- This topic has 3 voices and 13 replies.
-
Posts
-
Not that Ski has been doing this, but….Thought this was semi-interesting. Perhaps it is intuitive anyway, but the numbers back it up (though the pool looked like it was somewhat small to begin with for such a study):All-nighters may not improve grades
Not that Ski has been doing this, but....Thought this was semi-interesting. Perhaps it is intuitive anyway, but the numbers back it up (though the pool looked like it was somewhat small to begin with for such a study):All-nighters may not improve grades
All night cramming doesn't hurt, but usually the ones who do this sort of thing are already setup for failure because they procrastinated in the first place. Studying a little each night and then massively reviewing material the night before is another story though.
All night cramming doesn't hurt, but usually the ones who do this sort of thing are already setup for failure because they procrastinated in the first place. Studying a little each night and then massively reviewing material the night before is another story though.
Lol, I was gonna say....I've spent a number of long nights studying for exams, but I hadn't thought of myself as "set up for failure". But I do know what you mean...and true enough, I think I pretty much always am studying during the semester anyway. Actually, I have never stayed up through the night (I don't think) studying, since I feel that I need some sleep, some division between the days, even if brief (an hour or two of sleep). I think that studying straight facts/memorizing them is probably easier done on little sleep than studying underlying principles and themes. Studying the latter seems to use a different part of the brain than raw memorization.
Memorization in History is worthless. Historians don't have to remember dates and names so much as they need to understand concepts, themes, and cause. For example, if I were to throw out the terms Schleswig and Holstein, most people would think these were the names of two German dudes so they would try to find out what they did etc….but if you were a serious student of History, you would remember that Schleswig and Holstein are geographical places that once belonged to Denmark and were annexed by the Prussians leading up to the Danish Prussian War. Why are the important? Because they are the pretext for Prussian expansion which led to the greater war…the Franco-Prussian War of the 1870's….which is important because the Prussians utilized American military tactics employed during the Civil War…and the enmity between France and what later came to be Germany was sown from this conflict. See how many themes I laced together from just two little provinces in Denmark? That's what historians have to be able to do, and memorization is absolutely worthless in these types of exercises because if you don't know the concepts, themes, and causes…your poopy out of luck. 😉
Historians don't have to remember dates and names so much as they need to understand concepts, themes, and cause.
I agree 100%. With questions like "Why did the Greeks invent history, drama, philosophy?" it's not going to mean anything if one just memorizes dates and names.I think it depends on what kind of exam/quiz you're going to take too. A multiple choice quiz, for example, I find it easier to review the material an hour or two right before taking it. With an essay exam, however, you need to stay caught up throughout the semester. If you don't 'get it' while reading/studying, it's kind of too late. It's funny, I can sort of tell on the discussion assignments which students read the chapters real fast just to complete the reading, and which ones actually read for comprehension.Plus, you need sleep to stay alert. Back when I first went to URI, I remember some who crammed all night said they fell asleeep during the final.
I can totally see what you two are saying, but I do disagree to an extent, and I'll tell you why. Memorizing, in my opinion, is good and has its place even in the study of history. Knowing themes and principles cannot be subordinated to memorization, but to really be effective they need to be used together.For example, if I have memorized some basic facts - such as that George I succeeded to the throne about 1714, the first performance of Handel's Messiah was done in 1742 when George II was reigning, and that George III ruled from 1760 to about 1800 - then I have a background to when events happened that potentially affected English politics. If a question were to come up asking me to trace some of the changes in the power of the Whigs from 1725 to 1800, I might be able to give a decent answer with general concepts. However, if I am able to insert dates which corresponded to significant shifts in Whig power, my answer will be much more effective. So I can say that beginning in the 1760s, George III's less Whig-friendly attitude removed some royal endorsement of the party; and that the American and French Revolutions of the late 1770s and early 1790s showed the radical Whigs that greater democratic rights for citizens were possible; or that the centennial of the Glorious Revolution of 1688, occurring obviously in 1788, reinvigorated English citizens with a new drive for, say, suffrage rights. Without knowledge of particular dates I don't think I would be able to answer the question in the same way. True enough, memorizing needs to be taken within context of learning the themes and principles of history, and I don't counter that. Just that certain kinds of memorizing, in the right context, can be money.
I was going to add this about memorization. Perhaps this is just a beginner talking, but what's a deeper knowledge and what's more important? That I understand the concept and context of why General What's-his-name did something during the Greek-Persian War or that I remember his name? Besides, for me anyway, knowing the concept first helps me remember the other facts like dates and names.Take timelines for example, that's just all factual data. It's useless (for lack of a better word) to memorize the exact date of the Assyrian Empire, but very useful to know who else was around at that same time. If I'm off a few years, yes, academically that's not good (wrong answer on a quiz, poorly written paper), but it doesn't throw off the context. (unless your way off with the dates) This was my downfall in high school why I didn't like and do well in history. It was more memorization of simple facts instead of understanding the what's and why's, and I found that incredibly boring. Maybe this isn't the best attitude, but I don't care when Solzhenitsyn was in exile, I want to know why.
Well yes some memorization is required, and I probably shouldn't have said it was “worthless.” However, memorization might get you a decent grade on an exam, but it won't help you to understand History as the progression of human social interaction. So if you are someone who is thinking of becoming an historian, your study habits should take into consideration the interconnectivity of historical events and also one should consider their importance in how they steered the direction of civilization to the point where we are now.
