Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
16 July 2025 | Story Martinette Brits | Photo Kaleidoscope Studios
Michael von Maltitz
Prof Michael von Maltitz challenges current science education paradigms at the inaugural NAS Research Conference, urging a shift from grade-driven learning to fostering critical thinking, curiosity, and human intelligence in the era of AI and the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

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

Position statement: Recent reporting in newspapers
2014-10-03

 

You may have read reports in two Afrikaans newspapers, regarding recent events at the University of the Free State (UFS). Sadly, those reports are inaccurate, one-sided, exaggerated and based not on facts, but on rumour, gossip and unusually personal attacks on members of the university management.

Anyone who spends 10 minutes on our Bloemfontein Campus would wonder what the so-called ‘crisis’ is about.

We are left with no choice other than to consider legal action, as well as the intervention of the South African Press Ombudsman, among other steps, to protect the good name of the institution and the reputation of its staff. No journalist has the right to launch personal and damaging attacks on a university and its personnel, whatever his or her motives, without being fair and factual. In this respect, the newspapers have a case to answer.

But here are the facts in relation to the reports:

  1. No staff member, whether junior or senior, is ever suspended without hard evidence in hand. Such actions are rare, and when done, are preceded by careful reviews of our Human Resource Policies, labour legislation and both internal and external legal advice. Then, and only then, is a suspension affected. A suspension, moreover, does not mean you are guilty and is a precautionary action to allow for the disciplinary investigation and process to be conducted, especially where there is a serious case to answer.
  2. At no stage was the Registrar instructed to leave the university; this is patently false and yet reported as fact. We specifically responded to the media that the Registrar does outstanding work for the university and that it is our intention for him to remain as our Registrar through the end of his contract in 2016.
  3. The Rector does not make decisions by himself. Senior persons, from the position of Dean, upwards, are appointed by statutory and other senior committees of the university and finally approved by Council. No rector can override the decision of a senior committee, and this has not happened at the UFS even in cases where the Rector serves as Chair of that committee. The impression of heavy-handed management at the top insults all our committee structures, including the Institutional Forum – the widest and most inclusive of stakeholder bodies at a university – which reports directly to Council on fairness and compliance of selection processes.
  4. In the case of senior appointments, Council makes the final decision. Council fully supports the actions taken on senior appointments, including a recent senior suspension. The fact that one Council member resigns just before the end of his term, whatever the real reason for this action, does not deter from the fact that the full Council in its last sitting approved the major staffing decisions brought before it. The image therefore that the two newspapers try to create of great turmoil and distress at the university, is completely unfounded.

Even if we wanted to, the university obviously cannot provide details about staffing decisions, especially disciplinary actions in process, since the rights of individuals should be protected in terms of the Human Resource Policies and procedures of the UFS. But that does not give any newspaper the right to speculate or state as fact that which is based on rumour or gossip, or to slander senior personnel of the university. For these reasons, we have been forced to seek legal remedy and correction as a matter of urgency.

Make no mistake, underlying much of the criticism of the university has been a distress about transformation at the UFS; in particular, the perception is created that white colleagues are losing their jobs. The evidence points in the opposite direction. Our progress with equity has been slow and we lag far behind most of the former white universities; that is a fact. More than 90% of our professors are white; most of our senior appointments at professorial level and as heads of department are still overwhelmingly white. Reasonable South Africans would agree that our transformation still has a long way to go and only the mean-spirited would contend otherwise. But based on the two Afrikaans newspaper reports, an impression is left of the aggressive rooting out of white colleagues.

In the past few years the academic standard of the university has significantly improved. We now have the highest academic pass rates in years, in part because we raised the academic standards for admission four years ago. We now have the highest rate of research publications, and among the highest national publication rate of scholarly books, in the history of the UFS. We have one of the most stable financial situations of any university in South Africa, with a strong balance sheet and growing financial reserves way beyond what we had before. We now attract top professors from around the country and other parts of the world, and we have the highest number of rated researchers, through the National Research Foundation, than ever before. And after the constant turmoil of a number of years ago, we now have one of the most stable campuses in South Africa. Those are the facts.

The UFS is also regarded around the world as a university that has become a model of transformation and reconciliation in the student body. The elections of our Student Representative Council are only the most visible example of how far we have come in our leadership diversity. Not a week goes by in which other universities, nationally and abroad, do not come to Kovsies to consult with us on how they can learn from us and deepen their own transformations, especially among students.

Rather than focus on what more than one senior journalist, in reference to the article in Rapport of 21 September 2014, rightly called ‘a hatchet job’ on persons and the university, here are the objective findings of a recent survey of UFS stakeholders: 92% endorse our values; 77% agree with our transformation; 78% believe we are inclusive; and 78% applaud our overall reputation index.  Those are very different numbers from a few years ago when the institution was in crisis.

This is our commitment to all our stakeholders: we will continue our model of inclusive transformation which provides opportunities for study and for employment for all South Africans, including international students and colleagues. We remain committed to our parallel-medium instruction in which Afrikaans remains a language of instruction; we are in fact the only medical school in the country that offers dual education and training in both Afrikaans and English for our students - not only English. We provide bursaries and overseas study opportunities to all our students, irrespective of race. And our ‘future professors’ programme is richly diverse as we seek the academic stars of the future.

We are not perfect as a university management or community. Where we make mistakes, we acknowledge them and try to do better the next time round. But we remain steadfast in our goal of making the UFS a top world university in its academic ambitions and its human commitments.

END

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