The Problem with Rote Learning (2 Viewers)

[someth1ng]

History can be a very limited exception, you do need rote learning but critical thinking is definitely required.
Moderate =/= Mediocre, I would say that in general Moderate would be 80 and yeah Mediocre would be around 70. And that's fine, if people want to cheat the education system and skip the learning part of school, what a better way to reward them?

You're logic is flawed here, you are saying that no rote learning would mean no student gets good marks, the only reason this could be true (and it isn't, non-rote learners still succeed greatly), is the flaws in the syllabus. So these flaws need to change.

The question is how you can differentiate between a critical thinker and someone that is copying a critical thinker.

Mediocre: Of only moderate quality.

My point was that rote learning will never be fully extinguished because it is essential *to some extent* to learning.

 

[Sy123]

OBJECTION: the original question is leading. You can't preface a discuss question with your own bias.

I meant for people to oppose so the discussion is actually going, are people referring to the question anymore? No. Has it created discussion? Yes.

So it has served its purpose and doesn't need to be brought into light again, so please instead of pointing out silly observations, maybe contribute to the thread?

 

[enak101]

I haven't seen this be mentioned.

Everyone needs to have a fair go at good marks. Basing the exams off of rote learning means that effort=marks. Anybody with enough work can get very good marks. The government wouldn't want to limit people like that and only people of a certain calibre can get marks by natural talent.

Its also hard to avoid rote learning be useful, they can't be too broad in what they cover, it makes it hard for teachers and students etc.

 

[4025808]

I meant for people to oppose so the discussion is actually going, are people referring to the question anymore? No. Has it created discussion? Yes.

So it has served its purpose and doesn't need to be brought into light again, so please instead of pointing out silly observations, maybe contribute to the thread?

+1. Would rep you if there was still rep around

I may not exactly agree with your views but I love the fact that this thread has generated heavy discussion and has enlightened others (lurkers) with new insights about the pros and cons of rote-learning.

 

[RivalryofTroll]

I agree with this statement. Do what suits you, really.

Tbh I think for me personally, rote-learning actually made me think and phrase things a lot better and more fluently. In fact, rote-learning is one of the necessary tools needed in order to critically think; you need to know the facts before you construct an argument (you can't construct a tower without having the base, and knowing what you are doing too).

But personally, I would prefer people to engage more in critical thinking as opposed to just memorizing stuff and regurgitating it in the exam; it doesn't really show anything tbh.

Yeah this somewhat applies to me as well.

By rote-learning (let's say in mathematics), you gain experience (know how to do plenty of typical/past questions) and with this experience, you can use it to attempt to adapt to new questions if possible.
Not to mention, you basically can get all of the typical questions correct at a high rate of accuracy/speed (due to high order repetition).

 

[Sy123]

I haven't seen this be mentioned.

Everyone needs to have a fair go at good marks. Basing the exams off of rote learning means that effort=marks. Anybody with enough work can get very good marks. The government wouldn't want to limit people like that and only people of a certain calibre can get marks by natural talent.

Its also hard to avoid rote learning be useful, they can't be too broad in what they cover, it makes it hard for teachers and students etc.

That is just defeating the purpose of education, we go to school to learn, to evolve our minds. There are some advantages in terms of natural talent, but really critical thinking is part of being human, and most people are quite good at it, we just need to learn to develop it and not throw this human ability away.

 

[SpiralFlex]

Yeah this somewhat applies to me as well.

By rote-learning (let's say in mathematics), you gain experience (know how to do plenty of typical/past questions) and with this experience, you can use it to attempt to adapt to new questions if possible.
Not to mention, you basically can get all of the typical questions correct at a high rate of accuracy/speed (due to high order repetition).

Explain what you do that classifies "rote learning" in terms of your study?

 

[RivalryofTroll]

I haven't seen this be mentioned.

Everyone needs to have a fair go at good marks. Basing the exams off of rote learning means that effort=marks. Anybody with enough work can get very good marks. The government wouldn't want to limit people like that and only people of a certain calibre can get marks by natural talent.

