What's Wrong With TV Quiz Shows?

Pofessor Nigel Hawkins is the Executive Dean at the Faculty for Language and Literature at Oxford University

17th May 2013-  08:11.
Professor Nigel Kinsella Hawkins

FAO:  Response to Mark Sullivan (see here), 16/05/2013 - 17:22.

What's Wrong With TV Quiz Shows?

Many students beleive that watching TV quiz shows are a good way of complementing study, this is a gross misconception.  For over a century progressive studies in  neuro-science and cognitive thinking have shown that humans learn better in certain ways, they absorb and retain information better within certain environments and by different sensory perceptions.  If you want to see those study  findings, Felder and Solomon have the most general research findings - click here.  I'm going to briefly refer to this science in laymans terms in my introduction.

It is accepted in neurosciences that people with different characteristics learn in different ways and at a different rate.  Felder and Solomon have listed the different types of learners and the learning style that is best suited to them.  For example active learners retain information better when they are performing actions - these are usually 'hands-on' types and will benefit more from being shown and allowed to do the task, these people naturally float towards subjects such as engineering, where they can repair and build things with their hands.  Reflective learners respond better from reading, listening and taking notes.  Some learners take in visual information better than verbal, some are more sensing than intuitive.  You can work out your learning type and design your studying by the best suggested styles.  However, there are some corrolations which have created some fixed rules for serious learners who need to retain information at the rate that university courses require.

The first rule relates to the linear connections, this demands that what you are learning has some connection.  Connections are essential.  When one of your senses learns about something and relays the signature for your brain to process and retain, small etches are made in synapses.  These synapses connect certain parts of your brain.  The synapse is like a data file as saved on a USB memory stick or stored on a CD ROM, however your concious mind will only be able to access the relevant data on the synapse if the etching is solid and connected to other synapse records.  A random, unconnected file is harder to find than a file that is stored with a relationship to other 'memory points'.  If someone told you the population of a particular city, how likely are you to remember that if you were to move on to another subject immediately?.  However if you were to learn more about that city such as which country it was in, language spoken, landmarks, a little history of the city, you are given alot more reference points.  If you now know the city is in China and it is famous for a type of pottery and its large European church, the 'etching'on your synapse is now larger, there are more reference points for this 'etching' to link with previously retained knowledge.  Now when you hear the cities name, your mind will picture the building and the chinese faces and you are more likely to have the population figure to mind.  This is a basic principle of Neuro-Linguistic-Programming and recommended by most teachers in the occidental world.  That 'etching' on your mind is a lot easier to recall in your mind if it has more reference points.  A single fact with no further reference points get lost as it would in the filing system of a busy office.

At most universities, advice is given out regarding the best study methods for our students and although we promote individualism and do not try to stifle the natural skills and interests or cognitive and inquirical thoughts, we do have some very important advice.  We are most definately as a student (a video game addict struggling with his masters) once expoused, "the thought police".  Ergo, do not take my following discourse on TV Quiz Shows as an attempt to control what you do or dont watch in your own free time.  I simply speak from the advisory position of most western varsity facultys pertaining to the creation of the best environment for studying to your maximum potential  and also from my usual criticism of populist entertainment or 'non-entertainment' and the more parlous 'non-academic' populist TV shows pertaining to be intellectual.

When I was a tour lecturer in the states almost a decade ago, I once counselled a second-year student who was falling behind in his studies and incessantly struggling to complete his term discourse for his politics major.  Following our discussion it was evident that he wasspending upto 20 hours a week watching TV quiz shows, he got quite irked if he found himself 'wanting' in certain categories.  He hated it when a farmer from Nebraska answered more questions on populist subjects  This student tried to compensate by incessantly studying these random quiz shows and filled his shelves with pop trivia books.  Obviously his studying suffered.  The student could not understand, he assumed that all knowledge would be beneficial, even if it was not relevant , it must be exercising his brain, he thought.  Well, referring back to synapse etching, we now understand that lots of small etched synapses are not healthy or retainable memories.  The brain needed to attach these synapses to other reference points, which random facts lack.

The 'lurching' between subjects of questions does not reinforce memory or cognitive function for any relevant subjects that a student is learning.  When a student is revising for an exam or researching for an essay, he needs to organise his notes in a rational manner, by time, characters, concepts or actions.  The connection needs to be linear or relevant.  It has been proven by many in various fields of science that organised imput is more retentive than random input.  Therefore you will learn a lot more about a subject by reading, writing, studying and reinforcing facts in a controlled manner, rather than by reading the facts in a random and haphazard manner.

If one wanted to study for a quiz show, then the best way is to study in list form with no prose.  Although retention is not as guaranteed as with regular study and utilisation of different physical senses, it nevertheless is better than continuously viewing the show or reading random quiz books.  Atleast the list will hace information with some connection and allows for rapid saturation of basic facts (although more detail is required for intense memory retention.  Many books and websites exist to accomodate this, however it does not complement studying for a qualification, as a much higher retention and fluidity between connected events, notions and characters are demanded.  We encourage all students to be aware of this.

Let me explain this by using an historical textbook as an example in the following situation:
Two students are studying the desperate Battle of the Levant.  They are each given the same textbooks.
Stiudent A, skims the book in order, presents his intended argument in a succinct paragraph.  He then reads through the book in order, concentrating on important chapters and making notes as he goes.  He may well skip a few chapters to reach relevant points but this is done in a controlled and organised way.  He continues in this way until he has enough notes to fashion his argument into discourse.
Student B, however, decides that he will bombard his mind with random facts.  He allows the book to fall open on any page and then reads random paragraphs.  The information he is reading has no relevance to precedding or subsequent information.  The effects on cognitive processes is one that synopses to not map the information correctly and the weak synapse recordings that random facts cause inside the cerebrium are not strong enough to be held.
The effects of these two scenarios are obvious.  Student A will find it much more conducive to his study, he will be able to expound his argument in a clear, lucid way.  What he has learnt will stay in his memory for a long time, maybe for ever.  Student B, however will find that by the time he turns to create his discourse the random facts will not make sense in his own mind and will be forgotten very quickly.

Watching television is the same, one will retain so much more from watching a good documentary than they will from watching a series of non-stop unrelated questions.  This is the reason why I, like most campus advisory counsellors constantly implore students to avoid random input.

We all know that general knowledge is the specialist subject of the under-performers, our civilisation is built by specialists.  We often hear 'jack of all trades, master of none,' usually the statement of an under-performer.  The modern system demands that we have specialists in all walks of life and fields of study, therefore as a language professor, I would not be expected to be more knowledged than a doctor in astrophysics when it comes to the constituent elements of or galaxy.  Life duplicates this principle.  There is some room in our society for 'quizzers', however only a handful will be able to use this skill as a professional.

TV quiz shows are aimed at the lower level of academic performers, this is evident by the stated occupations of participants.  The questions are at best A-level standard, at worst primary school level.  And yet, these shows are held up by some as 'intellectual' and respected as much as their course curriculum and lectures.  How many questions are geared dowards populism - TV, pop music, celebrities and fashion.  When the shows offer themed rounds such as 'history' or 'geography' the questions are still wildly random.  In university when such tests are given out, the questions are always set in a linear manner - this is to assist you not hinder you in the way which randomisation causes.

Other concerns exist.  Current British TV quiz shows are broadcasted in the afternoon and occasionally late evening (prime time).  The TV channels create populist shows for below average performers in society.  If we take 'Countdown' (which I have reviewed here.), the target audience is: pensioners, housewives/husbands, unemployed.  What is the average education level for these groups?  How many academic doctors particpate or view the show? The answer is obvious when you break the shows rounds down to their basic premise - an anagram and a practical numeracy teaser utilising only the four basic functions.  These are exercises that in the field of education are left at primary schools.  Never have I gave my students an anagram to solve, my vocabulary lesson may include an exercise involving synonyms or grammatical/ syntax examination of words and constructed sentences - however I would never expect an adult learner to participate in an anagram, just as varsity mathematics will not contain basic numeracy in the curriculum.  A 'one-off' puzzle in the newspaper may not cause harm and can assist mental agilty but to buy into the cultism of such shows is demeaning to the educated.

