Righting Rote

by pazooter

Rote learning has acquired a bad name in the United States. But is learning by rote, the process whereby students are made to memorize without consideration for comprehension, the baby that got thrown out with the bathwater?

Historically, it's the Chinese who perfected the talent for rote learning. The master would give the statement to be learned and the entire class, in unison, would chant back the exact statement. Again and again and again until they had it memorized. Over the centuries it generally served them well. The downside was that, while Chinese students became highly knowledgeable and skilled in their cultural arts and professions, creative thinking was not, with some important exceptions, a common forte.

It appears that in the United States, rote learning went the way of knuckle-whacks and butt-whumpings. Well-financed experts (i.e., not teachers) determined that comprehension was lacking and targeted most forms of force-fed education in favor of kinder, gentler teaching methodologies that vied for children's attention and sought to nourish experiences of cognitive learning.

Now, decades later, the results have been tabulated. And the professionals who introduced and subscribed our educational evolution are not at all quick to mention America's position in international standings of educational excellence -- except where they can sell new solutions. It is a ponderous fact that the industry that we now expect to bail us out of the downward spiral of educational standards is the very same industry that created the mess in the first place.

What we got right about education is that comprehension is of higher importance and value than rote learning. But the two ideologies have never been diametrically opposed to each other. They are both needful ingredients in the holistic learning process.

Too often I have seen middle school students grappling with algebra and higher math concepts. Upon investigation it is quickly borne out that the point where they are stalled and stumbling is not knowing their multiplication tables or not knowing them well enough. The multiplication tables require straight memorization. They are usually taught at the intermediate level in elementary schools. But as the practice of rote drilling is considered boring and outmoded it often gets short shrift.

Does this mean that once students get their times tables down cold they now understand algebra and higher math concepts? No, of course not. They still need to tackle the comprehension of terminology as well as the syntax of the language of mathematics itself. But at least now they can arrive at the task of studying the theory instead of stumbling all over themselves grappling with the deepest mysteries of seven times eight.

And perhaps surprisingly, rote drilling can also be widely used in teaching theory. When students in my Science classes are reading the textbook aloud to the class they know to pause at every newly-introduced scientific term. We then drill the definition exactly as given in the glossary, over and over until they get it. I will usually start the drill by saying the term followed by the definition and then having the entire class repeat it. Loudly, just like the Chinese. Usually after six to ten times or so, they start to get it. We often follow it up with examples and then repeat a few more reiterations. Sometimes it is also necessary to drill the definition of a term found in the original definition. One might think students find this type of activity grueling, if not at least boring. Far from it. My experience is that students love drilling definitions. It's time intensive..., but not really, because they get and can then move on with their learning. It also instills an appreciation of the exactness of technical terms. And the results show up well in subsequent testing.

Unfortunately, a major barrier to implementing rote learning is a lack of barriers; specifically, the absence of physical walls or insubstantial or so-called curtained walls in our school buildings. In my home district we are cursed with what's called "Kelly schools," buildings with no or few windows, having a central hall and ancillary pods, each containing four open classrooms. The county is busily building more of these open-type classrooms as of this writing. Too bad, because rote learning can be noisy.

Many positive things can be said concerning the virtues of having quiet in the classroom, as any new or veteran teacher will tell you. But the importance of quietness is too often over-valued and overstressed. The real test of a successful learning environment is, are all students actively engaged in the process of learning? That does not necessarily translate as, quiet. And in the case of drilling by rote, it means the exact opposite of quiet. So one enthusiastically-engaged class activity can be, in an open or podular system, another class's distraction. It is a sizable mistake where quiet activity takes precedence over engaged activity. The solution is having sound-absorbing walls and teachers more tolerant to the full experience of engaged learning.

So while rote learning may have gone down the drain, it wasn't the main thing. The baby somehow survived; it's just that nobody bothered to give it a proper bath.

by pazooter

The author is an educator currently working as a substitute teacher in Florida.

Experts Say You Should Read This

It doesn't matter much which news source you listen to, they're all addicted to the, “Experts say....” gimmick. “Security experts say malicious hackers have....” (CNN) “...what some experts say is a growing fear....” (FOX) And on and on ad nauseam.

Undoubtedly they have well-explained reasons for doing this. One excuse is that much of their audience does not particularly care to be bothered by such details as sourcing. Much of their audience prefers to believe that the news personalities they read or listen to are themselves the experts who say....

The corporate news industry is very aware of this. “The most trusted name in news” is a CNN slogan often repeated. To their credit, they don't falsely advertise that they can actually be trusted to report honest facts. Instead they, like all other major news networks, have invested accountant-scrutinized monies into promoting their talking heads as celebrities. And they've hired the best stage designers, graphic artists, and pshrinks to design and adorn their newscast projections with a stunning contemporary pizzazz that intimidates the viewer into a submissive state of acceptance.

None of this goes against the practice of becoming an expert in something. Expert is expected. Expert is what one fervently strives for after graduating university or when beginning any profession. Being an expert means having become good at what one does.

An expert is also someone who is knowledgeable in some area. Which assumes, rightly or wrongly, said expert has considerable experience in observing the results (evidence) of this knowledge. The tendency is also to believe that an expert has achieved a level of capability (skillful how-to) so as to substantiate conclusions made and publicized. So what's the rift?

The reality of it all. It has, in fact, been the experts who've delivered to our society such atrocities as blood-letting, opium-laden elixirs, mercury-based medicines, transorbital lobotomy, Vioxx and asbestos shingles.

The problem evolves from, among other things, the “result-lag” of products. For example, an expert aviation engineer would be expected to design airplanes that didn't fall out of the sky. But rarely does the final product of an expert garner real observation from the end user. The aviation engineer, for instance, may have only spent half of several years actually designing his plane, and the rest of his time ego-blathering to his fans and financiers. Furthermore, even if the plane is eventually built, its faults may not show up immediately. And when the plane does fall out of the sky? There are yet years of study and investigation to find out what went wrong. More ominously, there are plenty of associates and underlings that can be blamed and promotional campaigns to spread the seeds of doubt and muddy the whole affair to such a point that the only consequence for the faulty expert is that he gets a big promotion because of so much publicity

The product lag of skilled workers is usually more instantaneous. A plumber fixes the pipes; turns the water back on; and either it leaks or it doesn't. This observable fact tends to keep the plumber honest. On the far end of the product lag would be our forensic experts. Nearly all high-end (read, “expensive”) court battles involve expert witnesses for both sides. Each opposing side makes a believable case for their client, because they are professional experts. Their facts are spun to represent their client's needs. Their end product, however, remains illusive. Because they are the experts we are supposed to simply believe. But, contrary facts can never both be true.

You head a big oil company and want to discredit growing evidence of global warming? No problem. Dangle the golden carrot and without fail, a few “scientists” will come running, willing to support any viewpoint you choose. And a few “experts” repeating the same message, especially given access to big media, is all that it takes to spread the doubt.

It's a complicated world. We no longer trek down to the shoemaker who so expertly made our father's shoes. No, we look instead for the branding swish or some such logo  shoes made by nameless people in nameless factories in unknown cities in far-away countries we'd rather not think about.

There is no magic bullet for a society that's lost trust in itself, where moral standards are too often trumped by an opportunity for a quick buck and meaningful reform is defined by a lobbyist's gift.

But when outfits which purport to deliver real news tell us what experts say without also telling us which experts, by name, they are thumbing their noses at our apathy.