Memorize or Analyze?

It’s time for another point/counterpoint article! This time the focus is on whether or not students need to be memorizing facts in the digital age. Robert Mahoney thinks they do.  He starts by describing a scenario that is meant to illustrate everyones’ obvious preference towards working with someone whom has memorized their facts. Here is what he said:

“You find yourself in an unfamiliar town with a car that appears to be taking its last breath. You have a choice between two garages. One has the fastest diagnostic tool and mechanics who have trained extensively in computerized analysis, and the other is staffed by mechanics who have worked on cars for years and use computerized diagnostics as a tool to assist them. Which would you choose? Most of us would prefer the latter, as their abilities are backed by personal factual knowledge that makes them more valuable and likely to diagnose the problem correctly, whether or not they receive assistance from the computerized diagnostic software.” (Mahoney & Daggett, 2010)

Mahoney goes on to argue that this can be applied to education as well. Students need to have a foundational knowledge in order to succeed outside of the classroom. Mahoney also thinks it’s unreasonable to expect students to acquire procedural knowledge without memorized facts as the foundation. He feels that having the world at your fingertips means giving students a way to get all the information anyone could ever want, and no idea how important this knowledge could be or how to apply it. One example is a calculator; students whom can multiply on their own do better than students that use calculators. This is because they can access their previously stored data.

Willard Daggett Does not agree; he feels that the most important skill we gain from our younger years in education is not memorizing but analyzing. He feels that analyzing is also a much better way of learning because it creates new neural pathways in the long-term memory portion of our brains. He wants us to focus on active thinking and learning, rather than working on our short term memory functions. Daggett also responds to Mahoney’s calculator comment by stating that when he multiplies he does not simply remember what the answer is, but he calculates from another number. Daggett does admit that the retrieval of knowledge is slower, but learning without memorization makes itself useful in development, not just retrieval.

Have you ever tried this? I remember being a kid and doing it once. It was ridiculous.

Before I state which I agree with, I would like to say that I think Mahoney’s example is awful To me this just shows the difference between experience and inexperience. Mechanics usually don’t just memorize the parts of a car and their locations under the hood and then they are the best at what they do; they work on cars and eventually learn from experience. This is actually a better example for his opponent’s arguement. The mechanics whom have never worked on a car would be a good example of someone whom is operating on memorized knowledge and has not been able to put it to use yet.

This is an interesting argument that I have been wondering about in my own studies. So many of the standardized tests, especially the CSET, have us recite previously memorized knowledge, which I wouldn’t think would be important to test. Why would our short term memory need to be flawless instead of our ability to look things up when the time comes? I see the need for memorizing small things from time to time, and the ability to do that is important, but so is the ability to find things worth memorizing.

Let’s look at the traditional history class as an example; students sit listening to their teacher and trying to store all the events in their memory. When they leave the class, this stored memory will deteriorate, unless they have some super human abilities or techniques. Instead, it is important to teach these students how to research a topic on their own. Want to know about the battle of Gettysburg? Here’s how to find out about it!” The way we teach them now, these students are developing a textbook crutch, which is even worse when you consider how awful the information and wording in a textbook can be.

That being said, I do think that memorization has it's place in the classroom, especially when learning a new language or vocabulary.

This article could be applied to NETS 3 and 4. NETS 3 covers research and information fluency, which students would be doing if we got them out of textbooks and into journal databases and online sources, which can be a helpful learning experience in itself. (Please click here for my tips on researching on the internet and finding credible sources!) NETS 4 covers critical thinking, problem solving, and decision making, which is a very important aspect of the researching process; when looking at a source, students would have to decide how they could fit this into their argument or where they could find a source that adequately displays what they are trying to prove.

To see the original article, please click here! 
Image is from All Mighty Dad

Mahoney, R. & Daggett, W. (2010, February). Point/counterpoint do students need to memorize facts in the digital age?. Learning and Leading, 37(5), 6-7. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/learn/publications/learning-and-leading/issues/Point_Counterpoint_Do_Students_Need_to_Memorize_Facts_in_the_Digital_Age.aspx