From: riaedwards@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (AUDREY EDWARDS)
Subject: Re: Enforced Shakespeare?
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 08:43:10 GMT

In article <qgudm0c@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>From: livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
>Subject: Re: Enforced Shakespeare?
>Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 22:40:43 GMT

>In article <riaedwards.1.717853623@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au>, riaedwards@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (AUDREY EDWARDS) writes:
>|> In article <qfvg2gk@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>|> 
>|> >Why shouldn't it be rote learning *and* education.   I can still
>|> >regurgitate hunks of Shakespeare, and I don't see that this 
>|> >conflicts with education.
>|> 
>|> Repetition is not the same as comprehension (is this what 
>|> differentiates us from parrots?? :-)  ). 

>And non-sequiturs are not the same as answering a question.

I apologise! That was merely my (obviously wasted) attempt at humour.

>I did not assert that repetition is the same as comprehension.
>I asked if it conflicts with education.    I know chunks of 
>Shakespeare because I was encouraged to learn it,  and I repeat 
>it because I enjoy listening to great poetry at odd times.   It's 
>the same reason that I've memorised chunks of Mozart, so that
>I can play it in my head when I'm out running.   It's one of 
>those handy little things that the human mind can do, and I see 
>no reason not to do it.

Repetition can conflict with education, when the examination regime goes no 
further than to assess whether the candidate has successfully mastered the 
art of regurgitation (as was the case in the days of the board schools where 
the inspector's job was to listen to the pupils chanting their lessons 
verbatim.) 

Critics of the board school system (especially when combined with 
the "payment by results" of the board masters/mistresses, which 
discouraged deviating from the then accepted norm) suggested that the rote 
learning method, by closing the minds of the pupils to any other 
alternatives than the accepted text put forward by the teacher on behalf of 
the system, were contrary to the principles of education (in the enquiring/
questioning sense). 

Children are perfectly capable of learning things they are not examined in 
(I hesitate to use the example of the lyrics of pop songs or the rules of 
football for fear of being unjustly flamed for being trendy!!) The reason I 
use the analogy is that the key is one of enjoyment (a view which you seem 
to share). If pupils (as you seem to have been) are encouraged to find the 
poetry and drama in Shakespeare, then it will be retained in long term 
memories. For my views on exams see below.

>I also, as I said in my first message, had talented teachers
>that assisted us in comprehending what Shkaespeare was 
on about,
>and how he fitted into his time.    

>I see no conflict here.  I also don't see what's wrong with 
>the examiners asking a question that says, in effect "You claim 
>you've read this play, so go ahead, write a short essay about 
>it, or answer some questions."     Maybe there's a larger issue 
>here.   Are you just averse to testing?    Are you one of those 
>people that think kids should be exposed to knowledge, but not 
>tested on it?

Having sat 'O'levels, 'A' levels, read for my undergrad degree, sat the Law 
Society Finals and have yet more exams in four weeks, to be asked my view on 
testing is strangely amusing. 

No, I am not averse to testing when the method of examination assess whether 
the candidate truly comprehends the material, and is not merely trotting out 
verbatim the coursework. The old Law Society Final Examinations, which I 
sat, were a true case-in-point. At the beginning of the couse, we were 
handed a stack of printed notes. At the end of the year, we sat a number of 
closed-book exams which required us to regurgitate those notes verbatim. The 
system has now been, thankfully revamped, as most of my contemporaries 
agreed that as soon as we had finished the exams, we forgot what we had 
learnt (and relearnt it, in context, during our articles)

>|> 
>|> >Is there some reason why testing conflicts with education?
>|> 
>|> Yes, when the simplistic testing method used in my time (i.e. 
>|> timed closed-book essays on 'stock themes') encourage the 
>|> regurgitation of the 'example answers' given in crib-books. 
>|> Everyone knew that if you deviated from the norm, and attempted 
>|> original thought,you would be penilised. As you did not even 
>|> need to understand the crib-book to learn it off by heart, this 
>|> is a  long way from *education*.

>I'm not going to defend a straw man here.   You've erected a
>nonsensical image of the testing system.  Maybe they told you
>that you were obliged to regurgitate example answers: they 
>certainly never told me that.

I'm merely describing *my* experiences of the 'O' level English Literature 
course (which from the other responses generated are shared by at least one 
other person, who raised the same points.)

>Maybe someone else you chime in here.   Is it really the case
>that pupils are told to regurgitate the Cliff's Notes or
>whatever, on pain of failing their O Levels?    God help us
>all if that's so.

>jon.

Audrey.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:13338 rec.arts.books:17327