Its also hard to avoid rote learning be useful, they can't be too broad in what they cover, it makes it hard for teachers and students etc.

We have kinda stressed in it the thread.

We need a system that is equally fair for both roters and non-roters.

But obviously, some people have so much blindless hatred for rote-learning to the extent where they want roters to be absolutely disadvantaged.

In fact, I don't mind if roters were disadvantaged by a slight margin but absolutely disadvantaged?

And I have a similar perspective to you about the necessity of natural talent when it comes to the calibre of critical thinking prowess for academics.

 

[4025808]

Yeah this somewhat applies to me as well.

By rote-learning (let's say in mathematics), you gain experience (know how to do plenty of typical/past questions) and with this experience, you can use it to attempt to adapt to new questions if possible.
Not to mention, you basically can get all of the typical questions correct at a high rate of accuracy/speed (due to high order repetition).

In saying that, this can sort of be compared to a tree. First you start off with the base, where you go and do all the computational work (all the rote-learning). Once you do that, you start to see what you are doing, and then what you are doing may extend into other branches of work in mathematics (i.e. I remember I taught the distance formula during my tutoring lessons, and I had related that to pythagoras theorem). So from there, everything goes out and away, and that's something good about rote-learning.

In fact, rote-learning actually helped me confidently answer Qs 7 and 8 of the HSC questions quite well (under exam conditions too).

And the last line that you said was good; it develops speed, which is vital for the exam (in the end, most of us really care more about the mark we obtain in the exam as opposed to the actual learning process - sad reality, isn't it. but that's the way it is)

 

[RivalryofTroll]

Explain what you do that classifies "rote learning" in terms of your study?

Let's say English, I obviously need to discover techniques and all in a text (requiring some critical thought process) but after this, I just need to memorise it and its effect within an essay. Then regurgitate in the exam while answering the question to maximise marks. I need to rote it because in a time-limit, speed is crucial so slapping stuff on is necessary for mark maximisation.

 

[SpiralFlex]

Let's say English, I obviously need to discover techniques and all in a text (requiring some critical thought process) but after this, I just need to memorise it and its effect within an essay. Then regurgitate in the exam while answering the question to maximise marks. I need to rote it because in a time-limit, speed is crucial so slapping stuff on is necessary for mark maximisation.

What about maths?

 

[golgo13]

What about maths?

Read, identify, solve. Read is basically read, identify comes from familiarity and solve is basically experience i guess

 

[RivalryofTroll]

In saying that, this can sort of be compared to a tree. First you start off with the base, where you go and do all the computational work (all the rote-learning). Once you do that, you start to see what you are doing, and then what you are doing may extend into other branches of work in mathematics (i.e. I remember I taught the distance formula during my tutoring lessons, and I had related that to pythagoras theorem). So from there, everything goes out and away, and that's something good about rote-learning.

In fact, rote-learning actually helped me confidently answer Qs 7 and 8 of the HSC questions quite well (under exam conditions too).

And the last line that you said was good; it develops speed, which is vital for the exam (in the end, most of us really care more about the mark we obtain in the exam as opposed to the actual learning process - sad reality, isn't it. but that's the way it is)

yeah, people need to realise it.

Despite how delusional one can be, we gotta accept that the main drive to excel in education nowadays is for some materialisatic motive such as high-paying career, satisfying parents, not disappointing people, living up to expectations and whatnot.

yes, there are some outsiders/exceptions to this....

 

[Sy123]

We have kinda stressed in it the thread.

We need a system that is equally fair for both roters and non-roters.

But obviously, some people have so much blindless hatred for rote-learning to the extent where they want roters to be absolutely disadvantaged.

In fact, I don't mind if roters were disadvantaged by a slight margin but absolutely disadvantaged?

And I have a similar perspective to you about the necessity of natural talent when it comes to the calibre of critical thinking prowess for academics.

So we need people to fair to people who skip the most important part of education, and on occasion give them higher marks than those who are thinking? (Yes, rote learners get higher sometimes due to the extreme strictness of the sciences)

If we don't initially have natural talent, we can definitely build it up on par of those who are naturally talented.

