I'm teaching programming and algorithms at uni. Only blackboard.

In my university, probably because the CS department at the time was an underfunded offshoot of the faculty of Mathematics, we basically didn't have access to computers (and I didn't have a laptop of my own).

We did almost everything on paper, even exams. I admit writing MIPS assembly on paper seemed strange to me at the time, but the effort you put in to put things black on white somehow made the knowledge stick into my mind more effectively. Some of that knowledge will stay with me forever, and I'm not sure the same could be said if I had taken "shortcuts".

I used to write code in a spiral notebook when I didn't have access to a computer. It was also hard to code on a computer in those days when the output device was an ASR-33, or a screen was 24x80.

> When studying, going over the notes, you'll hear the lecture again in your head.

That is a) a BS claim and b) wouldn't be a feature, on average, given the quality of college lectures.

It seems fairly clear that manual note taking help with learning, over using a computer, but overblown claims like this do more damage than good in convincing people to do the right thing.

This is hilarious. This comment would imply that the people who got multiple degrees and were very successful through their careers (that would be everybody in my generation: we started in 1980) learning from lecturers scribbling with chalk on a blackboard, writing it all down with pen on paper, somehow had a less effective education than modern students using modern tools. Yeah, looks all around, remembers training youngs, no, I don't think so... Actually sometimes it was bad because people, but sometimes it was fucking awesome. I lectured undergrad mathematics at UF and ASU using chalk and a blackboard and to this day that was some of the most enjoyable experiences of my life. Especially for the upper division classes, my students paid attention. They asked questions. It was glorious.

That's not what I said.

I'm absolutely supportive of using blackboards & paper and pen over computers.

What I'm saying is that making unsubstantiated claims like "you'll hear the lecture again when you read it" is completely detrimental to making that point, because it's entirely unsubstantiated and doesn't make any relevant point you couldn't make in a well-supported way instead.

The relevant part is it filled in the missing parts of my notes. The prof says more than what he writes.

Might be a translation issue here with the commenter, maybe?

Handwritten notes help to remind yourself when studying about what the instructor thought important. You write down the emphasis. I sure made it clear to my classes that my emphasis was on this, this and that. The instructor is writing and grading the tests. Or was, back in the ancient times when we made chalk dust, as a pedagogical tool.

> a BS claim

It worked for me. Have you tried it?

> given the quality of college lectures

I attended a university where that wasn't a problem. Prof Daniel Goodstein, for example, turned his lectures into a video series "The Mechanical Universe". But, frankly, I liked his in-person lectures using the blackboard and chalk better.

> It worked for me. Have you tried it?

I have. It doesn't work that way for me - but that hardly matters. More importantly, there's plenty of research around inner monologue and sensory replay also pointing out that this isn't true for most people.

> I attended a university where that wasn't a problem.

You were blessed :)

> But, frankly, I liked his in-person lectures using the blackboard and chalk better.

That's not something I'm arguing against :) I think they're a great teaching tool.

My objection is that making a specious but unsupported, and often easily anecdotally invalidated point to support a case that's actually got a ton of solid evidence in support is detrimental to making that case.

Physical note taking, and being actually present for a lecture are tremendously important. Laptops are hugely problematic for learning. And those points are important enough that we should make solid arguments in favor of them, not easily discredited ones. Because we also know that many students are very muched biased to discarding these points given half a chance.

There's currently a related post on the home page: "Good ideas do not need lots of lies in order to gain public acceptance (2008)"

It's been 50 years, the voice has long since evaporated. I wish I had had the prescience to have recorded the lectures on cassettes.

> You were blessed

Indeed, but not totally. I took an economics course, and soon discovered that the prof was a Marxist. Since Marxism is a fantasy, I saw no more value in it than listening to a lecture on astrology.

> many students are very muched biased to discarding these points given half a chance

I have little interest in helping people that don't want to make an effort.

> I have little interest in helping people that don't want to make an effort.

What you were trying to say is "I can't be bothered to engage with people who are not taking my word as gospel".

> Take a spiral notebook to lecture, and a couple pens. Write down everything the professor writes on the chalkboard.

I'm a gen Z college student (born 2005) and this is pretty much what I do all the time. I attend most of the lectures, even if they are not very good and I take notes with a pen during each of them. Some people at my school see it as being subservient to the professors and wasting time, but for me it's about rebuilding my attention span, confidence and clarity of mind (besides internalizing the material far better). It made me a different person compared to who I was in hs and freshman year. It's so simple. Most of us don't have ADHD, we're simply addicted and we can fight it.

You're right!