The Problem with Rote Learning (2 Viewers)

[golgo13]

No, you'd find that the OP and Moderators will disagree to this. People who rote-learn are promoting a bad-image to Australian education and thus should not be associated with critical thinkers. They are completely different.
Even if the rote-learner works hard, the critical thinker should be given the advantage. ALWAYS.

I'm just saying it seems everyone believes that rote learners don't do anything which i kind of find ironic since it would take more time to rote learn in some cases than to learn the concepts. Everyone is sorta bashing the idea that rote learners shouldn't get the advantage because they are rote learning, i'm just saying it works differently for different people, you can't expect everyone to learn the concepts than just to rote learn it because that wouldn't be fair to students who genuinely do better just rote learning. To some extent i believe a couple post back it was noted that after rote learning sometimes understanding comes along which at the end of the day gives the learning of the concepts.
Critical thinkers would have the edge as noted when the questions deviate from the norm, but that is up to the discretion of the exam makers

 

[RivalryofTroll]

I'm just saying it seems everyone believes that rote learners don't do anything which i kind of find ironic since it would take more time to rote learn in some cases than to learn the concepts. Everyone is sorta bashing the idea that rote learners shouldn't get the advantage because they are rote learning, i'm just saying it works differently for different people, you can't expect everyone to learn the concepts than just to rote learn it because that wouldn't be fair to students who genuinely do better just rote learning. To some extent i believe a couple post back it was noted that after rote learning sometimes understanding comes along which at the end of the day gives the learning of the concepts.
Critical thinkers would have the edge as noted when the questions deviate from the norm, but that is up to the discretion of the exam makers

Well, somewhat successful rote-learners to be exact are the ones who work hardest i guess. The concept of a lazy rote learner obviously will never work out because the principle of rote learning mainly revolves around repetition and being able to regurgitate nearly everything (nearly everything because you obviously have to try somewhat to adapt to the question given so i.e. for similar questions). if you're lazy then you obviously can't embrace the power of repetition (i.e. practise makes perfect).

But yeah, i love your post. (summarises most of my ideas/thoughts on this subject)

 

[Capt Rifle]

rote learning is the way to go!

 

[SpiralFlex]

Rivalry (As a claimed rote learning by yourself), I'm curious at what you're definition of rote learning is. May you inform us on what you actually do in terms of studying?

 

[enoilgam]

Rivalry (As a claimed rote learning by yourself), I'm curious at what you're definition of rote learning is. May you inform us on what you actually do in terms of studying?

This definitely, how rote learning is defined is important to this discussion.

 

[GoldyOrNugget]

you can't expect everyone to learn the concepts than just to rote learn it because that wouldn't be fair to students who genuinely do better just rote learning.

Rote learning takes a lot of work, but in my opinion it's not work that should be rewarded. I could be really good at push-ups, but I wouldn't expect to get higher marks for doing 1000 push-ups every day. Marks are not intended to reflect generic effort in any area, they're intended to reflect academic proficiency, and at the end of the day, rote learning only creates the illusion of academic proficiency. This is what we mean when we say that it's detrimental to education in general.

some people genuinely do better rote learning than trying to understand concepts

If you're better at rote learning than critical thinking, then get better at critical thinking. I don't understand this argument at all... again, some people are better at push-ups than trying to understand concepts too.

 

[Sy123]

But people learn differently, there's no one size fits all in studying. Like some people genuinely do better rote learning than trying to understand concepts, people who understand are just as capable of obtaining 99.95. Hard working people who rote learn should be no different to people who hard work to understand, the only difference is people who rote learn have less flexibility when questions are moved away from the generic style.

Rote learning is NOT learning.

Here is a message to everyone who misunderstands the damn point of this thread.
The point is, rote learning leading to a good mark should not exist in the first place.

 

[Carrotsticks]

Although I absolutely despise the concept of rote learning, it is something that is sometimes necessary.

Sy123, how many distinct solutions can a quartic polynomial have at most?

 

[GoldyOrNugget]

Let people learn the way they can lol.

If you really think that rote learning gives you poor marks and that critical thinking is the best choice (which I agree to a degree), then show that in the exam.

Funnily enough, some of you may probably just bitter over a 'rote learner' beating you and are just using this thread to express your anger.

Perhaps.

You're missing the point of what we've (or at least, Sy and I've) said. We don't believe that rote learning is learning. We think that the fact that exams reward -- or even permit -- rote learning is fundamentally problematic.

I am bitter that a system that filters students for university admissions will prioritise rote learners over good thinkers. I'm bitter that my friend, the smartest person I know, felt the need to memorise his English essays word-for-word to get his state rank. And yes, I'm fucking bitter that I got my 'scientia' scholarship based not on my genuine achievements and skills that I spent all of high school perfecting, but on the few weeks I spent going through dotpoints and ensuring syllabus coverage.

