---

From what I have understood from conceptual understanding, or whatever I’m referring to below happens to be, it has been an effective framework in helping me get a better grasp on subjects that I have been struggling in.

The conceptual framework seems to work by linking different concepts together and finding out how such concepts are interrelated with each other within a subject. This means that we aren’t just purely rote memorising, but rather understanding the interplay and relationship within each topic.

I feel that this framework is rather useful for subjects such as Chemistry and Physics, but I find it to be rather unsuitable for use for subjects that may require more of a “do then understand” framework of learning.

Although this framework works for many subjects, it is entirely subjective as to how useful one might find it when applied to the subject in question. I find that you can use this “conceptual linking” framework in English, but the effectiveness of such a framework within a subject is rather ineffective and useless in my opinion.

There are tools that help with this process, for me, I have been using Obsidian in order to physically see the “tangible” links from my eyes rather than imagining it. It brings me to this question: What if we combined rote learning with conceptual linking?

If we combined rote learning with conceptual linking, we would be effectively memorising the relationship between the topics, and that’s boring, because that’s just LEARNING A TOPIC, which is what we’ve been doing since the dawn of time, and it has been working. So some might argue classifying such a system (conceptual understanding) is effectively, useless, don’t re-invent the wheel.

But I believe there is still some merit to this being explicitly taught because some subjects have deep complexity and a high learning curve especially for someone who is inexperienced within the topic.

These are just thoughts, though, discard at will

back home