Azul
Well-Known Member
So I've been reading to my project in grad course and noticed something interesting.
Laurent Mottron says in his 2017 article:
Should we change targets and methods of early intervention in autism, in favor of a strengths-based education? - European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
Then I remembered a thread here, where I had commented, on the need some have for clarifying underlying concepts against superficial information:
First principles reasoning and asking too many quesions
(This is just anecdotal evidence and is a bit of brainstorming)
While "implicit learning" doesn't map to "first principles reasoning" exactly, I would say their contraries, (explicit, fragmented and algorithmic learning) do sound very similar to (superficial explanations, often formulaic, without context and blindly sequential). Both of them offer bare bones and non contextualized information that is superficially structured.
Note that sequential explanations, when well organized and deep, can in my experience facilitate learning, but that's on the merit of the underlying understanding, since the format alone could represent either a good or bad explanation.
But then there's a constant on papers I'm reading (on art therapy and autism) on the need to simplify and fragment, algorithm-like, instructions for more severe cases. Like drawing steps.
Does the association between "implicit learning" and "first principles reasoning" hold some relationship?
Or this shows some kind of imprecision in my comparison?
What do you think of the common cited method of simplifying, fragmenting and "algorithmizing" teaching for autistics?*
Could this step fragmentation often cited (or its effectiveness) have more to do with verbal/written communication than learning itself?**
*I want to put a disclaimer that I suspect I might be on the spectrum, but my test results sometimes are borderline, I don't have a lot of experiences others have and I'm fairly ignorant on the matter. If the questions sounds silly, that's the reason.
**(This seems to be in line with the rest of the article, where he talks about verbal development).
(It appears to work differently for social implicit learning.)
Laurent Mottron says in his 2017 article:
Should we change targets and methods of early intervention in autism, in favor of a strengths-based education? - European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
(On his prediction that lateral tutorship would be better than face-to-face intervention):Implicit learning has repeatedly been demonstrated in autistic individuals [7, 46] and is actually slowed down by explicit instructions [29]. Autistic children, and not only savants, can spontaneously learn large amounts of complex information. The immediate value of the information they choose to learn may not be obvious, but autistic children resist conventional ways of learning, precisely because they learn by themselves, rather than because they are “incapable of learning” (see Dawson et al., 2008 for an informed discussion).
Last, lateral tutorship exposes the child to finalized, completed, and contextualized actions, whereas AIBI learning techniques consist of prompting, shaping, fading, chaining, differential reinforcement discrimination training, and errorless learning of mostly fragmented actions.
Then I remembered a thread here, where I had commented, on the need some have for clarifying underlying concepts against superficial information:
First principles reasoning and asking too many quesions
(This is just anecdotal evidence and is a bit of brainstorming)
While "implicit learning" doesn't map to "first principles reasoning" exactly, I would say their contraries, (explicit, fragmented and algorithmic learning) do sound very similar to (superficial explanations, often formulaic, without context and blindly sequential). Both of them offer bare bones and non contextualized information that is superficially structured.
Note that sequential explanations, when well organized and deep, can in my experience facilitate learning, but that's on the merit of the underlying understanding, since the format alone could represent either a good or bad explanation.
But then there's a constant on papers I'm reading (on art therapy and autism) on the need to simplify and fragment, algorithm-like, instructions for more severe cases. Like drawing steps.
Does the association between "implicit learning" and "first principles reasoning" hold some relationship?
Or this shows some kind of imprecision in my comparison?
What do you think of the common cited method of simplifying, fragmenting and "algorithmizing" teaching for autistics?*
Could this step fragmentation often cited (or its effectiveness) have more to do with verbal/written communication than learning itself?**
*I want to put a disclaimer that I suspect I might be on the spectrum, but my test results sometimes are borderline, I don't have a lot of experiences others have and I'm fairly ignorant on the matter. If the questions sounds silly, that's the reason.
**(This seems to be in line with the rest of the article, where he talks about verbal development).
(It appears to work differently for social implicit learning.)