In the pamphlet produced by the Further Education and Development Agency (FEDA) on learning styles Kolb's model of learning has been further developed to demonstrate the four learning styles of Honey and Mumford. The pamphlet argues that a person's learning style can be revealed by investigating which of the four stages the individual enjoys the most in the process of learning. The new learning cycle can be seen on the next page:
The Learning Cycle and Learning Styles
According to this diagram, and using the above examples of where I have put Kolb’s four stage model into practice, I would argue that I use all four states equally. If in any, my preference has to lie within the sections of Activist or Theorist. Whilst others may be standing around arguing over the wrongs and the rights of a situation I would rather be acting in order to resolve any issues. Kolb acknowledges that “people adapt their learning styles to suit specific tasks and problems. He requests that learning styles should not be perceived as fixed personality traits, but as adaptive states". In order to be a truly effective learner I would reason that an individual would have to be flexible enough to work equally well in each of the four states.
The more traditional way of discovering which learning style an individual prefers is the learning styles questionnaire developed by Peter Honey and tested upon individuals in Western civilisation. My responses to this questionnaire placed me with a very strong preference for the Theorist stage, and moderate preference for all three of the other stages. According to the Honey and Mumford analysis of learning styles this would mean I am logical and questioning, I have good attention to detail and time management skills, and I am good at research. Theorists also tend to be detached and inflexible, and tend to find team interaction difficult. They also have a disciplined approach to learning and are able to adapt and integrate observations into complex but logically sound theories. Having evaluated my own study skills I can agree with a number of these statements. During my degree I found that I would rather be researching the subject myself than listening to a teacher, and during lectures I would always be writing a list of questions for myself based upon the lecturers key points. During my A Level English Literature course I was constantly searching for a way into the subject matter, for example I found difficulty with the work of Yeats until I read a biography when the subjects of his poetry finally appeared to make some resemblance of sense to me. However, I would strongly disagree with certain elements of the Theorist observations. I believe that I embrace new ideas in my current workplace and as a lecturer in a post-16 college it is imperative that I remain flexible in my approach to every lesson. In this way I demonstrate the characteristics more often connected to the Activist model. I also embrace the caution of the Reflector through relationships both at home and work and I dislike small talk in any group work. From the Pragmatist model I think that at times I can suffer from impatience, but I usually bring a positive and business-like attitude a project. So it would seem that I can adapt to any one of the given learning styles, and I am certain that the majority of individuals, like me, all contain elements of each learning style. I see these learning styles as I do star signs; they could be misconstrued to fit anyone. I believe that the results depend upon your feelings that day and recent activities. I would rather be able to adapt myself to fit a given situation than be classified into one of these learning styles.
During my compulsory schooling I believe that extrinsic motivators largely drove me to attain good grades as I worked hard to earn the praise from both the teachers and my family. The method of working for reward falls into the category of behaviourism. Like Pavlov with his salivating dogs, and Skinner with his respondent conditioning in rats, I was conditioned to feel good when I received a good grade, as I knew that I would be rewarded by praise from teachers and family. Rogers argues: “these theories stress the active role of the teacher-agent. The student-learner is often seen as more passive”. Upon reflection it does appear that the majority of my compulsory schooling was driven by the teachers. They imparted the subject knowledge I needed to know and I had an expected role that I was to learn the facts imparted. Rogers also argues: “the behaviourist theories are based on a view of knowledge which distinguishes sharply between right and wrong”. This also relates to my experience of compulsory education, particularly in science or maths based lessons. With these subjects there was an answer that the teacher was looking for and as a student your role was to reach this conclusive answer. This extended, to some degree, to English, as there were criteria to which an essay was marked and certain points would gain a student marks. Once a student can grasp this concept of marking criteria, learning becomes comparatively easy. Each piece of work that needs to be submitted can be worked towards the criteria and thus the work will gain a good grade.
