> The issue is that, at least for me, I'm madly trying to capture in my notes whatever it is the teacher was presenting.
I've observed this relation for myself, but the causality in my experience has clearly been reversed: it's not really possible for me to pay much attention to what is being taught when I'm working so hard just to write it down. Taking sparse, partial notes— or no notes at all— always left me way more room to think about the material.
This kind of approach works a lot better when you have a competent textbook that you can actually take home, which is only occasionally the case for high schoolers and almost never the case for elementary schoolers. When you have a decent textbook you can always make 'slow notes' from that at your leisure, if you really need them, and you can also do the readings before class so that all you need from the lecture is to fill in gaps.
But either way, trying to copy down the whole board is almost always the wrong way to take notes unless you are typing and can do so much more quickly than the board changes, IME. It's just way too much overhead and doesn't leave enough room for substantive engagement.
Try taking organic chemistry. The professor would show up early and fill three blackboards with synthesis reactions. It was then a race to keep up for the next 50 minutes.
For organic chemistry yes. There is a ton of information you need to be familiar with before you can begin to apply it. The corresponding lab course was just as challenging.
A lot of courses involve as much memorization as they do only because they are taught without or prior to the foundations or tools that are used to solve common problems in them. For instance, in the cases of 'algebra-based' (i.e., no calculus prerequisite) physics classes and statistics classes, virtually all of the formulas that students are required to memorize just 'fall out' of the calculus if you learn that first. The same kind of thing is often true in math classes for engineering and science majors, where students are taught to memorize and apply a number of rules, as opposed to math classes for math majors, where students are provided the tools needed to prove those rules and walked through one or more proofs of them. That makes not only makes it possible to 'rediscover' or retrace a half-remembered rule even during a test, but also generally makes the rules much more memorable. Conversely, students who take the 'non-specialist' versions of those courses often encounter a kind of desiccated curriculum that, stripped of any articulation of the logical interrelations between its terms, demands treatment of those terms as 'brute facts' which must be memorized-- giving them a false impression of the subject itself as one that inherently requires or involves a high degree of rote memorization.
Assuming that there is no such sequencing issue involved for organic chemistry as it's commonly taught, and that a large number of 'brute facts' are an inherent feature of the subject matter, how is frantic, mechanical transcription a good use of in-class time in which students have access to a subject-matter expert? Transcription doesn't require the presence or time of an expert. Wouldn't it be better for students to perform such transcription outside of class, especially in advance of the lecture, and/or to receive paper copies of the contents of the board printed with double line spacing and wide margins at the beginning of class? In that case, both class time and students' notes could be better focused on questions, mistakes, and generally material of more substance than memorization.
Is there an assumption (or maybe an understanding informed by experience) that students just won't do such transcription (and thus not memorize the facts they need to) if they're not prompted to do so in class?
I wonder if this is due to an extension of early childhood teaching techniques that has been extended to later years?
In current child development theories and books, it is taught that young children lack in "precausal thinking"/"transductive reasoning". Where a child does not understand things like "put on your jacket, it is cold outside" or "bring an umbrella, it will rain later".
It is said it is better to teach them "backwards" - let them feel that it is cold outside (problem) then tell them to put on a jacket (solution). But this type of reasoning reverses as we grow and develop.
> I hated it.
> The issue is that, at least for me, I'm madly trying to capture in my notes whatever it is the teacher was presenting.
I've observed this relation for myself, but the causality in my experience has clearly been reversed: it's not really possible for me to pay much attention to what is being taught when I'm working so hard just to write it down. Taking sparse, partial notes— or no notes at all— always left me way more room to think about the material.
This kind of approach works a lot better when you have a competent textbook that you can actually take home, which is only occasionally the case for high schoolers and almost never the case for elementary schoolers. When you have a decent textbook you can always make 'slow notes' from that at your leisure, if you really need them, and you can also do the readings before class so that all you need from the lecture is to fill in gaps.
But either way, trying to copy down the whole board is almost always the wrong way to take notes unless you are typing and can do so much more quickly than the board changes, IME. It's just way too much overhead and doesn't leave enough room for substantive engagement.