In light of the recent solar eclipse, I’ve found myself contemplating the degrees I pursue: physics and aerospace engineering. Reflecting on the teaching methods employed in these subjects, I ponder whether we’re approaching education correctly or, at the very least, effectively. Across these disciplines, the prevailing notion is to strive for the highest grade attainable by excelling on exams or assignments from the moment the relevant content is taught. Success is lauded, and failure is penalized. Grasping material on the first encounter, however, has never been a true measure of intellect.
This sentiment permeates STEM education, where students across disciplines feel pressured to prioritize grades over genuine learning experiences. While this teaching approach may have sufficed in the past, the current research and industrial landscape requires students to have a profound understanding of their field.
We need a shift in our educational paradigm, one where real learning is held above all else. In my recent physics courses, many students often found themselves grappling with complex concepts mere hours before submitting assignments. The time constraints imposed by other coursework leave little opportunity for thorough comprehension. Consequently, when we fail to grasp a concept quickly enough, we’re penalized for inaccuracies in our homework because we couldn’t regurgitate and synthesize material we encountered less than 24 hours prior. Penalizing students for inaccuracies due to a lack of immediate comprehension fails to acknowledge the diverse learning styles and paces at which individuals absorb information. We are inadvertently discouraging students from grappling with challenging concepts and hindering their ability to develop resilience and problem-solving skills essential for success in academia and beyond. Instead, fostering an environment where mistakes are seen as opportunities for growth and where students are encouraged to persevere through difficulty can lead to more meaningful learning outcomes.
Even if we could comprehend the information, the way it is conveyed is not entirely helpful, as lecturing is one of the least effective methods of teaching. A research study revealed that undergraduate students faced a 1.5 times higher risk of failing exams in STEM courses that utilized traditional lectures, compared to those courses that incorporated more interactive learning approaches.
Achieving balance in this regard proves to be a challenge. How do we reward growth while upholding academic rigor? Some suggest allowing students to retake assessments or retry homework problems, while others argue this would dilute course rigor. I choose to believe the former argument. Every trailblazer in their respective field, particularly in STEM, has encountered numerous setbacks throughout their careers. Our current system, which rewards perfectionism, fails to foster the persistent curiosity that defined great physicists like Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking. Both faced numerous setbacks throughout their illustrious careers. Einstein struggled with speech delays as a child and faced rejection from academic institutions early in his career. Similarly, Hawking battled a debilitating motor neuron disease that progressively limited his physical abilities. Despite these challenges, both persisted in their pursuits of knowledge and made groundbreaking contributions to their respective fields.
Our modern education system often fails to nurture individuals like Einstein and Hawking due to its emphasis on grades and perfectionism. This discourages students from taking risks, exploring new ideas and overcoming obstacles — traits that were crucial to Einstein’s and Hawking’s success. By shifting our educational approach, we can better cultivate the next generation of innovative thinkers and problem solvers.
We should adopt a system that values persistence and fosters a deep, meaningful understanding of subjects studied. The overwhelming consensus within educational literature points to one such strategy: standards-based grading. Under this system, material is deconstructed into standards that students must meet. Lectures, homework and assessments are then tailored to teach and evaluate these skills. A key tenet of this grading approach is frequent, concise assessments. For instance, if seven standards are covered in a week, students are assessed with a brief quiz at the week’s end. Traditionally, each assessment question pertains to one standard, graded on a scale of one through four, with a “one” indicating minimal understanding and a “four” indicating mastery. If a student demonstrates complete understanding of all but one standard, they’re allowed to retake the one failed standard.
I was fortunate to experience such a system in my high school AP chemistry course. It proved to be the most rigorous class I’d encountered; yet, because the emphasis was on actual understanding, not just grades, I absorbed more from it than any other class I had ever taken. This experience is not an isolated one. Research overwhelmingly shows that students learn more and therefore perform better when taught using a standards-based grading system. Research has also shown that in schools that transitioned from traditional grading to standards-based grading, students in classrooms that utilized standards-based grading consistently demonstrated higher levels of academic growth and proficiency compared to their counterparts in traditional grading systems. Additionally, students evaluated using this system exhibit greater persistence in curiosity, as evidenced by their willingness to seek feedback, revise work and engage in self-directed learning activities.
Some professors will be apprehensive when it comes to switching systems, as it will require more work on their end to actually write these standards and create better-formatted curricula. This is a hard shift for some, as this style of education forces professors typically more comfortable with research, particularly those in STEM, to spend more time curating their curriculum for maximal learning. But we have a right to expect this from them. Surely, if my AP chemistry teacher can manage standards-based grading without complaining, then the faculty at the best public university in the country can rise to the challenge. If we truly want to be considered the leaders and best, then we should strive to have the best educational system.
Seth Gabrielson is an Opinion Columnist studying physics, aerospace engineering and philosophy. He writes about the intersection of culture, religion and science and can be reached at semiel@umich.edu.