Among the countless catchphrases that educators generally despise are "drill-'n-kill" and "rote memorization." In keeping with their meanings, both sound terrifically unpleasant. To learn something "by rote," according to the Random House dictionary, is to learn it "from memory, without thought of the meaning; in a mechanical way."
The fear is that we're turning our children into automatons by force-feeding them useless bits of information -- facts that can be found instantly on Wikipedia, like the dates of the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648) or the equation for calculating the area of a circle (πr2).
But is it possible that memorizing things is actually underrated in modern American society? Could one make a convincing case that it's not just useful but vital for people of all ages to memorize things?
The answer to both of these questions, I believe, is yes. And a recent discussion on the BAM! Radio Network in which I participated focused on this very topic -- the value of rote memorization. The conversation, hosted by Rae Pica, featured Daniel Willingham (a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia), Joan Almon (executive director of the Alliance for Childhood) and me.
Because "rote" learning and "memorization" have negative connotations for most people, it might be better to speak of learning things by heart. And, as Willingham points out in our discussion, learning things by heart is something children automatically do. That is, it comes naturally to them -- whether it's being able to recall all the words to a nursery rhyme or knowing the plot of a story (if not the story itself, word for word) before one is actually able to read. Willingham says that the key is engagement: "If you're really engaged, memory comes pretty automatically."
Learning things by heart can be useful for any number of reasons, some of which we discuss in the radio show. As an English teacher, I've often made my students memorize poetry -- and just as often some have pushed back, accusing me of assigning meaningless "busy work." I love that accusation because it provides me the perfect opportunity to explain why memorizing a poem is, in fact, a worthwhile activity. And here's a little-known secret: learning things by heart isn't as hard as many people imagine.
For inspiration on the memorization front, check out the video below of a three-year-old reciting Billy Collins' poem "Litany." This serves as a lovely reminder of what the human brain is capable of. (Notice what the young child's intonation on certain lines reveals: he hasn't learned this poem "without thought of the meaning; in a mechanical way" -- Random House's definition of "rote" learning. He's wiser and more aware of what he's saying than many of us might initially think.)
Here are some of the reasons I give skeptical students for why learning things by heart is worthwhile:
First, it's a challenge, and one in which those who succeed can take pride.
Second, it's good exercise for your brain. Many people these days seem to believe that our digital devices will remember everything for us -- and they will, but they're not much help when we can't find them, or they're broken, or they've been left at home. How will you call your best friend to reschedule that lunch appointment -- you don't even know her phone number! And she's your best friend?
Third, and most importantly, new insights are gained in the process of memorization. You see things to which you were previously blind; you uncover a play on words, assonance, alliteration, analogies. It is for this reason, I believe, that the great Russian-American novelist Vladimir Nabokov declared that there's actually no such thing as reading -- there's only re-reading. ("Curiously enough, one cannot read a book: one can only reread it. A good reader, a major reader, an active and creative reader is a rereader," Nabokov wrote in his Lectures on Literature.)
The same holds for T.V. shows and movies: you see so much more on a second, third and fourth viewing. You don't truly see anything the first time you watch it. And this applies no less to music: hearing something for the first time is more akin to hearing it not at all than to truly hearing it. The work is too new, too unknown, to us; we can't make heads or tails of it because we suffer from sensory overload.
It's only with multiple readings, viewings and hearings that we actually begin to understand, see and hear. We're deaf and blind in our first encounters with things.
And this is why practice matters so much as well. It's our chief hope for transcending mediocrity.
We say "practice makes perfect" in English but this, I think, is somewhat misleading because perfection is rarely attainable. There's no such thing as a "perfect" performance of a Beethoven sonata. And while perfection in sports isn't inconceivable -- I suppose a tennis player could win a match in straight sets without dropping a single point -- it's highly unlikely. Thus, I prefer the German version of the saying: "practice makes the master." Those who are the best at things typically become so through nonstop practice. It's not the only factor, of course -- natural ability matters hugely, too -- but it does seem to be a necessary ingredient. As Amy Chua, of "Tiger Mother" fame, says in her new book: "Tenacious practice, practice, practice is crucial for excellence; rote repetition is underrated in America."
Why are rote repetition and memorization underrated in America? As I say on the radio show, they've gotten a bad rap in part because they lend themselves too well to standardized testing. It's much easier -- faster, cheaper -- for me to determine whether you know when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor (December 7, 1941) than whether you can convincingly explain how and why the Treaty of Versailles set the stage for World War II. Yes, the curriculum has narrowed (even Arne Duncan admits it!), the "what-gets-tested-is-what-gets-taught" phenomenon is very much alive, and there's a lack of critical-thinking skills among today's young people.
