<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Back to Basics</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelearningguys.com/2007/05/11/back-to-basics/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thelearningguys.com/2007/05/11/back-to-basics/</link>
	<description>Guys that know a lot about learning and love to learn!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:56:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael</title>
		<link>http://www.thelearningguys.com/2007/05/11/back-to-basics/comment-page-1/#comment-165</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:30:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelearningguys.com/2007/05/11/back-to-basics/#comment-165</guid>
		<description>Hey Guys,

In terms of this discussion ultimately everything revolves around how you define &quot;rote memorization.&quot; If you define it to mean &quot;unconnected facts, unrelated to anything else&quot; it is kind of hard to argue in favor of this kind of learning. If you define it to mean &quot;any kind of discrete facts&quot; than it is very hard to argue against because we connect knowledge using facts and experience as our anchors.

I&#039;ve found, in discussions over at Chinese pod that people are all over the map when they use this word and that as such it has little useful place in discussions on learning. The term is, in the end, no more than a red flag.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Guys,</p>
<p>In terms of this discussion ultimately everything revolves around how you define &#8220;rote memorization.&#8221; If you define it to mean &#8220;unconnected facts, unrelated to anything else&#8221; it is kind of hard to argue in favor of this kind of learning. If you define it to mean &#8220;any kind of discrete facts&#8221; than it is very hard to argue against because we connect knowledge using facts and experience as our anchors.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve found, in discussions over at Chinese pod that people are all over the map when they use this word and that as such it has little useful place in discussions on learning. The term is, in the end, no more than a red flag.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

