It's also much easier to pay attention if you don't have to frantically take notes. To focus on what an equation means, instead of focusing on transcribing it correctly, and then maybe trying to understand it later, if there's any time left, before the lecture moves on.
Absolutely true, and writing down 'cheat sheets' of such summaries was one of the most effective ways to learn. But I simply did not have the understanding yet, within 60 seconds of being presented new material, to be able to write a good summary of it. And at the same time also write a non-summary, in the likely case that things would not be clear from the summary alone when reviewing. And do all of this before the lecture moves on to the next thing that needs first understanding, then transcribing, then summarizing.
For some lectures I follow the course in class. For some other lectures I just read the slides on which the lectures are based and go in depth on my own. Some other friends follow all the lectures. Some others just don't follow that much.
I don't know why you provide a one method that should fit everyone, while everyone has a preferred way of studying that isn't necessarily the best approach for other people
Because the lecturing professor assigned a textbook, making both lectures and the textbook relevant to the course.
Also, it's at least three distinct methods! Read before lectures, read after lectures, read on both sides. Dealer's choice. Neglects recorded lectures and the possibilities they open up.
Talking about people's preferences and studying is funny. Most people prefer not to study. Preferences have little to do with good study habits. The above approaches have worked for hundreds of years just fine.
Well, of course if a textbook is required to be read, you read it period. I was talking about different study methods in the bounds of what is allowed to do
