Why the study guides my teachers made never worked for me
I watched tutors make long guides that students ignored. Here is why, from a med student who had to relearn everything anyway.
As a 5th year med student, I've watched professors spend weeks building study guides that most of us never opened.
They were thorough, packed with details, and clearly made with care. Still, they read like textbooks, not tools for studying. Students skimmed, highlighted, and moved on. The guides did not help us remember or apply concepts under exam pressure.
From where I sat, the problem started with format. PDFs full of long paragraphs and lists feel heavy on a phone and heavier in our heads. We need signals, anchors, and practice, not another wall of facts. When resources demand long attention spans, we default to quick summaries or other students' condensed notes.
Another part of the problem was alignment. Many guides explained everything, but not in the way exams or clinical thinking ask us to use that knowledge. They focused on exhaustive coverage, not the common patterns or traps we actually face on tests and wards. So we memorized the wrong details and guessed on the rest.
Feedback was missing too. Teachers rarely see which slides are actually used, which questions are repeatedly answered wrong, or where students give up. Without that loop, it's hard to improve the next version. I watched great educators get frustrated, wondering why their time did not translate into student learning.
What I realized was simple. Students need bite sized, active materials that match how we study and how we are tested. We need quick retrieval practice, clear priorities, and signals that reduce cognitive load.
That insight is what pushed me to build Neobloc, a tool to help educators turn dense content into short, active blocks students will actually use.
Curious how other educators handle this. DM me or drop a comment.