Study & Revision prompts

Turn these notes into revision questions.

MY NOTES:
"""
[PASTE]
"""

SUBJECT AND LEVEL: [WHAT AND WHAT STAGE]
WHAT I AM BEING ASSESSED ON: [exam / essay / practical / just want to remember it]
HOW LONG UNTIL I NEED IT: [TIMEFRAME]

Produce:

1. THE QUESTION SET - organised by the type of thinking each requires:
   - RECALL: facts, definitions, dates, formulas. Short answer.
   - EXPLANATION: why something happens, how a process works. These matter more than recall for most assessments.
   - APPLICATION: given a new situation, what applies. This is where understanding is actually tested.
   - COMPARISON: how two things differ and why it matters
   - CRITIQUE: what is weak, contested or limited about this

   Weight the mix toward my stated assessment type.

2. THE ANSWERS - separately, so I can test myself first. Each answer should be what a good response contains, not a full essay.

3. THE QUESTIONS THAT REVEAL GAPS - the three that are hardest to answer from my notes alone. These show where my notes are thin, which is more useful than knowing what they cover well.

4. WHAT MY NOTES DO NOT COVER - based on the topic, what a complete treatment would include that is missing here. Mark as [CHECK YOUR SOURCE] rather than filling it in, because notes gaps usually reflect something missed in class or in reading.

5. THE FLASHCARD SET - for the pure recall items only, formatted as front and back. Do not make flashcards for explanations; they do not work for anything requiring reasoning.

6. THE SPACING SCHEDULE - given my timeframe, when to review. Testing yourself repeatedly over spaced intervals beats rereading, by a wide margin and consistently. Give the specific days.

7. THE HONEST NOTE ON METHOD - rereading and highlighting feel productive and are among the least effective study methods. Retrieval practice, where you try to produce the answer before checking, is what builds durable memory. This question set only works if I attempt each answer before looking.

Do not produce questions whose answers are obvious from the question wording.

Help me plan my revision.

WHAT I AM STUDYING: [SUBJECTS AND TOPICS]
WHEN THE ASSESSMENTS ARE: [DATES]
HOW CONFIDENT I AM IN EACH: [RATE EACH TOPIC]
HOW MUCH TIME I HAVE: [HOURS PER WEEK, AND WHEN]
OTHER COMMITMENTS: [WHAT ELSE FILLS YOUR TIME]
HOW I HAVE REVISED BEFORE: [WHAT YOU USUALLY DO]

Produce:

1. THE PRIORITY MAP - topics ranked by (weight in the assessment × how weak you are). Time should go to high-weight topics you are weak on, not to topics you enjoy. People reliably over-revise what they already know because it feels better.

2. THE REALISTIC HOURS - given my commitments, what is actually available. Then reduce it, because revision plans always assume more capacity than exists. State the honest figure.

3. THE SCHEDULE - specific sessions with dates, each naming the topic and the activity. Not 'revise biology' but 'attempt past paper questions on enzyme kinetics, then check'.

4. THE SESSION STRUCTURE - what to do in a study session. Retrieval first (attempt questions from memory), then check, then fill the gaps, then re-test the ones you got wrong. Starting with rereading wastes the session's best attention.

5. THE SPACING - each topic revisited at increasing intervals rather than studied once intensively. Build this into the schedule explicitly: first pass, then three days later, then a week, then before the assessment.

6. THE INTERLEAVING - mix topics within a session rather than blocking one topic for three hours. It feels harder and produces better retention, which is why almost nobody does it.

7. THE BUFFER - leave time unscheduled. Plans with no slack break in week one and are then abandoned entirely.

8. WHAT TO DROP - if the plan does not fit the time, what gets less attention, decided deliberately rather than by running out of time.

9. THE WEEKLY CHECK - a short review each week: what was covered, what was not, and what to adjust. A plan made once and never revised is abandoned by week three.

10. THE METHOD WARNING - based on what I said I usually do, whether those methods are effective. Rereading, highlighting and copying notes out feel productive and produce little. Say so if that is what I described, and what to do instead.

Test my understanding of this topic.

THE TOPIC: [WHAT IT IS]
MY LEVEL: [WHAT STAGE YOU ARE AT]
WHAT I THINK I UNDERSTAND: [EXPLAIN IT IN YOUR OWN WORDS - this is the important input]
WHERE I FEEL SHAKY: [IF YOU KNOW]

Produce:

1. MY EXPLANATION, ASSESSED - I explained the topic in my own words. Go through it and identify:
   - What is correct
   - What is correct but incomplete
   - What is wrong
   - What is vague in a way that suggests I am repeating a phrase rather than understanding it. This last category is the important one; memorised phrasing is easily mistaken for understanding.

