Neuroscience, Jungian Type and Mathematics: Insights into Student Struggles[video]

[INTP]

ill just leave this here. i think it offers good insight into sensing and intuitive types in general, even tho its more about kids learning math.

at one point, she said that only two types use actual logic center of their brains and others fake it. any guesses on what those two types are?

 

[Jaguar]

only two types use actual logic center of their brains and others fake it. any guesses on what those two types are?

Obviously not INTPs.

 

[garbage]

I'm glad to see that there's actually empirical research kicking around on this. Not sure how much of this is confirmation bias and how much isn't, but, hey, we're taking stabs at it.

Whatever terms we use--Jungian or not--anything that gets the point across that people learn in different ways and that we ought to cater to them is quite alright by me.

--

I did notice that there were only 11 types listed on the table at 16:18, and I'm wondering why. Were some types not represented, were they left off the table, ..?

 

[011235813]

Jungian Type, Neuroscience and Learning Styles

This women has been using JCF and Dario Nardi's work to understand how kids learn math. Pretty cool.

 

[Amargith]

^Awesome vid. Definitely explains why i fell asleep during pie graph class back when

 

[21%]

Thanks for posting this! I almost cried. It was beautiful.

 

[INTP]

http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...cs-insights-into-student-struggles-video.html

 

[Nicodemus]

http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...cs-insights-into-student-struggles-video.html

You're clearly not as popular as senza is.

 

[Cellmold]

Very interesting video. Watched through the entire presentation, but I can't say I identified with any of the styles mentioned.

However it's an interesting video in terms of the educational potential, albeit with a more negative potential; socially from the segregation.

 

[011235813]

I didn't identify with any of the styles described either. Or rather, I identified with bits of each.

In general, whenever I had a problem with math (or anything else) my first preference was to look at the answer first. If I had the answer and knew what I was working towards, I was confident I'd figure out how to get there. I worked much better once the uncertainty of not knowing was removed from the situation. Sadly, there were very few cases where I could actually apply that method.

I will say that while I could apply concepts just fine if taught how to do them, I didn't actually understand them without some element of visualization. Most of the time, I didn't visualize them though, because I was already getting the right answers and being right was pretty much all that mattered to me.

 

[011235813]

You're clearly not as popular as senza is.

The people, they love me.

 

[Nicodemus]

Surprisingly enough, I actually identify with what she says about Ni learning.

In school, some people - idiots, I thought - were offended that I did not 'learn' before exams like they did and still got better results. I know how it works, why should I look at it again? I simply deduced specific answers from general concepts I had formed during classes by applying them to the questions at hand. However, creating information through this background machinery takes time. One must think. In school as well as in college, studying the humanities, I had always had sufficent time and so never changed my learning behavior; but last semester, when I took a few courses in economics, I found that skipping all the tutorials does not serve me well when rapid-fire recollection is required to even get to all the questions in the exam. Accounting was interesting enough to listen to a lecture once a week, but not to also repeat the old stuff in boring tutorials, in rooms stuffed with smelling, breathing, talking young students.

 

[Amargith]

I very much related to the Ne learning style for the most part. But with math when it became a lot more abstract, I found that I needed the more sensor type learning methods in order to visualize it properly in my head. I can't keep all that abstract info in my mind without concrete representation. I also find that I use the Ni approach when I'm bombarded with information. I'll just go quiet and let it *jump* at me. Ne I use more to tinker and play with a more manageable amount of information.


I also studied the way Nico described. Read through things once, and since I heard it before in class, and had it processes, I rarely needed *actual* studying, unless there was no underlying story to things (like memorizing vocabulary for foreign languages). I even took exams without studying for them (coz I studied the wrong subject that I thought I had an exam on ) and passed them easily, safe for the physics one...

I had a photographic memory for the rest, aka those things that went too abstract or had no story to them like physics and math), as well as studying the teachers to know what they'd ask (each of them had pet peeves, preferences and clear personality tendencies as to how theyd ask which questions).

 

[Cellmold]

I find myself somewhat identifying with both Se and Ni...but not overall. I generally listened to as little as possible to get the general concept, then got on with it in my own, meandering way.

 

[garbage]

I did what I could to try to get 100%s, which meant practicing the hell out of a concept even when I was pretty sure that I had it down pat. Took me a while to realize that I didn't need to expend that much effort on that particular goal and that my particular goal wasn't worth it--and so I started preparing less and less for exams.

I relate mostly to her Ne description--analogies and patterns and stuff. I can experience information overload, though; and so I learned quite early on to cut out the bullshit and focus on what's important (No, it does not help to think of Σ as the Megaman X enemy Sigma on a physics exam). Essay questions (even on difficult subjects) are much more natural for me than a list of math problems; as I can tie in a bunch of related concepts and generalizations to give a holistic bottom-to-top response. Thank goodness that grad school veers more toward essays than repetition.


On exams overall -- I'd make a list of problem numbers at the top of the first page, skim the exam to find the easiest questions, answer them first, and allocate enough time for the rest. I was (and still am) more comfortable getting the easy stuff out of the way to ensure that I can concentrate on the hard stuff, despite Stephen Covey's warnings to the contrary.

 

[Tabula]

Very interesting! Thanks for sharing.

She didn't go into Si so much, so perhaps I'd relate best with that, given more of an explanation. I do know that practice and repetition are typically associated with Si, and I absolutely do not learn that way. I feel like I'm always waiting for this one critical little piece of information in a lecture, which makes sense of everything instantly for me, and once I get it, I GET it; I won't forget it, and I do not need or want to practice it any further. I don't know what this could be related to. I do see little bits of all of them in the way I learn.

I do 100% relate to asking the instructor if X is okay, I'm allowed to do Y, etc., that she mentioned about sensors. I NEEED the feedback. I'd sooner think that'd be F-related, though, or even Fe. Hmm.

 

[Cellmold]

I still have a longing for a 'brain scan' simply because it would give me something at least...somewhat empirical to work with. Although with this theory it's still a lot of assumption and guess work even now.

 

[Galena]

Pretty rigid Se for me. If I couldn't see or do it, it just didn't stick, and I still use too much extra paper in adult processes just like the example kid did.

Manipulables and diagrams like pie charts in early math I can only describe as delicious. It truly felt like I was eating something sweet and wonderful, but with my brain. Then they started disappearing before I was done with them. For a while, I made the pictures myself either in my head or on paper. To solve a word problem about children's heights, I'd draw lines with my ruler, and I'd spatially push around and turn over mental objects to solve logic puzzles. Long division was particularly dead to me: what was all that pencil pushing for when I could solve 80/4 by drawing eighty dots and portioning them on my page just as fast? I pulled through in algebra when I could tune into the rotation of phrases and numbers around the equals sign, feeling like I was turning them on a wheel, but needed lots more step by step assistance than my grades suggested. I felt like the A student who secretly wasn't.

 

[21%]

I didn't enjoy math because I failed to see its relevance. The only thing I did well in and loved was 'probability'. That was actually fun and interesting. The rest -- conic section? imaginary numbers? What the heck are they even for?

I was a good student so I really tried my best to get an A -- it was just painful though.

Now that I think about it, if they had 'framed' it differently, for example if they had disguised it in something fun, or perhaps even tell me why I should care, it might have been different.

 

[Cellmold]

Obviously not INTPs.

I love faking logic, it makes me tingly in the centre of my brain!