“I pretty much got it” is the least trustworthy feeling in listening. If you check the answers, you'll know what's correct. But in that moment, you can no longer remember how much you had actually understood at first — because the correct answer overwrites it.
So, as soon as you finish listening, write just three lines. When you learn something by listening again or from the transcript, add it without erasing and correcting what you wrote. Don't correct it; add to it. With that alone, the gap between your first understanding and what you filled in later stays right there on the page.
This is all the three lines contain
- The gist of the story: Who tried to do what, and what happened? If you don't know, a “?” is fine. Don't fill it in just to make it look good.
- Words you heard: Words or phrases that stayed in your ears. If you're unsure of the spelling, writing them phonetically is fine. More important than accuracy is the fact that you picked them up as sounds.
- Points you were unsure about: The places where you got stuck while listening. These become the places to target on your next listen.
Why write them separately? The first line is the understanding you built from the scene and the flow, the second is the words you picked up from the sounds. Listening works through a combination of recognising words from sounds and using the situation and the surrounding words to understand (TeachingEnglish's explanation of listening). If you write them all together, you won't be able to tell whether you “heard it” or “guessed it.” If you separate the lines, you can see at a glance whether what was missing was the sound or the flow.
You can write after you've finished listening. In fact, that's better. If you write at length while listening, your attention gets taken by the writing.TeachingEnglish's explanation of planning listening lessons explains that long responses while listening place a heavy load, and introduces ways such as keeping responses short or pausing to think. If you absolutely must leave something while listening, just one word. That's enough.
For example, a conversation like this
It's a short exchange deciding where to meet. Please read it as if you were hearing only the audio.
Maya: Shall we study at the library at four?
Tom: Four's fine. But isn't the library closed on Mondays?
Maya: Oh, you're right. How about the café next to it?
Tom: Sure. Same time, then.
Right after listening, this is all you can write
An honest first three lines look like this.
- Gist: Study at a café at four?
- Words heard: four, library, café
- Unsure: The library or the café — which one are we going to?
You have picked up four and café, and the conclusion itself — “the café at four” — happens to be right. But the “?” on the gist line says it all. You still understand nothing about why the café, or what happened to the idea of the library. You're at the stage of stitching two words together and fabricating a conclusion. This is, more or less, what “I kind of got it” really is.
On the second listen, the note grows this far
Add what you understood by listening again under each line, marked [Second listen]. Don't erase the original lines.
- Gist: Study at a café at four?
- [Second listen] The library is closed on Mondays → only the place changes to the café. The time stays at four, as in same time
- Words heard: four, library, café
- [Second listen] closed, Mondays, same time
- Unsure: The library or the café — which one are we going to?
- [Second listen] Decided: the café. Which café is still unknown
It's not just words that have increased. The gist line now includes the relationship — “the time stays the same, only the place changed” — and the reason for it. Hearing same time confirms that the four from the beginning is still in effect at the end. This is what it means for a note to grow.
Don't turn what you learned from the transcript into something you learned by ear
Mark anything you understood for the first time by seeing the transcript clearly with [Transcript]. If you blur this distinction, the note quickly becomes untrustworthy.
- Unsure: The library or the café — which one are we going to?
- [Second listen] Decided: the café. Which café is still unknown
- [Transcript] next to it = the café next to the library. On the second listen, I hadn't heard next
The reason for separating [Second listen] and [Transcript] is simple. “The café next door” wasn't picked up by ear; it was understanding supplied by the text. If you write it with the same marker, when you read it back later it will look as if you had understood it by listening. The parts marked [Transcript] are signs of a weak spot. Next time you listen again, go there to catch them as sounds.
Don't write it out neatly. That's the right way to do this note
The first “café at four” happened to be correct as a result. But if the time had also changed later in the conversation, an understanding made by just stitching two words together would never have noticed. What you can see by lining up the three stages is not whether you were right. It's at which stage you understood what.
So don't write the note out neatly. Leave the arrows, the “?”s, and the mistakes. A messy note is precisely the record that lets you read your first understanding just as it was.
The three-line note works right after listening. If some time has passed, it's better to start by recalling first. That approach is described inMaking “Time to Recall”. Right after listening, leave the evidence in three lines, and the next day, start from recalling. With these two, listening becomes much more honest.