2. THE PROBING QUESTIONS - six questions designed to find the edges of my understanding. Not recall questions. Each should be answerable only if I genuinely understand:
   - Why is it this way rather than the obvious alternative?
   - What would happen if one condition changed?
   - Where does this not apply?
   - How does this connect to [related concept]?
   - What is a case that looks like this but is not?
   - Explain it to someone with no background

3. THE COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS about this topic, and whether my explanation shows any of them. Misconceptions are usually stable and confident, which is what makes them hard to notice.

4. THE PREREQUISITE CHECK - if my explanation is shaky, the underlying concept I may not have secured. Confusion at one level is frequently caused by a gap one level below, and drilling the current topic will not fix it.

5. THE EXPLANATION GAP - the parts I described in terms that suggest I could not answer a follow-up question. Quote them.

6. THE ONE THING TO FIX - the single misunderstanding whose correction would most improve my grasp.

7. HOW TO CHECK IN FUTURE - the self-test that works: explain it out loud from memory without notes, to an imagined person who asks 'why?' after each sentence. Recognition feels like knowledge and is not.

Be direct about what is wrong. Politeness here costs marks later.

Help me understand this material.

THE MATERIAL:
"""
[PASTE THE TEXT, OR DESCRIBE IT]
"""

SUBJECT AND LEVEL: [WHAT AND WHAT STAGE]
WHAT I HAVE UNDERSTOOD SO FAR: [YOUR CURRENT GRASP]
WHERE I GET LOST: [THE SPECIFIC POINT]
WHAT I ALREADY KNOW ABOUT THIS AREA: [YOUR BACKGROUND]

Produce:

1. THE ONE-SENTENCE VERSION - what this material is actually about, stripped of terminology.

2. THE STRUCTURE - what the material is doing, section by section. Often the confusion is structural: not knowing whether a passage is setting up a problem, presenting a solution, or raising an objection.

3. THE PREREQUISITE CHECK - the concepts this material assumes you know. Given what I said about my background, which of these I may be missing. Getting lost at a specific point is usually caused by a missing prerequisite rather than by the passage itself being hard.

4. THE POINT WHERE I GET LOST, EXPLAINED - starting from what I said I already understand, and building only from there. Use plain language first, then reintroduce the technical terms once the idea is in place.

5. THE TERMINOLOGY - each technical term in this material, defined plainly, with a note on whether it means something different in ordinary usage. A great deal of difficulty in academic reading is vocabulary rather than concept.

6. THE WORKED EXAMPLE - the idea applied to a concrete case, step by step. Abstract explanations of abstract ideas rarely land; a specific instance does.

7. THE ANALOGY, WITH ITS LIMITS - one analogy that helps, and explicitly where it breaks down. An analogy without stated limits creates a misconception that is harder to fix than the original confusion.

8. WHY IT IS WRITTEN THIS WAY - academic and technical writing is dense for reasons: precision, convention, and an assumed reader. Knowing that the difficulty is partly the prose, not entirely you, is useful.

9. THE CHECK - three questions to answer to confirm it has landed.

10. WHAT TO READ IF THIS IS STILL NOT WORKING - what kind of source would explain it better for my level.

Help me work through this exam question.

THE QUESTION:
"""
[PASTE]
"""

SUBJECT AND LEVEL: [DETAIL]
MARKS AVAILABLE: [HOW MANY]
TIME ALLOWED: [MINUTES]
MY ATTEMPT: [PASTE WHAT YOU WROTE, or 'I do not know where to start']
MARK SCHEME IF I HAVE IT: [PASTE]

Produce:

1. WHAT THE QUESTION IS ACTUALLY ASKING - decoded. Exam questions use specific command words with specific meanings: describe, explain, evaluate, compare, justify, and analyse all require different things. Identify the command word and say exactly what it demands. Answering a 'evaluate' question with a description is the most common way marks are lost.

2. THE MARK ALLOCATION - what the marks are for, inferred from the question and the marks available. A six-mark question wants roughly six creditable points, or three points developed. Say what the structure should be.

3. THE TIME BUDGET - minutes for this question given the marks, and how much of that is planning versus writing.

4. MY ATTEMPT, MARKED - if I gave one:
   - What would earn marks, and which
   - What would not, and why
   - What is correct but not credited because it does not answer the question asked
   - What is missing
   Be strict. Generous marking now costs marks later.

5. THE MODEL STRUCTURE - not a model answer to memorise, but the shape a strong answer takes for this command word: what goes in each part, in what order.

6. THE MARKS MOST PEOPLE MISS on this kind of question. Usually: not answering the actual command, not using the information given in the question, not concluding when asked to evaluate, and writing everything known about the topic rather than what was asked.

7. THE TECHNIQUE - for this question type, the approach: annotate the question, identify the command word, plan briefly, and check at the end that you answered what was asked.

8. THE SIMILAR QUESTIONS - two variations to practise on, so the pattern transfers rather than the specific answer being memorised.

