Rhyme and memory

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:05 pm

I've heard that mathematics texts in Ancient India were in rhyme. Does anyone here have information on such?

As an extension to that question: what would you say brings about true learning, the number of repetitions of a chunk or the number of transformations of a chunk?

Outside EFL, an example of transformation and learning/memorising would be showing a group people a plan for building a bridge one time only and then letting them build that bridge from lego bricks rather than asking them to read the plan a number of times.

(NB This topic is not specifically posted for the entertainment of Fluffy.)

Lotus · Post by **Lotus** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 4:12 am

I studied French for 7 or 8 years. Instruction consisted of teaching chunks (dialogs). We memorized these dialogs and then practiced repeating them to each other in class. We also used language labs to practice correct pronunciation and as an aid to memorize the dialogs. We were tested on how well we could repeat these dialogs. Years later, I discovered that I could not carry on a French conversation with a Haitian classmate, because he did not know the dialogs I had memorized, and he certainly did not respond to my cues as former classmates had been trained to do. Since then I have learned Cantonese, in which I am fluent, and I never memorized any dialogs at all in that language. So, I would say multiple transformations of a chunk is much more likely to lead to learning than any number of repetitions.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 5:51 am

So, I would say multiple transformations of a chunk is much more likely to lead to learning than any number of repetitions.

A very interesting, first-hand, response. Thanks, Lotus.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:46 pm

I'm also wary of slavish memorization (remember that I've taught in China and Japan, where I see students struggling with the results of 'cramming'...they end up rigid from the classical mess (Bruce Lee/JKD allusions once again, sorry)), but it depends on the text (e.g. I've mentioned a "playful" dialog-wise book called Colloquial Chinese a number of times (the first edition, not the second, the latter of which is by a completely different author and nowhere near as much fun))...

I suppose a keyword for me is paraphrase. I'm assuming that Jotham meant something similar on the 'semantic prosody' thread when he talked about making students write about what they'd read.

It's hard to say what produces fluency, but dependence upon bad textbooks without much improvisation sure isn't going to help.