Also, the multiple choice element that exists in these shows actually hinders the learning process by placing other answers in your subconcious which in the long term can stick just as much as the correct answer.  It also allows for 'trick questions' and also 'deducable answers', these phenomena create a level playing field and actually hinder the naturally more knowledgable in a given field from displaying their supremacy.

Even University Challenge has caused controversy, many universities have reported that students who perform on the show suffer in their studies, this is no coincidence and is due to the points outlined from years of research.

We are aware of the accepted studying procedures in the varsity world.  When we give lectures to students, they are given in an organised way.  If we test our students, the tests will contain questions in an organised way.  Our whole terms are designed around an organised, laid out plan.  Quiz shows detract from this proven process and therefore quiz shows do not, in any way, assist a university student.  Quiz shows should always be considered as light entertainment and no more, if they were more, then you would see university professors on every TV show.



Worst TV game shows to watch for university students:
Family Fortunes/ Pointless:  Ask you to consider the popualrity of answers given from a 'random' pool.
Countdown:  A childrens show played by adults, presented by imbeciles (except Rachel Riley PhD).  When a child participates he usually wins - demonstrating the natural tendancy of children to see words in randomised selections of letters which the adult mind 'grows out of'.
Tipping Point:  Completely random 'A-Level' standard questions and non-academic pop knowledge, with irrelavent side show of an arcade game machine.
The Chase: Completely random questions, lots of non-academic pop knowledge,  pitting skills against a professional 'quizzer'.  Note: these 'professional quizzers' rarely reach high positions in their occupations.
Eggheads: As above but questions, although still very random can be selected in broad subject fields.  The 'eggheads' are from the miniscule pool of 'professional quizzers'.
University Challenge:  Totally random, although the level of the questions is conducive to students.  Many university's note the negative effects on participants own studies.
Connections:  Actually a mix of random questions and Intelligence quota test.
QI: Despite the amazing insights and good humour, the show is totally random.

The Popularity of Countdown: A damning indictment on the condition of British education.

A critical review by Prof. Andrew Garside phD, Head of English Language skills, Durham University.

On the OpenU forum, a recurring discussion involves criticism of television as an educational tool, TV quiz shows, game-shows and reality TV programs only gain verisimilitude because of the presenters used, brilliant marketing tactics employed and their aiming broadside at the lowest end of socio-educational classification.  They create a misconception of these shows representing the height of knowledge and intellect.  However, a basic examination of the format of most of these programs reveal their true nature and target audience.  Today, I will break down the format of one of the UK' most popular, populist gameshow and attempt to deter you from populism and cultism of 'dumbed down' television. 

When one is learning at a higher academic level, they will find little assistance from British television.  It is populist and aimed at the 'masses', therefore it has to be retentive for those with below average education levels.  A definitive example of this is Countdown, held up by the afternoon viewing pool as 'intellectual', unfortunately and with respect, that afternoon viewing pool comprises pensioners battling Alzheimer's, college dropouts and the unemployed.  It speaks volumes that the original Spanish version was initially devised as a children's show, aimed at 8-15 year olds. 

Winners and champions of the show are hailed by the cult of the uneducated as mathematical geniuses or language masters, this utter malapropism suggests that they should be procuring our positions, lecturing in a varsity environment.  I see no example of even the most basic theoretical mathematics or evidence of even the most basic grasp on language in the course of the series, in fact most successful contestants are either children (who naturally have an aptitude for rearranging letters) or college dropouts (who have a lot of time on their hands).

