Rote memorization from test preparation books – its form and methodology is an issue we cannot avoid, because in high school, this is exactly what troubles students and prevents the development of the high school itself, hindering the student’s connection with the school. The topic is important and concerning. It is equally important to discuss these questions with students; their perspective is not only interesting, but also insightful. It is the students who go through the long, exhausting phase of exam memorization, facing the senselessness of such work and the problem of how time-consuming and costly it is.
As a teacher, I see no positive, knowledge-based approach in assignments that focus on memorizing test prep content. What I consider important in the educational process is logic, the formation and development of skills and thinking. Different groups of students address this topic, study it, and debate it. We have held a number of roundtable discussions, raised the issue, and spoken about it publicly. We believe that addressing this question is essential and fundamental.
At the core of the state general education standard lie value-based education, skills, and project-based learning. But in reality, what dominates is the test prep book with all its impositions. It turns out that the state general education standard is our dream, while the test prep book is our reality. Dream and reality have no common ground.
We live in the information age, when any piece of information can be found within seconds. Artificial intelligence and digital technologies can store and process an enormous amount of data that is beyond the reach of human memory. And why memorize, if any information can be found and read? Why memorize, when what’s needed is analysis, reasoning, argumentation…
In today’s world, the most valuable thing is not the storage or memorization of information, but its application in real life. Education must not be separated from life. The 21st century demands critical thinking, the ability to find creative solutions, logic, and teamwork. When a student spends most of their time filling out test booklets, it deprives 11th- and 12th-graders of the opportunity to develop the skills needed to be competitive in today’s market. We are preparing students for who knows what-while ignoring real life and its real demands.
One of the most widespread and at the same time most controversial phenomena in high school is the “test booklet culture.” It’s like a closed loop of memorization, tutors, exams, and pointless tension. Rote memorization from test booklets has become an inseparable part of the educational system, yet it is harmful and meaningless for the intellectual development of future generations. Mechanical memorization is the death of thinking. The student is forced to remember the text in the exact sequence of sentences, without focusing on the essence or logical connections. This creates the illusion of knowledge. A student may be able to recite a definition or fill in an answer, but not understand what it actually means in real life. In reality, they may be unable to punctuate a sentence, formulate a coherent thought, use a word correctly, read a literary work—but still remember the test question by heart. They do not experience the joy of reading, do not discuss, do not connect it to their own life… they just memorize. When knowledge does not pass through analysis and one’s own thinking, it becomes a useless burden, forgotten right after the exam.
This topic is addressed by 12th-grade student Alisa Hakobyan:
“In Grade 12, we began preparing for the final exams. During the lessons of all subjects, we started working with test booklets, and as a result, the last year of school is spent solely on exam preparation; we don’t cover any new topics. But focusing on the subject of ‘Armenian language,’ I can say that the only way to prepare for the exam is to sit down and memorize all parts of the booklets. I’ve singled out a few main points explaining why learning through test booklets is mostly unhelpful for actually learning the Armenian language.”
The assignments in the exam preparation book often contradict themselves-words may be considered synonyms in one exercise and not in another. As a result, we end up learning not the synonyms themselves, but rather how to eliminate options and find the correct answer-even when we have no prior knowledge of it.
There are also disputable questions in the book that have different answers from year to year. For example, a reliable source online might state one rule, but when you check the printed book, it turns out that another rule applies. I find it pointless that such problematic questions are used to assess students’ knowledge when even experts haven’t reached a consensus.
In some exercises, you encounter words that are no longer used or are entirely invented-modified by certain authors for their own works.
A large number of exceptions are used when creating the exercises, so instead of testing knowledge of the fundamental rules of the Armenian language, they mostly test how many illogical words or phenomena you can memorize.
When it comes to memorization, it seems that what’s mainly being developed is the ability to remember, not logical or analytical thinking. This often leads to stressful situations, because it’s unclear why we are supposed to memorize exceptions and words that we encounter for the first time in seventeen years only in this exam book.
All the information and memorized material remain in our short-term memory, and a month or two after the exam, they are already forgotten, since they are rarely used in daily life.
The literature section in our exam materials doesn’t teach us how to analyze or think. There are questions that require you to remember in which chapter a secondary character appears-someone who might not even play a role in the main idea at all. There are questions that test your ability not to get confused rather than your ability to truly understand the text.
There are also very debatable questions that ask what the author supposedly wanted to say in a particular work-but everyone thinks differently, and even while reading the same sentence, it’s quite possible to interpret it in various ways. So it turns out that in such questions, there isn’t really a single correct answer.
Of course, we have spelling, punctuation, vocabulary, and so on, which we have to memorize whether we like it or not. But all that should also become ingrained as we read books, watch films, and why not-listen to songs. We need to develop our cinematography because, as far back as I can remember, I grew up watching either Soviet‑era Armenian movies or films made in completely different languages. Setting aside our own film industry, even foreign films become almost unwatchable once translated into Armenian. It may seem like a small issue. “Well, we’ll learn other languages; we already know Russian”, but in fact, all of this gradually distances us more and more from our mother tongue. It becomes harder for the ear to take in Armenian songs, to read Armenian books, to watch Armenian movies.
Another big problem is that there’s very little information available in Armenian on the internet. When you search for many things, you’re forced to use another language to find what you need. Yet it’s precisely through reading new information that we strengthen and preserve our native language.
The topic is also addressed by Seda Stepanyan, a 12th‑grade student, and I quote:
Although the study guide is extensive and covers various aspects of literature, I think some questions could be removed or modified. For example, questions that deal with excessively detailed dates or secondary facts (such as “which newspaper the author collaborated with” or “in what year the given poem was written”) do not always reflect a student’s literary understanding and analytical ability-which, to me, are the most important. It is far more valuable that a student be able to grasp the idea of the work, the psychological portrayal of the characters, the linguistic means of expression, and the author’s intended message.
In addition, I believe the requirements for memorization could also be changed. Sometimes students are forced to memorize large passages or texts without deeply understanding their meaning. It would be better if the emphasis were placed not on rote learning, but on analyzing the content of the work, describing the characters, and interpreting its ideas. Instead of asking students to memorize several works by the same author, it could be enough to require one piece per author-something that helps recognize the author through their creation.
Thus, in my view, it is necessary that the structure of the study guide promote reading comprehension, knowledge of writers, the development of literary thinking, and the formation of the student’s own opinion-while reducing tasks that demand mechanical memorization.
In conclusion, our words and actions, our books and intentions, our educational approaches and examinations should revolve around the same principles-they should align and serve the person, the learner of the 21st century.
English translation by Lilit Melkonyan