REPACK Download Audio Listening Asking And Giving Opinion

Active listening is also about patience, listeners should not interrupt with questions or comments. Active listening involves giving the other person time to explore their thoughts and feelings, they should be given adequate time for that.

I personally listen to albums alone with headphones with eyes closed as it allows me to fully absorb the music (preferably in a dark room) , if i get disturbed i start the album over immediately or wait for another time to start it again. But i listen to the album this way only twice before i feel like i have a decent opinion on it. Of course i listen to the album more if i like it. but if i dont like it after the second or 3rd listening with intense focus i move on. In the streaming days, theres too much music out there. is this a bad way of listening to music?

Download Audio Listening Asking And Giving Opinion

Download File 🔥 https://urlgoal.com/2y3CcX 🔥

0:35: Judge Duncan takes the podium, as students make gagging noises, and attempts to deliver his prepared remarks. And it\u2019s clear he does have prepared remarks, focused on high-profile rulings of the Fifth Circuit in specific areas of law where Supreme Court jurisprudence is unsettled. He\u2019s heckled intermittently\u2014e.g., \u201CBoring!\u201D or \u201CWe took Con Law!\u201D\u2014but he\u2019s able to speak to a certain degree. It\u2019s not as much of a shutdown as Ilya Shapiro at Hastings. But at least in my opinion\u2014and now that we have full audio, we can have an informed debate\u2014the protestors did violate Stanford University\u2019s Policy on Campus Disruptions, which prohibits \u201C[p]revent[ing] or disrupt[ing] the effective carrying out of a University function or approved activity, such as\u2026 public events.\u201D The policy doesn\u2019t prohibit \u201Cpreventing the carrying out\u201D of a public event; it prohibits \u201Cpreventing or disrupting the effective carrying out\u201D of a public event, and the words \u201Cdisrupting\u201D and \u201Ceffective\u201D should be given some meaning.

Cut to the chase and remove the unnecessary, weak intros. Whoever is listening to you or reading what you've written knows that it's your opinion or your belief. That's why you're telling them whatever you're telling them!

Dr. Willingham, I consider the the "cheating" precursory. Folks are asking if audio books obstruct growth in reading development or vocabulary breadth. I know you get that.

But there is more to it. People want to do what is good; they want to "get" the whole experience. I applaud those seeking to not cheat. They refer to cheating themselves, and that concern is healthy.

You make great fodder, as always, for us to keep from cheating.

Dear Professor Willingham,

Another distinction between listening and reading which may have an impact on comprehension is who is controlling the pace of the experience. Given a non fiction text and low prior knowledge students, I wonder if listening to the text may put students at a greater disadvantage because it may be easier to be to let the audio play without taking a more active role and pausing to make sense of what you heard. Might be an interesting experiment to conduct and then see if teaching students a strategy to be more engaged with the content in either delivery mode made any difference.

Thanks.

Thank You for Writing on such a crucial topic. Your conclusion "The point is getting to and enjoying the destination. The point is not how you traveled" sums it all up.

I work as a school librarian in Sweden and constantly meet the prejudice that listening to an audiobook is cheating, even though they are helping students with Reading disabilities significally. I have been Writing an essay about the problem and also lecturing about it, but I feel that the prejudice is so strongly fundamented in our educational system and so diffucult to break through. It is beginning to change, but not fast enough.

In Your text You write about adults, but is it also the common practice in the american school system to dismiss audiobooks as cheating?

First, I think you're presuming that listening is universally easier for everyone. Some people process visual information much more easily than audio information when it comes to language. Also, where do you get that listening allows you to "consume books at a much faster rate"? My visual reading rate is relatively slow (I have a learning disability), and I can tell you that it almost universally takes me less time to read a book than to listen to one. Practically, I can listen to more books because I can listen when I'm walking to work, for example, or doing other things where my body is engaged but my mind isn't (running, doing dishes, etc). But it's not because audio books are somehow fast-tracking information into my brain. I'm sorry, but this statement presumes a visual reading rate that would be very slow, which essentially presumes that no one (or no one who listens to audio books) is good at visually reading. I know of no evidence to support this.

Also, I think "doing hard things because they're good for you" reaches a limit in value really quickly when it comes reading. Think of children with learning disabilities for example (like I was), who might be able to access audio information much more easily than visual information. Do you blame a person with a disability for using a wheelchair instead of "doing it the hard, good-for-you way" and walking? Also, think of the sadly many people in the US and across the world who are illiterate or not sufficiently literate to read at a high level. Do you think it helps any of them in the slightest to get the message that listening to a book "isn't as good" because it "isn't as hard"? If you're a proficient reader, reading won't be "hard," it will be enjoyable. If you're not, there are probably very serious and sad reason why not ranging from disability to poverty, and you're the last person who needs to be looked down upon for finding another way in.

I listen to a lot of audio books (running/hiking/in public transport). I find it to be a way to go deeper into a subject. E.g. if the book raises your interest you may want to get a hard copy and go through it at your own pace.

Also I find that I can listen for longer uninterrupted periods of time than reading.

It would be most interesting to find out if listening changes the brains plasticity and how, if that impairs reading, rapid reading in particular. However at the present moment I find listening to be an additional instrument in learning. If you read a text out loud, then just read it and after listen to your recording you will have gained a better understanding of the text.

These are great reflections on audio books, but ultimately the question is "is listening equal to reading?" No one is disputing that listening to an audio book is beneficial, they are disputing that listening to a book is equal to reading one.

Emily, keep in mind the argument here is not that listening to a book is "negative." The argument is "listening to a book is beneficial for many people, and for various reasons, but, it IS inherently easier than reading due to the freedom it gives to the listener to text friends, drive, walk, sit on the balcony with their eyes closed, ect. (as well as various other reasons as listed in previous comments.)"

Lets please keep this in mind. No one is saying there is no need for audio books and that we should destroy them all. I'm sure we all have listened to audio books on occasion and love them, I know I do. But, and I will say it again, the two ARE different. Just because .001 and .003 are similar doesn't mean that it's wrong to say .003 is a larger number.

Dear Professor Willingham, I'm very interested in follow up on the literature/science on beginning readers and audiobooks. Parents are constantly encouraged to read aloud with their young children, and share a love of reading. I find that my son's comprehension (and enjoyment of audio books) is far ahead of his reading ability, patience, and persistence. And it seems from your post and the comments above that this elementary school level reader does exemplify the "cheating" debate - listening for enjoyment, when decoding is onerous. We've set a couple of rules - he can choose anything to read (often nonfiction or comics) but he has to have done reading - a short stint is all - before he can listen everyday. I expect his reading to catch up at some point but it is certainly challenging finding engaging books at his reading level to compete with his choices in audio books - "I took my turtle to school" vs Treasure Island for example. Thank you very much for a thought provoking post.

I have to disagree with you. By this argument, you could also say that you are 'tube-fed' a play when you see it live rather than read it in your living room, but seeing a play live is its intended form. Are you 'tube-fed' a piece of music that you listen to rather that reading the score yourself? Better toss out your Glenn Gould and Rostropovich fast--those canned interpretations are rotting your brain! Obviously I'm being sarcastic to make a point. Appreciating a good performance is *not* the same as turning your brain off. For the experienced listener, a good performance can add a layer of aesthetic pleasure that you simply may not get in the isolation of your own brain. A good performance of a book may bring out interpretations that you, alone inside your brain, might not have thought of in the first place, actually deepening your experience rather than "cheapening" it. What makes you so certain that people listening to books are incapable of being consciously aware of the performance and the performers interpretation, and thinking about how they might interpret it differently? Or that no one ever hits pause to process a beautiful sentence or an important passage? I've listened to passages repeatedly, appreciating both the words *and* the interpretation. Listening isn't necessarily lazy.

Although I listen and visually read about equally these days, as a child reading was very difficult for me as I have several learning disabilities. I thought for years that because I preferred to listen than to read that I was stupid, that none of the books I listened counted as something that I'd "really" read, just as you say. Now I'm getting my PhD in music psychology, and I know enough about the listening brain and relationships between audio and linguistic processing to know that that's frankly a load of crap. You don't come into contact with language--with any audio signal--and comprehend it without a *lot* of complex decoding and encoding processes. Whether the language is coming in through your ear or your eye is a drop in the bucket in the whole process.

I'm sorry to hear that hearing a book read doesn't offer you any pleasure, but that's a matter of individual preference. Your pleasure or lack thereof in hearing rather than reading a book has absolutely no bearing on the complexity of others' experiences in listening to a book, and it is terribly unkind to suggest that we are simply too lazy to think for ourselves. 2351a5e196