Talk:Rote learning

message: The section, under heading The Suzuki Method and rote learning, should be moved to Discussion/ the Talk page. Though the content might have meaning, its meaningful existence is out of place here, but in reply to the brief section on Rote Memory in music, which currently precedes it. As I read it, the motive is to contradict the other's claim that The Suzuki Method is exemplary of Rote Learning. As such, its presence detracts from the article. If the citation is verified, perhaps it would be more sensible to remove it, and edit the mention of Suzuki from Rote Memory in Music.
Jsabarese (talk) 06:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Would someone who understands the issues involved please fix this? --seberle (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinguishing Commentary from Content 

message: This section contains several unsubstantiated statements, and quite a bit that appears to be opinion and/or anecdotal experience of the author(s).  I propose removing that section, unless something more substantive can be placed there.  --Grinning Fool 04:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for rote learning --- comments 

message: I've created links and corrected spelling as well. The reason for the name change was given in the talk section of rote memory. More work needs to be done, especially in the last paragraph. Brian Pearson 02:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrote memory has been changed to rote memory 

message: Researchers found that seniors who engaged in an intensive period of rote learning followed by an equally long rest period exhibited improved memory and verbal recall.Brian Pearson 04:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rote learning improves memory in seniors 

message: Although it may be interesting to read about, I fail to see the connection to rote learning. I would like to see an explicit connection made to why this is applicable to rote learning. Otherwise, I believe it should be removed from the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.47.110.46 (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hands On Science Effectiveness 

message: This page appears to have an American bias...I've flagged it because of it. 
Insolectual 00:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has British spelling. Brian Pearson 03:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  US focus? 

message: I think cramming and rote learning overlap to an extent, but not sure merging is the best idea. Most of cramming could probably be classified as memorization, but certainly not all. Trying to understand some math concept for the first time right before an exam would be cramming, as would thinking over common questions the day before a big interview. I know the name cramming (memorization) suggests otherwise, but I was planning on changing it. Thoughts? — xDanielx T/C\R 20:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose move 

message: In France, since the early 90s, we've been told again and again that rote learning was all crap, that it was just good for morons, etc... and here are the results : most of 18 year-old flunk exercises that were given to people of the same age 30 years ago, their cultural knowledge is a joke (indeed, they're discouraged from learning dates by rote), their orthograph sucks and even basic mathematics (equation, percentage) are a pain in the ass for them...
I think that this article should not be so biased and should also point out the danger of getting rote learning away. Besides, some studies suggest that an intelligent approach of rote learning can be profitable   Mitch1981 (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Key words emphasized: "...it could screw up what I think is the very basis..." 98.31.54.35 (talk) 03:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Give rote learning a break 

message: The section titled Religion seems to be written by someone who just learned English last month. Somebody please fix it!
98.31.54.35 (talk) 03:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion: Really, really bad grammar! 

message: why does learning map redirect here?
There is no mention of learning maps in the article at all.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.74.248 (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  learning map 

message: This article should also mention the best practices for memorizing.  It should also link to how the brain works: short term memory, long term memory.  How much can a regular person remember for a short while, a medium term, the long term and what are some of the toppers.  I remember something like: you hear something from a teacher.  In the evening you can much quicker go over the taught material again.  Then one tries to remember what one has learned and when blocked, one opens the book and writes down on another place in the form of a question where the blockage was about. And that till one remembers what has been learned by using only a minimum of questions.  This way one will remember for about 12h.  Repeating it again between 12h-18h will then help memorizing the facts for about 24h.  Repeating it again some 28-24h later will then help to memorize it for about 5 days.  Repeating it again after some 4-5 days will then help memorizing things for about 2 weeks. Repeating it again after some 2 weeks will help to remember for some month. ...So the fact of the matter is that memorizing things is very time consuming and the importance of the matter to be memorized must be well thought over or it will be detrimental to the set of skills that are important to master next to rote learning. What is a good mix?  Anybody with a link to some research on this? --SvenAERTS (talk) 12:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to memorize asap? 

message: I suggest adding at least one external link to a website on which people can try rote memorization themselves, such as http://www.onlinerotelearning.com/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.97.194.42 (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: Learning methods for school
"The flashcard, outline, and mnemonic device are traditional tools for memorizing course material and are alternatives to rote learning."
Flashcards are tools of repetitive practice.  I think that makes them tools of rote learning.
That statement is supported by 4 sources... so maybe it's me.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.250.147 (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it should probably be "are examples of rote learning" but I don't have access to the 4 print references so I am unable to check to confirm --220.239.36.50 (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "alternatives" has been replaced by "examples". Expansion of the phrase "mnemonic device" would improve the statement.Rgdboer (talk) 23:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think someone should rewrite this 

message: Weird. The keywords "critical thinking" are in the chapter title but nothing about critical thinking is explicitly mentioned or explored in this actual section. Tooironic (talk) 06:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rote learning vs. critical thinking 

message: In the Religion section, the author seems to have a shallow understanding of ancient religions like Hinduism , Buddhism or Muslim. It is quite true that ancient sacred texts were transmitted orally and NOT  in written format, equating it to rote learning or mugging is totally unacceptable. The author and the readers as well must know the difference between memorizing and rote learning. 
Also in the western WOrld, printing press was invented only in the 1700s but the technique of writing was known thousands of years ago.(In bible, for example).
My point is specially in Ancient religions of the east, Memorization of sacred texts(which were thousands of pages) without missing a single syllabi was an extraordinary feat and so it is in todays world. It is DEFINITELY NOT equal to mugging. 117.236.109.77 (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shallow understanding of Ancient Religions 

message: No criticism? No "when to use" sections? This article seems very loose, probably written by rote learning.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.128.252 (talk) 05:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism?