More on that dreadful civics test
Kudos to Alexander and Claude, who wrote in to say they scored a 90 and 82, respectively, on that civics test I wrote about on Friday. My boyfriend took the test over the weekend, and he also scored an 82. (He wanted me to point out on the blog that he knows more than the average Harvard student. He went to Princeton.)
I was talking the other day to a middle school social studies teacher, and -- while she aced the civics test herself -- she said it's easy to see why many college students would fail a test of basic facts. Teachers are constantly encouraged to teach students to write and think critically, often at the expense of fact memorization. And, she makes the argument, this test is case in point that there are certain facts that every American should know, in addition to being able to think and write.
Educators, do you agree? Has memorization become taboo in our schools? (Personally, I was embarrassed by how much I had forgotten, so I've been studying the test and accompanying answer sheet.)
Baltimoresun.com's 
Comments
As a person who has taken who has taken a teacher's examine several times before passing. We tend to prepare ourselves for test based on what we remember. Has our lives come down to picking up a book and remembering its content? What happen to the days of picking up something grasping it getting an understanding of its real meaning.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2007 7:29 AM
I think she makes a very valid point. It's not as though I'm a history buff; I just have a pretty good memory for arcane facts whether I need them or not. (I went to Adelphi University, by the way, so Princeton can do with that what they will.)
Some lower grades still rely on rote for instilling some facts into students (e.g. spelling words, basic math facts), but I imagine that at the higher grades, she's right in that the critical thinking skills, which I do believe are very important, tend to replace—rather than augment—basic fact knowledge. It winds up being a sort of "Those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it" thing.
Posted by: Claude | October 9, 2007 11:18 AM
This was an interesting quiz. I had gotten a 78%, and the best score of those to whom I e-mailed it was an 86%.
I definitely found in college that many of the older professors tended to stress factual learning, whereas many of the younger professors stressed methods of analysis moreso than specifics. The younger professors also seemed to work hard to highlight new insights (whether in the form of recently published books, articles, or essays) on historical perspectives and concepts rather than outline the cause and effect of events in their specific order.
The trend (whose name I cannot remember) that was also stressed in college history and American Studies was to research the impacts of historical events on the voices that have gotten the "least attention" in the historical record.
The idea of teaching "typical" Presidential history, European world leaders history, and other similar topics was definitely labelled as old fashioned by some professors.
Would it be a cop-out to suggest finding a happy medium amongst these styles. The best that I heard a professor describe factual memorization over my collegiate years was to describe them as "addresses in time." Sure, you need to know how to find your way amongst the information that exists in the present and from the past, but there are also causes that play out the effects on all participants in societies around the globe, whether or not they've been subject to just recognition.
Posted by: Joel | October 9, 2007 11:59 AM