Rote Memorization

In the end, while the trainees gain some benefits from the trachers’ participation in the post- teaching discussions, it could be argued that using teachers in this study would appear to handicap the trainees’ reflection rather than support it. This refers to the lack of teachers’ updating of their educational knowledge as well as the limitation on the autonomy that the teachers provide trainees. However, while the Saudi culture of learning seems the first contributor to the tension between teachers and trainees’ learning autonomy, which is not only the case in KSA. This finding also appears in line with the findings of Consuegra et al (2014) in their study in Belgium (Consuegra et al, 2014)

8.2.4. Rote Memorization

Although the Saudi government has gone to considerable effort to increase girls’ access to education, the traditional teaching methods still dominate in schools (AlMunajjed, 2009;

Alenizi, 2012; Almazrawi, 2014). AlMunajjed, who is a researcher of Saudi women, describes the teaching situation in Saudi girls’ schools:

Methods for teaching girls still tend to focus at all educational levels on the traditional way of learning, based on repetition and memorization instead of analytic research methodology, creative thinking, personality development, and the development of skills. (2009, p.12)

Many researchers note the dominance of traditional forms of teaching and learning with a strong emphasis on memorizing and repetition. They have linked these traditional forms of teaching to historical roots extending to the early years in Qur’an schools, a form called

‘Kuttabs’ (Krieger, 2007; AlMunajjed, 2009; Alenizi, 2012; Almazrawi, 2014; Elyas & Picard, 2010). (See section 2.2 in Chapter Two).

Nevertheless, although the above studies indicate the limits of the traditional way of learning, based on repetition and memorization, in the Saudi public schools, higher education seems hardly to be different. Krieger (2007, p. 4), who evaluates Saudi education reform in his study, mentions the ‘outdated teaching methods’ as dominant even at the university level. Therefore, while higher education in Saudi does ‘not reflect the development in the early history of KSA, there are traces of these rooted pedagogies in modern day KSA, and in this case even in the higher education’ (Elyas & Al-Sadi, 2013, p. 59).

Moreover, at the Fourth Cultural Forum of Education Colleges, held in Jeddah in 2011, female academic staff reported that ‘higher education in Saudi Arabia is not up to the

186

required level because the teaching methods generally adopted depend on filling the minds of students with theoretical information’ (Smith and Abouammoh, 2013, p. 58).

The trainees, in their interviews, support this view. They mention that traditional methods are based on telling and memorising facts (Ruida, Mjed and Maryam’s interview) and that they had never experienced learning through discussion and interaction. Ruida said:

We listen to the lecture about teaching methods, and memorise this information to pass the exam… in the previous practicum I ran behind my supervisor to know my positive and negative points, there was no discussion between us, sometimes the supervisor sends emails after the week.

Also, Olla in her interview claims that:

When I was in a previous course, I did some group work with the students but I did not call it a ‘workshop.’ The supervisor asked me to do a workshop, and I said I did, and the supervisor said, ‘No you did not.’ That’s just judgment without any discussion of what I did, how or why. Also there is no training but rather only judgment . . . my supervisor said to me in the second visit, “You are perfect”.

Moreover, in the interview with other supervisors, some of them admit that they do not discuss the positive and negative aspects of the trainees’ performances with the whole group, but rather they do it individually, almost as private instruction. For example, I asked Tahani, one of the supervisors, about her supervision methods of trainees’ teaching, and she said,

Tahani: I attend to the trainee then I give her the feedback after the lesson…

I give her the positive and the negative points.

Researcher: Did you discuss or tell them the positive and the negative points?

Tahani: What is different! I tell her what I think, yes the positive and the negative points and she can discuss what she cannot understand.

Me; I see, but when do you give the ST her feedback?

Tahani: Immediately after the lesson, I tell her what went right or wrong in her teaching.

Researcher: How many lessons do you attend in a day?

187

Tahani: We are so busy with the big groups, I have to attend all the lesson times.

Researcher: Oh, that means you are busy with observations of the lessons all the time. That’s really tiring but how can you find a time to discuss the trainees’

teaching?

Tahani: At the end of each lesson I take between 5-10 minutes . . . ask the ST to come out of the class and I give her feedback.

Researcher: How do you give her the feedback?. . . As a list or do you ask her what she thinks or what?

Tahani: Yes I tell her the positive and the negative and I tell her to work on improving them.

Researcher: If the ST thinks something is not negative and she wants to further discuss it or even if she asks you how to improve, what do you do when the next lesson runs?

Tahani: Umm, that has never happened but if she wants I can discuss it with her after by email or phone.

There are many issues that can be drawn from the above statement. One of them is the way of providing trainees with feedback, which is ‘I tell her the positive points and the negative.’ Also, this ‘telling’ occurs in 5-10 minutes outside the classroom during the lesson time. Thus, it must be concise instructions with little explanation of the rationale of doing something or not. Also, this may reflect the supervisor’s lack of educational knowledge about the importance of feedback in improving trainees’ teaching. Moreover, ‘that has never happened’ may also indicate the passivity of trainees toward their learning, something supported by the authority of the supervisor as the owner of knowledge.

In addition, the above extract may also reflect the absence of cooperative work and group learning in the culture of learning in the Saudi supervision system, where the method of discussion usually occurs at the individual level between the trainees and the supervisor.

Solaf, another supervisor, who is young, stated:

Researcher: Do you ever provide trainees with feedback through discussion groups or through peer feedback?

Solaf: It is impossible; my trainees are very scared and unwilling to have any discussions. They prefer to receive their feedback directly and individually.

188

They do not want to learn from their peers and they reject any comments from them. . . They say “They [my peers] are not my supervisor”.

This suggests that Solaf does not support learning through discussion, group learning or even peer coaching. She attributes that to the trainees themselves, whom she describes as

‘very scared and unwilling.’ Of course, learning through discussion ‘requires hard work.’ As well, ‘many students would prefer that teachers just give them answers to complex questions” (Williams, 2005, p. 182). However, ‘to blame students themselves is a rather simplistic argument as it fails to take into account how or why this situation arose, whether as a product of educational systems in specific cultural and social contexts or for other reasons’ (Allamnakhrah, 2013, p. 206).

Nevertheless, previous discussion indicates that Saudi schools and universities rely heavily on traditional teaching methods based on memorization. This is essential to an understanding of Saudi’s education system, and, thus, for forming expectations about the cultivation of a new learning method. Since applying reflection methods demands previous learning skills such as learning through discussion and interaction, the dominant of memorization method in Saudi educational system can be seen as a key challenge in the way of RP.