The Problem with Rote Learning (2 Viewers)

[Sy123]

'Rote learning is a cancer towards education. People who purely rote-learn give up their ability to think critically and question the information being handed to them. They accept the information without question and accept it to be true. This blind acceptance is the very basis of why propaganda works. The Australian government is trying to boost the Australian education standards to be one of the top in the world. In order to do this, will rote learning have to be partially wiped out from Australian curriculum,'

Discuss

 

[2xL]

It's sadly a part of the HSC and I can't picture a way the syllabus can be changed to totally limit this. There is simply knowledge that must be known.

 

[Peeik]

It needs to happen, but changing the culture of rote learning will be extremely difficult and will take decades before you see results.

 

[RivalryofTroll]

Well, rote-learning isn't the best thing.

But rote-learners, like myself, shouldn't be totally disadvantaged.

It's all about being fair to both sides, whether it be critically thinking or rote learning.

Critical thinkers do deserve better and a fairer system but they should not have 100% advantage over rote-learners.

 

[Sy123]

Sure, knowledge must be part of any syllabus, but there are different ways we can give people knowledge and different ways to examine them on it. For sciences, questions are repeated A LOT, we can rote learn pretty much all the answers of previous tests and rote learn everything in syllabus and get B6.

The syllabuses of particularly Physics, Chemistry and certain Maths levels should be changed in order to accommodate less and less rote learning, sure it will always exist, but we can always minimise it and punish those who dare to rote learn such a vast knowledge base.

English syllabus can be changed so that people don't rote learn their essays and such.

 

[Drongoski]

Rote learning has a serious role in learning. It has been given a bad press over the years so that "rote learning" straightaway implies backwardness, so yesterday, a no-no. So very often, over the years, whenever a new-fangled approach to learning is proposed, the replacement of "rote learning" by something new almost always seems like such a great idea. But let me say, with all the improvements in education as a result of introducing a more enlightened and progressive approach over the years have hardly produced any great leap forward in my view. Of course wholesale rote learning is bad. But there is an important place for it. Learning the Times Table is one. From my years of tutoring, I'm amazed at the poor numeracy of many students in Australia; they reach for the calculator for every little calculation, even the simple ones. Rote learning is an efficient way of mastering certain learning needs where critical analysis is not required.

Australia trying to be No 5 in the world in Maths and Science?? Dream on Julia.

 

[Sy123]

Well, rote-learning isn't the best thing.

But rote-learners, like myself, shouldn't be totally disadvantaged.

It's all about being fair to both sides, whether it be critically thinking or rote learning.

Critical thinkers do deserve better and a fairer system but they should not have 100% advantage over rote-learners.

Why would there need to exist rote learners in the first place? Just people wanting to take the easy way out and not learning content properly. If we want education to have its true impact and benefits on society, people need to be actually educated properly. Not told to memorise 1200 words and rewrite in 40 minutes.

 

[GoldyOrNugget]

Critical thinkers do deserve better and a fairer system but they should not have 100% advantage over rote-learners.

Rote learning is not learning, it's memorising. You're not getting an education if you're rote learning, so yes, I think you should be disadvantaged. Everyone is capable of capable of critical thinking.

 

[Sy123]

Rote learning has a serious role in learning. It has been given a bad press over the years so that "rote learning" straightaway implies backwardness, so yesterday, a no-no. So very often, over the years, whenever a new-fangled approach to learning is proposed, the replacement of "rote learning" by something new almost always seems like such a great idea. But let me say, with all the improvements in education as a result of introducing a more enlightened and progressive approach over the years have hardly produced any great leap forward in my view. Of course wholesale rote learning is bad. But there is an important place for it. Learning the Times Table is one. From my years of tutoring, I'm amazed at the poor numeracy of many of my students; they reach for the calculator for every little calculation, even the simple ones. Rote learning is an efficient way of mastering certain learning needs where critical analysis is not relevant.

Australia trying to be No 5 in the world in Maths and Science?? Dream on Julia.

Yeah, ok early on maybe rote learning has a place, and the only reason that is, is because little kids do not have much critical thinking ability, so you can't really ask them to think that hard.

At HSC level though its a different story, we are dealing with mature brains (or nearly mature), and to not exercise it properly through critical thinking is a waste.
If Australia wants to be top 5 in Maths and Science, actual real science needs to be put in, (not social impacts and that nonsense). Calculus being omitted from the science courses is the main reason behind this. Why is it omitted? Because General Maths doesn't do it. Which is why we should make 2U maths easier and accessible, and abolish General Maths. AND make 2U maths a prerequisite for Physics (and maybe Chemistry).

