Quote:
Originally Posted by Tien
Btw uke, I don't think I've ever had a math teacher all the way up to university that really cared about rote learning. So that entire math exchange with Cuepee was very odd.
I am pretty sure we were allowed cheat sheets all the way up to Cal II.
Quote:
Originally Posted by uke_master
Ya it is really just fundamentally discordant with almost* all my experiences with math teachers/professors. Understanding >>>> Memorization.
*The one counterexample was a sessional lecturer who would test proofs in a theoretical multivariable calculus course. Like, you would have say 20 proofs and you would know one of the 20 would appear on the test, so you should just memorize all those proofs. This is obviously terrible. It was my literal first semester as a lecturer in grad school and had to work with with this guy with common exams.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of my point on rote learning that i have explained but it seems no one can grasp.
My argument is NOT that any teacher cares about rote learning. So lets puts Tien's analysis of my position aside as that is not my position.
My argument is NOT that rote learning constitutes a big or even a meaningful percent in exams TODAY (it did historically), so lets put that comment prior by uke aside as that is not my position.
Going back to my friend Pi, which i was happy to see become a star of the other thread, and stating that the example I am giving below IS NOT specifically about Pi, but Pi represents any XYZ placeholder one is expected to have memorized before they can progress, here is my example...
Test: below are 15 questions in which you will have to demonstrate your ability to apply analysis and work with these equations (ABC) to demonstrate your application skills to get to the answers you will be graded on. START!
The Test supplied everything but simply expected you had prior memorised XYZ (Pi in this instance) and since you did not you are stuck. You cannot address a single question as knowing what XYZ is the fundamental first step to progressing to prove the rest out. So you get 0% on the test.
Had the teacher simply provided the value of XYZ (Pi) you would then have got 100% as you know the application cold.
Knowing XYZ (Pi) might be a tiny percent (less than 5%) of what the teacher focused on, on this test and 95% might be appropriately targeted at application and thus people tend to then say 'rote learning is no longer a thing of importance.... it constitutes so little now...' but that is not the case, all too often, as many times it is still a bar to progression to the other areas of learning.
uke might be great at not making that mistake and i would applaud him if he is. I would invite him to supply some of his sample tests here so we can read them. That is something he can do easily as I am legit curious to see if avoids that common mistake.
Last edited by Cuepee; 01-08-2022 at 04:44 PM.