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.
