Posted: April 15, 2012 | Author: sirmadlan | Filed under: Education, Philosophy | Tags: brainstorming, college, core ideas, education, exams, flow-based note-taking, focus, high school, idea webs, learning, mind mapping, mind maps, note-taking, philosophy, research, school, science, scott h young, stress, stress-free, studying, testing, tests, university, worthy idea |
What is a mind map?
A mind map is a really cool web of ideas in which each idea is related to a central concept. It’s represented as a simple diagram full of words, lines (hence the similarity to a web), and pictures. Mind mapping serves as a useful note-taking strategy in that it uses fewer words and enables a student to better see the connections between and relative significance of each idea in a certain topic.
I didn’t know that they were called mind maps before. I know that Scott H. Young has discussed this strategy in many of his posts on studying and holistic learning, but he calls it flow-based note-taking, not mind mapping. After I read some of them (and before I knew about mind mapping), I decided to give this “flow-based note-taking” trick a try.
I used it for only one unit in US History, but I found it effective. For one thing, I was writing less than my peers were, but I was getting the same basic ideas down. I didn’t worry about copying definitions word for word and explaining cause-and-effect event chains. Instead, I adopted a relaxed mindset and merely paid attention to what my teacher said. I was still able to absorb the core ideas.
Even when I take full notes, I never write complete sentences or definitions — they’re fragmented and caveman-like (of course, I make sure that I’m later able to understand them). This is done in in the interest of time and focus. I notice that as I spend more time writing continuous definitions, I become more focused on the act of writing than on the ideas that are being conveyed. After a class period of doing this, I have trouble remembering the specifics of what was just taught. This is problematic, because it means I have to spend more energy “studying” (AKA learning) the material later.
However, while mind mapping/taking web-based notes, I noticed that my mind was much clearer. I was able to hone in more on the underlying themes, cause-and-effect chains (another post-worthy idea that I’ve encountered while improving my study habits), and unmentioned significant points of each concept. I was giving myself time to think about and digest each idea — a crucial process, as it allows me to firmly peg an idea in my mind so I can easily remember it for a longer time, and thus have easier study sessions. If I’m busy copying more words, however, I cannot pause and ask, “Why?”, “What comes next?”, “How does this fit into the broader context of the unit we’re studying?”, and other crucial questions that improve my comprehension.
Not only do mind maps have advantages for studying and learning, but they also allow for more notebook whitespace and attention to neatness and organization. All of these improve readability, which in turn allows for an easier review of the material. Also, as I mentioned earlier, I realized that I was a lot more relaxed than my peers during class, as everyone else is a “full” note-taker.
Of course, correlation is not causation: there may have been other reasons why I was able to learn that particular unit more efficiently. However, I suspect that this style of note-taking helped. Give it a shot!
Posted: April 2, 2012 | Author: sirmadlan | Filed under: Education, Philosophy, Random Thoughts | Tags: board of education, clarity, college, cramming, distress, education, exams, external motivation, focus, high school, how to study, learning, mindfulness, optimism, school, science, stress, students, studying, teaching, testing, university |
I haven’t yet addressed the benefits of test-based learning. There are many, but they are often overshadowed by the system’s shortcomings or are attributed to other sources.
First of all, it encourages students to study. It provides the external motivation, which is similar to money in the context of a dull job. Most students, though, view this negatively; they do not want to learn or study, so the external pressure merely makes them anxious and distressed. However, a more open-minded, interested student can use this to his advantage. By preparing for a test, a student refreshes his memory about what he’s learned and ensures coverage of every concept and aspect of a particular topic. Without the external push, he may not have had the time or primary desire to review the topic. Even if he did, he may not have gotten a thorough understanding from simply self-studying.
Studying yields many interesting benefits, aside from high marks on report cards. Through focus and care, studying can open students’ minds and expose them to sources of potential interest. The practice of studying efficiently can also be improved, and in doing so, many other work and productivity-related benefits are obtained.
