Wed Dec 3, 2008 1:04PM EST
See Comments (20)
Quick, when was the Battle of Hastings?* Like most of us, I was forced to memorize useless information like this throughout my grade school years, data that -- unless Jeopardy! ever decides to invite me to appear on the show -- will do nothing but take up space in my brain.
Now one expert is questioning the value of rote memorization of dates, names, and places, suggesting that the Internet and the easy access it offers to what is essentially historical trivia has made such memorization of limited, or even negative, value. Per a story in the Telegraph, writer Don Tapscott "suggests a better approach would be to teach children to think creatively so they could learn to interpret and apply the knowledge available online."
There's value to this idea if one assumes that a child can only learn so much during one day of class. I'd certainly rather my daughter understand the reasons why the Black Plague occurred rather than her worrying about exactly what day it started. But I also wonder whether these are mutually exclusive: Is it really possible to teach one without the other?
Another big problem with Tapscott's thesis: The Internet isn't exactly the world's most reliable source of information. While broadly-known historical information is usually correct, I'm sure it wouldn't take much searching to find someone out there who put up a web page explaining the Civil War... and getting the dates completely wrong. That said, books and teachers aren't infallible either.
I'm curious about the readers' thoughts on this one. In an era where "lightning speed" is required of workers and students, is memorization of "facts and figures a waste of time" or should we be less hasty when it comes to giving up our tried and true old ways? Your thoughts appreciated.
*Answer:1066
Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.
Even Einstein said that you don't need to memorize anything you can look up in a book! Obviously knowing WWI came before WWII is important, but knowing the dates of every important battle isn't, Especially if it's a general class for elementary school. I can see knowing if you planned on working in a museum or something relavent to history though. And yes, the internet is a very unreliable tool. That should be taught more than anything.
Great article, Chris! I think that there will always be use for memorization in education because it is an important tool to practice. That said, if I needed to know the exact date of a battle, I could look that up from my phone anywhere with cell phone reception. I also agree that as we move forward into the digital era, more focus needs to be placed on the circumstances and detail of historical events and how they affected society than on the specific numbers and dates.
College student here. Rote memorization is rather pointless unless you absolutely need it for your job or in life threating situations. Many teachers I've had over the years have realized this and are moving towards less memorization of facts when possible. Why spend four hours memorizing something that takes twenty seconds or less to find using google? Specific information should be left to books though, since people can be @sses on the intrawebs.
I agree that memorization maybe outdated and that creative thinking and problem solving skills should be cultivated. But I also believe that students or anyone obtaining information from the Internet should be taught to not believe everything they read on the Internet as fact and to be able to research whether or not the data they are getting is accurate and reliable before using it in any important project. valarie
Please enable your browser's cookies to activate the My Tech column.
| Computers | Home Office | Wi-Fi & Networking | Phones & PDAs | Cameras & Camcorders | TV & Home Theater | Portable Audio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 Posted by petefritzsching on Wed Dec 3, 2008 1:52PM EST Report Abuse
Thanks! This is a good article. Why memorize trivia or anything else when it is available on line.