I am having trouble studying history in a manor that I retain the information, even though I quite enjoy learning about many of the subjects in history. We cover a lot of information in our class in both the lectures and reading notes, and I am having a tough time being able to memorize it well enough. I have tried flashcards and general discussion types of studying, but I still am not able to know it well enough. What kinds of things do you think would help me become better at learning history?
The Pomodoro method is pretty great for memorizing larger chunks of information in shorter periods of times. You study for 20 minutes, then take a 5-minute break and so on. When you've done 5/6 blocks, you stop for a hour or two and then back again.
it all depends on what you have to learn, I assume your being graded on this.
The cool thing about history is you can usually find something about it to relate to, if you have to memorize dates and geography you might not relate until you find something that you connect with.
Don't overlook history because you have to pass a boring class. Find a way to put yourself back then and take it from there.
History is not about memorization, really. It's about reading and remembering the overarching threads of logic and narrative that are important in everything you read. Obviously for certain undergrad test you'll have to remember some names and dates - just reread your notes before the test and you should be fine.
For essays and stuff, think logically. What do you remember about the main arguments of the reading? What were the biggest pieces of evidence the author used to support their thesis?
Think about things that sound like summaries. "In many way, the [subject] had characteristics x, y, and z"
"So far, we have learned that _____"
Good answers on tests are about not losing sight of the forest for the trees and remembering as many specific things you can to support your answers about the big ideas.
I grade undergrad history tests and the biggest problem people have are speaking in vague terms and not structuring their essays logically. The best way to demonstrate your knowledge is to recall the important, large points your professor made and being able to refer to them via specific examples.
Also: read. Read a ton. History is reading.
This guy just told you how to "hack" your humanities class.
Just double check your research when writing.
I've been out of school for years, and I didnt study history, but these are things I wish I knew going in.
To the TA poster, how do you relate to kids who take a different view from, or differ radically from your professors standpoints? I'm not talking radical revisionist history, just people with a different take-away from the class lecture?
I am learning European history. We are currently learning about the French Revolution and the American Revolution. I have been trying to make connections as well in each of the events, and this has helped some.
A big part of our class is logic, and this is something that I have not been too exposed to in earlier classes, but it has been the most rewarding part of the class. I still struggle with the remembering of names and concepts mainly because of the amount of information we have to cover. eg.: the notes I have for my past 2 chapters are 40+ pages long and in 8 font size. On essays, I have been able to relate to the main arguments, but unable to give specific details that would support the main idea. >>83137
This I will use. I have been looking for something like this.
You should know how to write an argumentative essay by now, I hope, and so just consider how that essay is formatted:
Intro and thesis
>body paragraphs with evidence supporting your thesis
>conclusion which DOES NOT SIMPLY repeat the thesis, but ties up the argument in a manner which restates the importance of your points.
An argumentative essay is essentially what most history papers/essay tests will consist of, so as you're studying, look for the overarching themes the prof will highlight, and the supporting evidence.
All you're doing is writing a ton of small argumentative essays.
Sorry I don't, but Napoleon was a pretty interesting person, that might be a good jumping in point.
Who knows, you might actually find yourself enjoying history with the right presentation.
>A big part of our class is logic, and this is something that I have not been too exposed to in earlier classes
I assume you've been on 4chan for a little while since your on this board. So I assume you've formed your own opinions from the cacophony of insight, shitposting, and trolling you've been subjected too.
You're ready to right an essay with your own logic. Just do your own research, look for the professors "greentexts" and resist the urge to call him a faggot.
Youll at least get a B-
Most of the "logic" on 4chan is rife with fallacies. I wouldn't recommend the shitposting method as an ideal way to learn anything.
Ironically, it's one of the most abused fallacies out there, not only on /pol/ but especially on leftist websites.
Remember fagfucks, just because an argument contains an insult tacked on, does not mean that the argument itself is a fallacy necessarily. It's only a fallacy if the *argument itself* is based on an ad-hom.
>People are just getting lazy.
I think most of them simply don't know what fallacies truly are, and many believe that a fallacy works as a kind of "trump card" where one can simply point out a fallacy and they win the argument in their mind.
That's my guess anyways
That still strikes me as a symptom of being intellectually incurious and willfully ignorant.
I want to know why people believe the things they believe, even if they seem patently false to me, and I want to know what best arguments for those things are so I can discover how to dismantle them properly.
Oftentimes even True Believers in a given ideology will not even present anything more than the poorest emotionally-rooted rationalizations. This does nobody any favors, me least of all because I run the risk of remaining ignorant to more solid arguments that may convince me or at least force me to exercise my critical thinking muscles.
>intellectually incurious and willfully ignorant.
Oh, absolutely, it is.
I also find that most "true believers" are the ones least likely to be able to logically defend their beliefs, because they truly believe and that trumps any logical examination of what they believe.
Or maybe they're just part of the grand old Dunning-Kruger effect.
OP here, I try to keep my mind open to different views. I don't like bias, and I would much rather learn as much as possible before forming my theories. Either way, I am glad that I have a teacher that gives me all the facts in an unbiased and un-filtered environment. I love learning, even though it can be hard for me to focus at times. Thanks for all of your insights on my studies.