We can always describe the educational situation and make judgments about its success or failure based on the standards or assumptions we believe in. However, the real challenge lies in taking the next step: prescribing an effective remedy for the imbalances. What is the intended benefit of accurately diagnosing a medical condition if no medication is prescribed based on that diagnosis? Conversely, if we misdiagnose, the consequences could be disastrous; the wrong treatment might lead to the patient's demise.
Our children rejoice when they finish their end-of-year exams and are overjoyed when they receive their passing certificates, and we naturally share their feelings of happiness. However, a fundamental question remains: when our children move up to a higher grade level, what percentage of the knowledge they acquired in the lower level do they actually retain? What is the sustainable impact of education?
When I asked a group of students how much acquired knowledge they retain after transitioning from one level to another—a gap of about two to three months during summer vacation—most of the respondents just laughed. I could hardly find anyone who placed the figure above 20%, and even then, they did so timidly. Teachers can either confirm or deny this. The fact that students lose most of what they learned in lower levels begs the question: What are the causes? Is it related to the learner's seriousness or negligence? The capabilities of existing educational institutions? The competence of the teacher and the clarity of vision among school leadership? Or is the problem rooted in educational curricula and their design? Answering these questions leads us directly to the core of the problem.
Despite the massive leaps in information technology, the knowledge revolution, and the noticeable shift in labor market requirements, our curricula remain largely designed to meet outdated needs. They are tailored to deal with an older version of life and generally fail to meet the requirements of the current generation. This justifies students' aversion to textbooks stuffed with traditional, theoretical knowledge that is far removed from the realities of modern life.
We often repeat phrases like: our children are no longer capable of performing manual calculations, their handwriting is poor, and they rarely buy books, let alone read them. All of this is true. But the question is: in the age of technology, can't a student perform the most complex calculations in the blink of an eye electronically? Can't they type using the best computer fonts? Aren't they able to access and read dozens of books online whenever they want? My point is that reality has changed, and our curricula must keep pace. It is unreasonable, for instance, to blame our children for not knowing how to ride a horse in an era where horseback riding no longer holds any practical advantage!
The didactic relationship between these three parties must be clear. What is the teacher's relationship with the learner and the knowledge? This relationship should become a respected covenant. Simply put: what must the student learn? What shouldn't they learn? The teacher's relationship with knowledge must also be clear in terms of fully grasping it and selecting the appropriate teaching strategies to deliver it.
Regarding the teacher-learner relationship: is the learner merely a vessel into which the teacher pours knowledge, or an interactive entity capable of learning and reformulating that knowledge in their own words? Reality shows that teachers rarely grasp the nature of this tripartite relationship. Consequently, they often fail to observe this supposed contractual relationship, largely due to poor training and a lack of awareness of their role within the broader framework of the curriculum.
Students frequently hear reprimanding questions from their teachers in higher grades, especially when they fail to answer questions: "Where did you learn? It seems you haven't learned anything before," or "Did you just get pushed through?" These scoldings imply that the student has lost the information they should have mastered in lower grades.
Assuming that the most important element directly linking the student, the teacher, and knowledge is the "school curriculum" with its various components, reformulating it has become a necessity. This redesign should focus on:
I conclude this article with the Chinese proverb: "I hear and I forget, I see and I remember, I do and I understand." According to scientific studies, students retain 10% of what they see, 20% of what they hear, 30% of what they apply practically, 50% of what they discuss, 70% of what they practice, and 90% of what they teach (when the learner reformulates and presents the knowledge in their own way).
Perhaps the real reason students lose what they learn is that most of their education consists of auditory or visual knowledge that never reaches the level of practical application and knowledge reproduction.
