Why Johnny Can’t Learn Code

KE4ARH writes ...


"There are four identified types of learners in the world – Auditory, Visual, Tactile, and Kinesthetic.¹ Auditory learners absorb information and are at their best in situations that require the use of hearing. Visual people form ‘pictures’ in their mind to learn and to interact with their environment. Tactile individuals are those who need to touch and feel to absorb information best. Kinesthetics are people who require action and body movement. Most humans exhibit some combination of all types but tend to favor one type overwhelmingly over the other types.



When we apply the characteristics of these learning types to the issue of learning Morse code, the fact that so many claim they cannot learn code becomes a little easier to understand. The process of learning Morse code would go something along these lines: hear the code, process the code, write the code. Repeat this enough and your nervous system builds a pathway between the ear, the brain, and the hand. The ear detects the dits and dahs and sends them to the brain for processing. The brain processes the audio and tells the hand to write the character. Pretty simple. As long as you are not a visual learner.



Visual learners learn best by forming pictures in their mind. They absorb information best when the instructor or teacher draws a diagram on the board. They are the ones you see in class or conversation, staring somewhere unseen as they try to write or read these mental pictures. The natural Morse code learning path for them would be: hear the code, picture the code, process the code, write the code. This works until the visual person gets to the higher code speeds. Once above a certain level the brain simply does not have enough time to accomplish the extra processing step it must do in order to learn and to execute the skill.



Some folks who find the code to be easy will tell you that they “hear the rhythm” of the code, and that they don’t “listen for individual characters” but “hear the words”. These comments are dead giveaways that the hams that do well with Morse code are auditory learners. And just as Ted Williams and Tony Gwynn can’t understand why anyone is unable to hit a 95 MPH fastball, auditory learners cannot fathom how in the world morse code could be difficult.



And while it is more difficult for some learning types, I am not suggesting is that it is impossible for visual learners to learn code. What I am suggesting is that perhaps it is time for a little understanding for those who are having difficulty learning morse code. A supportive environment will go a long way toward helping the frustrated visual types and increase the chances that they will someday overcome their learning barrier and move to the next level of licensing if they so choose. Perhaps someone has a method for learning code that can be tailored to each specific learning type.



Just as a teacher must adapt his or her teaching methods to enhance learning for all types, so must the Amateur Radio community adjust its attitude to help everyone become better. The first step is understanding the issue.






More information about learning styles can be found here:



http://www.metamath.com/lsweb/dvclearn.h tm



http://bsd-server.nc.edu/virtcol/ss/ learn.html



<HR>

1-http://www.latitudes.org/learn01.html"

 

Jeff,



Great effort and good item. As we become adults we tend to rise to a challange and as a child we do what is fun.



A big key is to know ones own strength and include both fun and challange in efforts. Especially, this is true when learning a new language such as code, program language or spoken language.



Thanks, Keep up the good work.



73,



260 N9AS

 

Thank you for writing this!

I am one of the visual people (and a photographer by trade...). On top of that add dyslexia, and that is why I cannot learn code to save my life. I have tried and tried hard. I have purchsed 3 different programs and downloaded who know how many free ones. I gave up. Unless things change, I will be a tech forever.

Sheldon
N7XEI

 

N7EXI, i see you are a visual learner. I would be very curious and interested to see if you would have an easier time learning Morse Code by flashing light. Would you be interested in trying that? You might just hook up a light instead of a tone generating device.

 

As unaccustomed as I am to replying to messages here, the bottom line is that you either have film in your camera or you don't.

Simple as that.

W5HX

 

Very interesting consideration of the issue KE4ARH. Do you suppose that some of these people who have difficulty learning the Morse Code may be visual types who could profit from flashing light in lieu of tone, as Radioweenie has suggested? BTW, speaking of flashing light-- would your maritime mobile activities consist of GMDSS in addition to amateur radio, by chance?
...73 de N4INU...

 

If you want to play baseball you learn to throw and catch the ball. If you want to play basketball, you learn to dribble and throw a ball into the basket. If you want to hunt, you learn to use a firearm or bow and arrow. If you want to drive a car you learn to use your feet and hands in unison to accomplish this feat. None of these things are things that people are inherently capable of doing instantly, but if they have a desire to do them they will learn. Some will learn more than others and have greater proficiency than others. One thing is certain. Barring physical impairment or mental handicap these things can all be learned if one has the desire. Those who "can't" learn the morse code, barring handicaps, are only lacking in motivation or desire. Generally speaking, if they spent as much time practicing cw as they did complaining about it, they'd have already passed the "slow" code test! If you want to play "ham radio", you have to learn! 73 mike

 

...some of us still leave the lens cover on too.