The show is comprised of four basic sections:

1. Anagram:  Finding the longest permissible word from a selection of eight letters.
2. Numeracy:  Using the basic four prime arithmetic functions to find the target number from six selected single-digit integers.
3. Teaser:  An anagram with a cryptic clue.  Probably the only worthwhile round.
4. Anecdote:  Susie Dent is allegedly a Lexicographer, however her selection of etymological examples makes the academic world wonder about her credentials. Susie simply reads verbatim from the Penguin or Oxford 'pop' guides and does not even consider alternative or conflicting etymological origins.  For example, on this website, we all know that it is misleading to say that many contemporary phrases originated in the military.  . It is more correct to say that a lot of phrases originated throughout the working class but would rarely be recorded in writing until they were adopted by their superiors. The Royal Navy and British Army recorded a multitude of daily actions and so the administrative staff would begin to use the vernacular terms used by the operatives. Terms used by workers in other industries where such written records were not necessary will not have been recorded and therefore lost to history.

So what is wrong with Countdown?

The shows presenters and producers admit that the show is not intended to be an academic challenge and is merely light entertainment, unfortunately it is sometimes given verisimilitude by it's cult following of Alzheimer-riddled pensioners, college dropouts, pseudo-intellectual unemployed and bored housewives who genuinely believe it to be a test of knowledge or intellect.  The malapropism of opinion here is ironic because the same grouping would not understand a varsity lecture in either Theoretical Mathematics or English Language.  To expouse that the four base arithmetic functions in basic numeracy is a test of ones mathematical nous is as laughable as the notion that a 'wordsearch' is a test of ones vocabularic standard.  The content of the show exposes the veil of pretence, it really is a childrens show for adults.

The letters round is principally a wordsearch with a lack of clear, unequivocal defined rules and no clear parameters.  The stated rules are no hyphenated words, no proper nouns and no foreign words.  Also the word has to be listed in the OED abridged version and not the 20 volume used by true lexicographers.  The shows producers have admitted that when an obvious word is mentioned that they cannot find listed, Susie Dent and the team of researchers are able to use a little 'discretion' and they will neglect to show the dictionary inclusion.  This causes several issues:  

1. Commonly used adjectives become proper nouns alongside their orignal status following poular usage, when it comes to these words, we use the official OED 20-volume version alongside online regular updates.  Conversely on the show,  hoover (an adjective derived from proper noun) has been accepted and havenic (an abstract adjective that evolved into a capitalised proper noun in the US, but not here) has been refused.  Such contradictions can be seen weekly.  
2. Hyphenated words over time can fuse and become morphemes, accepted portmanteau or simply singular words, I seriously doubt that the abridged dictionary keeps up with our online varsity editions.  
3. Foreign words can enter dictionaries at any time, as dictioners believe the usage demands it.  I have seen several contradictions on the show, for example:  freude has been refused and blitz has been accepted.  Both words entered the English dictionary in the first half of the 20th century and are both actually listed in the OED abridged version.

The show never mentions that the dictionary they use also has it's own rules for inclusion, clearly limiting a contestants options.  The issues continue:

    4.   The OED abbridged version does not actually list any single syllable adjectives with                     comparative extensions such as barer (listed underneath bare), older nor the superlative             form such as barest and oldest.  Suzie Dent is not consistent with accepting these.  She             tends to allow words of this format which are obvious such as dafter.  However, because             she does not have the relevant reference she is fraught with convolution (as does her                   team behind the scene apparently) when she is unaware of whether the word follows the             stipulation of single/ double consonant such as when fat becomes fatter or fattest but                   not fater.  The worst example I saw of this was the denial of the word funer.  Admittedly               funner is more widely used and accepted but funer has as much validity as a word as                 fatter, the inconsistency is prodigious.  
     5.  Also the OED abridged version contains a small amount of scientific terms but not all.                 Paradoxically this is true with literary terms too.  This puts those with bigger vocabularies             at a much greater disadvantage as many if the words they know will be in the standard                 20-volume issue may not be included in the abridgement.  This is especially true for those           who have developed an academic vocabulary within the varsity.  The irony that exists due           to the non-acceptance of literary terms mean that those who have studied language at                 Levels 5-7 on the national curriculum will not be able to submit terms that they use daily.

