As an aside, why do or did people claim there is visual learning aside from spatial learning? I don't experience visual and spatial imagination as different things. (With reasoning about time always assumed.)
As an aside, why do or did people claim there is visual learning aside from spatial learning? I don't experience visual and spatial imagination as different things. (With reasoning about time always assumed.)
Even that is a matter of personal preference. I honestly believe it's easier to get the concept of a derivative by linking it to instantenous velocity.
Here's a random example: Marsden and Weinstein define derivatives in their out-of-print textbook Calculus Unlimited without limits. The tangent to a graph at the point x is the boundary between two line pencils, one of lines entering the epigraph at x, the other of lines leaving. There's no limit-taking of chords. It's a simple and neat definition that connects with classical notions of tangency.
In his essay On Proof and Progress in Mathematics, Thurston lists a dozen other definitions or conceptions of derivatives in his personal arsenal, some very sophisticated. But even those among his definitions that are elementary and have roughly the same scope there is a difference in their psychological affordances, and that can make all the difference.
I'm pretty sure that those are distinct neurological processes, as revealed by the differing individual deficits that patients can have after suffering strokes. But I don't have the medical references at hand, and you have certainly seen many sources that combine writing about both, as I have.