4 ms·
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 "experi
by clairity 9y ago
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, teaching should incorporate mutiple modes of stimuli, because all learners need all of the modes.
incidentally, that's why most conferences and such gatherings are not so useful for learning new things--they're designed so that people talk at you, rather than involve you. the purpose is often to display the superior knowledge/ability of the speaker, for various commercial purposes (having been on both sides of this).
- oldmancoyote 9y agoMeaning 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.
- DataWorker 9y agoA dyslexic will be different than someone with auditory difficulties due to damage to the temporal lobe. These people will benefit from one form of instruction more than the other. To pretend everyone is the same flies in the face of science. Some differences like iq and personality may not have any important pedagogical implications, but if a student is hearing impaired or blind, you can bet visual and auditory instruction will be differential in value.