Here is an example: after I first took the SAT, I realized that I would need to work a lot on the Critical Reading section, as I scored rather poorly on it. At the time — two years ago — I viewed the purpose of studying for this section very singularly: it would help me improve my score, which in turn would improve my chances of getting into a better college. As my date with the SAT has been crawling closer and I’ve been studying more, I’ve realized that this view is incomplete. After practicing and analyzing my practice test results, I’ve gotten better at reading critically and thinking with more focus and clarity. These skills are essential for getting the reading-passage questions correct, but they’re also generally useful abilities.
More to come later…
Posted: March 27, 2012 | Author: sirmadlan | Filed under: Education, Random Thoughts | Tags: american education system, college, education, education system, learning, reform, revolution, school, standardized tests, success, teaching to the test, testing, tests, university |
Arguably, the pressure of studying for tests serves as an incentive for learning. I believe this is true, but only if the student approaches the task of studying for the test with an open mind. By this, I mean that he does not have the typical bored, distressed, apathetic mindset that the education system seems to have instilled in many — unfortunately, these types of students are few and far between. Many simply do not value school, tests, and education so highly.
Even those students who can tolerate the unfortunate reality of this system are not benefiting as much as they could. A common class-room complaint is, “Okay, I know how to do this for the test, but when am I going to use this outside of the classroom?” An honest answer would be that, for the typical person, very little will be “useful.” Without getting anything meaningful from a course, a student can pass and appeal to others on paper without the result being intellectually beneficial.
I don’t want my view to come across as completely anti-test. In fact, I think that some kind of evaluation is absolutely necessary — otherwise, how would you measure progress, see how well students are learning, and ensure that teaching methods are doing something to enrich students’ minds? Tests are helpful, and, removed from the context of reality, they should be viewed as such.
But the way schools do it now is absolutely wrong. Many students get the impression that in order to succeed in life, they have to subject themselves to all kinds of irrational pains and focus only on what the system wants and finds impressive — high test grades, lots of advanced classes, etc. — no matter how wasteful and stressful it may be. Other students do not value school so highly, because the heavy emphasis on testing is perceived as painful and irrelevant to everyday life, so they simply don’t try. And others try, but cannot possibly succeed in the restricted testing environment, because they deviate from the mold in some important way.
Evidently, problems exist in the system; I’ve laid a few of them out in various ways. Now, what would a better education system look like — possibly from a historical or scientific perspective — and how could we take steps to implement it?
Posted: March 10, 2012 | Author: sirmadlan | Filed under: Education | Tags: boredom, education, evaluation, exams, interest, learning, research, school, students, subject material, teaching to the test, testing, tests, youth |
Naturally, the way to measure a person’s ability in a certain field is thought a test. In academia, these are pieces of paper with questions pertaining to the unit or collection of topics covered and expected to have been taught and learned. The number of right and wrong answers are used to determine how much the test-taker knows — how competent he is with the subject. In sporting and athletics, skill and competence are tested using other measures. No matter what discipline people are being evaluated in, there are always measures used to figure out how competent someone is — and how their ability compares with others’.
In theory, tests should work — that’s why they were made: to evaluate. Recently, however, more and more students have gotten the impression that in order to succeed, they need to not only pass, but ace their tests. This unusual motivation runs counter to the purpose of tests: tests are supposed to be used to determine how well an individual knows subject material, can think in a certain field, or any number of qualities about the individual… Of course, some people will naturally tend to try to learn the material better — out of interest, ideally.
However, not everyone “learns” out of interest. The issue of the legitimacy of standardized tests has become widespread, especially as America’s financial situation has blighted, average intelligence and ability have risen, and competitiveness has become ingrained in more cultures. When people have access to old tests, preparation material, and exactly the information they need to know to do well on exams, then how good a job do these sorts of evaluations actually do?
The Wandering Mind 