Comprehension

[Paladin-X]

In my learning disabilities session, we covered a classification of learning called Bloom's Taxonomy:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom's_Taxonomy

I believe I am stuck at the very first level of the pyramid. Comprehension is my biggest challenge. All of my life, I have managed to survive school on my reasoning ability and intuition. I have come to realize, that I skipped over a key part of learning, which is comprehension.


How do you 'comprehend'? If you are aware of it, anyway. Or if you recall how you learned to do it (probably in elementary school) please share. I would greatly appreciate if you can explain the mental process that goes behind learning, reading, listening to others, watching a movie, or even listening to a song, etc.


For example what is happening in your mind when you read this paragraph:

Mr Utterson the lawyer was a man of a rugged countenance, that was never lighted by a smile; cold, scanty and embarrassed in discourse; backward in sentiment; lean, long, dusty, dreary, and yet somehow lovable. At friendly meetings, and when the wine was to his taste, something eminently human beaconed from his eye; something indeed which never found its way into his talk, but which spoke not only in these silent symbols of the after-dinner face, but more often and loudly in the acts of his life. He was austere with himself; drank gin when he was alone, to mortify a taste for vintages; and though he enjoyed the theatre, had not crossed the doors of one for twenty years. But he had an approved tolerance for others; sometimes wondering, almost with envy, at the high pressure of spirits involved in their misdeeds; and in any extremity inclined to help rather than to reprove. `I incline to Cain's heresy,' he used to say quaintly: `I let my brother go to the devil in his own way. In this character it was frequently his fortune to be the last reputable acquaintance and the last good influence in the lives of down-going men. And to such as these, so long as they came about his chambers, he never marked a shade of change in his demeanour.

 

[TheDoctor]

I just link the sentences in context together until I understand the whole context.
I would write more now. But I have to get to work in a moment.

Frequently Mr. Utterson, a Lawyer, is the last reputable acquaintance and the last good influence in the lives of down-going men (men who commit crimes probably). Pretty much everything else are descriptions of him or his job.

Mehh........I doubt that really helps, sorry if it doesn't.

 

[Paladin-X]

When reading that paragraph, I read the words in my mind as if reading them aloud. They have no meaning though. Only sounds. So I don't understand what the paragraph is about except that it has something to do with a man named Mr Utterson. :S

When re-reading what I write, there is meaning because there is a personal connection to it. It's how I can understand some posts on this forum and not others. Some things I can relate to, other things I can't, so I don't understand.

Also, it's like I need to understand the point of what I'm reading before it makes sense. If that makes any sense?

 

[sprinkles]

Comprehension is probably the largest argument for qualia, 'felt' insights, and things overall just being more than the sum of their parts.

Comprehension boils down to a felt, perceived, ingrained, and difficult to describe non-word intimate relationship with the subject. You just 'know' it.

This is illustrated by the dictionary problem. You must know words in the dictionary to use the dictionary since words are defined by other words. If you do not have a non-word comprehension of at least some words, then you cannot begin to comprehend any of the words in the dictionary just by reading them, as it would all be equally foreign.

It's understanding which goes beyond that obtained by explanation alone.

 

[Tin Man]

Firstly I suggest that you disregard any theory involving a pyramid. There is a huge fault at the heart of them; things like happiness or intelligence can't be measured on a lateral scale. For instance, I don't identify with synthesis but I use evaluation on a daily basis. My last job consisted nothing but the evaluation of data and ideas.

As to your question; I first identified numerous traits of Mr. Utterson which caused me to compare him to a character in the book "Devils" by Dostoevsky. The passage also made me think about how a person can act in a cold and almost anti-social way but can still be considered lovable. It made me wonder if this is the author's own experience. Perhaps he or she (most likely he) is also a cold man but still is seen, or likes to think he's seen as loveable.

I also noticed the way in which the passage is written. The person who wrote it obviously has a deft way with words and quite an extensive vocabulary. Poor writers often use complex wording in order to hide their lack of creativity but I don't think that's the case with this author.

While it's not uninteresting, I don't see myself reading the book. His writing is too detailed and the pacing is very slow. It doesn't mean he's a bad author, just not my kind of author.

 

[Paladin-X]

I just link the sentences in context together until I understand the whole context.
I would write more now. But I have to get to work in a moment.

Frequently Mr. Utterson, a Lawyer, is the last reputable acquaintance and the last good influence in the lives of down-going men (men who commit crimes probably). Pretty much everything else are descriptions of him or his job.

Mehh........I doubt that really helps, sorry if it doesn't.

