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

Inaugural lecture: Prof. Phillipe Burger
2007-11-26

 

Attending the lecture were, from the left: Prof. Tienie Crous (Dean of the Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences at the UFS), Prof. Phillipe Burger (Departmental Chairperson of the Department of Economics at the UFS), and Prof. Frederick Fourie (Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the UFS).
Photo: Stephen Collet

 
A summary of an inaugural lecture presented by Prof. Phillipe Burger on the topic: “The ups and downs of the South African Economy: Rough seas or smooth sailing?”

South African business cycle shows reduction in volatility

Better monetary policy and improvements in the financial sector that place less liquidity constraints on individuals is one of the main reasons for the reduction in the volatility of the South African economy. The improvement in access to the financial sector also enables individuals to manage their debt better.

These are some of the findings in an analysis on the volatility of the South African business cycle done by Prof. Philippe Burger, Departmental Chairperson of the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Department of Economics.

Prof. Burger delivered his inaugural lecture last night (22 November 2007) on the Main Campus in Bloemfontein on the topic “The ups and downs of the South African Economy: Rough seas or smooth sailing?”

In his lecture, Prof. Burger emphasised a few key aspects of the South African business cycle and indicated how it changed during the periods 1960-1976, 1976-1994 en 1994-2006.

With the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as an indicator of the business cycle, the analysis identified the variables that showed the highest correlation with the GDP. During the periods 1976-1994 and 1994-2006, these included durable consumption, manufacturing investment, private sector investment, as well as investment in machinery and non-residential buildings. Other variables that also show a high correlation with the GDP are imports, non-durable consumption, investment in the financial services sector, investment by general government, as well as investment in residential buildings.

Prof. Burger’s analysis also shows that changes in durable consumption, investment in the manufacturing sector, investment in the private sector, as well as investment in non-residential buildings preceded changes in the GDP. If changes in a variable such as durable consumption precede changes in the GDP, it is an indication that durable consumption is one of the drivers of the business cycle. The up or down swing of durable consumption may, in other words, just as well contribute to an up or down swing in the business cycle.

A surprising finding of the analysis is the particularly strong role durable consumption has played in the business cycle since 1994. This finding is especially surprising due to the fact that durable consumption only constitutes about 12% of the total household consumption.

A further surprising finding is the particularly small role exports have been playing since 1960 as a driver of the business cycle. In South Africa it is still generally accepted that exports are one of the most important drivers of the business cycle. It is generally accepted that, should the business cycles of South Africa’s most important trade partners show an upward phase; these partners will purchase more from South Africa. This increase in exports will contribute to the South African economy moving upward. Prof. Burger’s analyses shows, however, that exports have generally never fulfil this role.

Over and above the identification of the drivers of the South African business cycle, Prof. Burger’s analysis also investigated the volatility of the business cycle.

When the periods 1976-1994 and 1994-2006 are compared, the analysis shows that the volatility of the business cycle has reduced since 1994 with more than half. The reduction in volatility can be traced to the reduction in the volatility of household consumption (especially durables and services), as well as a reduction in the volatility of investment in machinery, non-residential buildings and transport equipment. The last three coincide with the general reduction in the volatility of investment in the manufacturing sector. Investment in sectors such as electricity and transport (not to be confused with investment in transport equipment by various sectors) which are strongly dominated by the government, did not contribute to the decrease in volatility.

In his analysis, Prof. Burger supplies reasons for the reduction in volatility. One of the explanations is the reduction in the shocks affecting the economy – especially in the South African context. Another explanation is the application of an improved monetary policy by the South African Reserve Bank since the mid 1990’s. A third explanation is the better access to liquidity and credit since the mid 1990’s, which enables the better management of household finance and the absorption of financial shocks.

A further reason which contributed to the reduction in volatility in countries such as the United States of America’s business cycle is better inventory management. While the volatility of inventory in South Africa has also reduced there is, according to Prof. Burger, little proof that better inventory management contributed to the reduction in volatility of the GDP.

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