Talk:Rote learning

Distinguishing Commentary from Content

The section, under heading The Suzuki Method and rote learning, should be moved to Discussion/ the Talk page. Though the content might have meaning, its meaningful existence is out of place here, but in reply to the brief section on Rote Memory in music, which currently precedes it. As I read it, the motive is to contradict the other's claim that The Suzuki Method is exemplary of Rote Learning. As such, its presence detracts from the article. If the citation is verified, perhaps it would be more sensible to remove it, and edit the mention of Suzuki from Rote Memory in Music. Jsabarese (talk) 06:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Would someone who understands the issues involved please fix this? --seberle (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This was invented by Garry 'Big Ticket' McNaney — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.35.82.136 (talk) 05:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Mathematics

"However, in many fields, especially mathematics, this can often produce poor results."

Im curious, can you explain what the dangers of rote learning are in full detail, particially mathamatics.

Sean "Phr34k" Feica says: Rote learning is often used in many types of tribal music, where a standard form of musical notation was not used. In example, African Tribes would have events for the change in weather or various other special things. The tribe leader would show the different members of the tribe the parts of the piece to be performed.

As to why the use in mathematical, or any scientific based study, does not work is simple. When a subject has a specific process that can be calculated in only a few ways, simple memorization will not usually help, as there are too many variables that could be changed at any given time (thus voiding the use of memorization). In example, if you were taught that 2 + 2 = 4, and were not taught HOW (or WHY) 2 + 2 equals 4, then you would not understand the mathematical concepts behind adding amounts together. Thus, you would not be able to apply that knowledge to 3 + 3, or 25 + 562. In mathematics, theory takes precedence over memorization.

That may indeed be true, but memorising a theorem would probably be not all that difficult. --GatesPlusPlus 16:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Having taught mathematics privately, I can say that when a student simply memorizes a given presentation of a formulae instead of trying to understand it, they most often lack the ability to recognize it when it's altered even in the slightest of ways - like for example, written with different variable names! At that point I usually point out the essence of what is learned, remind them to disregard the superficialities (like the said variable names) and teach them to look at the issue from various angles. After showing few occurences where the formulae can be found as a part of a greater structure, they usually give up on trying to simply memorize it, and focus on understanding it instead. After that point, they can recognize the formula from almost anywhere. Of course, this is just a beginning of learning to use a concept properly, but it shows how understanding makes it much easier to adapt to varying circumstances when compared to simple memorization of an issue. Santtus 12:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Learning basic arithmetic computations is something we need as a base, something that is instantly retrievable. It could be argued that the principle behind mulitplication could be taught the same time as rote memory in a way that the student would understand and know both. That said, I would agree that any remarks made in the article should be backed up with reputable sources. Brian Pearson 03:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Mathematicians routinely use rote learning: This is the only way they can know what all the single-Greek-letter unexplained variables stand for (for example, λ often stands for a wavelength, θ for an angle, etc). Programmers, who also use mathematical expressions, have to give their variables English names to have any chance of knowing what they mean later ("wavelength" often stands for a wavelength, "angle" for an angle, etc... with the exception of mathematically-educated programmers, who prefer the unhelpful names "lambda" and "theta", respectively). Rote learning is also required for understanding figurative notation such as Leibniz's notation.

Rote learning also occurs when learning any new mathematical theory. For example, Set Theory introduces several notational conventions not used in other areas of mathematics, whose meanings you just have to memorize. The Unicode section for mathematical operators contains an alphabet of 161 squiggly marks. Without knowing the meanings of all of them, you are bound to encounter mathematical notation that is illegible to you. 98.31.54.35 (talk) 03:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree with that. Firstly the symbols you mention generally have their roots in Physics, not Mathematics, it would be Physicist or an Electronic Engineer who would need to know that by convention λ represents wavelength, not a pure mathematician. Also in more advanced levels of Physics and Mathematics, many of these greek letters have been reused. Recognizing that λ means wavelength or + means add can only be learnt by remembering and not understanding, therefore it does not (in my opinion) constitute rote learning. Something can only be considered rote learning if is learning something complex by committing it to memory with gaining an understanding of some underlying principle or method. i.e. There is not any greater understanding to the fact that + means plus, however there is greater understanding to the fact that 2 + 2 = 4, it is possible to learn 2 + 2 = 4 by rote with learning without understanding why the sum of two and two is four.

When it comes to arithmetic, I believe many teachers too rely heavily on rote learning. Most people get the theory behind addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. Most of a child's arithmetic education relies on learning things like the twelve times tables or long division by rote (or did when I was at school). I fail to see how this is any better or worse than teaching a child to use a calculator. Both give the child the ability to perform arithmetic, however neither of them a understanding of basic mathematics which is necessary to fully understand more complicated mathematics. Now if the primary school teacher were to go that step further (and some do) and teach the reasoning behind the algorithm of long division, that might actually be beneficial to the child. The problem mathematics suffers from greatly is that too often people are taught the processes and not the reasoning. They will learn the notation generally used to represent long division and they will understand the simple concept of division, they will even know the processes of long division, but often they won't even be offered the reasoning behind process (often because the teacher themself was never taught it and has never figured it out). Without understanding long division, algebra, trigonometry etc; the student will think they are just as arbitrary and arcane as λ means wavelength.--82.163.165.185 (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"A Mathematician's Lament" by Paul Lockhart is a great text about the difference between rote learning and understanding. I've been teaching mathematics to lot's of other students myself (as a student) - and it's horrible! They were only able to answer question they've already seen - not the slightest idea of figuring out even a paraphrase of the exercise. Now tell me, how can this education be useful for your future life? Your boss or your customers simply don't ask you "what area does that courtyard have, and what's the circumference?" but instead "pave it, and make a little fence around it", to take a very simple example. I've seen "victims" of school mathematics have no idea of how to help this situation. It's a sheer difference to hate mathematics for life because of rote learning formulae, or wondering about everything you see because of understanding even a little of mathematics, and keep wondering for life - thanking the one who teached you mathematics (not necessarily the teacher who tormented you with formulae). just my 1/50 Euros. -- 80.136.101.199 (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Reasons for rote learning --- comments

This section contains several unsubstantiated statements, and quite a bit that appears to be opinion and/or anecdotal experience of the author(s). I propose removing that section, unless something more substantive can be placed there. --Grinning Fool 04:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

removed paragraph about comparison US vs. 3rd world, since it was counterfactual. Just compare literacy to see that this statement cannot be true. Andreask 16:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Poorly written

This is a very poorly written article.

• Rote memory isn't a proper noun and shouldn't be capitalized.
• The author drops several articles.
• The author treats rote memory like a section of the brain and demonstrates a poor understanding of the concept.
• "advanced nations like the United States" isn't exactly NPOV

Why don't we merge these articles?

Wrote Memory is so short it may as well be stub. It should be incorporated into the Rote Learning article as a subsection.

I agree, infact I might even go as far as saying they are basically the same topic, and a merge would be more suitable than making one a subsection of another.

Wrote memory has been changed to rote memory

I've created links and corrected spelling as well. The reason for the name change was given in the talk section of rote memory. More work needs to be done, especially in the last paragraph. Brian Pearson 02:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Rote learning improves memory in seniors

Researchers found that seniors who engaged in an intensive period of rote learning followed by an equally long rest period exhibited improved memory and verbal recall.[1]Brian Pearson 04:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hands On Science Effectiveness

Although it may be interesting to read about, I fail to see the connection to rote learning. I would like to see an explicit connection made to why this is applicable to rote learning. Otherwise, I believe it should be removed from the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.47.110.46 (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

US focus?

This page appears to have an American bias...I've flagged it because of it.

Insolectual 00:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It has British spelling. Brian Pearson 03:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose move

I think cramming and rote learning overlap to an extent, but not sure merging is the best idea. Most of cramming could probably be classified as memorization, but certainly not all. Trying to understand some math concept for the first time right before an exam would be cramming, as would thinking over common questions the day before a big interview. I know the name cramming (memorization) suggests otherwise, but I was planning on changing it. Thoughts? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I also oppose the merger. Rote learning refers more broadly to the learning process, while cramming is more of a specific behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.252.121 (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I also oppose the merger, for the same reasons as above. SmaleDuffin (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Give rote learning a break

In France, since the early 90s, we've been told again and again that rote learning was all crap, that it was just good for morons, etc... and here are the results : most of 18 year-old flunk exercises that were given to people of the same age 30 years ago, their cultural knowledge is a joke (indeed, they're discouraged from learning dates by rote), their orthograph sucks and even basic mathematics (equation, percentage) are a pain in the ass for them...

I think that this article should not be so biased and should also point out the danger of getting rote learning away. Besides, some studies suggest that an intelligent approach of rote learning can be profitable [2] Mitch1981 (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

“ The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they allow disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children now are tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when eleders enter the room. They contradict their parents,chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers. ”

--Socrates

Maybe that's the reason why Athens lost the war against Sparta. More seriously, I think the "crusade against rote learning" may cost us more than some "crappy old fashionned methods", it could screw up what I think is the very basis of every civilisation : continuity of culture... But after all, who cares? Mitch1981 (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Key words emphasized: "...it could screw up what I think is the very basis..." 98.31.54.35 (talk) 03:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOAPBOX (and your argument is spurious). Don't argue here, WP:CITE. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 18:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Merger with cramming

Cramming, rote learning, or memory palace should be a category within the subject "Memory" (or memory technique or memorisation). Rote learning is a technique. Cramming merely refers to attempt at memorisation at short time frame. Both article should be linked to main article such as memory or memorisation or memory technique. Vapour (talk) 09:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Just move the EL and redirect; not much to lose. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 18:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I fundamentally disagree with the assertion that rote learning should go simply into memory. The way rote learning is described in this article, that may be true,but there is considerable confusion in this article and it only refers to the Western idea of memorisation to recall. Rote learning as practiced in China, for example, is a method of repetition for learning and deeper understanding. The two share the same name (perhaps by cultural prejudice or stereotyping) but there is considerable work, (for instance by John B. Biggs) that has considerable academic support to show that Western perceptions of the term and use of the term rote learning are not the same as in Asian countries.

Candy (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

References

Religion: Really, really bad grammar!

The section titled Religion seems to be written by someone who just learned English last month. Somebody please fix it! 98.31.54.35 (talk) 03:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

learning map

why does learning map redirect here? There is no mention of learning maps in the article at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.74.248 (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

How to memorize asap?

This article should also mention the best practices for memorizing. It should also link to how the brain works: short term memory, long term memory. How much can a regular person remember for a short while, a medium term, the long term and what are some of the toppers. I remember something like: you hear something from a teacher. In the evening you can much quicker go over the taught material again. Then one tries to remember what one has learned and when blocked, one opens the book and writes down on another place in the form of a question where the blockage was about. And that till one remembers what has been learned by using only a minimum of questions. This way one will remember for about 12h. Repeating it again between 12h-18h will then help memorizing the facts for about 24h. Repeating it again some 28-24h later will then help to memorize it for about 5 days. Repeating it again after some 4-5 days will then help memorizing things for about 2 weeks. Repeating it again after some 2 weeks will help to remember for some month. ...So the fact of the matter is that memorizing things is very time consuming and the importance of the matter to be memorized must be well thought over or it will be detrimental to the set of skills that are important to master next to rote learning. What is a good mix? Anybody with a link to some research on this? --SvenAERTS (talk) 12:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

External Links

I suggest adding at least one external link to a website on which people can try rote memorization themselves, such as http://www.onlinerotelearning.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.97.194.42 (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I think someone should rewrite this

Learning methods for school "The flashcard, outline, and mnemonic device are traditional tools for memorizing course material and are alternatives to rote learning."

Flashcards are tools of repetitive practice. I think that makes them tools of rote learning.

That statement is supported by 4 sources... so maybe it's me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.250.147 (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree it should probably be "are examples of rote learning" but I don't have access to the 4 print references so I am unable to check to confirm --220.239.36.50 (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

"alternatives" has been replaced by "examples". Expansion of the phrase "mnemonic device" would improve the statement.Rgdboer (talk) 23:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Rote learning vs. critical thinking

Weird. The keywords "critical thinking" are in the chapter title but nothing about critical thinking is explicitly mentioned or explored in this actual section. Tooironic (talk) 06:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Shallow understanding of Ancient Religions

In the Religion section, the author seems to have a shallow understanding of ancient religions like Hinduism , Buddhism or Muslim. It is quite true that ancient sacred texts were transmitted orally and NOT in written format, equating it to rote learning or mugging is totally unacceptable. The author and the readers as well must know the difference between memorizing and rote learning.

Also in the western WOrld, printing press was invented only in the 1700s but the technique of writing was known thousands of years ago.(In bible, for example).

My point is specially in Ancient religions of the east, Memorization of sacred texts(which were thousands of pages) without missing a single syllabi was an extraordinary feat and so it is in todays world. It is DEFINITELY NOT equal to mugging. 117.236.109.77 (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Criticism?

No criticism? No "when to use" sections? This article seems very loose, probably written by rote learning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.128.252 (talk) 05:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)