 

[RealiseNothing]

Although I absolutely despise the concept of rote learning, it is something that is sometimes necessary.

Sy123, how many distinct solutions can a quartic polynomial have at most?

The polynomial can be brought down to linear functions through it's factors, and hence the most factors it can have is the degree of the polynomial as any more factors would lead to extra linear function, raising the degree which was fixed in the first place.

who needs rote learning kekekekek

 

[GOD_OF_HSC_2013]

Rote learning is NOT learning.

Here is a message to everyone who misunderstands the damn point of this thread.
The point is, rote learning leading to a good mark should not exist in the first place.

I too find it sickening that some 99.95'rs are rote learners.

 

[GOD_OF_HSC_2013]

Rote learning takes a lot of work, but in my opinion it's not work that should be rewarded. I could be really good at push-ups, but I wouldn't expect to get higher marks for doing 1000 push-ups every day. Marks are not intended to reflect generic effort in any area, they're intended to reflect academic proficiency, and at the end of the day, rote learning only creates the illusion of academic proficiency. This is what we mean when we say that it's detrimental to education in general.

I.e. No matter how hard a rote learner works, they ONLY deserve the most MEDIOCRE marks. Even if they worked a thousands times harder than a critical thinker, they should still get lower marks is my belief.

 

[someth1ng]

Very interesting discussion.

I don't believe that the best rote learners should be limited to a "mediocre mark" - mediocre is defined as moderate quality - we'll say that's average and hence, it would equate to ~70 ATAR.
Clearly, you have just limited all the history students to 70 ATAR, most HSC science students, English students and even some Maths students.
.'. Based on that logic, people are then ranked against 0-99.95 and you haven't changed anything - accusing that students should not get good marks for rote learning would mean that no student gets good marks. How many students have not rote learned at all? Probably none.

I'd say that the syllabus should be made such that critical thinking is REQUIRED for marks up to the 99.95 but rote learners with some critical thinking to say ~95 and pure rote learners to say ~90 - or something like that.

 

[golgo13]

If you're better at rote learning than critical thinking, then get better at critical thinking. I don't understand this argument at all... again, some people are better at push-ups than trying to understand concepts too.

I think what i was getting at is that you guys are telling them to learn the gist, but what i'm telling you is the guy needs to learn the paragraph to get the gist. I don't get why you guys seem to have a vendetta against people rote learning, it's merely another tool if anything. I'm just throwing some possible explanations in which you guys seem to row the boat around to "it's not learning." But let's face it people learn one way or another whether it's rote or whether it's by concept, it's like saying what is the most effective means for study. The answer would be whatever is most comfortable for the person. Exam reflects what you can produce on paper if you can produce on paper then there shouldn't be any distinction

 

[Sy123]

Very interesting discussion.

I don't believe that the best rote learners should be limited to a "mediocre mark" - mediocre is defined as moderate quality - we'll say that's average and hence, it would equate to ~70 ATAR.
Clearly, you have just limited all the history students to 70 ATAR, most HSC science students, English students and even some Maths students.
.'. Based on that logic, people are then ranked against 0-99.95 and you haven't changed anything - accusing that students should not get good marks for rote learning would mean that no student gets good marks. How many students have not rote learned at all? Probably none.

I'd say that the syllabus should be made such that critical thinking is REQUIRED for marks up to the 99.95 but rote learners with some critical thinking to say ~95 and pure rote learners to say ~90 - or something like that.

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.

 

[Sy123]

Basically sums up my view.

Learn however the fuck you want.

If it makes you satisfied that you're getting marks, so be it.

But it's not learning.

 

[RivalryofTroll]

But its not learning.

m8 rote-learning, as the name suggests, is learning whether you like it or not.

It's learning by pure-repetition and pure-memorisation.

 

[4025808]

I think what i was getting at is that you guys are telling them to learn the gist, but what i'm telling you is the guy needs to learn the paragraph to get the gist. I don't get why you guys seem to have a vendetta against people rote learning, it's merely another tool if anything. I'm just throwing some possible explanations in which you guys seem to row the boat around to "it's not learning." But let's face it people learn one way or another whether it's rote or whether it's by concept, it's like saying what is the most effective means for study. The answer would be whatever is most comfortable for the person. Exam reflects what you can produce on paper if you can produce on paper then there shouldn't be any distinction

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.

 

[resourceater]

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

 

[Sy123]

m8 rote-learning, as the name suggests, is learning whether you like it or not.

It's learning by pure-repetition and pure-memorisation.

Ok, so just going over a paragraph over and over in my head, with no concern over the meaning of anything that you are reading and 'roting'. Sure you can just spit the words out on another page but you don't gain any intuition/skill or anything at all from it.

Last time I remember, I was told that education was to prepare me for the outside world, it was to build my mind into an adult.
Not become a chimpanzee.