Any challenge by contestants on these grounds (doubtful to happen considering the players any way) is routinely edited out of the final cut, but if I were on the show I would be challenging Ms Dent continuosly and requesting clarification.  That is the reason why you will not see any contestants with doctorates in Language competing on the show.  One of my colleagues and I wrote to Star Media recently, presenting them with a list of errors that we found alongside complaints and suggestions.  The response was interesting in that they admitted the game-show was primarily 'light entertainment', and was not produced with academics in mind.  They were aware of the inconsistencies within the letters round and had no intention of changing them.  They have a policy whereby, if they subsequently decide that they have treated a contestant unfairly, the contestant would be given the opportunity to return and play again.

Another issue I take with the letters round is that, like scrabble players, the contestants can submit words for which they have no notion of its definition.  In any vocabulary exercise or test for my students, this is an imperative objective, otherwise anyone who has the most basic knowledge of prefixes and suffixes can create words with a good presumption of its inclusion in the dictionary.  The presenter, Susie Dent, in my opinion, has an extremely limited vocabulary evident by her verbatim oration sourced directly from the dictionary in front of her.

The Numbers Game is as equally depressing.  When competitors do well at this, they are described as 'mathematical geniuses'.  In varsity terms the number game would be labelled basic numeracy.  The concept of which involves the four most basic arithmetic functions, which should be left in primary school, following mastery of counting.  The functions adding, subtraction, multiplication and division are everyday practical mathematics which 99% of people are adequately skilled in.  They are used everyday, whether by the housewife or husband in the supermarket or the businessman doing his accounts.  Any one of these 99% would become proficient in this round if they merely practised for two weeks and became accustomed to the timing component.  However, those 99% are mostly preoccupied with bigger things and if they have an interest in developing mathematical skills they would be learning about mathematical theory instead of concentrating on brushing up an entry level numeracy skill.  This show creates a verisimilitude to its viewers pertaining to the myth that the numeracy round is the pinnacle of mathematical study.  Do these peple know how to calculate the volume of a sphere or Algebraic K theory?  No one could even pass an access course without this knowledge and yet 'cultism' reinforces this myth of the shows laughable 'intellectual' label.

I allegorise this with my students as a football penalty competition in the UK.  None of the professional footballers get involved, and it is won by an unknown teenager.  This does not make him the best in the UK at taking penalties, and either further from being the best at football.  The professional players at the top of the game simply did not feel the need to waste their time with the singular skill, they would rather concentrate their efforts on more advanced parts of their game.  I am sure that Rachel Riley is a very competent academic, she possese a doctorate in Quantum Mechanics and is capable of answering some very complex equations and problems as she did for Royal Mail, helping them with convoluted budgeting software. Watching her taking on such mundane and basic tasks is disheartening too despite the audiences apparant mesmerisation at her numeracy skills.  I imagine she does not get any job-satisfaction at continuously pouring over the equivalent of a seven-year olds school-work, she must find it tedious as admitted by Carole Vordeman following her forced resignation from the show.  I do not consider my mathematics skills to be great but even I have a good understanding of trigonometry functions and how to find the volume of a sphere, after watching this tripe I seriously doubt if the contestants and viewers are able to do so.  If anything, they may be able to improve the speed at which they count their change owed to them when in the local convenience store.

I have been considering suggestions for new rounds that are relevant to the academic level of the viewers which are attracted to this show:

• Noughts and crosses
• Spelling Bee 
• Basic Sudoku
• Designating wooden shapes into the corresponding holes in a box.

Remember you are studying at a university level, I would not expect any students to be showing reverance to adults participating in Primary School tasks.  I do not expect any pre-graduate to fall for the cult of populist TV quiz shows.  I have no doubt that most of you with a little practise could out-perform the contestants we see on this show but please don't waste your time for a porcelain tea-pot.  In my role as head of the student advisory committee, I would recommend this program for pre-teens, entry level (pre-level 1) stage adult learners and the elderly to help their battle against Alzheimers.  

I suggest the following alternative viewing for university students and to treat all TV quiz shows as light entertainment, nothing more:

QI

Connections

Dara O'Briain's School Of Hard Sums

University Challenge

Mastermind

Documentary Channels (and not all of them)

Newsnight, Question Time

and of course,

The Open University Online Channel