Earlier quoted context omitted.
Writing own notes help in situation where informations is only said. Then you can read it. Pretty much no one is able to consistently remember heard information after single hearing, overwhelming majority of people need to revise it.
Writing helps because writing is an effective learning style, even if you burn the notes as soon as you write them. (Reading might help even more, but reading without writing helps less than writing + reading)
The Myth of 'Learning Styles'
91–100 of 104 posts
Re: The Myth of 'Learning Styles'
#92My SO teaches elementary math, and we've had a few discussions about this. When teaching a new concept, say the area of a parallelogram, she will present the concept in multiple different ways: - Give printouts of parallelograms on graph paper, so the students can count the number of squares in a parallelogram. Also give them scissors and see what happens. - Give students two triangles and a square (which they know h…
So the way to learn about areas in general is to start with the area of a unit square = 1, and then clarify the properties of area in general, notably that we can cut and paste shapes without changing the total area, as long as we don't overlap them, which means we can count up the number of unit squares and that tells us the area of a figure. Most of the rest can be figured out by students if guided by a well organized set of problems which build on each-other.
We can proceed to first finding areas of shapes made using axis-aligned sides of natural number lengths on a square grid. For these the area can be found by directly counting squares, and e.g. by natural number multiplication in the case of rectangles. Then we can look at the areas of other shapes with vertices on a square grid. Then we can look at the areas of rectangles with rational side lengths (no longer nicely on the original unit grid; instead we need to make a finer grid to count, resulting in rational-number areas, since we must relate the grid units). Then we can next proceed to parallelograms – in a square-area-unit conventional world these are arguably more fundamental than triangles, but we could deal with right-angled triangles at about the same time. Triangles where we can find base and height can come next; these can be split into a pair of right-angled triangles or duplicated and glued into a parallelogram. After that finding areas of other shapes (e.g. with irrational side lengths) takes more machinery from Euclidean geometry (starting from the Pythagorean theorem), and can be delayed a while.
While talking about parallelograms it would be nice to take some squares and other rectangles outside and look at the shadows they cast on the ground. This is a nice chance to introduce the concept of affine transformations, which preserve parallel lines and area ratios, as we can see by observing the shadow cast by a square grid (e.g. made of wire or drawn on a transparency sheet), especially if we have some translucent shapes lying on the grid. Basic transformation geometry (especially discussions of reflection/rotation/translation [isometries] and snowflakes, wallpaper tilings, etc., and affine transformations) is accessible at quite a young age and some hugely valuable topics to introduce early so that kids will be prepared to extend them later. More general projective transformations can wait a while.
Re: The Myth of 'Learning Styles'
#93Every time someone someone tries to sell me on this tired idea, I ask them: if you had to teach someone the difference between different bird calls, e.g. that of the robin vs. the sparrow, and you're told that person is a "visual learner", do you mean to tell me you'd opt to show them the oscilloscope representation of the sound wave that each bird makes rather than playing them an actual recording of each call? It's…
There is a reason people make graphical displays of many types of information: the visual system is a low latency, high bandwidth, high sensitivity, very effective pattern matching tool.
Among other things this is why we read instead of only listening to spoken language, and why we write music using graphical notation.
Re: The Myth of 'Learning Styles'
#94Bull Pucky! Let me tell you my story. By third grade I could not read. I didn't get it. How could people remember all those words? Yet I had one of those off the wall IQs. In third grade they put me in Remedial Reading taught by Mrs. Gordon. If there is a Heaven, then there must be a special place in it for people like Mrs. Gordon. Up until then we were supposed to learn to read by reading. It was the big thing then:…
Re: The Myth of 'Learning Styles'
#95When I grapple with a hard problem, I will draw diagrams, talk to myself, use my hands or nearby objects as models, and also do the internal mental equivalents of all those things. In particular, I keep switching between things that might be called "geometrical visualisation", "formal reasoning" and "informal verbalisation".
I solve hard problems by tackling bits of them with whatever tool is works and then I try all the tools again on whatever parts of the problem remain. Thus the different tools work together, and are much more powerful combined than individually. If I stuck to using my "natural" tool, I might learn to use it very well, but I would get stuck as soon as it was the wrong tool. I would loose all that lovely synergy.
Re: The Myth of 'Learning Styles'
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
as a complement to that perspective, i think we're all basically experiential learners, and seeing, hearing, and touching/moving are simply parts of the "experience". sure, one person might focus a little more on the voice of the speaker, and another might be watching more intently, but all of those components combine to create the immersive experience that locks new information into our brains. but as you say, teach…
Meaning no disrespect my friend, but I disagree. See my post above for my experience trying to learn to read by experiencing reading. It didn't work for me.
Re: The Myth of 'Learning Styles'
#97However, that doesn't mean that thinking about multiple ways to learn a concept is fruitless. Personally, the more ways I can be taught a concept, the better my chances are of understanding it.
I've benefited enormously from professors in math, physics, or computer science who've taken several approaches to teaching a difficult concept.
Re: The Myth of 'Learning Styles'
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with your comment on being "focused." In analyzing my own learning preferences, I found it is much easier for me to stay focused if I can speed my way through something. Speed is the key for me, not the format. For example, if I have the choice to learn the same information via a video or book, I'd opt for the book because I know I can read a lot quicker than the person in the video is going to speak. This he…
I highly doubt you absorb much at 4-5x speed. 3x speed is very fast -- if the speaker talks quickly, it's borderline unintelligible.
Re: The Myth of 'Learning Styles'
#99Every time someone someone tries to sell me on this tired idea, I ask them: if you had to teach someone the difference between different bird calls, e.g. that of the robin vs. the sparrow, and you're told that person is a "visual learner", do you mean to tell me you'd opt to show them the oscilloscope representation of the sound wave that each bird makes rather than playing them an actual recording of each call? It's…
> do you mean to tell me you'd opt to show them the oscilloscope representation of the sound wave that each bird makes rather than playing them an actual recording of each call? Useful visual representations of bird calls do exist. For example: http://earbirding.com/blog/specs
Quite glad you posted this counterpoint. I mentioned it elsewhere, but I've informally done the same thing back when learning Spanish to assist in pronunciation.
Quick edit: The "possible fifth pattern" isn't a fifth pattern, it's actually on this page [1], a "triplet series".
[0] http://earbirding.com/blog/specs/the-four-basic-patterns-of-... [1] http://earbirding.com/blog/specs/changes-in-speed-and-pitch-...
Re: The Myth of 'Learning Styles'
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does seem to me that the people who argue most passionately for different learning styles also tend to be the same people whose preferred learning style is the most passive - usually "visual learners" who somehow feel like they're absorbing more by looking at it rather than actually engaging it (by, for instance, working actual problems).
> tend to be the same people whose preferred learning style is the most passive - usually "visual learners" who somehow feel like they're absorbing more by looking at it rather than actually engaging it (by, for instance, working actual problems). Trying to link a preference for visual learning/reading with passiveness comes off as weird for me. Reading almost certainly takes more activity from the reader. Also your…
People who make this kind of claim seem to think "visual learning" means being shown pictures or videos (not reading)
> Also your idea that visual learners tries to avoid workimg real problems seems to be that you have dealt with lazy people who tried to hide between learning styles.
I think that's exactly what GP was trying to say.