First, what is the Straw Man Fallacy?
It’s one of the most successful argumentation tools when people want to attack your statement or belief or opinion.
This is how it works:
Step 1: They will pick your argument and then distort or misrepresent it.
Step 2: Now they will attack that distorted/misrepresented view as if it was your original or real argument.
Step 3: By doing this, they will try to make your original argument invalid or weak.
They are not attacking your argument (or you) but the straw man version of your argument (or you). It’s easier to “burn” you.
Example 1: Nepali movies
You: I don’t like watching Nepali movies because the stories are poorly written.
They: Oh so you don’t like to contribute to the growth of Nepali movie industry. How could you say such thing as a Nepali citizen?
or,
They: So you're saying all Nepali movies are terrible and have no value? That's a bit close-minded.
If you are not vigilant, now you will be trying to prove that you are patriotic and open-minded.
Example 2: Standardized Testing
You: I believe standardized testing provides a standardized measure of student achievement and helps identify areas that need improvement.
They: Oh you just wants to turn the schools into soulless test-taking factories. You clearly don't care about real learning in students, do you?
Now all of a sudden, the topic moves towards how schools are factories that do not care about students’ learning. From your original argument to something which you didn’t even talk about.
Example 3: Homework
You: Homework is an essential part of the learning process. It reinforces what students have learned in class, promotes independent study habits, and prepares them for future challenges.
They: You are advocating for unnecessary stress on students. Homework takes away valuable time for extracurricular activities, family, and rest. It contributes to burnout and doesn't necessarily enhance learning.
The response oversimplifies your argument and suggests that you are advocating for unnecessary stress on students. Which you didn’t at all. This misrepresentation makes it easier to criticize your position by framing it as solely promoting stress, whereas the actual argument is likely more nuanced.
Ok, I hope these examples are enough. Now let’s move on to the core of this post.
The Straw Man Fallacy: Rote Memorization
One of the ways many people dismiss the centrality of memory in learning is by using the straw man: rote memorization!
And then critics of education use it as the reason why “our education system sucks”.
Yes, I admit that rote memorization is crass and probably the least effective way of learning. But even if you that rote memorization is necessary in some contexts (like when someone is an absolute novice at something.), then people will use straw man tactic to attack it.
“So you are in favor of promoting a one-size-fits-all approach to learning? You want to neglect the diverse learning styles and individual needs of students?”
Or,
"So, you're advocating for mindless rote memorization as the only way to learn? That's ridiculous! The education system should focus on fostering critical thinking and creativity, not just forcing students to memorize facts like robots."
Almost every single time.
Critics of standardized examination system also use straw man fallacy by using “rote memorization”, in this way:
“Standardized examination system promotes rote memorization of learning. All a student has to do is rote memorize a bunch of useless information and regurgitate it in the 3-hour exams. Where is the genuine love for learning and understanding?”
Chinese students vs Western Students
Let’s shift gears for a moment.
I was reading Jin Li’s terrific book “The Cultural Foundation of Learning: East and West” published in 2013.
In short, the book dives deeper into eastern culture and western culture and how the eastern people think the way they think, and the western people think the way they think - about learning and education.
For simplicity, Li uses “Confucius” as the foundation of the eastern thinking, while “Socrates” as the foundation of the western.
On the narrative around rote memorization, here’s an extract from the chapter titled “Time past and Time Present” and the section is “Learning Processes”.
With regard to the learning process itself… the notoriously Chinese/Asian style of learning that has received much criticism from the West as well as from Chinese educators themselves. However, it turned out that Chinese rote learning was not an end in itself but was used as the first step of a larger strategy for achieving deeper understanding….
… Whereas British students used repetition to check if they really remembered something, Chinese students used it to create “deep impressions” to lay a foundation for developing understanding. Moreover, British students viewed understanding as a process of sudden insight, whereas Chinese students believed understanding to be a long process that required extensive mental effort.
And, here’s the meaty part:
Generally, they (Chinese students) engage in four distinct steps to accomplish any learning task. Upon encountering new materials, Chinese students initially commit the material to memory; next they seek to understand the intention, style, and meaning of the material. They then try to apply their understanding to situations that call for use of such knowledge, and finally they enter a deeper level of questioning and modification of the original material.
Whereas the last step in their approach is verbally interactive by nature, the first three steps may call for more solitary learning and contemplation (which is an important aspect of Chinese intellectual tradition).
So apparently, Chinese students do not stop after rote memorizing, because for them it is not the end in itself, but a means towards deeper learning.
To recap, the Chinese students
a. use rote memorization to “put” new materials into their memory
b. seek to understand the intention (why), style (how), and meaning of the new material
c. apply their initial understanding
d. go deeper through questions and modifications
AHA !
The first three steps is more “silent” and “reflective” and the last step is more “interactive”.
Another AHA !!
(This book is awesome in so many different ways. This book is a MUST for anyone who is passionate about teaching, learning, education, and culture.)
Here’s my verdict
Rote memorization, especially when learning a new material, is the first step towards deeper learning. In many context of “intentional learning”, it might be the only way to support novice learners.
The “negative” narrative around it makes sense IF the teacher does not push students beyond rote memorization into understanding, application, and exploration.
Perhaps, if the students are not learning enough, it’s because the teacher implemented the approach wrongly. It’s a classic fallacy of blaming the tool, not the carpenter.
Plus, if the questions in the exam are focused on superficial details, students will evidently rote memorize them. If one can pass a standardized exam through rote memorization, the examination system is the problem, not the learning technique.
The fault lies in the design of the assessment system, not on rote memorization.
To solve this problem might be a complex task but in simple terms: make the assessment system that tests not just students’ memory but also tests deeper understanding, application skills and critical/creative thinking skills.
There are far more critical issues around the education system and putting all the blame on rote memorization alone is the result of childish thinking.
Agree/Disagree? Let me know.