As someone who now prefers digital, but grew up with mostly analog, I think I can understand what your teacher was trying to say, and it's really a difference in how the brain is interpreting time itself.

When your internal mental state of time is represented in numbers, then analog clocks feel awkward and clunky, because to use them you have to look at the clock, think "okay the big hand is here, the little hand is there, so that's 7:45. School starts at 8, so 15 mins to school". It's like having to translate through a foreign language and then back to your own.

For people who use analog clocks almost exclusively, as I did in childhood, then your concept of time actually begins to become directly correlated to the position of the hands themselves. Not the numbers the hands are pointing at, but the shape the hands make on the clock face. I think what your elementary teacher was trying to say is that the clock itself becomes a direct physical representation of the 'size' of time.

Someone whose brain is working like that looks at an analog clock and immediately thinks "It's quarter to school" - without any numbers being involved at all. In fact you could completely remove all numbers and markings from the clock face, and the physical comprehension of time would still function equally as well for that person.

So yeah, I understand why analog is bad for people who don't like it, but I think I see the appeal for people who do.

If your mental model of time is based on analog clocks, then when looking at a digital clock you have to translate it back to clock hands to know what it means, and that's slower than immediately seeing the analog clock face.

That's funny because I read a digital clock and visualise an analogue clock to understand the time better.