28/4/06

Learning Journal

Learning Style

Before I can proceed with a critical evaluation of my skills development, it is imperative I reflect on and determine my predominant learning style. I have used Kolb’s et al (1984) Learning Style Inventory (LSI) theory and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) theory (1998) in order to evaluate my learning styles and abilities. ‘Appendix 1’ illustrates my results of these self-completion tests.

Kolb’s learning style model is illustrated in ‘Appendix 2’ The LSI is simply an indication to how I view myself as a learner (Kolb et al, 1984). The inventory showed I have a main orientation towards Active Experimentation (AE), illustrated in ‘Appendix 3 ’. The characteristics of this style suggest I focus on influencing people, am good at getting tasks accomplished and that I value having an impact and influence on the environment. The combination scores from this inventory describe my learning style more accurately since everybody’s style is a combination of the four learning modes (Kolb et al, 1984). These scores, shown in the grid in ‘Appendix 4’, suggest I have an Accommodative learning style that emphasises AE and Concrete Experience (CE).  The greatest strength of this style is explained by Kolb et al (1984) in that it involves ‘doing things’ by seeking involvement in new experiences and being adaptable to changing situations. Kolb et al (1984) mentions those with this style are found in action-oriented jobs usually in marketing. This is encouraging as (degree) is my chosen programme of study.

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator has also been used for assessing individual differences and determining learning style (Sirmans, 1992). The results for my MPTI complement the LSI scores. As two of the four scores in this inventory were rather close, as shown in ‘Appendix 1’, it suggested I am predominantly two personality types both in the Extrovert category. The ESTJ sensing type proposes I quickly move to implement decisions, like to organise projects and people and am forceful in implementing plans. The close scores also suggest I could be type ENTP in that I am alert and outspoken, resourceful in solving challenging problems and good at reading other people.

I am in agreement with the results of both inventories in that I am more a ‘doing’, action-oriented learner rather than say a ‘thinking’ or ‘observing’ learner. The fact both the tests showing similar aspects and characteristics of my learning style implies it is accurate.

Kolb et al (1984) highlights that we all develop a learning style that has strengths and weaknesses, and stresses learning modes may change time to time and in different situations. For me this is evident in ‘Appendix 3’ where my orientation scores towards CE and Abstract Conceptualisation (AC) were reasonably high. This suggests I do not dismiss the more thinking, logical approaches completely and that I am prepared to adopt other learning styles, which is evident in my skill development evaluation futher on in the journal. It is true I have a preference. The assumption is that we our most efficient as learners when information arriving is aligned with the way we want to receive it (Delahoussaye, 2002). But Delahoussaye (2002) cites Kolb in an interview where he says so much of what is involved in effective learning would be absent if one was taught by only one style. I and all students are exposed to increasingly difficult material and complex situations in education (Salter et al, 2006) which gives reason for adopting different learning styles.

It is necessary to critique Kolb’s theory as the results of these tests may have implications for evaluating how and where I am learning. Other authors (Garner, 2000; Delahoussaye, 2002; Salter et al, 2006) as well as Kolb et al (1984) recognise LSI is not one hundred percent accurate. Garner (2000) in particular is critical saying the lack of theoretical vigour leaves his theory open to serious criticism and highlights the poor reliability of the LSI measure in previous studies. Salter et al (2006) also question reliability emphasising measuring LSI and MBTI relies on a certain level of self awareness. However, all studies have strongly highlighted the usefulness of Kolb’s learning theory with respect to individual development (Garner, 2000) and it has been used extensively in student practice (Salter et al, 2006)

Skills Development

I have unknowingly adopted Kolb’s Learning Cycle theory, illustrated in a simple form in ‘Appendix 5’, throughout my development where I have taken action to improve my skills when I have released any weaknesses. The learning cycle is continuously recurring and concepts are constantly modified by experience (Kolb, 1984).

The skills I have chosen to evaluate are those that I consider to be of great value and importance in my chosen career upon graduation of university. My second year at university in particular has been a period where I have developed essential skills and realised which skills have required most improvement. I will be evaluating my skills development in relation to my individual learning style and will use theory to evaluate my strengths and weaknesses. I will also be applying learning theory present in my development in relation to approaching the assessment period.

1) Teamwork skills and My Comfort Zone

During my gap year prior to starting university I ventured on an Outward Bound Teamwork and Leadership Development course. The two weeks presented me with situations and challenges that can be encountered in the work place environment. I performed in group dynamic activities as well as other activities such as rock climbing, canoeing, navigation training and I ventured on a Mountain Expedition. The course gave me the opportunity to develop certain skills by placing me in situations where I needed to display resourcefulness and personal commitment.

A personal report from my instructor and my experiences from the course provided me with an insight of my strengths and where I needed to improve. Throughout the course my team working skills were excellent. My generous and tolerant manner made me an influential team member, particularly when our team was in the early stages of development. This can be applied to Greiner’s (1998) modified version of Tuckman’s (1965) Stages of Team Development model, illustrated in ‘Appendix 7’, where Greiner reversed the ‘Storming’ and ‘Norming’ stages. Using this example in the model, I was particularly effective in the ‘Forming’ and ‘Norming’ stages where relationships between team members needed to be established and members needed to appreciate and support each other.

To critically analyse my teamwork skills is greater detail, I completed a Belbin (1993) Self-Perception Team Role Profile during the course and did it again two years later in my second year of university, which gave me the opportunity to compare my results. The results and team role descriptions are shown in ‘Appendix 6’. The two results were interesting as they were rather dissimilar. My first attempt predominantly characterised me as a Co-ordinator. My second attempt, however, described me more as a Teamworker and a Plant. This difference could show my development regarding teamwork throughout university, in that I have become less manipulative or delegating and a more involved team player and problem solver. However, the validity of Belbin’s profiles has been examined by Fisher et al (2001) where they cite an authors view that team members allow themselves to move between roles with the principle of raising team effectiveness (McCrimmon, 1995). This could suggest I am flexible regarding team roles and also explains why my two results differ.

Join now!

What I failed to do and learned during this course was to push myself further when I was faced with challenging situations. This would be necessary if I wanted to progress and improve my skills in the future. For example, during the rock climbing activity I felt unwilling to climb higher due to my slight fear of heights. To combat this, I became aware of the Comfort Zone theory, illustrated in ‘Appendix 8’, during a discussion with my instructor. White (2003) explanation of this theory shows I will learn most effectively and expand my comfort zone, Zone A, when ...

This is a preview of the whole essay