Hop-hop.

Let me illustrate with an example. When I was studying history, what was the main method of teaching? Students were required to write. When they came home, a student had to spend several hours rewriting information from a book (or books) into a notebook, creating a detailed outline. The same was done during lectures, even though the professors read from books – essentially telling you the same thing you could read yourself, with the only difference being that you also had to keep up with writing it down. I won't argue that "writing" can be an effective way to memorize information, but:
- It doesn't work for everyone.
- This approach focuses on memorizing information (although I personally doubt its quality), but not on understanding.
For example, I had significant difficulties with creating outlines – I write slowly, and my handwriting is very messy. And, frankly, I remember information better by reading and analyzing it at the same time. And what happens in such situations? Again, remembering the "homework" involving rewriting tons of information. When we came to class, we had to retell certain parts of the text. I, using my own method (which was convenient for me), created short plans (a list of what I should talk about) and, based on that, retold what was required of me from memory. In turn, my classmates (the group was almost entirely made up of girls) read the text from their notebooks. Imagine my surprise when they received top marks, while I only got a "4" (a good grade, but not the best), simply because my outline was not neatly formatted. And I always wondered, why do people come to this educational institution? To memorize and understand information, or just to practice handwriting, because in the end, no one will go on to work in that field anyway?