Monday, May 12, 2014

Inquiry vs. Memorization

Memorization often gets in the way of learning and yet the practice continues unobstructed in schools.  Fortunately the sciences provide schools and educators with many natural opportunities to move away from the boring, meaningless task of memorizing facts and information to a more constructivist approach associated with inquiry-based learning. Recently Ms Chowdhury’s Consumer Chemistry classes conducted testing on various consumer products as related to chemistry topics. While the students were learning about acids and bases, they had played with a simulation where their task was to create solutions of different pH. They also worked with another simulation that demonstrated acids and bases at a molecular level. 


Image credit: http://adaptedinnovation.blogspot.com/2013/04/inquiry-and-project-based-learning-in.html

Based on their learning from the two simulations, with the facilitation of Ms Chowdhury, the students discussed about a design for testing different brands of antacids. They knew they needed a sample acid and a pH indicator. The students were given lemon juice as acid, grape juice as base and they had three brands of antacid (Equate regular strength, Equate maximum strength, and Rolaids). The students used the idea that the grape juice (pH indicator) will change color when enough of the antacid has been added to neutralize the acid. They recorded the number of drops used from each brand of antacid, and decided on Rolaids being the best among the three based on their results. 

Ms Chowdhury believes that experiments such as this helps students contextualize their learning at a more practical level rather than mere memorization of what acids and bases are. The students also thoroughly enjoy any hands on activities. Regardless of the level of the course high school students today need to think. Memorization of facts does now allow for students to truly grasp concepts, let alone apply and then demonstrate mastery. Science is primed for inquiry-based learning, but schools need to do more by promoting this pedagogical technique across all content areas. 

10 comments:

  1. Hi Eric. That first line is a worry. Perhaps it doesn't translate across the ocean. Do you mean memorisation is where kids learn facts that they don't have to understand in any way? It seems obvious that the experiment you describe would be all the more powerful if the students then memorised the outcomes - why does it have to be one of the other. Today I taught physics; the students who struggled had all forgotten the key points we learned a couple of weeks ago. It was the failure or absence of memorisation that got in the way of the learning today. If you promote the idea that inquiry is somehow opposed to memorisation, I don't think that helps. They go together -surely?

    ReplyDelete
  2. My opinion is based more on a HS philosophy where pedagogy needs to focus more on the application/creation of knowledge and acquisition of skills. In a knowledge-based society when facts can be easily accessed via the Internet the proliferation of memorization takes away from the precious time that we have to foster critical thinking/problem solving. Shouldn't we encourage our students to discover outcomes as opposed to memorizing them if the goal is meaningful learning?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wonder if you've read the Daniel Willingham book? http://www.danielwillingham.com/books.html Actually the ability to 'google it' isn't a substitute for memory; if kids know things from memory their capacity to problem solve is far greater. It's a significant effect. You can't discover outcomes instead of memorising them - they need to be blended. Next time those students need to think about acids and antacids what then? They won't have time to look it all up - or at least they'll find it much harder. Memorisation is part of learning; I think it's problematic (and ultimately damaging to the credibility of inquiry learning ) to set them up in opposition in this way.

      Delete
    2. I agree memorization and thinking help student retain information. Studies show that dependency on the internet (GOOGLING) doesn't necessarily make kids smarter. The brain is like a muscle use it or lose it

      Delete
  3. Not saying that memorization does not have a purpose and your points are valid. However, do we spend time memorizing factual knowledge during class at the expense of more authentic pathways to learning?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree with both of you. Memorization is not enough in this world any longer, but sometimes remembering key vocabulary or concepts is what helps lead to deeper understanding. With that being said, what most do not realize is the the new information we are wanting students to "memorize" must be attached to an old memory or understanding. Which leads me to believe that if students are "forgetting" the information then they really didn't understand it in the first place. This is where solid analogies for individual students would come in handy and that means the teacher must know their students. I would like to ask a question to headguruteacher.com....in the business sector when do people HAVE to remember specific items within seconds? Most professionals work on briefs, projections, marketing plans and do their "research" then. Very rarely would they have to remember specific equations or when the War of 1812 was.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi Larissa, I agree that isolated facts can seem pointless so we need to talk about which facts are needed and how they link to the learning we're after. In the case of research, you will be more effective in doing it if you have greater knowledge already; you will process the information online more effectively and critically. It's not that you don't need any knowledge at all. Also, with understanding, sometimes knowing can be a precursor to understanding. Eg I've known the basic facts of the Vietnam War for years but my understanding of its significance and impact has deepened slowly over time. Without the factual context to anchor my thinking, I'd have struggled even more. I prefer to talk about the interplay of knowledge-transmission and inquiry; citing them as opposite poles that trade off against each other isn't very helpful - in my view. Thanks for the exchange. (Tom Sherrington - UK Principal)

    ReplyDelete
  6. When I was in primary school we had to learn a list of prepositions. I still remember the first column: about, above, according to, across, after against ... This was useless information because it was learned out of any context that was meaningful for me (or the teacher I expect!). I didn't need the information, didn't want to know this list, and couldn't apply it. I didn't even know what a preposition was until many years later! In contrast, when I did A-Level Chemistry I learned much of the Periodic Table in class, and at home on my own time, as part of our ongoing inquiry-based approach to teaching and learning. Making hydrogen, and exploding it, was exciting - and the smart teacher I had related the experiment in our ongoing inquiries to the element H and it's position on the Table. We returned to the Table again and again over 2 years as we inquired into the structures of atoms that, among other things, compared the explosion of Hydrogen to that of Uranium! Sometimes we referred to the Table as part of the teacher's informal or formal assessments of our understanding - useful tests - and sometimes as part of his lectures. However, always within the world of Chemistry and always tied to our prior knowledge and our actual experiences in class. My point here is that CONTEXT is what makes the difference. If I'm engaged by the context I'll be interested in learning facts and I'll be picking up facts as part of the inquiry. A fact learned on Day 1 of a course has not the same meaning as on Day 100 since now the context is richer, deeper, more complex and filled not only with information but experience and more conceptual understanding.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Indeed. Teachers should be "think coaches," encouraging students to work a bit higher on the Bloom's Taxonomy scale. We should no longer have the attitude of prepping students for game shows. Well said.

    ReplyDelete
  8. As a trained scientist (doctoral level work in plant biochemistry) I cringe when I hear some of what educators believe is effective science teaching. To me the most functional interpretation of the cognitive hierarchy that was presented by Dr. Bloom (no natural scientist would recognize it as a "taxonomy") is the one forwarded by Ms. Schrock here: http://www.schrockguide.net/app-for-that.html. Remembering is of course what becoming skillful in memorization allows a student to do. Perhaps the problem here is the continual denigration of memorization as a necessary skill that contributes significantly to overall cognitive processes. Teach in a low performing Title school sometime where students can't remember basic science vocabulary and you'll get a better insight as to why these students are so turned off by "higher order thinking" that they are doomed to fail at because they can't remember the underlying concepts necessary to construct understanding.
    Now I am not arguing that memorization was at any point in time sufficient but I am arguing that denying the importance of that skill within the overall scheme of cognitive development is a mistake that I see too many teachers make to the detriment of too many students.

    ReplyDelete