I know this forum can be weird and wonderful at times. Been having a debate tonight about audio vs visual learning.

How do you retain things better? I’ve always been someone who can retain information more by listening whether that’s a podcast, audiobook etc whereas my partner is more visual. Would be great to see how the balance is on here.

I listen to all sorts of things on BBC Sounds app every night whilst drifting off to sleep. I often wonder where some of my knowledge comes from until I realise it’s one of the things I’ve listened to. That said I also like a good documentary too.

kinaesthetic and visual

Zlatan wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 13, 2022 9:36 pm

I listen to all sorts of things on BBC Sounds app every night whilst drifting off to sleep. I often wonder where some of my knowledge comes from until I realise it’s one of the things I’ve listened to. That said I also like a good documentary too.

Fellow BBC Sounds fan over here! I listen all the time, usually drifting off to sleep, to different documentaries, the World Service, and panel shows like Just A Minute and Sorry I Haven't A Clue.

I'll be writing my third commission for Radio Four in Jan.

As for learning - I think I'm kinaesthetic, doing stuff.

Milltown1882 wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 13, 2022 9:34 pm

I know this forum can be weird and wonderful at times. Been having a debate tonight about audio vs visual learning.

How do you retain things better? I’ve always been someone who can retain information more by listening whether that’s a podcast, audiobook etc whereas my partner is more visual. Would be great to see how the balance is on here.

The ‘three times rule’: Read three times. First time understand the principle, second time you start getting the details, third time locks it in.
If their is a reliable audio version of what you are reading, read along with the narrator. It may seem childish, but it works.

When you have read something, quietly contemplate for a few minutes (I do the routine jobs everyone hates… washing up is perfect).

There’s a place for all types, kinaesthetic, audio or visual. Depends if you are imaginative and want to know the why of things, analytical and want to know what you are learning, a pragmatist and want to how a thing works or an activist and want to know about the what if type of approach. Either way all 3 types of learning aid can be used in varying degrees.

I used to have great memory retention in the days before technology took over, a bit of a photographic memory they said. Now I'm retired, enjoy photography and have access to unlimited information, I have watched countless hours of YouTube, especially to learn Photoshop and Lighroom but I now find very little sticks.

I was the only lad to pass the 11+ in my year but Grammar school was a nightmare. I was near the bottom in everything except French. I later put this down to not being receptive to teachers, even good ones couldn’t get my attention, whereas when I read something I can lock it in.

visual for me

Reading for me, mostly. Writing things down over typing them. Making errors is good!

Audio....I remember a friend suggesting I taped my geography notes, so I could listen in bed, rather than read. It was the one I failed! Nothing worse than your own voice!!!

The discussion should be extended to what one means by learning- surface or deep. In my school years it was very much surface learning - trying to memorise topics/ points by reading. In later years I found I retained knowledge and understanding much more easily via visual observation of events ( being an engineer), hence developed the power of deep learning. As some mentioned- quiet times of reflection is a powerful tool to run through the ‘ ifs and buts ‘of a topic in your mind thus aiding deep learning.

Pickles wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 13, 2022 9:47 pm

I'll be writing my third commission for Radio Four in Jan.

Congrats on this Pickles. Will you post a thread when the air date is approaching?

Visual here.

Pickles wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 13, 2022 9:47 pm

Fellow BBC Sounds fan over here! I listen all the time, usually drifting off to sleep, to different documentaries, the World Service, and panel shows like Just A Minute and Sorry I Haven't A Clue.

I'll be writing my third commission for Radio Four in Jan.

As for learning - I think I'm kinaesthetic, doing stuff.

I’ve just been advised I should be thinking of writing proposals for various journals and broadcasters; so I’d be very interested in what topics are you covering?

elwaclaret wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 14, 2022 11:10 am

I’ve just been advised I should be thinking of writing proposals for various journals and broadcasters; so I’d be very interested in what topics are you covering?

Hi, elwaclaret. Latest commission is another drama to go out on Radio 4. Would be interested in speaking.

Rowls wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 14, 2022 1:30 am

Congrats on this Pickles. Will you post a thread when the air date is approaching?

Thanks, Rowls. Will do, yes!

Reading for me

I love podcasts on history but when I'm working I really do struggle to take them in and I tend to sometimes have to go back 10 minutes as I've been concentrating and completely missed what they are talking about

It's a mixture of both
I learn a lot through reading, but also through actually doing the task.

I'm no good at exams, but I am at practical stuff

It's all rubbish debunked many years ago by Coffield et al and subsequently by the likes of DT Willingham.

The main source of thinking is a slow process centered around the pre-frontal cortex in conjunction with working and long term memory. This is in a constant battle with an older quicker system centered on the amygdala and the emotions.

