Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items

Rethinking science education in the age of AI

16 July 2025 | Story Martinette Brits | Photo Kaleidoscope Studios

In his keynote address at the inaugural NAS Research Conference on 1 July 2025, Prof Michael von Maltitz delivered a wide-ranging and compelling critique of the current state of science education. Speaking to an audience of researchers and academics, he challenged assumptions about learning, assessment, and the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in higher education – offering both caution and practical guidance.

Prof Von Maltitz – from the Department of Mathematical Statistics and Actuarial Science at the University of the Free State (UFS) – opened with an overview of the industrial revolutions leading up to the current Fourth Industrial Revolution, characterised by artificial intelligence, connectivity, and data-driven automation. He warned against remaining entrenched in this phase of development, arguing that AI, while powerful, is not truly intelligent. “AI … is … artificial,” he said. “It is based on brute-forcing very large numbers of very basic operations at blazing speeds, linking external inputs to stored information. And so, it’s not intelligent. It’s just strong.”

He cautioned that the unchecked use of AI – driven by efficiency, not understanding – risks entrenching systems that prioritise ease and profit over education and well-being. “Everything is profit-driven at the moment. Everything, and I mean … everything. Really. It is this greed that keeps us firmly stuck in the Fourth Industrial Revolution.”

This, he suggested, makes the vision of a Fifth Industrial Revolution both necessary and urgent. The next phase, he argued, should be one that centres on sustainability, equity, human-machine collaboration – and critically – the development of human intelligence and critical thinking. “There should be something here about ‘building human intelligence’ or ‘critical thinking’. This would truly make the Fifth Industrial Revolution about bettering humanity.”

When the measure becomes the mission

Central to his address was the idea of ‘broken proxies’ – the phenomenon where a measurement designed to approximate a goal becomes the goal itself, distorting the original purpose. He illustrated this concept using examples ranging from GDP and crime statistics to social media algorithms, before turning to science education. Here, grades and degrees, once indicators of knowledge and progress, have become ends in themselves.

“The only things that are important to students are grades and degrees, because the incentives are linked to grades and degrees, and so, obviously, all effort will go towards grades and degrees.”

Prof Von Maltitz reflected on his own academic journey, describing how he excelled at exams and accumulated qualifications, yet absorbed little meaningful knowledge in the process. “I played the grades game, and nothing stuck in long-term memory, as is the case with many of our students today,” he said. “Why? Well, there were merit bursaries, degrees, and awards up for offer, not for learning, but for performing well.”

This system, he argued, incentivises performance over understanding and leaves students vulnerable to shortcuts – particularly through generative AI. “Under the assumption that rewards are linked to grades and not education, if you offer a student an assessment method that can be gamed … it will be gamed.”

Referencing a recent MIT study, he warned of the cognitive toll of over-reliance on AI. “They showed that, over four months, the AI users’ brains became systematically less active, especially when asked at the end of the study to do a brain-only essay. They had lower brain function in every area. In four months, they had become significantly ‘dumber’ than their counterparts in the other arms of the study.”

Rebuilding curiosity and competence

Despite this sobering analysis, the address was not without optimism. Prof Von Maltitz urged delegates to reimagine education by shifting away from content-heavy teaching and rigid assessment structures. He called for a renewed focus on curiosity, conscious incompetence, and lifelong learning. “Are our students able to self-assess, identify weaknesses and gaps in their knowledge bases, seek answers, and build their own learning paths? Are they humble enough to say, ‘I don’t know’, and curious enough to go and find the answers?”

To support this vision, he proposed four practical steps: redefining teaching goals, distilling module content to its essentials, focusing on graduate attributes such as critical thinking and communication, and reassessing how learning is measured. He encouraged alternatives to traditional exams, including portfolios, interviews, peer assessment, and real-world problem solving.

“We don’t have to pretend to teach students everything in a particular field – but rather we show them what is out there to be learned,” he said.

“Education should not be about teaching everything,” he concluded, “but about showing students what can be known, how to learn, and where to go next.”

