The article is partial to a very western view of education.
Lecturing from a book, or from notes, is sometimes the right thing to do, especially when teaching to students who will have trouble following the class otherwise (by lack of discipline, by just being unused to that way of teaching or simply if they can't afford the references book you are asking them to read, or don't have the time to do that).
The most important is what the student get from the class, not how elite or interactive the teacher is.
If most students understand better after rote learning some dictated notes - why not do that?
After all, it is a good way to ensure the majority of students will have a proper base material to learn from, without too many mistakes thrown in, especially if they can't offer books. If they can "do better", don't worry, top students will use their notes as what they truly are - base material, a list of keywords to build their knowledge from, with the help of google or books.
professor told us the entire Mahabharata epic from memory ... this professor exemplified passionate teaching.
See, memory can be helpful.
One needs both memory and understanding. The US system seems to overemphasize understanding. Other systems may overemphasize understanding.
I would not call either system "balanced".
real education being one that challenges the intellect and questions paradigms, not one of rote memorization and conformity
That's biased. How can you challenge the intellect and question paradigms if you don't know them in the first place?
There is a time for everything. Maybe a 3rd year college is not the best moment to question paradigms.
I agree that in the United States, we tend to morally stigmatize rote learning instead of recognizing that it can serve as valuable "scaffolding" for other learning processes. (For example, memorizing foreign language verb forms so you can practice using them in conversation. Rote memorization does not accomplish the end goal of fluency, but it greatly facilitates the conversational practice that does build fluency.)
However, I think it's a waste to spend class time with a professor on rote learning. Rote learning is a mechanical process that students can do on their own time. When they're in class with a professor, they should get the benefit of the professor's skill and knowledge.
> Lecturing from a book, or from notes, is sometimes the right thing to do
The issue isn't "lecturing from a book" vs "teaching from memory" but "literally reading from the book", expecting students to take notes(Why?) and classifying that as teaching.
> Lecturing from a book, or from notes, is sometimes the right thing to do,
I don't see how this can ever be useful. I grew up in the Middle East and attended an Indian School which followed the CBSE syllabus. There was nothing in the syllabus per se that inspired me to ask why. That came from my innate interest and from the occasional teacher who went beyond what was taught.
The focus was on rote memorization. You could be assured of excellent marks if you simply regurgitated what was in the text book. So if you were a moron, but had great memory, you could get 90%+ on an exam, but did you actually know anything?
In high school, I loved math but I never did well in the exams because I didn't really understand what I was applying and why. My high school teachers told me that I would do better in a western system of education that focused more on application than rote memorization. This was borne true a few years later when I started my undegrad in the US and aced my math classes. Although to be fair, my previous exposure to higher math definitely helped. But what I gained most from my education in the US was that I knew why I was doing what I was doing.
> The US system seems to overemphasize understanding.
I fail to see how anyone can overemphasize understanding. Understanding is the point of learning something. I still remember one of my friends memorizing Physics derivations. I once tried to ask her to explain one particular step and she had no clue why it was being done. She had simply memorized it. I sucked at that; I cannot memorize anything if I do not understand it
> That's biased. How can you challenge the intellect and question paradigms if you don't know them in the first place?
He's talking about the paradigm of rote memorization and conformity. In school I was frequently docked points if I restated my answer in any form that was different from the text book. It didn't matter that what I was saying was essentially the same. I didn't use the language of the book and so it was "wrong". How does that teach anyone anything? I still remember being terribly frustrated because I knew that my answer was right but yet I was being penalized because I hadn't regurgitated what was in the book.
Rote memorization may be helpful, but it cannot be the central underpinning of any kind of educational system. The idea of education is to understand what is being taught and apply it. Not just to memorize and regurgitate it without any regard for the meaning. Otherwise you're not better than a parrot that repeats phrases without any idea of the meaning or context.
I suspect that someone raised in a Western educational system simply cannot comprehend what a typical rote-memorization-driven Indian school education looks and feels like. Because it's insanity.
I worry that the US is moving in the same direction, with all the focus on testing-driven "standards." (Not to mention the use of calculators in math class.)
