Uncovering the Secrets of Calculus 2 and Physics: Strategies for Success

[Poop-Loops]

for phys II, the prof made us read the chapter the next day's lecture was going to be about. VERY effective. you get the material first in the reading, then you get it reinforced by the lecture, plus you have an idea of what questions you'll need to be asking and what problems you'll have to solve.

This is something I don't agree with. I tried that with calc. The book would explain it one way, the teacher another, and there I was: in the middle, crying, because I didn't understand anything anymore. What's worked for me is having the teacher explain it, then try and piece together anything I didn't understand from the book. Sometimes it took me a while, but it worked.

PL

 

[bomba923]

This is something I don't agree with. I tried that with calc. The book would explain it one way, the teacher another, and there I was: in the middle, crying, because I didn't understand anything anymore. What's worked for me is having the teacher explain it, then try and piece together anything I didn't understand from the book. Sometimes it took me a while, but it worked.

PL

Hmm...I find books more informative and challenging than teachers (although I'm a HS student, so I have not the experience of college/university teaching methodology ...except for Organic Chemistry and the CalcIII I'll take this fall)
As a HS student, books (HS or college level) may explain concepts/material "minimalistically"-->give you just enough facts/information to advance further into the concept--(or the next few pages if you wish ); also, they explore the concept/material in greater depth...though that depends on the book(!). That's why I rely more on books, for example, than on notebooks/teachers; I study by the book (literally !), and any question I might have I either consult a secondary textbook...or the instructor. What I like about books is not only "how" they cover the concepts/material, but also the "depth" with which they do so.
When I took Organic Chemistry I (first semester), I studied from two textbooks--Volthardt and L.G Wade, rarely relying on notes. When I was learning carbon stereochemistry...I read L.G Wade and understood little. Then I read Volthardt...and it all made sense! Though it may take longer, I try to understand each concept as intuitively and fully as possible, reviewing each possible "case" if necessary (Organic chem practice was worth the while!)
*Basically, my advice is to understand each concept as fully as possible...that way, you will solve problems much faster with a procedure that makes sense-->e.g.,
"Practice can help you solve problems faster, understanding will allow you to tackle more difficult problems."
(practice=greater speed, understanding=greater depth , I suppose you could say?)

 

[Stephan Hoyer]

This is something I don't agree with. I tried that with calc. The book would explain it one way, the teacher another, and there I was: in the middle, crying, because I didn't understand anything anymore. What's worked for me is having the teacher explain it, then try and piece together anything I didn't understand from the book. Sometimes it took me a while, but it worked.

PL

I think this very much depends upon the teacher and the class. Last semester my professor for Vector Calculus was very good and considering the level of the course (I couldn't take the honors version) I found lecturers to be almost completely sufficient. I would review the book briefly and use it as a reference, but generally I found that with good notes I was able to pick up all or most of the concepts without it.

In contrast, the honors general chem class I took the semester before that was taught by a young professor just recently out of grad school who had some sort of fellowship. His lectures were only marginally valuable compared to studying from the book which explained concepts in more careful detail (but generally it wasn't a hard class).

In contrast, my physics seminar required learning from various texts and PDFs, as students were expected to make a presentation for the class or demonstrate a homework problem or two each week. The class served as a time to cement knowledge and review what we had indepedently studied. Of course, my physics professor was one of those types who's office hours were anytime he was in his office so he was easily accessible.

 

[devious_]

Here is some advice I once gave a class of the best students in one of the best private high schools in my state, after completing a Spivak style precalculus course with me. One of them has phD in physics now and another is full professor of math at an Ivy league school.

[...]

Great post! Thank you.

 

[Learning Curve]

Dear Noslen,
As most of the posts are informative, they're not going to help you study better. You are you. Not any of these guys. You have to find what works for you. Some like cramming. Others like to review before and after teachings. Everyone has their own way of studying and learning. You are yourself and no one else. That's why your study habits will be different than anyone else's.

Good luck.

 

[mathwonk]

To Manchot, it just seemed less scary than "the punisher".

 

[noslen]

More feedback great!

Class starts next monday and I am really excited

thanx agian!

 

[mathwonk]

with reference to the idea that learning by cramming is an option for some people, I want to repeat: cramming is never helpful except for passing an imminent test by someone with a very strong short term memory. It is very poor for actually learning, understanding, and remembering material.

Indeed the amount of time material is remembered, is roughly proportional to the amount of time spent learning it. There is no shortcut. Only young inexperienced students pressed for time to play and also pass tests ever use this method. They must also be enrolled in fairly easy courses compared to their ability to succeed in this way.

Even Fields medalists work very hard at mastering mathematics. I have known several of them and I can say this with confidence. (And they are not hapless twits like the principle character's foil in "Good Will Hunting".)