Interesting video about how people learn.
Do you have a "learning style"? Maybe not
- Thread starter Bob Jewett
- Start date
Pretty interesting video. I once participated in a college experiment where the names of 7 objects at a time were recited to me through a recording and I had to immediately say them back. For the first couple of groups of 7, I got a lot wrong because I was trying to picture the objects in my head to recall them, but then I started focusing on the tones of the sounds. Once I did that, I got every group right. They asked me afterwards if someone had clued me in or if I cheated in some way. I said no, but I was a music major and I paid attention to the inflections in his voice as he said the words and it made it easy for me to repeat them. It was like a piece of music to me.
Yet, when it came to learning pool, my favorite expression was "Show me." I had to see it to learn it. So I guess we do learn certain things in different ways.
Which of course would be the wrong way to do a real experiment. It does point out the usefulness of repetition in learning. I think the video was mostly useful for finding out about the origin and current thinking about the theory of learning styles.
I've read quite a few of such experiments, and that's what got me rethinking how some aspects of this game are taught. The last 2 or 3 decades have revealed some pretty incredible stuff about the mind when it comes to learning and memory. I thought this video was great. Thanks for posting it.
hooked on phonics worked for me
dquarasr
Registered
There’s a difference between memorization and “learning”, the latter requiring critical thinking. Rote memorization can involve some compartmentalizing and analysis but not to the degree of learning. So I am not sure the video tests aural v visual adequately.
Maybe I'm just ignorant but this street interview seemed a bit like a push poll. He sets people up by telling them there are learning styles and he wants to know what kind of learner they are out of the four. I never thought I had a learning style. Not sure I even thought about it before. Visual techniques like some in the interviews on the street can make your memory essentially photographic. That much I do know.
Brain can be powerful tool, or downfall. Depends on how you interpret information.
Geosnookery
Well-known member
I learned to do calculus, physics by laying down, closing my eyes and just think hings through. No textbook, paper, pencil until I need to fill in in the specifics
Try showing me how to tie a knot, do a riff on a guitar, do a dance step, etc. and I’m brain dead. However, give me a book with instructions and I can can work it out fine at my own pace.
It’s not that I can’t learn in a classroom, on a course, etc but my preference is definitely learning on my own. YouTube instructions are great. I can pause, think things though, repeat, etc.
Try showing me how to tie a knot, do a riff on a guitar, do a dance step, etc. and I’m brain dead. However, give me a book with instructions and I can can work it out fine at my own pace.
It’s not that I can’t learn in a classroom, on a course, etc but my preference is definitely learning on my own. YouTube instructions are great. I can pause, think things though, repeat, etc.
I remember a study/experiment performed with chess players of varying skill levels. It was conducted to see if master chess players had superior IQ's or superior memories when compared to novice or average chess players.
The participants were given a few seconds to look at chess boards where the pieces were arranged in mid-game situations. They would study the boards and then leave the room. Then the pieces would be removed from the boards and the participants would return to reconstruct the boards as they were.
The novice and average players would get 7 or 8 pieces or so correct, out of 20+ pieces per board. But the masters were able to reconstruct every board either perfectly or within a piece or two of perfect.
The researchers then arranged the boards so that the pieces were in random positions, positions that would likely never occur in real game situations. And again the participants studied the boards, left the room, and the boards were cleared. When the participants came back in to reconstruct the boards, the masters did no better than the novice and average players. They could only place a few pieces correctly here and there.
This showed that normal memory recall, not superior intelligence or photographic memory skills, is what separates master players from non-master players. Years of looking at various arrangements of pieces on countless chessboards allows the mind to build chunks of images. Instead of seeing one piece or one move at a time, a master player sees the entire board in his or her mind, every piece in its place, every scenario stored as an image that can be recalled and used and associated with any current scenario.
I believe Garry Kasparov's IQ was tested and found to be 135. That's high, well above average, but not high enough to classify as a genius. And I'm sure there are other grand masters with even lower IQ's, perhaps average IQ's. Because the research shows that it's memory, not intelligence, that often makes people look like geniuses.
The participants were given a few seconds to look at chess boards where the pieces were arranged in mid-game situations. They would study the boards and then leave the room. Then the pieces would be removed from the boards and the participants would return to reconstruct the boards as they were.
The novice and average players would get 7 or 8 pieces or so correct, out of 20+ pieces per board. But the masters were able to reconstruct every board either perfectly or within a piece or two of perfect.