Do not write the answer for me to copy. Show me how to construct one.

Help me improve how I take notes.

WHAT I AM TAKING NOTES ON: [lectures / textbooks / papers / videos]
SUBJECT: [WHAT]
HOW I TAKE THEM NOW: [DESCRIBE YOUR CURRENT METHOD]
A SAMPLE OF MY CURRENT NOTES:
"""
[PASTE]
"""
WHAT I USE THEM FOR LATER: [revision / essays / practical work]
HANDWRITTEN OR TYPED: [WHICH]

Produce:

1. MY CURRENT NOTES, ASSESSED - from the sample:
   - Am I transcribing or processing? Notes that closely follow the source word for word indicate copying rather than thinking, and they are much less useful later.
   - Is the structure visible? Can I tell what is a main point, what is supporting, and what is an example?
   - Are my own thoughts distinguishable from the source's?
   - Could I revise from these in three months?

2. THE CORE PRINCIPLE - notes are for processing, not recording. If a recording or the textbook exists, transcribing it adds nothing. The value is in deciding what matters and putting it in your own words, and that decision is the learning.

3. THE METHOD - suited to my material and format:
   - For lectures: capture structure and key claims, leave space, do not attempt completeness
   - For reading: read a section, then write from memory before looking back
   - For papers: a fixed structure per paper - the question, the method, the finding, the limitation, and what it means for your work

4. THE LAYOUT - a format that supports later use: a main column for content, a margin for your own questions and connections, and a space at the bottom for a summary written after the session. The summary is the part that does the work.

5. THE OWN-WORDS RULE - the single highest-value change. Where you cannot paraphrase something, you have not understood it, and that is worth marking at the time.

6. THE MARKING SYSTEM - a small set of consistent marks: your own question, disagreement, an important point, something to look up, and a definition. Consistency matters more than the specific symbols.

7. THE SAME-DAY REVIEW - ten minutes after the session to fill gaps, write the summary, and note questions while the context is fresh. This is what makes notes usable and is almost always skipped.

8. HANDWRITTEN VERSUS TYPED - typing enables transcription, which is the failure mode. Handwriting forces selection because it is slower. Say what this means for my format, and how to get the benefit if I type.

9. THE REWRITTEN SAMPLE - my pasted notes, redone in the recommended format, so I can see the difference.

I am behind on my studying. Help me triage.

WHAT I NEED TO KNOW: [SUBJECTS AND TOPICS]
HOW FAR BEHIND: [BE HONEST - what have you actually covered]
TIME REMAINING: [UNTIL THE ASSESSMENT]
HOURS AVAILABLE PER DAY: [REALISTICALLY]
HOW THE ASSESSMENT WORKS: [format, which topics, how marks are distributed]
WHAT I HAVE ALREADY: [notes, materials, past papers]

Produce:

1. THE REALITY CHECK - given the time and the volume, what is achievable. Say it plainly. A plan that assumes covering everything will fail in two days and leave me worse off than an honest one. If full coverage is not possible, say so now.

2. THE TRIAGE - three categories:
   - MUST COVER: high mark weight, appears every time, and foundational to other topics
   - COVER IF POSSIBLE: moderate weight or moderate difficulty
   - ACCEPT THE LOSS: low weight, high effort, or genuinely beyond reach in the time. Deciding to sacrifice these deliberately is better than running out of time and losing marks at random.

3. THE HIGHEST-YIELD ACTIONS - in order. When time is short, the priorities change: past papers over notes, mark schemes over textbooks, and the topics that recur over the ones that interest you. Say what to do first tomorrow.

4. THE SHALLOW-BUT-BROAD VERSUS DEEP-AND-NARROW DECISION - which suits my assessment format. For an exam requiring several questions from a wide syllabus, broad coverage usually scores better; for one deep essay, depth does. State which applies.

5. THE DAILY PLAN - specific, for each remaining day, with topics and activities. Front-load the must-cover material; energy and time both decline.

6. THE MINIMUM VIABLE COVERAGE per topic - what constitutes enough for each: the core definitions, the two key processes, and one worked example. Perfect understanding of half the syllabus scores worse than adequate understanding of all of it.

7. WHAT NOT TO DO - remaking notes, colour-coding, rereading chapters, and building a new revision system. All of these feel productive and are avoidance. Name any I might be tempted by.

8. THE SLEEP AND BREAK RULE - practical rather than moralising. Studying through the night before reduces recall and judgement more than the extra hours add. Say what the schedule should protect.

9. THE HONEST CONVERSATION - if the gap is large enough that the assessment will go badly regardless, what the realistic options are: sitting it and accepting the result, seeking an extension, or speaking to someone. Say so rather than producing an unachievable plan.

10. AFTER THIS - one line on what to change so this does not recur, without lecturing.