The method I liked and the result I needed
I used to revise history by copying my notes in different colours. I preferred neat pages to messy questions because the result looked complete. When my cousin asked me to explain an event without looking, however, I could remember the colours better than the explanation.
We decided to compare two short revision sessions. In the first, I reread a page and improved its headings. In the second, I closed another page and wrote down what I could recall, then checked the gaps. The following evening, my cousin asked me similar questions about both topics.
I answered more of the second set correctly, but one comparison was not enough to establish a universal rule. The topics were different, and I already knew something about the second one. Still, the experiment showed me a weakness in my old routine: a familiar-looking page could make me feel prepared without proving that I could explain it.
Now I combine methods. I use a simple diagram to see relationships, then practise explaining them without the diagram. Sometimes I would prefer to work alone because conversation distracts me. At other times, a partner's question reveals a gap I have missed.
I have stopped calling myself a particular "type of learner". Preferences are real, but they do not have to become permanent labels. I choose a method for the task, notice what happens, and change it when necessary. A useful routine should serve learning, not merely produce attractive pages.