The first time you read a textbook on a new subject, you’re taking in new knowledge. Re-read the same passage a day later, a week later, or a year later, and it will qualitatively feel different.
You’ll recognize the sentences. In some parts, you’ll skim, because you know it already. Or because it looks familiar—are you sure which?
And in that skimming mode, you might zoom into and through a patch that you didn’t know so well.
When you’re reading a textbook for the first time, in short, there are more inherent safeguards to keep you from wasting time. At the very least, when you’re reading a sentence, you’re gaining knowledge of what’s contained in the textbook. Most likely, you’re absorbing a lot of new information, even if you only retain a small fraction of it.
Next time, many of those safeguards are lost. A lot of your time will be wasted.
Unfortunately, it’s very convenient to “review” by just re-reading the textbook.
When it comes to what in particular they’re trying to do, physically with their bodies and books or mentally, most people are incoherent and inarticulate. But I propose that we can do much better.
Reviewing is about checking that you know X. To check that you know X, you need two things:
Knowing the set of all X that you have to review.
A test for whether or not you know X.
Let’s say you’re reviewing acid-base reactions. Then X might include things like the Henderson-Hasselbach equation, the definition of Ka and pKa, the difference between the Bronsted-Lowry and Lewis definitions of an acid, and so on.
To be able to list these topics is to “know the set of X.” To have a meaningful way of checking your understanding is “a test for whether or not you know X.”
The nature of that test is up to you. For example, with the Henderson-Hasselbach equation, You might intuitively decide that just being able to recite it, define each term, and also to define pKa and Ka is good enough.
The set of things to review and the tests that are relevant to your particular state of learning are, in effect, what goes on a “concept sheet” and a “problem set” or set of flashcards.
So learning becomes creating an updated concept sheet to keep track of the concepts you actually need to review, as well as a set of resources for testing your knowledge either by being able to recall what those concepts mean or using them to solve problems.
The textbook is a reference for when you’re later mystified by what you wrote down on the concept sheet, but in theory you’re only reading it straight through so that you can create a concept sheet in the first place. The concept sheet should have page numbers so that it’s easy to refer to specific parts of the textbook.
Eventually, you’ll even want to memorize the concept sheet. This allows you to “unfold” the concept tree or graph that the textbook contains, all within your mind. Of course, you don’t need to recite word-for-word or remember every example, problem, and piece of description. It doesn’t need to be the entire textbook, just the stuff that you think is worthwhile to invest in retaining long-term. This is for you, and it’s not meant to be arbitrary.
But I propose that studying should never look like re-reading the textbook. You read the textbook to create a study-sheet that references descriptions and practice problems by page number. Then you practice recalling what the concepts on the study-sheet mean, and also memorizing the study sheet itself.
That might ultimately look like being able to remember all the theorems in a math textbook. Maybe not word for word, but good enough that you can get the important details pretty much correct. Achieve this to a good enough degree, and I believe that the topic will become such a part of you that it’ll be easier to learn more in the future, rehearse your knowledge conveniently in your head, and add new knowledge with less physical infrastructure.
Reading and re-reading
The first time you read a textbook on a new subject, you’re taking in new knowledge. Re-read the same passage a day later, a week later, or a year later, and it will qualitatively feel different.
You’ll recognize the sentences. In some parts, you’ll skim, because you know it already. Or because it looks familiar—are you sure which?
And in that skimming mode, you might zoom into and through a patch that you didn’t know so well.
When you’re reading a textbook for the first time, in short, there are more inherent safeguards to keep you from wasting time. At the very least, when you’re reading a sentence, you’re gaining knowledge of what’s contained in the textbook. Most likely, you’re absorbing a lot of new information, even if you only retain a small fraction of it.
Next time, many of those safeguards are lost. A lot of your time will be wasted.
Unfortunately, it’s very convenient to “review” by just re-reading the textbook.
When it comes to what in particular they’re trying to do, physically with their bodies and books or mentally, most people are incoherent and inarticulate. But I propose that we can do much better.
Reviewing is about checking that you know X. To check that you know X, you need two things:
Knowing the set of all X that you have to review.
A test for whether or not you know X.
Let’s say you’re reviewing acid-base reactions. Then X might include things like the Henderson-Hasselbach equation, the definition of Ka and pKa, the difference between the Bronsted-Lowry and Lewis definitions of an acid, and so on.
To be able to list these topics is to “know the set of X.” To have a meaningful way of checking your understanding is “a test for whether or not you know X.”
The nature of that test is up to you. For example, with the Henderson-Hasselbach equation, You might intuitively decide that just being able to recite it, define each term, and also to define pKa and Ka is good enough.
The set of things to review and the tests that are relevant to your particular state of learning are, in effect, what goes on a “concept sheet” and a “problem set” or set of flashcards.
So learning becomes creating an updated concept sheet to keep track of the concepts you actually need to review, as well as a set of resources for testing your knowledge either by being able to recall what those concepts mean or using them to solve problems.
The textbook is a reference for when you’re later mystified by what you wrote down on the concept sheet, but in theory you’re only reading it straight through so that you can create a concept sheet in the first place. The concept sheet should have page numbers so that it’s easy to refer to specific parts of the textbook.
Eventually, you’ll even want to memorize the concept sheet. This allows you to “unfold” the concept tree or graph that the textbook contains, all within your mind. Of course, you don’t need to recite word-for-word or remember every example, problem, and piece of description. It doesn’t need to be the entire textbook, just the stuff that you think is worthwhile to invest in retaining long-term. This is for you, and it’s not meant to be arbitrary.
But I propose that studying should never look like re-reading the textbook. You read the textbook to create a study-sheet that references descriptions and practice problems by page number. Then you practice recalling what the concepts on the study-sheet mean, and also memorizing the study sheet itself.
That might ultimately look like being able to remember all the theorems in a math textbook. Maybe not word for word, but good enough that you can get the important details pretty much correct. Achieve this to a good enough degree, and I believe that the topic will become such a part of you that it’ll be easier to learn more in the future, rehearse your knowledge conveniently in your head, and add new knowledge with less physical infrastructure.