> Actually, anytime somebody finds a way to engage students to think in a different way than just trying to memorise facts is a win, IMO. I think it is lamentable that students are asked to rely more and more on recalling facts at the time where it is becoming less and less important compared to critical thinking.
That's a false dichotomy (which I used to believe, too). You can't "think critically" in a vacuum. You need memorized facts to do it (even if you plan to do more research to find out more facts).
I think it's important to spend time focused on memorization, but education can't stop there, either.
The problem with memorizing facts is that you forget them readily unless you're using them all the time. It is much more efficient to learn processes, because these are generic enough that following them quickly becomes an unconscious habit. Declarative memory is also less reliable than procedural memory.
No, it's not a false dichotomy. Yes, you need to build knowledge via a body of memorized facts, but "the education system" currently hyperindexes on rote memorization, which only works for some types of learners, not all.
This assignments requires applied critical thinking and applying tools (yes, including memorized knowledge) to evaluate a paper. This requires working with multiple tools, and will also help the student retain more knowledge; perhaps more than just with rote memorization where you just "discard" the knowledge after your exam (by not interacting with or keeping up with it).
> "the education system" currently hyperindexes on rote memorization
Which education system, and in what subjects? I recall quite the opposite (rando public schools in the US). In hindsight, I would have benefitted a lot from simply memorizing more things.
My freshman calc grade would've been a lot higher if I had bothered to memorize trig identities in HS. Sure, I could derive them, but I had to notice "this is an identity" first - the lack of memorization actually hindered my intuition.
> No, it's not a false dichotomy. Yes, you need to build knowledge via a body of memorized facts, but "the education system" currently hyperindexes on rote memorization, which only works for some types of learners, not all.
Honestly, that's not how I recall it. Maybe it's changed, but I internalized "memorization is a waste of time," and I'm pretty sure I picked that up at a young age from teachers (though I could have misunderstood/overgeneralized).
Think about it this way -- up until recently lots of people were getting by doing menial jobs. Now more and more people are getting higher education and are doing jobs that require critical thinking.
So people with less than average intelligence who would be fine doing simple mechanical jobs in the past are now forced to do office jobs just to get by.
Not only that, but people no longer can rely on just learning your job and doing it all your life. More important is your ability to be flexible and able to do things you have not done before -- and this puts more pressure on your ability to think critically.
Yes, you need to know something about everything and it is valuable to know a lot about something. But nowadays this "a lot about something" is very specialised and you will learn it doing your job.
Schools are just lazy IMO. Teachers and students are forced into standardised process which makes administration easier and makes it easier to navigate racism and discrimination issues but is very poor at allowing any free thinking or understanding in the students.
As usual, the brightest people are going to be fine and the worst are going to fail anyway. The issue is with the masses in the middle who need this bit of help.
That's a false dichotomy (which I used to believe, too). You can't "think critically" in a vacuum. You need memorized facts to do it (even if you plan to do more research to find out more facts).
I think it's important to spend time focused on memorization, but education can't stop there, either.