 

Interesting theory, but
have any studies been done with respect to learning code and such learning styles. It seems logical to associate learning code problems to learning styles, but sometimes such connections are not correct.
A large group of individuals do appear unable to learn code; it would be interesting if such people took the survey on the web sites you posted, to evaluate your theory. For starters my survey results are. Visual- Nonverbal 34, Visual Verbal 32, Auditory 18, Kinesthetic 26. My code skills peak out at about 20 WPM, without continuous practice it slips rapidly to 13 WPM. I also found that my skills in reading code are unrelated to my skills in sending code. I found it very easy to send code, but tough learning to read code. I decode letters some simple words, without pencil and paper; sentences big trouble decoding with out letters first.
73 AD6LR

 

I am one of those that is very visual in my learning, the written word being very effective for me. Auditory learning is difficult, I cant remember my own name unless I check my ID. However I do have a doctorate in something or other, so I did well at school anyway.
The method I concocted to learn code was to incorporate a written visual to go along with the audio. I created a bulletin board with the letters, numbers, and a picture of the dots and dashes that go along with them. When first hearing the code I would then point at the letter and code being transmitted. After long hours of pratice I can now listen to code and decode it in my head as well as write it down. I can do speeds faster than 13wpm too. The key is that it takes time and lots of listening and concentration. There is no easy way except to put in the time. If all one wants is to learn 5wpm, it can be done in a couple of weeks to a couple of months, if practice is done every evening. The higher speeds will require considerably more time spent listening and sending.
Practice Practice Practice. It also helps to want to do this. If you really dont want to do this and are only doing it because it is required, it will be a lot harder.

 

That's why the YLs and XYLs are so much better
at code (as general rule) than us OMs.

The military used a lot of members of the WAAC
and WAVES durin' the war on the high spped circuits. Some could do as much as 60 wpm.

Probably the colored troops could have been
also used for this duty, but they, of course,
were thought of mainly as labor types. Although,
one colored tank Bn was a favorite of Patton.

In fact, one of the former military ops was featured in Drake ads many moons ago. She is
SK now and I forget her callsign.

73 de Ronnie

 

Hi,


Interesting article. Especially since it follows almost exactly what Dr. George Wheeler came up with years ago. Wouldn't is be nice to have a teaching method that encompasses ALL of the aformentioned sensory inputs? That's exactly what Code Quick is all about. I used Code Quick to learn code and it works. It works quickly too. I bought the tapes because I wanted to use them while I was driving. Very quickly I was "sounding" the text of road signs, billboards, whatever. I was learning the code NOT a prescribed sequence. By doing that I can ragchew with CW and not have much trouble. I'm not waiting for Name, RST, RIG, QTH, 73 73 Call de Call SK. Nothing against that by the way. I do it all of the time. A fellow HAM took some time to work with me on technique, speed, technique, technique, and technique once I received my ticket (Thanks Rob, I am forever indebted to you). He even convinced me to try mobile CW. That is a kick and it's now my favorite operating mode.</P>


Code Quick works folks and it works VERY well</P>


73</P>


Mike,
WM5LL

 

my results are... Visual/Nonverbal 40 Visual/Verbal 30 Auditory 12 Kinesthetic 24

But I do play several music instruments and don't have a problem. I find morse hard to understand, mostly because the dit and dah blur together... I don't have that problem with rhythm in music, but then again, modern morse is fixed amplitude and pure monotonic, no instrument is like that. Perhaps if I were to listen to an old rig with clicks and chirps I'd do better.

 

Not to be a salesman for Code Quick, but as mentioned by Mike, WM5LL, I found it a life saver. I used it in combination with the Gordon West tapes. The attempt to learn code was not easy, taking me 8 months...and I passed on the first try. Bottom line is if you want it hard enough, you have to work for it. One needs to find the method that works for you...and like those painful piano lessons...PRACTICE!

 

"so must the Amatuer Radio community adjust it's attitude to help EVERYONE become BETTER".

So reads the last paragraph of KE4ARH's post. Well isn't that special.? Arn't the editorial folks here at QRZ special.? I'm beginning to think so. Very special. Special as in I hope they're enjoying their rooms down on the South Wing at The Center. Special as in they rode the short bus to school rather than the long one. Oooooh I am starting to become upset with you folks here at ClevernessAin'tUs.

The quote I used above, emphasizing the words [everyone and better], clearly discloses that the writter is suggesting that ALL hams who don't-won't-refuse to do the code must have a learning disability and...worse...that no-code hams have a "need to get better".....well like my Master Jesus said: "My little children, how long must I bear with you?" You people (QRZ Editorial Staff)have long since begun to make me less than happy with you. But alas I keep coming here for entertainment......Thanks for not mentioning, once again, that the majority of code refusniks don't do the code because we simply DO NOT LIKE IT AND BECAUSE WE HAVE THE GOOD SENSE THAT GOD GAVE YOUR DEAD GRANNY TO KNOW THAT THE CODE REQUIREMENT IS OBSOLETE AND WILL BE OUT THE DOOR SOON ENOUGH. Right after IRC 2003. I can learn code. I have learned the code. I refuse to be a lackey to the old timers and to do things just for the sake of doing them and for no other good reason. The MANY reasons why the CW requirement is soon/history have been spelled out here and elsewhere dozens of times, everyone knows it, why the dead horse continues to be beaten to a pulp here ...is clear. Because the QRZ Editorial Staff who run this column have a newspaper editorial page mentality and have to continuously keep pushing people's buttons to keep them coming back to check the rant of the day......From now on, anyone wishing to post any article on CW here at this forum should be made to read every single past article here in the archives concerning CW where they shall instantly learn that there is nothing new under the sun and they they are wasting they're friggin' time....that is, if they can read and do not have some sort of learning disability thereby making them some sort of 3rd class, 3rd world ham radio operators......now directly to you QRZ folks....Exactly why, like clockwork, every no-more-than-three weeks do ya'll insist on posting some sort of CW this and that or CW vs. so and so article? STOP THE BEATING OF THE DEAD HORSE lest I ultimately shall have to sic the S.P.C.A. on you. This all used to almost be funny, now it turns to pity. Losing respect for you in Ga., 73's Woody Parr, KE4ENX