On Thu, 08 Aug 2002 19:14:10 GMT, email@example.com (Chergarj) wrote:
>>I'm trying to aproach this from the same idea as all musicians >>memorize their performance music. (soloists, that is). >>There is something to be for memorization and what it does >>for the learning process. >> >>Art > >Mathematics learning is not comparable in that way to music piece learning. >Music people have concept comprehension and should have an ability to >coordinate their actions with other artists, at least somewhat like language. >Language must be interactive and not based totally on memorization------quite >similar with math. Playing in an ensemble, oh yes, people have to be aware of each other, play off of each other, and this is far removed from learning rote math facts. Being a pianist for 40 years, I've learned at least a thousand or two pieces on my own, sometimes by rote, sometimes not. I'm not sure where the language thing cropped in...
> >A child reading a word problem and developing a solution goes beyond >memorization when he/she converts the description to symbols and mathematical >expressions, and then writes the symbolic steps to the solution. > >Still, the rote memorization is important for developing the low level skill >which ultimately support such higher level skills such as reading, >comprehending and solving word-described problems. > >G C
My only focus is on rote memorization of math facts, and having reflexive response (in my eyes, automatic recitation while writing and oral). Unless a child HAS to count on fingers and use carry digits, I firmly believe that this should be dropped as soon as possible in the early grades.
Thanks for the feedback,
Art "A warrior for traditional methods in education"