Thanks for taking a stab at it. I look forward to hearing more if you choose to add to it. I don't know how you are able to take the words in the paragraph and translate it into what you wrote. It's like I don't understand how the words/phrases/sentences relate to each other. I did not even realize that it was just describing him and his job.

 

[Paladin-X]

Firstly I suggest that you disregard any theory involving a pyramid. There is a huge fault at the heart of them; things like happiness or intelligence can't be measured on a lateral scale. For instance, I don't identify with synthesis but I use evaluation on a daily basis. My last job consisted nothing but the evaluation of data and ideas.

As to your question; I first identified numerous traits of Mr. Utterson which caused me to compare him to a character in the book "Devils" by Dostoevsky. The passage also made me think about how a person can act in a cold and almost anti-social way but can still be considered lovable. It made me wonder if this is the author's own experience. Perhaps he or she (most likely he) is also a cold man but still is seen, or likes to think he's seen as loveable.

I also noticed the way in which the passage is written. The person who wrote it obviously has a deft way with words and quite an extensive vocabulary. Poor writers often use complex wording in order to hide their lack of creativity but I don't think that's the case with this author.

While it's not uninteresting, I don't see myself reading the book. His writing is too detailed and the pacing is very slow. It doesn't mean he's a bad author, just not my kind of author.

I agree. I argued that I can do other things on the pyramid even without some of the baser elements. However, the point I was getting at is that I don't comprehend how to comprehend.

Like my response to Kessler, I don't understand how you were able to translate what was written into what you wrote. I can understand using another understood source to relate to the new information though.

I am a passive reader, listener, watcher, etc. The only thing I usually remember from reading a book, conversation, or movie, is my experience of it. For example, I won't remember any of the details of that paragraph. I will remember having read it though. I won't remember details of conversations I've had, but I will remember having had them. I can remember the detail, when someone else brings it up. So for example, I will remember a given movie as having lots of funny parts or boring parts or whatever. Someone will recall the details of the scene, and I will remember having seen all those details, even though I can't recall and voice them myself.

I am a simple reader myself, I prefer action and dialogue, because I can more easily visualize the story. I do enjoy stories with more depth and meaning behind them, but I can't understand them through all the fluff and details. When someone summarizes the story, and I find the gist interesting, then I will go read it and I can understand it better.

The quoted paragraph is apparently the first one from Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde.

 

[Tin Man]

I agree. I argued that I can do other things on the pyramid even without some of the baser elements. However, the point I was getting at is that I don't comprehend how to comprehend.

Like my response to Kessler, I don't understand how you were able to translate what was written into what you wrote. I can understand using another understood source to relate to the new information though.

I am a passive reader, listener, watcher, etc. The only thing I usually remember from reading a book, conversation, or movie, is my experience of it. For example, I won't remember any of the details of that paragraph. I will remember having read it though. I won't remember details of conversations I've had, but I will remember having had them. I can remember the detail, when someone else brings it up. So for example, I will remember a given movie as having lots of funny parts or boring parts or whatever. Someone will recall the details of the scene, and I will remember having seen all those details, even though I can't recall and voice them myself.

I am a simple reader myself, I prefer action and dialogue, because I can more easily visualize the story. I do enjoy stories with more depth and meaning behind them, but I can't understand them through all the fluff and details. When someone summarizes the story, and I find the gist interesting, then I will go read it and I can understand it better.

The quoted paragraph is apparently the first one from Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde.

I see, I worked as a teacher's assistant once and remembered her using a technique to help those who had trouble focusing, when reading. She had them spend half an hour reading and re-reading a paragraph and focus on the details, each day. They started with something they found easy to digest and then worked their way up. I'm not sure how much that would help you though.

There are plenty of places, such as sparknotes, where they summarise each chapter of a book and then analyse it's meaning. The summaries are pretty detailed but they might help spark your interest in books you want to read but find difficult to start.

Do you have dyslexia? You remind me of a friend with the same problem who suffers from it. There are websites that offer to help people with dyslexia who have such a problem. I'm not sure how useful they are but they might be something to check out. http://www.beatingdyslexia.com/reading-comprehension.html

Strangely enough, I really enjoyed Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. I often judge a whole book by a single passage; it makes me wonder how often I've dismissed a great novel due to a slow starting.

 

[Paladin-X]

I see, I worked as a teacher's assistant once and remembered her using a technique to help those who had trouble focusing, when reading. She had them spend half an hour reading and re-reading a paragraph and focus on the details, each day. They started with something they found easy to digest and then worked their way up. I'm not sure how much that would help you though.

There are plenty of places, such as sparknotes, where they summarise each chapter of a book and then analyse it's meaning. The summaries are pretty detailed but they might help spark your interest in books you want to read but find difficult to start.