About Prof Von Maltitz

Prof Von Maltitz is Associate Professor in the UFS Department of Mathematical Statistics and Actuarial Science. He has a long-standing connection with the university, having been a student at the UFS since the start of his BSc, which he completed with distinction in 2003. Over the following years, he obtained a BCom Honours in 2004, MCom in Economics in 2005, BSc Honours in Mathematical Statistics in 2006, MSc in Mathematical Statistics in 2007, and completed his PhD in 2015 while already lecturing.

His research interests span statistics education, sequential regression multiple imputation, incomplete data, and multivariate statistics. He is also known for his strong focus on student engagement and the re-engineering of teaching and learning. His extensive contributions to the field have been recognised through multiple awards for excellence in education.

News Archive

“To forgive is not an obligation. It’s a choice.” – Prof Minow during Reconciliation Lecture

2014-03-05

“To forgive is not an obligation. It’s a choice.” – Prof Minow during the Third Annual Reconciliation Lecture entitled Forgiveness, Law and Justice.
Photo: Johan Roux

No one could have anticipated the atmosphere in which Prof Martha Minow would visit the Bloemfontein Campus. And no one could have predicted how apt the timing of her message would be. As this formidable Dean of Harvard University’s Law School stepped behind the podium, a latent tension edged through the crowded audience.

“The issue of getting along after conflict is urgent.”

With these few words, Prof Minow exposed the essence of not only her lecture, but also the central concern of the entire university community.

As an expert on issues surrounding racial justice, Prof Minow has worked across the globe in post-conflict societies. How can we prevent atrocities from happening? she asked. Her answer was an honest, “I don’t know.” What she is certain of, on the other hand, is that the usual practice of either silence or retribution does not work. “I think that silence produces rage – understandably – and retribution produces the cycle of violence. Rather than ignoring what happens, rather than retribution, it would be good to reach for something more.” This is where reconciliation comes in.

Prof Minow put forward the idea that forgiveness should accompany reconciliation efforts. She defined forgiveness as a conscious, deliberate decision to forego rightful grounds of resentment towards those who have committed a wrong. “To forgive then, in this definition, is not an obligation. It’s a choice. And it’s held by the one who was harmed,” she explained.

Letting go of resentment cannot be forced – not even by the law. What the law can do, though, is either to encourage or discourage forgiveness. Prof Minow showed how the law can construct adversarial processes that render forgiveness less likely, when indeed its intention was the opposite. “Or, law can give people chances to meet together in spaces where they may apologise and they may forgive,” she continued. This point introduced some surprising revelations about our Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC).

Indeed, studies do report ambivalence, disappointment and mixed views about the TRC. Whatever our views are on its success, Prof Minow reported that people across the world wonder how South African did it. “It may not work entirely inside the country; outside the country it’s had a huge effect. It’s a touchstone for transitional justice.”

The TRC “seems to have coincided with, and maybe contributed to, the relatively peaceful political transition to democracy that is, frankly, an absolute miracle.” What came as a surprise to many is this: the fact that the TRC has affected transitional justice efforts in forty jurisdictions, including Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Cambodia and Liberia. It has even inspired the creation of a TRC in Greensborough, North Carolina, in the United States.

There are no blueprints for solving conflict, though. “But the possibility of something other than criminal trials, something other than war, something other than silence – that’s why the TRC, I think, has been such an exemplar to the world,” she commended.

Court decision cannot rebuild a society, though. Only individuals can forgive. Only individuals can start with purposeful, daily decisions to forgive and forge a common future. Forgiveness is rather like kindness, she suggested. It’s a resource without limits. It’s not scarce like water or money. It’s within our reach. But if it’s forced, it’s not forgiveness.

“It is good,” Prof Minow warned, “to be cautious about the use of law to deliberately shape or manipulate the feelings of any individual. But it is no less important to admit that law does affect human beings, not just in its results, but in its process.” And then we must take responsibility for how we use that law.

“A government can judge, but only people can forgive.” As Prof Minow’s words lingered, the air suddenly seemed a bit more buoyant.

Back

Economic and Management Sciences

Education

Health Sciences

The Humanities

Law

Natural and Agricultural Sciences

Theology and Religion

Open Distance Learning

Business School

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept