The Problem with Rote Learning (2 Viewers)

[SpiralFlex]

Due to a lack of foundation, practice and exposure in their early years, there are students out there who don't have the capabilities to think critically at that specific point in time. By forcing them to understand why something is the way it is could be too difficult for them because they may see the concept as too abstract. Rather if they rote learn a concept such as the distance formula, overtime (after putting in hard work) they may get the opportunity to extend their critical thinking capabilities to understand that it comes from the Pythagoras' theorem.

This is a good point. What if a new syllabus introduced in year 7-10 rather than wasting time on some useless stuff.

 

[GoldyOrNugget]

Knowing stuff is important, but knowing stuff is distinct from rote learning. I know that 6x8=48, but that knowledge does not hinge only on repetition and reinforcement -- it's cached in my memory for quick access, if you will, but I can still have the understanding that backs it up. In the same way, I know that the derivative of x^2 is 2x, and I memorised this without rote learning it. That's inevitable.

On the other hand, memorising an essay word-for-word circumvents that whole aspect of understanding, so you haven't actually learnt anything, and no new knowledge has been gained. Similarly for memorising formulae.

 

[Peeik]

^I don't think we are going to see a new syllabus for those anytime soon. Too many people are already complaining that Science is hard.

Year 7-10 syllabus have been finalised and will be implemented within a year or two (if i recall correctly).

The senior syllabus that were published this year was a first draft and dont expect to see it within at least a decade. As one of my supervising teachers said, if the board of studies say they are going to release the syllabus by 2016, dont expect it until 2020.

 

[SpiralFlex]

For the physics courses, scrap the social and ethical stuff but the history stuff should stay. Many peeps like historical appreciation [just think it shouldn't be tested too regularly]

 

[someth1ng]

Knowing stuff is important, but knowing stuff is distinct from rote learning. I know that 6x8=48, but that knowledge does not hinge only on repetition and reinforcement -- it's cached in my memory for quick access, if you will, but I can still have the understanding that backs it up. In the same way, I know that the derivative of x^2 is 2x, and I memorised this without rote learning it. That's inevitable.

On the other hand, memorising an essay word-for-word circumvents that whole aspect of understanding, so you haven't actually learnt anything, and no new knowledge has been gained. Similarly for memorising formulae.

I agree with this.

100%

 

[RivalryofTroll]

If social science stuff HAS to be in there, then just leave it to Senior Science to explore. Why should Chemistry and Physics students suffer through the monotone and horribleness in the curriculum? Whether it is important or not doesn't matter. When I pick Chemistry, I want to study Chemistry. When I pick Physics, I want to study Physics.

Yeah maybe don't abolish General Maths, but at least make 2U maths compulsory for Chem and Physics students. You don't need to be crazily gifted to understand calculus, I'm sure you know. Moreover, people who pick Physics and Chemistry (in this hypothetical syllabus) should know what they are signing up for. That they are about to study what is in the actual subject.

Mate, the language of Physics is Mathematics. If you want to do Physics but not do maths then you are crazy/delusional/doesn't know what Physics is about.

Leave your idealistic view of Physics to Uni Physics.

HSC Physics should be like this.

I reckon it's good that the science courses have so much bullshit.

I for one, am not that great at science. I'm better at social sciences.

But after all, HSC --> pathway to uni --> determined by ATAR.

3U/4U Maths, Sciences scale well. Simple as that. Once you get to uni, I'm a full advocate of purely science based courses. For HSC at the moment, due to the way the system is unfair towards history/social science students, I reckon it's a good thing that the science courses have so much bullshit.

 

[Sy123]

Knowing stuff is important, but knowing stuff is distinct from rote learning. I know that 6x8=48, but that knowledge does not hinge only on repetition and reinforcement -- it's cached in my memory for quick access, if you will, but I can still have the understanding that backs it up. In the same way, I know that the derivative of x^2 is 2x, and I memorised this without rote learning it. That's inevitable.

On the other hand, memorising an essay word-for-word circumvents that whole aspect of understanding, so you haven't actually learnt anything, and no new knowledge has been gained. Similarly for memorising formulae.

Very good post +1

 

[Peeik]

Knowing stuff is important, but knowing stuff is distinct from rote learning. I know that 6x8=48, but that knowledge does not hinge only on repetition and reinforcement -- it's cached in my memory for quick access, if you will, but I can still have the understanding that backs it up. In the same way, I know that the derivative of x^2 is 2x, and I memorised this without rote learning it. That's inevitable.

On the other hand, memorising an essay word-for-word circumvents that whole aspect of understanding, so you haven't actually learnt anything, and no new knowledge has been gained. Similarly for memorising formulae.

Very true, but then again how many English teachers actually tell students to memorise an pre-completed essay for their HSC? I think its the students decision to memorise an essay thinking that it would get them a safe mark. Of the people I know who did well in English, they always improvise on the spot in their HSC english exams based on their knowledge of the texts.

 

[Sy123]

Leave your idealistic view of Physics to Uni Physics.

HSC Physics should be like this.

I want to establish a purpose for education, to encourage mind evolution and critical thinking ability. What is the purpose of education if we just rote learn? Nothing. There is no skill involved in rote learning at all either, so its not like we are perfecting a skill that we could use you in later life. Critical thinking needs fine tuning, it has a purpose.

If we keep HSC Physics as is, the nation will never improve in sciences, we will never gain anything beneficial to wider society.

And that is the point here, I don't care about the individual needs of people to get into Uni, education is there so we learn, that is what education is there for. Why take out the purpose from education?

 

[Trebla]

I don't think rote learning should be removed completely from the HSC. I think the courses should be constructed so that rote learning alone only limits the individual to a mediocre score. It is possible with the HSC in its current form to have questions which make it difficult for rote learners to do well. In some years, the English papers have had questions such as those which targeted specific parts of a text which I thought were quite effective. This can also be done in the science courses as well, but unfortunately the saturation of "arts/humanities" type dotpoints makes it difficult to do so. I don't believe calculus needs to be introduced into the science courses but more focus on the pure science side.

I personally don't have a problem with the Maths courses in its current forum. There are questions in both the 2U and 3U (and of course 4U) papers which separate the boys from the men. I recall one question in the 2U paper which asked whether a trapezoidal rule estimation of an area under a log curve was an underestimate or overestimate of the true area which I think is a good example of this.

 

[theind1996]

I want to establish a purpose for education, to encourage mind evolution and critical thinking ability. What is the purpose of education if we just rote learn? Nothing. There is no skill involved in rote learning at all either, so its not like we are perfecting a skill that we could use you in later life. Critical thinking needs fine tuning, it has a purpose.

If we keep HSC Physics as is, the nation will never improve in sciences, we will never gain anything beneficial to wider society.

And that is the point here, I don't care about the individual needs of people to get into Uni, education is there so we learn, that is what education is there for. Why take out the purpose from education?

Dude you don't realise how much the HSC system is disadvantaged towards people who do English and histories as opposed to 4U, Phys, Chem, Eco...

 

[GoldyOrNugget]

Very true, but then again how many English teachers actually tell students to memorise an pre-completed essay for their HSC? I think its the students decision to memorise an essay thinking that it would get them a safe mark. Of the people I know who did well in English, they always improvise on the spot in their HSC english exams based on their knowledge of the texts.

I think it's problematic that memorising an essay can guarantee a safe mark in the first place. This is a gripe with the HSC exam format itself (and more generally, the exam-based paradigm of modern education), not the students or teachers. By asking for 3 essays in 2 hours, the BOS is practically demanding rote-learned essays with only superficial adjustments. In my experience, the top students memorise brilliant but general essays and adapt them on the spot, so the product is seemingly original and answers the question (my friend state ranked eng adv. and this was always his strategy). For less talented students, memorising an essay is sadly often the best option mark-wise. I can't think of a better exam format though, besides just giving students more time and limiting them in terms of words or pages.

 

[Peeik]

I think it's problematic that memorising an essay can guarantee a safe mark in the first place. This is a gripe with the HSC exam format itself (and more generally, the exam-based paradigm of modern education), not the students or teachers. By asking for 3 essays in 2 hours, the BOS is practically demanding rote-learned essays with only superficial adjustments. In my experience, the top students memorise brilliant but general essays and adapt them on the spot, so the product is seemingly original and answers the question (my friend state ranked eng adv. and this was always his strategy). For less talented students, memorising an essay is sadly often the best option mark-wise. I can't think of a better exam format though, besides just giving students more time and limiting them in terms of words or pages.

I couldnt agree with you more. The design of the exams dictates students to rote learn. That does need to change.

 

[Sy123]

Dude you don't realise how much the HSC system is disadvantaged towards people who do English and histories as opposed to 4U, Phys, Chem, Eco...

Ceteris Paribus.
The scaling system depends on the quality of the cohort. If everyone doing Extension 2 maths did bad in other subjects then it will scale low. But the thing is, there tends to be a correlation between Extension 2 and good students, hence scaling well.

People doing all histories and stuff like that are being scaled down then that is the fault of the overall cohort and even though this may disadvantage the bright students doing Englishes, that is how the system works and there is no changing that.

 

[theind1996]

Ceteris Paribus.
The scaling system depends on the quality of the cohort. If everyone doing Extension 2 maths did bad in other subjects then it will scale low. But the thing is, there tends to be a correlation between Extension 2 and good students, hence scaling well.

People doing all histories and stuff like that are being scaled down then that is the fault of the overall cohort and even though this may disadvantage the bright students doing Englishes, that is how the system works and there is no changing that.

I know that, but in the end, it always seems to me that the history/social science kids end up coming off worse (yes I'm obviously bitter).

But Chemistry, and Physics to a lesser extent are rote learnable and you don't have to be ultra good to do well in them - understand major concepts, rote learn here and there, maximise marks on those "assess potential of ethanol" type questions, drill the repetitive calculations, understand concepts enough to answer any common questions + a bit of outside the box thinking and you don't need to get the very hard questions and you're still sitting on 90 raw --> 95+ aligned.

 

[RivalryofTroll]

Completely eliminating rote learning will never happen. That is the truth.

It's like how I want courses to be more rote learn-able so that it favours the most hard working and careful people (those who put the grit and effort into their work), not being possible.

 

[Sy123]

I know that, but in the end, it always seems to me that the history/social science kids end up coming off worse (yes I'm obviously bitter).

But Chemistry, and Physics to a lesser extent are rote learnable and you don't have to be ultra good to do well in them - understand major concepts, rote learn here and there, maximise marks on those "assess potential of ethanol" type questions, drill the repetitive calculations, understand concepts enough to answer any common questions + a bit of outside the box thinking and you don't need to get the very hard questions and you're still sitting on 90 raw --> 95+ aligned.

It is a culture among the harder working students to pick these standard subjects, so when scaling is calculated, we get higher scaling for these subjects.

I'll put it frank though, there is a culture among students wanting to do well, to pick subjects like chemistry/physics and so on and when they pick it, they do well in it and other subjects hence scaling it up. You don't have as many of these types of students (asians etc) picking humanities due to the general culture of it.

 

[Sy123]

Completely eliminating rote learning will never happen. That is the truth.

It's like how I want courses to be more rote learn-able so that it favours the most hard working and careful people (those who put the grit and effort into their work), not being possible.

Maybe it will never happen, but I would rather see an education system where rote learning only achieves the mediocre (as someone said in this thread previously). Its only those willing to actually learn the content and actually apply their knowledge that will succeed.

Rote learning is a cancer to education, it builds people to not question anything around them or ask why at all.
As I said earlier, this is the very basis of why propaganda and advertisements work. It appeals to the people willing to take any information thrown at them.

 

[theind1996]

It is a culture among the harder working students to pick these standard subjects, so when scaling is calculated, we get higher scaling for these subjects.

I'll put it frank though, there is a culture among students wanting to do well, to pick subjects like chemistry/physics and so on and when they pick it, they do well in it and other subjects hence scaling it up. You don't have as many of these types of students (asians etc) picking humanities due to the general culture of it.

That's why it's a culture of doing Phys/Chem despite not necessarily being all that natural in them, and working your arse off and doing well e.g. a state ranker last year mainly regurgitated the textbook so hey, it works.

 

[theind1996]

Maybe it will never happen, but I would rather see an education system where rote learning only achieves the mediocre (as someone said in this thread previously). Its only those willing to actually learn the content and actually apply their knowledge that will succeed.

Rote learning is a cancer to education, it builds people to not question anything around them or ask why at all.
As I said earlier, this is the very basis of why propaganda and advertisements work. It appeals to the people willing to take any information thrown at them.

I think that having that in university is enough right? Where there's complete independence in terms of course choice etc.

E.g. how many 99+ers do you see doing humanities, and how many do you see doing 4U maths, physics, chemistry?

This isn't simply because the 4u maths, phys, chem students are the most hard working/"intelligent" students - many of them exploit the system and take advantage of these subjects and their scaling capabilities.