Since we're sharing anecdotal points of view on this, I'd argue
that it
depends on the type of material being "read", the learning style of
the
"reader" and the amount of attention given (a level of processing
argument?) at any particular time. I can recall being totally
engrossed
in a book-on-tape during long drives and commutes and I also know that
my mind wanders easily when I'm reading, so much so that I don't
recall
what I've read. However, there are plenty of things that I must see to
understand and if it's difficult material, I definitely prefer the
visual version.
A.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by
bolts of lightning. -Bill Watterson, comic strip artist (1958- ),
in his
comic strip Calvin & Hobbes
Angelique Scharine PhD
Army Research Lab - HRED
AMSRD-ARL-HR-SD
APG, MD 21005-5425
(410) 278-5957 (landline)
298-5957 (dsn)
(410) 278-3587 (fax)
-----Original Message-----
From: AUDITORY Research in Auditory Perception
[mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Toth Laszlo
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 8:04 AM
To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Reading versus books on tape
On Thu, 6 Jul 2006, tony stockman wrote:
anecdotally I believe for myself at any rate, as a blind person and
having used braille since primary school, braille reading is more
effective for learning than listening to tape.
I think that quite many people (including me) performs a kind of
visual
learning. For example, I can recall even after years how a certain
piece
of information was positioned on the page of the book. Because of
this,
I can hardly imagine how I could learn anything by listening to a tape
(I have never tried it, though). Sorry, this is only "anecdotal",
but I
hope somebody here can name some real study on this.
Laszlo Toth
Hungarian Academy of Sciences *
Research Group on Artificial Intelligence * "Failure only begins
e-mail: tothl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx * when you stop
trying"
http://www.inf.u-szeged.hu/~tothl *