These sad facts, however, are more the result of our over-reliance on multiple-choice tests than anything inherently evil about repetition or memorization.
http://theeducatedsociety.com/what-is-the-best-way-to-learn-in-life/
Too much of today's schooling consists of assigning a short reading assignment for the beginning of class and "check your understanding" questions for the end of class. No understanding, no internalizing needed...just find the same word pattern in the text and copy the words into the worksheet. No homework is ever assigned because it won't be attempted. No discussion, no critical thinking, very little actual thinking needed at all. Its a wonder most students do as well on standardized tests as they do. It is a testament to the innate IQ of the student that they manage to pick up as much as they do, just sitting dormant in class. Maybe they learn by osmosis these days, absorbing information through their forehead resting on the desktop.
We are experiencing very uneven results from public schools because we as teachers have a very widely varying raw product sent to us with which to work. In industry, there is quality control of raw materials. Teachers have no such control. We have very little control of any kind unless someone goes of the rails.
I wish someone had an answer besides sack all the teachers.
Two schools in the same neighborhood, with the same kids. One does well, the other does not. What's different? How can we replicate what the successful school -- or the principal -- does?
This is not about blame, it's about achieving the results that public education is supposed to achieve. How can we build on successes and avoid failures? How can we do it as well as it possibly can be done given imperfect raw material?
Businesses struggle with this issue as well. That's why they have books and seminars titled "Achieving Extraordinary Results with Ordinary People." Excuses don't help you much if you're a business. Failure is failure, and you're gone.
Why don't teachers put some energy into figuring that out in education?
By the way, statistically, your example would only be valid with more controls and over a longer period of time. Your seemingly random division of students into two groups, itself, is suspect. There are too many factors that have nothing to do with the teacher whatsoever. Your example is too simpistic.
Yes, of course, some teachers are more effective, we've all seen this firsthand. When you try to copy the spark of genius they have, how successful are you? Can you copy Yo Yo Ma?
This reform thing is about assigning blame because every teacher isn't simply magnificent. Well, we're not magnificent. Most of us are simply average or a little better most days, but we aspire to emulate the teacher or teachers that inspired us to go into teaching. Some days we may approach what we saw in them, what we admired in them. Many days we fall short...but we keep on trying. And we keep on trying knowing in our hearts that those teachers would probaby not be as successful in today's failing schools, and with todays disaffected youth. They worked in a time when few students ever had to be removed from class.
And yet, day by day, teachers keep plugging away, keep trying to make a difference, one child at a time. And I've never wanted to do anything else.
I'd define rote instruction as practice without teaching the higher purpose. These differences are like art; they may be subtle but you know them when you see them. But sense the standardization crowd has been driving art from the classroom, perhaps the distinctions are growing less apparent.
Also, I'm reacting to the statement that practice is "our chief hope for transcending mediocrity." I'd say the statement is false, but worse it is misleading. Creativity is our chief hope for transcending mediocrity IN MOST ENDEAVORS. Teaching the fundamentals of good scholarship is much more important with older teens, except in a very few endeavors.
Some things need to be learned.
Adults and students listen to the music more than the lyrics, and we need to be careful with our words because students are listening. We don't want to send the wrong messages, political and otherwise. I'd prefer that we take the time to make ourselves clear. Rote has come to imply repetition in a dead and meaningless way. Making repitition fun is great. So is cultivating a love of learning so that practice, in most endeavors is not an ordeal. Like teaching a kid to block out on every play, and follow their shots, and run out grand balls, etc. is all of the above, good fundamentals, something that requires practice, and showing respect for the game. The third principle, in my opinion and in my world of high school, is our chief hope for both teaching the fundanmentals and transcending mediocrity.
And here's a practical example. Sure, kids need more practice in arithematic, but's let's focus on the real problem. Kids are never taught what math is - a precise language that uses logic. Until we start that basic, the practice makes perfect issue will remain an unfortunate sideshow, at least in math.
Do you really want your surgeon to have to Google the procedure she is doing on you in the middle of the operation? Of course not, you want her to have that stuff memorized.
Do you want you tax accountant to have a broad grasp of the basics of his field or are you OK with him having to Google his way through your paperwork?
When you go for a job interview how do you think the interview panel is going to react when you can't answer questions about the industry where you want to work without turning to Google for the answers?
I could go on but I won't. Suffice it to say that the demonizing of memorization is yet another symptom of a deliberately dumbed down educational system.
Memorizing facts is another, a quite useless one. Historical dates for example, or the name of the 25th president or the 13th amendment to the consitution. And the names of various parts of a plant. Of course you need the latter to understand and discuss function, but if memorizing is the only thing required (and tested) it is actually quite useless.
Do you really want your surgeon to have to google facts about anatomy when she is in the middle of operating on you?
Anyone living in America who thinks that admendment is not worth the time to at least know about displays a horrifying amount of ignorance, anti-intellectualism and disregard for his and his neighbors rights.