Do you have dyslexia? You remind me of a friend with the same problem who suffers from it. There are websites that offer to help people with dyslexia who have such a problem. I'm not sure how useful they are but they might be something to check out. http://www.beatingdyslexia.com/reading-comprehension.html

Strangely enough, I really enjoyed Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. I often judge a whole book by a single passage; it makes me wonder how often I've dismissed a great novel due to a slow starting.

I'm not sure how well re-reading text details would work for me, unless the process of "focus on the details" was more concretely explained. Otherwise I feel like I am trying to memorize details.

Yes, I have a reading and writing disorders. That video was helpful. Thanks!


The steps:

1. Be aware of the clauses in sentences.
-----Each clause is a unit of information to be taken in one at a time

2. Think about the point being made in each sentence.

3. Think about the main idea from each paragraph.

4. Sum up the ideas from the whole piece of writing

Do people really do that ^? Do they really think about or question each clause, sentence, paragraph, etc as they read? It sounds like a lot of work.

If so, do they follow a similar logic for movies and conversation?

 

[Tin Man]

I'm not sure how well re-reading text details would work for me, unless the process of "focus on the details" was more concretely explained. Otherwise I feel like I am trying to memorize details.



Yes, I have a reading and writing disorders. That video was helpful. Thanks!


The steps:




Do people really do that ^? Do they really think about or question each clause, sentence, paragraph, etc as they read? It sounds like a lot of work.

If so, do they follow a similar logic for movies and conversation?

She had a method that made it into a sort of game, but it's been a while since I worked with her so I can't remember what that was. Sorry.

I think it's a stepping stone. It takes time first but after a while, the process becomes second nature to you. Of course I'm not sure of that, so I could just be talking out of my ass.

 

[TheDoctor]

Do people really do that ^? Do they really think about or question each clause, sentence, paragraph, etc as they read? It sounds like a lot of work.

If so, do they follow a similar logic for movies and conversation?

Actually, I am slowly in the process or writing my thought process when I read that. Yeah, it pretty much goes like that. I haven't really thought about it for movies or conversation, I will have to think about it.

 

[TheDoctor]

Mr Utterson, the lawyer, was a man of a rugged countenance, that was never lighted by a smile; cold, scanty and embarrassed in discourse; backward in sentiment; lean, long, dusty, dreary, and yet somehow lovable. At friendly meetings, and when the wine was to his taste, something eminently human beckoned from his eye; something indeed which never found its way into his talk, but which spoke not only in these silent symbols of the after-dinner face, but more often and loudly in the acts of his life. He was austere with himself; drank gin when he was alone, to mortify a taste for vintages; and though he enjoyed the theatre, had not crossed the doors of one for twenty years. But, he had an approved tolerance for others; sometimes wondering, almost with envy, at the high pressure of spirits involved in their misdeeds; and in any extremity inclined to help rather than to reprove. `I incline to Cain's heresy,' he used to say quaintly: `I let my brother go to the devil in his own way. In this character it was frequently his fortune to be the last reputable acquaintance and the last good influence in the lives of down-going men. And to such as these, so long as they came about his chambers, he never marked a shade of change in his demeanor.

[MENTION=5437]Paladin-X[/MENTION] I'm going to try to go through my thought process to some degree. Hope this helps at least a little bit!

- The first thing I did was read though the paragraph. I did not understand it at first. An

- A paragraph will(should) have a subject it is talking about. Here we have Mr Utterson (the lawyer). Everything after in the first sentence describes him, moreover how he appears. It may help to break the sentence up .
Mr Utterson, the lawyer, was a man of a rugged countenance, that was never lighted by a smile
Mr Utterson, the lawyer, was cold, scanty, and embarrassed in discourse;
Mr Utterson, the lawyer, was backward in sentiment;
Mr Utterson, the lawyer, was lean, long, dusty, dreary, and yet somehow lovable.
After review of this sentence I took note that he is a lawyer (it was different and stood out). I found the rest of the sentence useless.

- The next sentence after reading I thought "why the hell do I need to know this"?
At friendly meetings, and when the wine was to his taste, something eminently human beckoned from his eye; something indeed which never found its way into his talk, but which spoke not only in these silent symbols of the after-dinner face, but more often and loudly in the acts of his life.
Ignored this sentence. It is very poorly written, Way to long, which inhibits comprehension (same thing with the first to a degree). One huge problem is that it doesn't even identify what the meeting is for/about, only described as friendly(WTF).

- Next sentence was again WTF.
But, he had an approved tolerance for others; sometimes wondering, almost with envy, at the high pressure of spirits involved in their misdeeds; and in any extremity inclined to help rather than to reprove.