I think that knowing the “whys” of history and the influences between various events/people will be more important than memorizing exact dates and facts. I didn't mean to imply otherwise in my post, but just that the latter can reinforce the former. I remember taking an American history class as a freshman in college, and memorizing a practice test question answer which called for us to trace the events leading up to the American Revolution. I must have memorized ten or so events, almost word for word, including years. The question came up on the exam and I wrote down what I had memorized. The professor wrote back something perhaps not surprising - that I put down the facts but didn't really "trace" it well enough. Now, had I used what I had memorized with larger themes and influences among events I could have written a pretty good answer, but instead I think I just regurgitated facts in a way that probably looked somewhat awkward.
I think that knowing the "whys" of history and the influences between various events/people will be more important than memorizing exact dates and facts. I didn't mean to imply otherwise in my post, but just that the latter can reinforce the former. I remember taking an American history class as a freshman in college, and memorizing a practice test question answer which called for us to trace the events leading up to the American Revolution. I must have memorized ten or so events, almost word for word, including years. The question came up on the exam and I wrote down what I had memorized. The professor wrote back something perhaps not surprising - that I put down the facts but didn't really "trace" it well enough. Now, had I used what I had memorized with larger themes and influences among events I could have written a pretty good answer, but instead I think I just regurgitated facts in a way that probably looked somewhat awkward.
This is what I'm getting at. Professors will pick up on this really quick and will design their questions to make it very difficult for memorization to bail you out. Professors are looking for critical thinking skills in History. They want to see how well you make connections and how well you can analyze events in terms of significance including the who, what, where, when, and why is it important aspects.
I think that knowing the "whys" of history and the influences between various events/people will be more important than memorizing exact dates and facts. I didn't mean to imply otherwise in my post, but just that the latter can reinforce the former.
Oh, I wasn't saying you did. I was just asking/commenting on you guys' opinion about it. As donnie said, it's all about critical thinking. That's why I'm liking this professor. She's asking questions that require critical thinking skills over the knowledge of dates and names (which I'm finding difficult due to the "crash course" nature of the class). My first couple of days of reading/notetaking were taking down facts, and that didn't really help me to answer, so I changed strategies.
Ok, here's another thing dealing with “memorizing”. It's not just about facts or raw data. It's also about memorizing principles, cause and effect, influences, etc. So even if you don't know an exact name or a date, you'll still need to remember events or issues and how they relate. Think of it like this - critical thinking won't get you too far if your professor asks you to explain the significance of Delos to the formation of the rise of Athenian power. You will just have to know certain things that went on and understand their connection. Notice that this implies both understanding and knowledge. Only then can you apply critical thinking. If you are studying a hypothetical test question beforehand, you may want to memorize by the use of acronyms which stand for ideas/events which you can then expand upon. Obviously, the acronyms don't help much if you don't understand the issues or cannot explain them in greater detail. But it does help to have a "trigger" that organized your thoughts. My fear is that if organization is not done beforehand, when it comes time for an exam it can be easy to overlook important ideas that should be included in the answer.
I don't disagree with any of that. Good point about ignoring things for exam taking. That's why I like timelines. There's difficulty in grasping events or eras in my mind because there's so many overlapping incidents. Need visuals!Dates are very important., I'm not saying they aren't, just to what degree. One has to know the Mycenaens came before the Dark Age before you can answer why the Dark Age occured, but is it super important to know the Mycenaen civilization flourished between 1600-1100 B.C. ? Maybe in a Ancient Greek History class it is, but not so much an intro class.
Yeah, that's a good point. To what extent is it important to know the dates of the Mycenaean civilization? I would say it is fairly important in general, but perhaps less so if your particular professor doesn't care. The reason I think it's important is as you say – you need to know what happens beforehand and what happens afterwards. I think that the further you go back in time the less important it becomes to know specific dates, but going forward it becomes more important. For me, knowing that Athens was a power around 420 B.C. and that Aristotle tutored Alexander the Great around 332 B.C. are reference points that help me with perspective. Knowing that Caesar Augustus reigned at 0 B.C./A.D. is also important, as is the fact that Charlemagne was crowned Holy Roman Emperor in 800 A.D., or that the Battle of Hastings (William the Conquerer) was in 1066, or that Pope Julius II was living during the time of Michelangelo, who lived from the late 1400s (~1475) until the mid-1500s. I don't know specific dates of Michelangelo's life without looking, but knowing generalities (within 20 years or so) gives me perspective.
The important thing to remember is that History is a science too as much as an art. History has a methodology to it. It requires investigatory skills, analytical skills, persuasive skills, writing skills, organizational skills, and creativity (the artsy part). Historians are technical writers who must write very similarly to a legal brief or legal summation. You have to craft a thesis, defend your position, and sell your ideas to your audience. So before you can craft a thesis or defend it, you have to research your topic and gather as much data as you can before you begin to piece things together. This strategy applies to studying for exams as well because you are going to have to persuade your professor you are an “expert” in the field of study. Memorization is only a tool toward that greater end of becoming an expert. Memorization is the first layer of knowledge that can point a student in the right direction, but from there, it will do little else. Knowing who Captain Kidd was or James Madison is of course required, but in order to do well on an exam containing questions about these figures, you will have to understand their cultural mentality, the socio-political-economic conditions in which they lived, who were their antagonists, rivals, friends, co-horts, supporters, and detractors etc….Basically you will have to put on your political science cap, your geography cap, your pyschology cap, your economics cap, and your sociology cap from time to time as you research. All of the disciplines of arts and sciences come into play with History. Only the student who is willing to employ these many disciplines will excel in their presentational arguments. Remember History is all about arguing a critical position. This is why so many History majors go onto Law School. So, just keep it in the back of your mind that unless you can see the recurring themes of History, you will do poorly on History exams.
