Are you a visual learner?

[Guest realmayo]

I've noticed articles online about being a visual learner or an auditory learner & so on, but also articles suggesting that's all nonsense. What do people here think?

[Gharial]

I've noticed more the references to articles claiming it's unempirical nonsense, but that's as much as I've read really. Not that that stops me from wondering if all this "multiple intelligences" stuff is an unavoidable consequence of having five senses (not sure where common sense fits into the MI framework), and the intelligent learner appreciating a variety of analogies and methods besides the "exclusively" oral/linguistic/cognitive. And you can't avoid being quite "visual" when it comes to hanzi mnemonics, or e.g. Cognitive Grammar's "embodiments" of the meanings of certain word or phrase concepts etc. Anyway, ramble over!

[gato]

I don't know if I am a visual learner, but I do have a much stronger visual memory than verbal memory. I can't remember lyrics to songs that I've listened to hundreds of times, but I can remember events or stories very well, usually like a movie playing in my head. That might be true for most people, though. Visual images are often used as a mnemonic to help people remember things (the Memory Palace of Matteo Ricci being the famous example).

[Silent]

I choose visual and kinesthetic. However I'm not sure if this is true/correct.

I strongly feel that certain input methods are better for learning then others. I'm convinced that most people will learn better when visual and/or kinesthetic input is provided. So yes, it's easier but to be a true visual/kinesthetic learner I think the difference should be more profound as for other people. I'm not so sure that's true for me.

I think a combination of input methods is best. If visual, audio, etc inputs confirm each other it's easier learning then when they contradict. E.g a testgroup learning vocabulary will do better if they get to see correct pictures with there vocabulary then when they get random pictures. It also strongly depends on the skills/knowledge. You can read thousends of books about formula 1 driving but if you don't get into the car and actually practice driving you'll never become a proficient driver. Also when you first read a book about how a car works and how to operate it before actually getting into the car will give much better results as it will take far less time to figure out how to operate it in reality.

[icebear]

With regards to Chinese, I have an extremely difficult time remembering names unless I've seen the characters at least once. Actually, that goes for Western names also. Maybe I'm just bad with names.

[lukoktonos]

From the book Why Don't Students Like School? I learned that multiple intelligence theory is true to some extent but not properly understood by most people. The book is written by a cognitive scientist and what follows is all paraphrased from what I remember of the book.

Some people are better "auditory" learners, but that does not mean that they can learn history better by listening to an audiobook compared with reading it in a textbook. What being a good "auditory" learner means is that one can better or more quickly acquire skills related to the sense of hearing. For language learning, this would basically be the imitation of sounds of a native speaker. So someone with a higher auditory intelligence might be able to more closely match a native speaker's accent. Or a person with a high auditory intelligence could imitate different accents in his or her own language more easily.

Likewise a person who is a "visual" learner may be able to better judge symmetry or have a higher ability for some other visual task, but it doesn't mean that that student would do better to learn math by seeing a visual representation of an abstract concept rather than the numerical representation. (at least, not "more" better than anyone else would--the visual representation would probably help anyone understand the concept more clearly than just the numbers).

One's intelligence in any of the categories does not allow one to learn a subject not directly related to that category faster by using different techniques. Basically, unless you are comparing apples to apples, "what type of learner you are" does not have much difference in academic learning or language learning.

[imron]

I think that at first people will have a preference for a particular style of learning, whether it be visual or aural or whatever, because for whatever reason they are more comfortable with that learning style and therefore find it easier. From personal experience, I also *strongly* believe that these things are learned skills that can be built up with practice. If you find you are not an aural learner, it doesn't mean that you can never be an aural learner, just that you need to practice to develop that ability. Likewise for visual learners and so on.

Many people however put themselves in a box and say "oh I'm a _____ learner" and convince themselves that they won't be good at learning any other way, and therefore don't make the effort to improve the other skills, and so it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[tofukozo]

@lukoktonos: does the book say anything about various aspects of learning? For example, a word has sound (pronunciation), imagine (the chinese character, pinyin image), and meaning (perhaps this is for reading?). I've studied extensively on Chinese characters/words, but I can more easily recognize the sound of the word much faster than the characters. I'm not sure if this should affect the way I learn.

I may have heard somewhere that most people learn visually. Maybe that's why mnemonics is such a good memory tool.

[renshanrenhai]

I don't know if it is appropriate to regard myself as a visual learner but I rely much on visual learning. In learning mathematics i am used to be strong at geometry but poor at algebra. When a recitation task is required, I usually try to recite a passage with the help of pictures in mind.

I'm convinced it requires a lot of visual learning to identify similar Chinese characters. But from my experience i assume there is an exception with names.

I always have difficulties in remembering Chinese characters translated from English names. Being able to recognize the name in Chinese characters, especially when i come across a new name in reading, doesn't mean i can call the name some time later. Many English names which are translated into Chinese really sound odd to my ear and cause difficulty to remember, at least i have such difficulty with it.

The day before yesterday , i bought a ticket for the concert of David Garrett from Shanghai Concert Hall. See the name translated in Chinese , 大卫· 葛瑞特. Sounds hilarious.... Too awkward.....

I mention the example of the translated name to support my opinion that in reading we have most of focus on the form and meaning of word; however in listening and speaking where names are frequently called requires more attention on pronunciation and so that the shortcoming of translated name appears.

[WestTexas]

I'm a visual learner. Like Icebear I have difficulty remembering Chinese names unless I see the characters written down. If I can see the characters it's no problem, but if not they all sound too similar and there's too much to remember... 3 syllables of pinyin and three tones, but if I see the characters I can just visualize the characters, it's only 3 things to remember instead of six.

[Guest realmayo]

But why do you think that means you're a "visual learner", rather than just a normal person? And in fact you even give a logical reason, that there's three things to remember instead of six, which doesn't involve "learning styles" at all.

I like lukoktonos's post above: I wouldn't be surprised if people are slightly better at different things (that student's good at listening comprehensions, that one is good at reading comprehensions) but it doesn't follow that one should change one's learning strategies (other than spending a bit more time on, say, reading if you find you're not doing well on reading comprehensions). Rather than: I'm a Saggitarius, therefore I'll always struggle with pronunciation....

[lukoktonos]

@tofukozo The book wasn't really focused on language learning, but rather the learning of abstract concepts that assume a level of competency in a native language. I guess if you learn the sounds more easily than the characters, it should just alter your studying in that you focus on your weaknesses. Perhaps there would be a way to use your strength to optimize your studying as well; about that I'm not sure.

What you said with regard to most people learning visually is correct, and I think the book discusses that. It also discusses that this may be a reason that schools are biased towards visual learning instead of the other intelligences (life might be similarly biased).

edit: my browser messed up the fonts so i tried to fix it

[Albannach]

I would suggest, as someone who grew up shortsighted and not generally wearing spectacles, that this kind of environmental influence becomes ingrained in our habits: we learn to depend on particular approaches more than others. (In my case, my experience skewed me away from using visual stimuli to using more aural ones - and yes, I picked up accents very quickly, including in my first language.)

There may also be cultural norms: where there is no literary culture, people tend to remember huge amounts of auditory material, and it has been recognised for a long time that blind people, for example, tend to be very responsive to aural stimuli.

The ideal in communication, including learning and teaching, is to stimulate as many senses as possible in a congruent manner, so that everyone is catered for.