A rejoinder by Dr. Bonike Leigh to: Nigeria’s Education Dilemma: When Students Pass Exams but Cannot Apply Knowledge
By Dr. Bonike Leigh Ed.D.
What stands out to me most in this reflection is not simply the critique of memorization within the Nigerian educational system, but the deeper question of what societies choose to recognize as “knowledge” and who gets to define intelligence in the first place.
Education is never neutral. Schools are not merely places where information is transmitted. They are institutions that shape behavior, regulate norms, classify ability, and produce particular kinds of citizens. As educators, we have to challenge ourselves to examine how systems of power operate subtly through institutions such as schools, examinations, rankings, grading systems, and credentialing structures.
What this piece captures powerfully is how examinations can become technologies of discipline rather than tools of learning. Students quickly learn what the system rewards. If the educational structure rewards memorization and recall over inquiry, experimentation, application, and critical thought, then students adapt accordingly. The issue then is not a deficiency in intelligence, but a system that conditions students to perform knowledge rather than embody understanding.
This is particularly important because examination culture often creates “docile bodies” within educational spaces. Students become trained to reproduce approved answers, remain within narrowly accepted intellectual boundaries, and prioritize compliance over curiosity. In such environments, education risks becoming performative rather than transformative.
The reflection on the automobile engineering graduate versus the roadside mechanic is especially revealing. Society tends to privilege institutionalized knowledge because it is legitimized through certificates and formal systems of recognition. Yet practical knowledge, experiential knowledge, and embodied knowledge are often treated as secondary despite their real-world effectiveness.
What I also appreciate is that this reflection does not reduce the issue to simplistic assumptions about Nigerian students lacking intelligence. In fact, it correctly identifies that Nigeria possesses extraordinary intellectual potential. The challenge lies more within pedagogical structures, assessment cultures, resource inequities, and inherited colonial educational models that historically prioritized administrative reproduction over critical innovation.
As Dr. Ambe captured, this conversation is also relevant beyond Nigeria. Across many educational systems globally, including parts of the United States, there remains tension between education for compliance and education for liberation. We continue to wrestle with questions such as:
What counts as intelligence?
Who benefits from standardized definitions of success?
How do examinations shape identity and self-worth?
What happens to creativity within rigid educational systems?
The example of Archimedes’ Principle was particularly effective because it demonstrated the difference between symbolic repetition and experiential understanding. Once knowledge became visual, embodied, and contextualized, memorization became unnecessary because meaning had been constructed.
That distinction matters deeply.
True education should not merely produce students capable of reproducing information under surveillance conditions called examinations. It should cultivate individuals capable of critical reasoning, innovation, adaptability, ethical reflection, and problem-solving within real human contexts.
I also appreciate the emphasis on visual and practical learning. However, I would add that technology alone cannot transform education if the underlying philosophy of learning remains unchanged. Projectors, videos, and digital tools are valuable, but without pedagogical shifts toward inquiry, dialogue, experimentation, and critical engagement, technology can simply become another instrument of passive content delivery.
Ultimately, this reflection invites an important societal reckoning:
Are we educating students to think, or merely training them to perform academic obedience successfully?
That is a question every educational system should be willing to confront honestly.
Leave a comment