It’s very interesting to see how these ideas have been around for decades and yet we still see some of the same problematic pedagogy of kill and drill in today’s classrooms. The research found then and still does today that students forget the information they memorize for a test in a classroom; students retain much more of what they learn by doing and interacting with the material to be learned.
So, the question is then, why are educators still using pedagogy that tests students’ ability to memorize rather than demonstrate understanding? Especially when we have technology that can provide the answers that rote memorization requires. I understand that in situations such as math and grammar students need to have some things memorized; however, the seat time that is spent presenting and testing memorized material doesn’t make sense.
Is it because it’s easier for teachers to test/grade memorized responses instead of ones that require original thought and analysis? Most districts do offer teacher training to help teachers move away from a kill and drill pedagogy. I think that in the majority of classrooms today we have at the very least, an environment in classrooms where not all of the time is spent on rote memorization as it seemed to be presented in parts of the 1940’s video. Memorization is needed at times, but at a much smaller rate compared to anything in our past.
Comments