The researchers then arranged the boards so that the pieces were in random positions, positions that would likely never occur in real game situations. And again the participants studied the boards, left the room, and the boards were cleared. When the participants came back in to reconstruct the boards, the masters did no better than the novice and average players. They could only place a few pieces correctly here and there.
This showed that normal memory recall, not superior intelligence or photographic memory skills, is what separates master players from non-master players. Years of looking at various arrangements of pieces on countless chessboards allows the mind to build chunks of images. Instead of seeing one piece or one move at a time, a master player sees the entire board in his or her mind, every piece in its place, every scenario stored as an image that can be recalled and used and associated with any current scenario.
I believe Garry Kasparov's IQ was tested and found to be 135. That's high, well above average, but not high enough to classify as a genius. And I'm sure there are other grand masters with even lower IQ's, perhaps average IQ's. Because the research shows that it's memory, not intelligence, that often makes people look like geniuses.
I see your point. Well, I neglected to mention that they gave me a list of categories numbered 1 through 7. Each item that was read to me was from the categories on the list in that order. I was supposed to use the list to assist in my recall, which meant I had to draw an association between the item and the category. I found that to be too much work for the seconds they allowed me for recall, and it was tripping me up, so out of necessity, I came up with an alternative on the spot. Basically, I bypassed their system. What they wanted from me and what I gave them were two different things, and yet the end result was successful. But I think that rote is an assist to learning, or even maybe a part of the learning process, because as long as you can recall the information correctly, then you can put it to practical use over time.
But to be honest, I'm not even sure if what I did was rote memorization. Each group of 7 words represented a series of notes, based on their inflections. I was learning a new song each time. Isn't that learning?
Last edited:
THANKS for posting this interesting video. Janine Sherman and I took VARK assessments then watched the video. Great ideas.
I believe 7 pieces of information is about the max of what our conscious working memory can work with, at least without tying or associating the pieces of information to something we're already familiar with.
That's likely why 7 items/words were used. I believe for words, the average person can keep about 4 or 5 in working memory immediately after seeing or hearing the words. With digits it's closer to 7. That's why it's easier to remember long multi-digit numbers by grouping the individual numbers into groups/blocks. Instead of having to remember a long 10-digit number like 5613995713, it's easier to memorize it in three chunks: 561...399...5713.
If the study you participated in was published at some point, I probably read it.
It's cool to think that you may have been a participant in some of the research I've studied.
Learning styles have been debunked at least since I did my education degree about a decade ago. The fact is that when creating instruction all components need to be considered. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t feel more confident with material until after they’ve had a chance for some hands on experimentation.
I think what you were doing was similar to what they talked about in the video. They mentioned that the most successful participants used a memorization technique. You were using an association technique to aid in your memorization. In general memorization is indeed learning, but on the hierarchy it’s generally at the bottom of the pyramid with respect to complexity.
Bloom’s Taxonomy
by Patricia Armstrong Print Version Cite this guide: Armstrong, P. (2010). Bloom’s Taxonomy. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. Retrieved [todaysdate] from https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/blooms-taxonomy/. Background Information | The Original Taxonomy | The Revised...
cft.vanderbilt.edu
This is really great stuff. Thanks for posting it. So what other skills do you think would make certain pool players or chess players, stand out from the rest? What about logic? Where does that fit into the concepts of learning and memorization?
At issue there is chess masters practice memorizing boards. When I was serious about the game in high school, friends and I played games aloud in the car--without a board or pieces--as best we could.
You are very welcome!
Definitely game logic/strategy is a needed skill, which relies on gathering knowledge and retaining that knowledge. And we already know that solid memory retention requires repetition.
When it comes to memory, the brain really begins working its hardest every night while we are sleeping. That's when it consolidates all the sensory input/data it received or experienced throughout the day.
The more senses that are involved in an experience or learning process, the more effectively and efficiently the mind consolidates the information to memory while we're sleeping.
Basically, multiple sensory inputs are like attaching multiple "handles" to an experience or learning process, and more handles makes it easier for the mind to store and recall the information we're trying to learn.
This is why I always stress to beginners (though it can benefit anyone) to use multiple visual references on cut shots, other than simply referencing the ghostball center or the contact point. These are fine references, but also look at where your aim line is headed in reference to the ob itself. Because the more pertinent visual data a player can attach or associate with any particular shot, the more likely they are to learn that shot quicker and to recall it more accurately when needed.