3 ms·

I disagree that using memorized formulas to solve math problems isn't meaningful learning. But granting you that, I'd argue that a student who has memorized the

by NoPiece 14y ago

I disagree that using memorized formulas to solve math problems isn't meaningful learning. But granting you that, I'd argue that a student who has memorized the formulas and can apply them to that test and get correct answers is a success story. That's better than most people, and enough of a tool to make math an asset for that person in life. Students who conceptually get it, and those who have just "memorized" will do well on atest. The test will help identifying the students who can do neither, and the teachers who are underperforming, which is the real problem.

chii 14y ago
> I'd argue that a student who has memorized the formulas and can apply them to that test and get correct answers is a success story. but what is the goal here? I assume the goal is to teach that person how to notice a situation in real life, and use the knowledge learned at school to cope with that situation. Does rote learning actually help for such a goal? I argue that it _might_, but only if the situation "looks" similar to one of the pre-prepared situations that the student has studied. Those who have grasped the concept, and is able to gain deep understanding of fundamental principles, will be much better prepared for that eventual situation mentioned above. And if i was an employer, I'd want to hire that person, instead of the one who learnt by rote. Now, granted, there isn't really an easy way to distinguish between the two above. Which is why the standard test is used - its the best we've got. But if the teaching method is allowed to be influenced by these standarized tests such that the student, instead of gaining a deep understanding, is relegated to just rote learning, he/she will never really be able to apply what they've learnt to situations they've never encountered before, and thus, the goal is not fullfilled.

by NoPiece 14y ago

chii 14y ago

> I'd argue that a student who has memorized the formulas and can apply them to that test and get correct answers is a success story. but what is the goal here? I assume the goal is to teach that person how to notice a situation in real life, and use the knowledge learned at school to cope with that situation. Does rote learning actually help for such a goal? I argue that it _might_, but only if the situation "looks" similar to one of the pre-prepared situations that the student has studied. Those who have grasped the concept, and is able to gain deep understanding of fundamental principles, will be much better prepared for that eventual situation mentioned above. And if i was an employer, I'd want to hire that person, instead of the one who learnt by rote. Now, granted, there isn't really an easy way to distinguish between the two above. Which is why the standard test is used - its the best we've got. But if the teaching method is allowed to be influenced by these standarized tests such that the student, instead of gaining a deep understanding, is relegated to just rote learning, he/she will never really be able to apply what they've learnt to situations they've never encountered before, and thus, the goal is not fullfilled.