It is widely believed that humans have a capacity for thinking and reasoning that exists separate from what they are thinking and reasoning about. There is no empirical evidence that this capacity exists. Certainly no one has ever experienced a thought which had no content. All thinking and reasoning is about something.
To further compound this fallacy, it is widely believed that this independent, content free, capacity for thinking and reasoning can be developed and strengthened (something like a muscle), through mental exercise, and that humans (at least students) can be taught to think and reason more effectively and that their problem solving capacity can be improved. While there is no doubt that this can be done in a specific content domain -- ie: students can be taught to identify relations and reason in particular ways about those relations in a particular content domain, there is no conclusive evidence that a general thinking or reasoning capacity is strengthened by this process.
These fallacies have led to the idea that thinking and reasoning skills should somehow be able to be applied to content domains other than those taught in a course. It is certainly the case that if the student has sufficient knowledge of the other content domain to identify the critical relations, and these critical relations stand in correct isomorphism to the original content domain, this transfer can sometimes occur. But this is dependent on the students knowledge of the other content domain not on the student's thinking or reasoning.
So when a teacher tests the students ability to apply the information to a new situation or in a new setting, the students performance will be determined primarily by the knowledge of this 'new' situation which the student brought to the course from previous experiences and previous courses. Teachers whose evaluation methods depend heavily on the students ability to apply what they learned in the course to content domains not specifically covered in the course will be giving grades based on how much students knew when they came into the course. This will depend on particular life experiences (culture) and other educational experiences. If grades are based on how much the students knew before they took the course, why not save a lot of time by giving the students a systematic training and experience evaluation at the beginning of the course and awarding the final grade the first day.
Of course it is appropriate for educational experiences to be cumulative. Instructors must be able to assume that students have had the necessary prerequisites for a course. The problem arises when students have failed to master the prerequisites or when the evaluation methods are based on assumed life experiences, skills, cultural/social attitudes, and knowledge which is not part of any prerequisite curriculum.
When students are tested on content not taught in a the course, several problems arise. First, cultural bias is introduced into the grading process and becomes a factor in educational outcomes. Second, the effect of cumulative educational deficits are magnified.
Several steps can be taken to minimize the impact of these problems. First, test only on material taught in the course or its prerequisites. If otherwise good students are unsuccessful with a particular evaluation unit, (test item, problem, paper, project, etc.), the first questions to ask are, "Were the students provided adequate training opportunities in this area?" and "Do these evaluations assume knowledge which the students have not had the opportunity to obtain or attitudes or skills which the students have not had adequate opportunity to develop?" A second step to minimize the impact of these problems is to use a mastery approach to teaching. Students should be required to demonstrate mastery of material at one level before proceeding to the next. A third, overarching, component is careful curriculum design and sequencing to assure that students are provided adequate opportunity to master the full range of content domains and develop the full range of skills which are prerequisite to advanced educational experiences. In a culture as diverse as ours it is becoming increasingly doubtful that educators can assume a "common core" of experiences which students bring to the classroom (see educational fallacy # 176).
Copyright © 1996 Steve Falkenberg