Talk:Auditory learning

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Education Low‑importance

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Monsters and magical sticks

This reference does not qualify as a rigorous scientific publication. It is a book about hypnosis from 1987, published by a company that seems to focus on pseudoscience (astrology, magic, karma and similar). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.171.164.107 (talk) 15:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Is there any citation for this? A lot of the information seems suspect. Ilikerps

Auditory learning is a valid concept, but this particular article seems to be describing something else. Since there are articles for visual learning and kinesthetic learning, I think it would be worthwhile to revise this article. Hanacy 01:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if some of the citations for the use of auditory-themed language tropes ("Sounds good to me!") aren't specious. I would think the audio-focused might use more language cliches in the first place, because that's when whole phrases themselves start to have meaning outside of their constituent parts. But the idea that people automatically theme their phrases to how they supposedly learn sounds silly. 69.94.192.147 (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article?

This seems to be a rubbish article. If there's no way to improve it, maybe it should be deleted. There's already information on VAK in Learning style and VAK. Piechjo (talk) 08:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Piechjo

the article does need tidying up and more input, but currently there are not many who are willing to do the neccessary research. This is a very important issue, especaily with regard to how some need to cope with dyaleixa and other learing disabilities.

dolfrog (talk) 12:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Auditory learning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081205043419/http://www.lsda.org.uk/files/PDF/1543.pdf to http://www.lsda.org.uk/files/PDF/1543.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]