 

[RivalryofTroll]

What about maths?

Know all the typical exam questions, gather a database in your mind of the past questions, know the tricks & techniques to do harder questions OR approaches THEN just keep doing questions.

When you hit the exam room, speed and accuracy (from repetition, attained through rote-learning) will be high for most of the exam until you hit the curve-ball questions which are basically hit or miss depending on your luck, your state on the day and other factors.

 

[Sy123]

yeah, people need to realise it.

Despite how delusional one can be, we gotta accept that the main drive to excel in education nowadays is for some materialisatic motive such as high-paying career, satisfying parents, not disappointing people, living up to expectations and whatnot.

yes, there are some outsiders/exceptions to this....

I'm not saying that I only learn stuff for the pleasure of learning (I do sometimes). But sometimes I learn, yes for the examination, but I am interested in the work I study, I do want to know much more about it and I do extra research a lot of the time but in the end, even if I fully understand the content I get beaten by rote learners who do nothing but rote learning purely based on the marking and syllabus.

What I would love to see, is a syllabus/exam style change that focuses on critical thinking, then the rote learning materialistic people will realise they need to use fully use their brain to get good marks -> then they get good marks. Everyone is happy and smarter at the end.

 

[4025808]

yeah, people need to realise it.

Despite how delusional one can be, we gotta accept that the main drive to excel in education nowadays is for some materialisatic motive such as high-paying career, satisfying parents, not disappointing people, living up to expectations and whatnot.

yes, there are some outsiders/exceptions to this....

I mean, even look at people like iSplicer and all those ppl getting 99.95. I'm not sure about their love for learning and all that, but their examination technique and strategy is remarkable beastly to the point where they have optimized everything and 'played the game'.

Sometimes, people have to sacrifice things in order to find the best and easiest ways out to maximize their satisfaction and achieve their targets. So I guess in this case, shitloads of ppl continue to use rote-learning as a method of maximizing their marks. Heck, I know someone currently in 2nd year actuarial. 1st year WAM = 81. And you know what he did? Rote-learn - every single exam paper for every subject. He did the same for 2nd year and has still retained his D average.

 

[Bobbo1]

I mean, even look at people like iSplicer and all those ppl getting 99.95. I'm not sure about their love for learning and all that, but their examination technique and strategy is remarkable beastly to the point where they have optimized everything and 'played the game'.

Sometimes, people have to sacrifice things in order to find the best and easiest ways out to maximize their satisfaction and achieve their targets. So I guess in this case, shitloads of ppl continue to use rote-learning as a method of maximizing their marks. Heck, I know someone currently in 2nd year actuarial. 1st year WAM = 81. And you know what he did? Rote-learn - every single exam paper for every subject. He did the same for 2nd year and has still retained his D average.

Wait till this 'genius' hits the real world when he starts working. Ok, he might land himself a nice job but would the employers see merit in the work he does? I completely agree that the HSC requires/forces us to rote learn but this is a habit which we really need to get out of ASAP!!

 

[4025808]

Wait till this 'genius' hits the real world when he starts working. Ok, he might land himself a nice job but would the employers see merit in the work he does? I completely agree that the HSC requires/forces us to rote learn but this is a habit which we really need to get out of ASAP!!

Yeah, that's true. I actually know that he will fall once he hits the job market. Most of the actuarial group I'm with have discussed this issue a lot.

We are also concerned about him becoming the president of our society (ASOC), because we're worried about him not having enough skills to do well in such a great society (that needs to keep their reputation up).

 

[enak101]

We have kinda stressed in it the thread.

We need a system that is equally fair for both roters and non-roters.

But obviously, some people have so much blindless hatred for rote-learning to the extent where they want roters to be absolutely disadvantaged.

In fact, I don't mind if roters were disadvantaged by a slight margin but absolutely disadvantaged?

And I have a similar perspective to you about the necessity of natural talent when it comes to the calibre of critical thinking prowess for academics.

Do you mean you don't need natural talent to critically think and that you can build the skills up or what? Little confused by that.