The teaching of knowledge, perhaps, may be summed as such.
Quite aptly the 3 As of education?
Acquisition. The acquiring of information. Done when there is a source and a vessel. Or, in other words, textbooks, teachers, websites, etc, and a student willing to learn. In general, the same sources are available to everybody.
Assimilation. The absorption of information. To integrate the information into oneself, to truly understand it, to understand the very essence of what one is learning. By right, this stage is the very core to the whole 'knowledge' process. But more often than not emphasis in modern education is not placed on this.
Application. The application of information. To make use of the information available and assimilated to one in such a way as to make the whole process worth it to begin with. Unfortunately also the most tangible and easily measurable stage. And no system designed to measure application is foolproof.
In a school system, the teachers provide the information. In other words, they fulfill the first stage by making information and knowledge available to us. The assimilation part is up to the individual. Since it is something which is different for all individuals, this stage is entirely dependent on the individual's capability to learn. And lastly, the application part. This is the part measured to determine how successfully the student has acquired and assimilated the information.
Therein lies the problem. Because only the last part can be tested, the most important part of learning, the assimilation, can be bypassed. Efforts are instead concentrated on the application of what little knowledge (or even lack thereof) that one has to as many situations as possible. And far too often, too many are consciously focusing on only that. The teaching and refinement of answering techniques.
From the very start the concept was flawed. It is possible that this is the least flawed method. But the flaws exist nonetheless.
Take for example the subject General Paper. Some teachers choose to forgo content almost entirely. They meticulously mark by structure, observing if the student has the topic sentence, the thesis statement, the balanced arguments, etc, in the same paragraph, and mark accordingly. Not so much based on the content of the paragraph, but rather the structure. Some teachers, on the other hand, ignore structure almost entirely, and simply focus on giving content. What exactly does the student want?
Personally I am more inclined to the latter. To be simply provided with the content when being taught, and marked accordingly, based on the content I give. But my point of view may be too selfish. I have peers whom are more inclined to the structured format. I have a specific friend who would rather listen to a lesson about structures than a lesson about content which he would label as 'bullshit'.
I cannot speak for others because I do not know what others want. I cannot claim that my view extends to anything beyond opinion, and very possibly a very narrow-minded one at that. However, nonetheless, I feel our education system is flawed. Something is lacking, the emphasis is being placed on the wrong things, and yet I can suggest no better. Perhaps it is already for the best.
