sjbrooks-young and I have exchanged comments about distinctions between rote and authentic learning. Recently she offered a thoughtful, vintage point that most teachers probably argue also. I disagree with that point.
(I) Want students to identify and discuss the major accomplishment of each of the first five administrations in the U.S. Great! That means something. Just naming names doesn’t, don’t you think?
This is an interesting discussion. I remember many such discussions over decades. I used to assert her point, based on philosophical and theoretical positions related to Jung. Watching teacher-student interactions changed my view.
The specific incident that put me over the edge happened with a class of four year olds school teachers expected to fail when they arrived in school. (I’m not making this up. I can cite sources if you want them.)
Their teacher, Roger, had them recite repeatedly in chorus fashion, “Air moves from a high pressure area to a low pressure area.” As they recited these words, they clapped their hands harder / louder when they said “high pressure area” and easier / softer when they recited “low pressure area.”
He walked the class outside to look at the clouds. Before he glanced up, he said, “Point to the high pressure area.” Then he looked up. He later exclaimed that he almost panicked when he saw two layers of clouds moving almost at 90 degree angles.
Roger looked at his students. They were each pointing correctly in two directions, toward where the clouds were coming from. He then tested them further to make sure they responded to high and low pressure areas correctly. They met criteria for “learning” to identify air pressure areas.
I watched Cookie and other teachers go through similar routines with other science lessons as well as standard spoken English, reading and mathematics.
After thinking about what I had seen, to my amazement, I yielded to empirical evidence that moving from “rote” recitations to “authentic” learning appears a matter of instructional design rather than philosophical discussion.
I showed teachers how to develop and use such lessons successfully in and out of schools, including telling clock time with students with Binet scores in the 50s; four year olds reading at or above first grade level, calculating math formulae to multiple integers, etc.
We could count the number of presentation and responses to determine instruction-learning rates. No mysteries. Limited discussion about definitions. Just practical refinements in order to try to yield the most efficient use of student’s time.
I agree with Susan’s point to the extent that our context for understanding rote memorization and authentic learning differ.
I have not met any teacher who insists that someone “just name names,” recite words at random, except in a theraputic speech session. I have met fewer teacheres today who require students to memorize lists and things that have meaning to others and into which students are expected to grow.
However, I cspell because I memorized spelling words. I can still recite nursery rhymes I memorized (learned) from my mother. I knew a cow, dish, spoon and moon, but could not imagine how a cow could jump over the moon or a dish could run with a spoon. It was rote memory.
I’m glad that Mrs. Chaney required all 35 of us fifth graders to memorize all of Longfellow’s The Village Blacksmith, Paul Revere’s Ride, and other poems, documents, etc. I hadn’t the vaguest ideas or care about New England culture except what I read in textbooks. All my teachers required us to memorize and recite rules and documents (Preamble to the U.S. Constitition, etc.) by rote.
Today, nursery rhythms and memorized literature have different meanings for me. I would not have these meanings, if I had not memorized those things by rote.
While personal experience is inadequate to make a point, I offer several experiences to illustrate a value rote memorizing has had for some of us.