The Great Education Bottleneck
Undoubtedly it is quality teachers, or the lack thereof, that is the key determinant of student learning outcomes.
At a subconscious level, we all know this. But, still teaching is given no heightened importance by our institutions.
There is a dangerous abundance of satisficing when it comes to hiring teachers. Resulting in the need for inquiry such as why are there so many bad teachers?
One answer is that being a good teacher is incredibly difficult. Therefore, making it a supply problem.
The immense difficulty of the profession makes the supply naturally sparse whereas its demand is only limited to the population of our species. Luckily, this is all going to change. Why? Well, to understand that we need to take a look at a little history.
You see, like with anything, the teaching profession has constantly evolved as per external pressures imposed. The first major emergence worth knowing is the invention of the Gutenberg printing press.
Prior to the easy dissemination of books, all you needed to be a teacher was information and willingness to impart it. Note: the information didn’t have to be accurate. In fact, the more entertaining and unique a teacher was, the less the accuracy of information mattered. Knowledge was rare and inconsistent, so anyone who provided a feeling of increased knowledge, thus a feeling of growth and power, swiftly rose to prominence.
Min. requirements for a teacher = Willingness to impart information
Min. requirements for a GOOD teacher = Sound understanding of information + Willingness to impart it + Ability to impart it
However, the proliferation of books brought along a source of authority that was above the teacher; no longer was information accuracy a negligible factor. Additionally, books offered the ability to standardize information — students from all over the world could now access the same information and thus oust misinformation conveniently. And lastly, monotonous and dull teachers could finally be replaced by the book; if information is all that is being provided, why must anyone endure through the boredom of the classroom? Theoretically, books solved the problem of the bad teacher.
On second thought, I realized that even though books enforced the accuracy of information, the ability to impart it was still no factor for one to be a teacher. This is so because (1) the presence of books didn’t necessarily equate to literacy, and (2) just because one could read, doesn’t mean he had the time, energy, or willingness to procure and search through a book to satiate a moment’s curiosity.
The image below depicts Henry of Germany lecturing at the University of Bologna in the 14th century. As you can see, in spite of access to books, we still have the same behavior as in the modern classroom: a teacher lecturing, a few students actively paying attention, another bunch conversing amongst themselves, and a couple either lost in thought or getting some shut-eye. It has been half a millennium and nothing has changed.
Min. requirements for a teacher = Sound understanding of information + Willingness to impart it
Min. requirements for a GOOD teacher = Sound understanding of information + Willingness to impart it + Ability to impart it
Now, only since about a decade ago, these requirements evolved once again. With the ease of online video distribution, theoretically, supply can meet demand from anywhere on the planet. What this means is, now, if you have accurate information and the willingness to impart it, but aren’t able to do so, the learner can conveniently go to another teacher at virtually no cost. If becoming a successful teacher is what you’re after, no longer is it enough to only know content and be willing to impart it; ability to successfully transmit the information is now key.
Min. requirements for a teacher = Sound understanding of information + Willingness to impart it + Ability to impart it
Min. requirements for a GOOD teacher = Sound understanding of information + Willingness to impart it + Ability to impart it
On the flip side, this is all very good for the learner. The criteria to be considered a good teacher has always been the same, but now, consumers don’t have to tolerate bad teachers, or anything sub-par for that matter. Individuals that once would’ve fallen in the ‘good’ category have to be today’s status quo if they wish to survive. A teacher was once a highly price inelastic product, but not anymore; with a global supply pool, alternatives become virtually infinite.
All this may not be as evident as I’m making it sound, and that’s only because we are in the nascent stages of this radical evolution. The maturity of the Internet, especially in terms of online video, is a very new phenomenon. Consider Youtube: released only in 2005 and later still did it establish online video as a commodity. It hasn’t even come of age!
Now, for the aforementioned effects to be realized, the only obstacle I see is noise. With all its potential, the internet came with a lot of nonsense — a double-edged sword. It not only enabled expedient teacher-student connectivity, but also democratized information.
In other words, the barriers were radically dropped to enter this newly evolved state of the teaching profession. The consequence of which we see through the giant spike in online course instructors, some of whom are actually making a fair bit of money without being held accountable for neither information accuracy nor delivery. Once we have a robust mechanism to counter this, I believe, we will find ourselves in a new golden age for learning.
Now, before you think anything, I’m well aware that every new technology — radio, television, etc. — came with high expectations. For example, Thomas Edison, one of the greatest minds ever to live, in 1913 said…
“Books will soon be obsolete in the schools. Scholars will soon be instructed through the eye. It is possible to teach every branch of human knowledge with the motion picture. Our school system will be completely changed in ten years.”
It’s been over a century and, clearly, this didn’t happen. Why? Because all that these technologies did was replicate the physical lecture in digital format. In other words, if the lecture was bad, then naturally, a digital copy would be bad too. To go find a better lecturer was another headache for which the solution was like finding a needle in a haystack. With the internet, the core value proposition is not one of replication — it provides that too, however — but that of distribution. That is why the implications of the internet are qualitatively different from its predecessors. Moreover, the maturity of technology provides us with another insight.
You see, in my opinion, technology has come to elevate education in three ways: replication, distribution, and efficacy. To see a successful evolution in education, we need a solution that leverages all three. This is critical. Edison saw the first when the motion picture was budding, but prematurely prophesied revolution in the classroom. Reality did not live up to the hype. Fast forward a century, distribution matured, and a similar hype followed with the rise of MOOCs, but once again, no revolution manifested. Today, research in A.I. driven adaptive learning and such are pushing the boundaries of efficacy, but is still to mature.
At the end of the day, revolution in education doesn’t naturally follow revolution in technology because learning happens in an individual’s mind. If the student’s perception and attitude towards learning don’t change, no amount of novelty in the method of information dissemination will lead to better learning.
And so, we come back to the teacher. Until computers cannot replicate human intuition, access to education will improve, but learning outcomes will not realize an exponential jump.
