|
Aswad -> RE: Learning Styles (5/3/2007 3:10:50 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: onestandingstill
I think there are mainly two styles of learning.
Doesn't quite mesh with what the research turns up. There appears to be several styles of learning, and several styles of teaching. One style of each is fairly common, which is why there are lots of people with "learning disabilities" out there with seemingly normal intelligence otherwise.
I know a guy who couldn't pick up a single fact from school... ever; yet he could remember every person who'd ever played for a particular football team, when they signed on, when they quit, what team they came from, what team they went to, etc., without ever having memorized it intentionally. Very normal person in every respect; too normal for me, in fact.
I personally never liked him, but I can't help thinking that if they'd found some way to put the subjects in a way that he could relate to, he'd have no problem picking them up.
quote:
Those the hit something and go on fire learning all they can, as fast and as fully as they can. Sort of like taking off on a rocket ship or fast train and having a good over all general concept.
Oversimplified, but yes... It's contextual or parallell learning. If you have the intellectual resources to organize the information rapidly, and can read quickly, as well as having the discipline to review the information two days later, this will give you a very good framework to fit the details into. It's how I start out, but I go back for the details. Some people, particularly those with ADHD, tend to lose interest and not bother getting the details down. My solution to that problem is simply to apply the knowledge in practice; that way, you learn what details you will need, and pick them up, fitting them in where they belong. Later on, if there's something you've missed (and there always is, no matter what approach you use, unless you limit yourself to tasks that are rote/robotic work), you can pick that up right quickly, as you already have the mental "hooks" to hang it on.
quote:
The second group focuses on one avenue or concept fragment at a time. Till that part's perfected they pay no attention to the rest of the information knowing if they move forward once they master something. It leaves them on more solid ground and in depth, but takes way longer to get an over all detailed conceptual knowledge.
I wouldn't say more solid ground, but, yes, people who follow this method will tend to have a vast number of details, often without any idea of their relative importance or their place in the overall picture. It's pretty much equivalent in terms of results.
However, the second group you mentioned is fairly rare, in my experience.
I've mostly encountered people who take a similar approach, but focus on the surface, which makes them ideal for doing stuff that doesn't require a deeper understanding of the topic, but they don't have any grasp of the fundamentals or the underlying concepts, which leaves them unable to do any task that requires abstract thinking or pushes the boundaries of what they know. I'd guess it's the same problem that causes this as the one causing the problems with the other group.
Personally, I think in-depth understanding is a seperate axis, and that it depends on the ability to organize the relevant ideas, as well as the ability to do abstract thinking.
|
|
|
|
