Image bypasses the frontal cortex (decision-making) and goes straight to reptilian brain. If we didn't respond to an image of danger, we would not be here. To me, image is everything and is particularly useful in understanding data - we teach visual representations of data - data storytelling.
No question the timing is one of the key points. Kolb is saying the comprehension process itself is in mental imaging. Now if he is correct, schooling as we know it...Good Grief.
I believe image allows people to connect their knowledge with meaning in a more immediate way; words tend to be more literal and don't usually leave room for personal abstractions. Images are flexible and allow learning connections to occur in a more deeply and engaging way. One image can summarize or represent hundred/thousand words
Yes, and yes. Words once spoken internally or externally have a power of their own, and that power can trip us up. Whereas the flow and even meandering quality of an image can take us, if we suddenly find new words, to a deeper place. But there is a true equality here I think.
I think both will need to go hand in hand and neither is less or more important. For example, if a student is being trained as a doctor, would we want the curriculum to be only pictures or only words ? I would hope the answer would be "NO". It has to be picture to help the student identify the body part and words to describe the do's and don'ts. Another case I would make is: How can anyone describe accurately, if it is only image without a proper written explanation ? and How can anyone conceptualize accurately if there is no image ? How could I summarize this text as an image ? and If I did upload an image, how can I expect my audience to receive the message as it was intended ? And the list goes on...
Well, in a way that is what Kolb says, one is the other. He is claiming it is not a matter of which is important, no hierarchy, just the same thing. Our ability to picture what is, for example, something as lowly as fixing a broken switch for Pete's sake, is figuring out how to fix it with your images going full steam, and your intellect working in tandem at the same time. Maybe?
Just would like to add to what Michel said; words bring context to pictures and pictures bring context to words. Both are so important in communication. I love the 4MAT model because both are utilized in teaching so no one gets "left behind".
Yes, of course, But it is important to note however than we Westerners sustain a hierarchy about this that results in an imbalance, and Kolb is challenging that.
Image bypasses the frontal cortex (decision-making) and goes straight to reptilian brain. If we didn't respond to an image of danger, we would not be here. To me, image is everything and is particularly useful in understanding data - we teach visual representations of data - data storytelling.
ReplyDeleteNo question the timing is one of the key points. Kolb is saying the comprehension process itself is in mental imaging.
DeleteNow if he is correct, schooling as we know it...Good Grief.
I believe image allows people to connect their knowledge with meaning in a more immediate way; words tend to be more literal and don't usually leave room for personal abstractions. Images are flexible and allow learning connections to occur in a more deeply and engaging way. One image can summarize or represent hundred/thousand words
ReplyDeleteYes, and yes. Words once spoken internally or externally have a power of their own, and that power can trip us up.
DeleteWhereas the flow and even meandering quality of an image can take us, if we suddenly find new words, to a deeper place. But there is a true equality here I think.
I think both will need to go hand in hand and neither is less or more important. For example, if a student is being trained as a doctor, would we want the curriculum to be only pictures or only words ? I would hope the answer would be "NO". It has to be picture to help the student identify the body part and words to describe the do's and don'ts.
ReplyDeleteAnother case I would make is: How can anyone describe accurately, if it is only image without a proper written explanation ? and How can anyone conceptualize accurately if there is no image ?
How could I summarize this text as an image ? and If I did upload an image, how can I expect my audience to receive the message as it was intended ? And the list goes on...
Well, in a way that is what Kolb says, one is the other. He is claiming it is not a matter of which is important, no hierarchy, just the same thing. Our ability to picture what is, for example, something as lowly as fixing a broken switch for Pete's sake, is figuring out how to fix it with your images going full steam, and your intellect working in tandem at the same time. Maybe?
ReplyDeleteJust would like to add to what Michel said; words bring context to pictures and pictures bring context to words. Both are so important in communication. I love the 4MAT model because both are utilized in teaching so no one gets "left behind".
ReplyDeleteYes, of course, But it is important to note however than we Westerners
ReplyDeletesustain a hierarchy about this that results in an imbalance, and Kolb is challenging that.