progress remains confined to those few students who are fast and can quickly adapt new information.
Second Argument
The second argument suggests interactive teaching method. As obvious by the name, it is a two-way process of learning where instructor gives students something to think about and the students have to get back to the instructor with their ideas and their share of knowledge (Michaelsen and Sweet., 2011). For applying such a system, audience should be minimised, between 20 to 30 students, so that the lecturer caters queries and ambiguities of each and every individual student.
To make this model more effective, the instructor uses different learning styles during delivering the lecture. These include visual learning (use of images, shapes and colors), auditory learning (use of sounds, voice and music) and kinesthetics learning (use of hand motion for memorization). This model further benefits students with more progressive sessions of learning, as the deliverer is able to concentrate on every single student. Though this method has increased cost and is more time taking yet it is beneficial for students in having in-depth understanding of the information.
Third Argument
Another argument arises by the constructivist education model that addresses the education issues totally opposite than the traditional model. This method is student-centered, not vice versa as the traditional method. It believes that each student must be given room to generate his course of understanding for the attainment of knowledge rather than being dictated by the instructor.
This methodology undermines the concept of direct transfer of knowledge from instructor to student; it is based on students’ work rather than that of instructors. Classrooms for this model comprise of small groups of students with one instructor for facilitation only. The instructors only provide students with little guidance for the development of course goals. Students then work together to achieve those goals. This involves students in interactive discussion sessions where they share their thoughts and share their perspective with one another.
Philosophies
Constructivist
Constructivists design goals of the respective courses that are to be achieved by the students by the end of term period. To evaluate the student the teachers will judge their approach towards acquiring knowledge rather then actual material that has been crammed hence courses are designed to be interactive and activity based (Creţu and Rogoz, 2011). The most critical task of these teachers is to ensure that students are performing well and are striving for attainment of knowledge under their complete guidance and supervision.
Martin and Loomis, (2013) explain that students should be allowed to construct the understanding regarding the subject matter in the process the student should be provided enough facilitation. They advocate that discussion should be more interactive and developed rather then being, simple mundane interactions between student and teacher. The teachers should facilitate the students regarding the subject matter in arriving at their own conclusions (Martin and Loomis, 2013).
From the discussion so far, it is evident that the education system can be made most effective by the application of constructivist education model. Thus the alteration of traditional education systems as constructive systems may generate more positive results. Teaching methodology can be redesigned through creation of less restrictive course goals with lesser use of course materials. This method not only encourages students to search for their own material but also enables instructors to adapt course to different groups of students as well.
Traditional designers should also refrain from oversimplifying the study material for their own ease. Such material is easier to teach but it obstructs students from critical thinking. The use of obsolete principles of traditional method will lead to high failure rate n lower performance of students. Another cushion for improvement lies in the execution of course plans as tailored by the designers. It may be done best if the instructor remains closely involved with the course design process. Hence the students should be given room for self-learning which is both fruitful for mental growth as well as for greater learning.
Bibliography
A-yong, L.E.I. (2012) ‘Rote-oriented Language Teaching and Failure of Meaning Construction——Analyzing the Out-of-Relevance Foreign Language Teaching’, Journal of Harbin University, vol. 1, p. 022.
Chipman, S.F. and Segal., J.W. (2013) ‘Higher cognitive goals for education: An introduction’, Thinking and learning skills, vol. 2, pp. 1-18.
Cosin, B., Freeman, L. and Hales, M. (2013) Families, education and social differences, Routledge.
Creţu, C. and Rogoz, N. (2011) ‘Teachers’ social representations of constructivist curriculum design’, Journal of Educational Sciences/Revista de Stiintele Educatiei, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 9-17.
Fichman, R.G., Santos, B.L.D. and Zheng., Z.E. (2014) ‘Digital Innovation as a Fundamental and Powerful Concept in the Information Systems Curriculum’, Mis Quarterly, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 329-353.
Gupta, A. (2013) ‘Professional Development of Teachers in Higher Education’, Journal of Education and Practice, vol. 4, no. 19, pp. 122-126.
Leigh, N.G. and Blakely, E.J. (2013) Planning local economic development: Theory and practice, SAGE Publications, Incorporated.
Martin, D. and Loomis, K. (2013) Building teachers: A constructivist approach to introducing education, Cengage Learning.
Michaelsen, L.K. and Sweet., M. (2011) ‘Team‐based learning’, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, vol. 2011, no. 128, pp. 41-51.