 

[RivalryofTroll]

Rote learning has a serious role in learning. It has been given a bad press over the years so that "rote learning" straightaway implies backwardness, so yesterday, a no-no. So very often, over the years, whenever a new-fangled approach to learning is proposed, the replacement of "rote learning" by something new almost always seems like such a great idea. But let me say, with all the improvements in education as a result of introducing a more enlightened and progressive approach over the years have hardly produced any great leap forward in my view. Of course wholesale rote learning is bad. But there is an important place for it. Learning the Times Table is one. From my years of tutoring, I'm amazed at the poor numeracy of many students in Australia; they reach for the calculator for every little calculation, even the simple ones. Rote learning is an efficient way of mastering certain learning needs where critical analysis is not relevant.

Australia trying to be No 5 in the world in Maths and Science?? Dream on Julia.

Wisdom right here.

Excellent post.

 

[RivalryofTroll]

Rote learning is not learning, it's memorising. You're not getting an education if you're rote learning, so yes, I think you should be disadvantaged. Everyone is capable of capable of critical thinking.

Disadvantaged sure. But, if you abolish all rote-learning advantages, heaps of people will suffer.

 

[theind1996]

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]

Wisdom right here.

Excellent post.

Rote learning only has place when we are little kids and think like sheep.
No point in continuing to think like sheep when we have a whole brain to use

 

[RivalryofTroll]

Yeah, ok early on maybe rote learning has a place, and the only reason that is, is because little kids do not have much critical thinking ability, so you can't really ask them to think that hard.

At HSC level though its a different story, we are dealing with mature brains (or nearly mature), and to not exercise it properly through critical thinking is a waste.
If Australia wants to be top 5 in Maths and Science, actual real science needs to be put in, (not social impacts and that nonsense). Calculus being omitted from the science courses is the main reason behind this. Why is it omitted? Because General Maths doesn't do it. Which is why we should make 2U maths easier and accessible, and abolish General Maths. AND make 2U maths a prerequisite for Physics (and maybe Chemistry).

Social impacts is not 100% nonsense. You could say it's the social science part of Science nowadays and how important is Social Science in our lives nowadays? Very important.
Yes, it's not as gr8 as other type of questions but hey, there is no such thing as a useless question in these exams.

Why should everyone have to do calculus? Not everyone is gifted enough or has the passion/drive to study maths to a higher degree.

And 2U Maths should defs NOT be a prerequisite for Physics and Chemistry. What happens if there's a student who so much better in everything compared to Mathematics and wants to do science but no maths at all? Forcing an incentive to do maths through the such demands from science is not really right imho.

 

[Peeik]

Yeah, ok early on maybe rote learning has a place, and the only reason that is, is because little kids do not have much critical thinking ability, so you can't really ask them to think that hard.

At HSC level though its a different story, we are dealing with mature brains (or nearly mature), and to not exercise it properly through critical thinking is a waste.
If Australia wants to be top 5 in Maths and Science, actual real science needs to be put in, (not social impacts and that nonsense). Calculus being omitted from the science courses is the main reason behind this. Why is it omitted? Because General Maths doesn't do it. Which is why we should make 2U maths easier and accessible, and abolish General Maths. AND make 2U maths a prerequisite for Physics (and maybe Chemistry).

As you know general maths and 2U maths are different mathematics courses. There are students out there who dont need to know calculus at all. If you were to abolish general mathematics then more students will not pick maths at all in senior levels; which surely you can see is not a wise idea.

But I do agree with our current physics and chemistry courses....it needs to be more "sciency".

 

[someth1ng]

A small extent of rote learning is fine and probably need because you DO need to know how to memorise things and it's inevitable, anyway. However, critical thinking is more important and really shows the difference between those that understand and those that are like sitting ducks.

 

[RivalryofTroll]

Rote learning only has place when we are little kids and think like sheep.
No point in continuing to think like sheep when we have a whole brain to use

Rote learning has a place at any age.

 

[SpiralFlex]

^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.

 

[Peeik]

Rote learning only has place when we are little kids and think like sheep.
No point in continuing to think like sheep when we have a whole brain to use

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.

 

[Sy123]

Social impacts is not 100% nonsense. You could say it's the social science part of Science nowadays and how important is Social Science in our lives nowadays? Very important.
Yes, it's not as gr8 as other type of questions but hey, there is no such thing as a useless question in these exams.

Why should everyone have to do calculus? Not everyone is gifted enough or has the passion/drive to study maths to a higher degree.

And 2U Maths should defs NOT be a prerequisite for Physics and Chemistry. What happens if there's a student who so much better in everything compared to Mathematics and wants to do science but no maths at all? Forcing an incentive to do maths through the such demands from science is not really right imho.

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.