- Next!
`I incline to Cain's heresy,' he used to say quaintly: `I let my brother go to the devil in his own way.
This is a bad sentence because it assumes you know who Cain is. If you don't, he's Cain from the biblical story "Cain and Able". Cain killed Able because Cain was jealous that god accepted Able's offering and not his. I had no clue what it was talking about with brother at this point, except that it was something with Cain and Able.

- Second to last sentence.
In this character it was frequently his fortune to be the last reputable acquaintance and the last good influence in the lives of down-going men.
Right off the sentence states "In this character it was frequently his". This is a bad reference. The previous sentence was talking about Cain. Should I assume Cain is the his? Well it didn't make to much sense to me unless I put it like this.
In this character it was frequently Mr Utterson's fortune to be the last reputable acquaintance and the last good influence in the lives of down-going men.
I decided that this made sense, since Mr Utterson is a lawyer who could represent those down going men (criminals).

- Yay final sentence!
And to such as these, so long as they came about his chambers, he never marked a shade of change in his demeanor.
The only thing I think about this is that his chambers were maybe his office.

That was my process of figuring out the horribly written paragraph.

 

[Paladin-X]

She had a method that made it into a sort of game, but it's been a while since I worked with her so I can't remember what that was. Sorry.

I think it's a stepping stone. It takes time first but after a while, the process becomes second nature to you. Of course I'm not sure of that, so I could just be talking out of my ass.

No, you are right. It seems like a lot of work at first, until it becomes an inherent subconscious process. I'll have to start trying it out I guess. Maybe I'll go buy some children's books to start.

 

[Paladin-X]

[MENTION=5821]Kessler[/MENTION]

Thanks for the in-depth breakdown! I will try to see if I can learn how to do this. One step at a time.

 

[Paladin-X]

Not sure if this is Ni at work or what, but normally when I read, I am looking for something. This is not generalized reading, but looking up information, especially for work (I work in IT). If I have a question in mind, the relevant words/phrases etc almost seem to pop out at me.

It's like I work backwards. Instead of reading, forming questions/points about the text and build up to meaning, I start with meaning and all the relevant details just stick out. If that makes any sense.

 

[Paladin-X]

There are 2 realizations I made yesterday in my learning disabilities session about comprehension

1- I need to learn how to quickly identify main ideas / keywords so that I might internalize questions based on them.
2- I do not have a natural curiosity that most people seem to have. At least not in an inquisitive way. So generating those questions will be hard.

 

[Paladin-X]

So I downloaded an app to teach reading comprehension. I'm on the section about drawing conclusions, which I find to be very difficult.

What conclusions would you draw from each of the 2 different paragraphs below? Why did you draw those conclusions?

A:

Richard Knerr and Arthur "Spud" Melin founded the Wham-O Toy Company in 1948. Their first toy was the Frisbee, a flying plastic disc. Next, they made the hula hoop which was copied from the famous Hawaiian dance. Both toys were huge successes.

B:

Buffalo are members of the cattle family. At one time, huge herds of buffalo roamed the Great Plains. The Native Americans of the Great Plains did not waste any part of the buffalo. They ate the meat and made clothes and tents from hides and fur. They also carved buffalo horns into tools. The Natives of the Great Plains had great respect for the buffalo.

 

[sprinkles]

So I downloaded an app to teach reading comprehension. I'm on the section about drawing conclusions, which I find to be very difficult.

What conclusions would you draw from each of the 2 different paragraphs below? Why did you draw those conclusions?

I don't see any conclusions with either of those. They're both fairly trivial and elementary. I see nothing more to be said about these paragraphs that isn't already said within them.

 

[Paladin-X]

I don't see any conclusions with either of those. They're both fairly trivial and elementary. I see nothing more to be said about these paragraphs that isn't already said within them.

Well yes, the app is designed for young children. But I need to learn how children are taught because comprehension techniques designed for adults don't seem to work for me.

There are conclusions to be drawn, apparently. Probably elementary ones. I'll provide the answers after a few more responses, if I get them.

 

[sprinkles]

Well yes, the app is designed for young children. But I need to learn how children are taught because comprehension techniques designed for adults don't seem to work for me.

There are conclusions to be drawn, apparently. Probably elementary ones. I'll provide the answers after a few more responses, if I get them.

Yeah. I think the problem with this sort of thing is when it is designed with the point of having a correct answer rather than something that would actually be used more naturally.

The first one might expect you to conclude that they were smart toy developers for example, but the statement itself actually doesn't let you conclude that if you don't know anything else about them. Maybe they were smart, or maybe they were just lucky - it doesn't really tell you.