Comments
The article is partial to a very western view of education.
Lecturing from a book, or from notes, is sometimes the right thing to do, especially when teaching to students who will have trouble following the class otherwise (by lack of discipline, by just being unused to that way of teaching or simply if they can't afford the references book you are asking them to read, or don't have the time to do that).
The most important is what the student get from the class, not how elite or interactive the teacher is.
If most students understand better after rote learning some dictated notes - why not do that?
After all, it is a good way to ensure the majority of students will have a proper base material to learn from, without too many mistakes thrown in, especially if they can't offer books. If they can "do better", don't worry, top students will use their notes as what they truly are - base material, a list of keywords to build their knowledge from, with the help of google or books.
professor told us the entire Mahabharata epic from memory ... this professor exemplified passionate teaching.
See, memory can be helpful.
One needs both memory and understanding. The US system seems to overemphasize understanding. Other systems may overemphasize understanding.
I would not call either system "balanced".
real education being one that challenges the intellect and questions paradigms, not one of rote memorization and conformity
That's biased. How can you challenge the intellect and question paradigms if you don't know them in the first place?
There is a time for everything. Maybe a 3rd year college is not the best moment to question paradigms.
I agree that in the United States, we tend to morally stigmatize rote learning instead of recognizing that it can serve as valuable "scaffolding" for other learning processes. (For example, memorizing foreign language verb forms so you can practice using them in conversation. Rote memorization does not accomplish the end goal of fluency, but it greatly facilitates the conversational practice that does build fluency.)
However, I think it's a waste to spend class time with a professor on rote learning. Rote learning is a mechanical process that students can do on their own time. When they're in class with a professor, they should get the benefit of the professor's skill and knowledge.
> Lecturing from a book, or from notes, is sometimes the right thing to do
The issue isn't "lecturing from a book" vs "teaching from memory" but "literally reading from the book", expecting students to take notes(Why?) and classifying that as teaching.
> Lecturing from a book, or from notes, is sometimes the right thing to do,
I don't see how this can ever be useful. I grew up in the Middle East and attended an Indian School which followed the CBSE syllabus. There was nothing in the syllabus per se that inspired me to ask why. That came from my innate interest and from the occasional teacher who went beyond what was taught.
The focus was on rote memorization. You could be assured of excellent marks if you simply regurgitated what was in the text book. So if you were a moron, but had great memory, you could get 90%+ on an exam, but did you actually know anything?
In high school, I loved math but I never did well in the exams because I didn't really understand what I was applying and why. My high school teachers told me that I would do better in a western system of education that focused more on application than rote memorization. This was borne true a few years later when I started my undegrad in the US and aced my math classes. Although to be fair, my previous exposure to higher math definitely helped. But what I gained most from my education in the US was that I knew why I was doing what I was doing.
> The US system seems to overemphasize understanding.
I fail to see how anyone can overemphasize understanding. Understanding is the point of learning something. I still remember one of my friends memorizing Physics derivations. I once tried to ask her to explain one particular step and she had no clue why it was being done. She had simply memorized it. I sucked at that; I cannot memorize anything if I do not understand it
> That's biased. How can you challenge the intellect and question paradigms if you don't know them in the first place?
He's talking about the paradigm of rote memorization and conformity. In school I was frequently docked points if I restated my answer in any form that was different from the text book. It didn't matter that what I was saying was essentially the same. I didn't use the language of the book and so it was "wrong". How does that teach anyone anything? I still remember being terribly frustrated because I knew that my answer was right but yet I was being penalized because I hadn't regurgitated what was in the book.
Rote memorization may be helpful, but it cannot be the central underpinning of any kind of educational system. The idea of education is to understand what is being taught and apply it. Not just to memorize and regurgitate it without any regard for the meaning. Otherwise you're not better than a parrot that repeats phrases without any idea of the meaning or context.
Double upvote.
I suspect that someone raised in a Western educational system simply cannot comprehend what a typical rote-memorization-driven Indian school education looks and feels like. Because it's insanity.
I worry that the US is moving in the same direction, with all the focus on testing-driven "standards." (Not to mention the use of calculators in math class.)