As I work through my masters program, the topic of rote memorization is continually being referenced as the ultimate failure in education. And I've had enough.
Maybe it's because I'm a music teacher, but I just can't relate. How is knowing all 36 scales in your sleep a bad thing? Or having the times tables so automatic it's faster to do long multiplication than to put forth the effort and find the calculator? According to the popular theories of learning, because these things were learned by rote, the concepts they represent were not understood and therefore meaningful learning failed to take place. I beg to differ...
Again, maybe it's because I'm a music teacher.
The problem is not rote memory, the problem lies in abandoning rote memory to fend for itself in the tangles of the neurological forrest. Hiking in the wilderness is fun and exciting... and healthy. Getting lost is not.
I am convinced - by both experience and research - that rote learning is foundational to conceptual learning. Rote memory leads to understanding... if you stay on the trail. Any student of mine (or any Suzuki student, for that matter) will tell you the very first thing they learn is Twinkle Twinkle Little Star. Parents learn to hate that song - because students learn it by rote; just like the ABC song and the word 'no.' And just like the first time a child mimics the word 'dog,' they have no idea of the musical implications or meaning of what they have just played and said. At this point in their musical career, they know Twinkle, but they don't KNOW Twinkle or WHY Twinkle. There is a neurological pathway labeled Twinkle connected with body coordination, words, and rhythm - all concrete. There are no abstract interconnecting pathways. Just one lonely pathway in a tangle of neurons.
Now we spiral. The one lonely neuron has just coordinated finger dexterity; the student's brain is finally free to shift focus. If the student and teacher continue on the metaphorical trail, new concepts - such as musical notation, intervals, etc. - are introduced and added to what the student already knows - Twinkle Twinkle Little Star. A teacher intent on traveling down the path of understanding guides the student three steps down the path, only to back up two steps and make connection, build pathways. The only reason those steps are there to compare is because of rote memory. As concepts are applied and new pathways built, the rote memory of Twinkle becomes a vast network of finger mapping, half and whole steps, tonality, perfect fifths and fourths, binary form, phrasal contour, cadencial emphasis... need I go on? What was once rote memory becomes a complex understanding of the musical world - attached to a melody that students can't forget. Rote memory has become deep memory.
Learning all 36 scales is painful. They are initially learned by rote. Eventually, the math and theory behind the construction of the various scales starts to make sense within the context of rote memory; the memory becomes meaningful, and subsequently unforgettable. But in order to understand the theory of the scale, I needed to understand half and whole steps. To understand half and whole steps, I had to feel and hear half and whole steps - which was done through rote imitation of my teachers. The process is similar for the times tables - rote memory, followed by concept development leads to deep, accessible memory. It is impossible to forget what 2x2 is - but rote came first.
Here lies the problem: many have made the assumption that if a student can supply the desired response (scales) or answer (times tables), they must therefore understand what they have done. Not so. Rote answers precede understanding; they are not diagnostic of understanding. When rote memory is confused with understanding, spiral concept development is abandoned as the teacher races ahead through the forest of abstract concepts. The rote memories of students are left to wander off the trail only to be lost in the dense tangle of neurons, never to be accessed again. Deep memory never forms and the rote pathways are recycled for more pertinent memories. When teaching and learning stop after rote memory has been achieved, learning does not take place.
I contend that this is not rote learning; this is an attempt to cheat the system. When master teachers were observed using rote memory with great success, the fallacious conclusion was reached that rote memory was an end in itself. Why spend so much time teaching scales when they can simply be memorized? Rote has come to mean 'merely memorized.' This is not rote learning - it is rote faking.
So please - do not confuse my rote learning with your rote faking.
True rote learning leads to deep memory. This appears to be a familiar concept to musicians; maybe the rest of the educational world just needs time to catch up with what we already know. Maybe the arts initiative and our new status as a 'real' school subject will give us the opportunity to differentiate between real rote and fake rote... I can dream, can't I?