You would have to be somewhat of a loon to think thinking is focused on how you see, hear or feel information.

Academics talk sh*te about something until someone points it out and they then talk sh*te about something else...!

All for good money and a final salary pension.

This is my bucket load of cynicism poured onto this forum for this day....!

Rowls wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 14, 2022 1:20 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhgwIhB58PA

Nobody's responded to this yet.

For those who haven't clicked the link it's a video that claims the VARK theory of learning is essentially, erm, a load of bunkum.

No, I've not read the scholarly articles the video sources but let's be honest, neither have the vast majority(approximately 100%) of you. It's a well argued video on the topic and I have to say I find its reasoning to be compelling.

It's not enough on its own to watch a video like this and declare with confidence that the theory is indeed a load of bunkum, but we can begin to form opinions and I have to say, from what I was taught in psychology lessons and having watched this video, I'm definitely leaning towards VARK being a load of bunkum.

It either is, or it isn't. But what is more interesting than this is the fact that the theory has become widely accepted and prominent in certain countries, but not so much in others. The video specifically mentions the UK and the Netherlands as areas where it is prominently followed by teachers. There's at least one teacher on here who apparently adheres to the theory.

So IF we assume it's a load of bunkum then what does it mean for a country like ours where the theory is apparently widespread and taught in teacher training? I doubt it makes too much difference tbh. Teacher's ought to be trained in a number of techniques to impart knowledge and if this theory helps widen their teaching abilities then it's not going to be particularly harmful. But at the same time, if the theory is a load of bunkum, then even if we're achieving good outcomes from following the theory but our reasoning is wrong then it leaves the possibility that we might be able to achieve big improvements by getting our reasoning right?

And IF the theory is a load of bunkum then how and why can this have happened? That's why it's so interesting - if we understand how a theory that is potentially bunkum can spread and become established then we're closer to understanding human behaviour. It explains a lot about how and why we act and do the things we do. From religion and rituals to the effectiveness of lockdowns and other beliefs that spread rapidly to blooming algae in a turgid pond. What ideas that are sacred today will be cast aside tomorrow?

ClaretPete001 wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 14, 2022 1:24 pm

It's all rubbish debunked many years ago by Coffield et al and subsequently by the likes of DT Willingham.

The main source of thinking is a slow process centered around the pre-frontal cortex in conjunction with working and long term memory. This is in a constant battle with an older quicker system centered on the amygdala and the emotions.

You would have to be somewhat of a loon to think thinking is focused on how you see, hear or feel information.

Academics talk sh*te about something until someone points it out and they then talk sh*te about something else...!

All for good money and a final salary pension.

This is my bucket load of cynicism poured onto this forum for this day....!

Ah, you say that but I find that I learn best when I'm in a soundproof room painted bright green from floor to ceiling. This is my truth and you cannot deny it. ;p

Are we talking about learning stuff because we are interested or because we have to.

If I'm interested in something I can learn about it in whatever way the information is presented - books, videos, actually doing if appropriate.

If I'm not interested or only mildly so, learning is a lot harder as I get easily distracted. My general way is to question some aspects of what I'm being told. For example I was taught in chemistry about hydrogen bonding and I wondered how this would be affected by other isotopes of hydrogen - deuterium, tritium - as they are double and triple in mass to the usual hydrogen atom.

https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/hydrogen-bonding/

By the way, I'd never heard of kineesthetic learning but now I've learned about it by reading the link!

https://potomac.edu/what-is-kinesthetic-learning/

Whether I'll retain this information tomorrow is another matter.

I find reading doesn't work that great for me in terms of retaining info, I do retain highlights though, probably why I have re-read books I like multiple times. Visual seems a better format for me in terms of remembering, previous employer had many things that needed to understood and signed off yearly, such as diversity and others, you had a choice of visual with audio or reading, the visual with audio always was better for me, tests at the end proved that for me.

However, the most effective way for me is to actually write things down myself, I remember much more that way, when doing that it was always reading, so visual as I couldn't write for listening/audio.

You can’t beat an old fashioned lecture …

Especially when it’s delivered by a more than slightly eccentric middle-aged Claret

thehistorylecturer2 wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 14, 2022 6:36 pm

You can’t beat an old fashioned lecture …

Especially when it’s delivered by a more than slightly eccentric middle-aged Claret

I recall attending old-fashioned lectures where the professors were non too keen on being asked questions!

dougcollins wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 14, 2022 7:15 pm

I recall attending old-fashioned lectures where the professors were non too keen on being asked questions!

Yes often very true

thehistorylecturer2 wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 14, 2022 7:18 pm

Yes often very true

Obviously not English as I would have said 'none' as opposed to 'non'..

My favourite was a Biochemistry lecturer. Completely and utterly bonkers. Drew cartoons all the time on the overhead without realising he was doing it.

Rowls wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 14, 2022 3:27 pm

Nobody's responded to this yet.

For those who haven't clicked the link it's a video that claims the VARK theory of learning is essentially, erm, a load of bunkum.

No, I've not read the scholarly articles the video sources but let's be honest, neither have the vast majority(approximately 100%) of you. It's a well argued video on the topic and I have to say I find its reasoning to be compelling.

It's not enough on its own to watch a video like this and declare with confidence that the theory is indeed a load of bunkum, but we can begin to form opinions and I have to say, from what I was taught in psychology lessons and having watched this video, I'm definitely leaning towards VARK being a load of bunkum.

It either is, or it isn't. But what is more interesting than this is the fact that the theory has become widely accepted and prominent in certain countries, but not so much in others. The video specifically mentions the UK and the Netherlands as areas where it is prominently followed by teachers. There's at least one teacher on here who apparently adheres to the theory.

So IF we assume it's a load of bunkum then what does it mean for a country like ours where the theory is apparently widespread and taught in teacher training? I doubt it makes too much difference tbh. Teacher's ought to be trained in a number of techniques to impart knowledge and if this theory helps widen their teaching abilities then it's not going to be particularly harmful. But at the same time, if the theory is a load of bunkum, then even if we're achieving good outcomes from following the theory but our reasoning is wrong then it leaves the possibility that we might be able to achieve big improvements by getting our reasoning right?

And IF the theory is a load of bunkum then how and why can this have happened? That's why it's so interesting - if we understand how a theory that is potentially bunkum can spread and become established then we're closer to understanding human behaviour. It explains a lot about how and why we act and do the things we do. From religion and rituals to the effectiveness of lockdowns and other beliefs that spread rapidly to blooming algae in a turgid pond. What ideas that are sacred today will be cast aside tomorrow?

It happened because education has no means of measuring teaching quality because there are too many variables. So, proxies become endemic.

If someone somewhere needs to do something in a classroom for Ofsted etc. then ticking a box saying that a new approach to learning styles was adopted becomes more meaningful than any kind of reality in classroom practice.

Learning styles/cognitive styles became big parts of lots of fields: education, psychology, computer science (Human Computer Interface/Ed' Tech) and if you check the literature there are literally tens of thousands of papers...

So, your next question might be how do academics get away with writing papers and generating data and evidence on a subject that most now accept is complete grollox.

And so on and so forth up to the point where expertise, universal truths and facts become seen as expendable to the point where politicians make stuff up and people on social media just believe anything.

Except of course the good folks of the UTC forum...

When studying for my degree (a long time ago now), I found that I took it in better if I read from books or specific units. Tutorials were OK for revision but used to find that my mind would wander a bit. Probably why the Open University suited me best.

I found the socratic learning method quite powerful as a method of teaching. One could probe for prior misconceptions or misunderstandings then address those directly. Also created peer-peer cooperation in reaching solutions.

Much like the debate in this thread .

atlantalad wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 15, 2022 6:27 pm

I found the socratic learning method quite powerful as a method of teaching. One could probe for prior misconceptions or misunderstandings then address those directly. Also created peer-peer cooperation in reaching solutions.

Much like the debate in this thread .

That's good for breaking down preconceptions and parsing ideas to get to basic definitions and such, but if you're learning something like, say, a musical scale, you've just got to sit down and remember the intervals, then bang it out again and again until it sticks.

Spiral wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 15, 2022 7:15 pm

That's good for breaking down preconceptions and parsing ideas to get to basic definitions and such, but if you're learning something like, say, a musical scale, you've just got to sit down and remember the intervals, then bang it out again and again until it sticks.

Or poetry eg. Ezra Pound and others.

Spiral wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 15, 2022 7:15 pm

That's good for breaking down preconceptions and parsing ideas to get to basic definitions and such, but if you're learning something like, say, a musical scale, you've just got to sit down and remember the intervals, then bang it out again and again until it sticks.

Quite true. I guess you can learn things by rote or repetition. I was thinking more along the lines of learning+ understanding i.e. deep learning. As an analogy - and I should say I don’t a musical bone in my body, I think that deep learning would involve how to compose and arrange a sequence of scales such that the individual musical notes, arranged in a particular order, provide a natural or defined melody. That knowledge goes beyond simply memorising and playing a sequence of notes.

I would always read and write notes, even if I never looked at them again, to reinforce the reading.

Listening I normally switch off, or maybe that's just when certain people speak