For years reward was the reason for my hard work in the academic environment, until I moved into a sixth form at a private school who appeared to have a different way of teaching. Taking the definitions of pedagogy (the art and science of teaching children) and andragogy (the art and science of teaching adults) as described by Malcolm Knowles, I would argue that the behaviourist theories I experienced during compulsory education lent themselves towards a pedagogical model, as they encouraged the passivity of the learner and the active role of the teacher. However, once at Croham Hurst for my sixth form years, and also during my years at university, the responsibility for my own learning rested with me. The teachers for my A Levels would offer a certain amount of knowledge and introduce key topics, but it was up to the learner to undertake the research necessary to fully appreciate the topic. Knowles argues: "Andragogy assumes that a teacher cannot really 'teach' in the sense of 'make a person learn,' but that one person can only help another person learn". This approach was demonstrated by the way in which I approached my History essays by fully researching the subject and reading around the key authors offered by the teachers, and also by the way in which I practised Maths topics introduced by teachers by later developing my own equations until I felt at ease with the methods employed in the lessons. The ‘school’ day itself during my sixth form years leant towards a model of andragogy, as there were regular study periods that were in no way regulated by the school. Whether the learner wished to use the library to study, or whether they wished to listen to music and relax in the common room was the choice of the individual.
Knowles argues that one of basic assumptions of andragogy is that adults are self-directed whereas “children enter this world in a condition of complete dependency”. Therefore there needs to be differences in the way these two groups of people are taught. But should the two groups of people be taught in a set way? If all children are taught using concepts of pedagogy with subject centred lessons which focus on the retention of knowledge, and all adults taught using Knowles’ concepts of andragogy which focus on the self-direction of the individual, then where does the cross-over occur between the two? How could a student move with ease from compulsory into post compulsory education? There does need to be a certain amount of difference between the way in which children and adults are taught as adults are often expected to know how to learn when they embark on a course in post-compulsory education, but to allow an adult complete self-direction in their learning could be potentially fatal in the case of some subjects, and could also lower national standards, as for many individuals there is an element of compulsory knowledge required for any form of employment. It is also interesting to note as an aside that the notion of pedagogy is based on "assumptions about teaching and learning that evolved between the seventh and twelfth centuries in the monastic and cathedral schools of Europe out of their experience in teaching basic skills to young boys", and that the notion of andragogy was developed by Knowles from his experiences of middle class white Americans, so how appropriate are either of these concepts in teaching ethnically diverse and multicultural individuals in the twenty-first century?
There has been much criticism of Knowles' views and opinions. In Davenport's criticisms of Knowles he concentrates on the definitions of andragogy and pedagogy. He argues that “If Pedagogy means ‘child leader’ or ‘leader of children’, then andragogy should refer to ‘adult leader’ or ‘leader of adults’. The emphasis in both cases is on the role of the teacher. Neither definition places emphasis on the role of the learner”. A valid point as surely the focus of all teaching should be the learner and not the teacher. Darbyshire argues that if Knowles believes that the teachers of children should subscribe to the methods of pedagogy and the teachers of adults should subscribe to the methods of andragogy "then he does a huge disservice to children by suggesting their exclusion from problem-solving learning and their consignment to a schooling involving no more than the acquisition of subject matter content". Darbyshire studied examples of child learning and states that children are just as self-motivated as adults. He wonders if progressive pedagogy i.e. the open classroom system of many primary schools, is the same model of andragogy. I would argue against Darbyshire's opinion and suggest that the present system in place in primary schools is more concerned with the acquisition of subject knowledge. This is due to the governments' tight regulations on the curriculum and the way in which learning should take place. For example all primary schools must now include a literacy hour and numeracy hour each day of the week. This formal lesson must prescribe to certain criteria laid out by the government's education minister. As oppose to the more experiential learning that took place during my primary school years the methods used are now more didactic as the teachers have to prepare the students for regular assessments from the age of seven. I would agree that during my time spent at primary school the lessons did lend themselves to a medium between the methods of andragogy and pedagogy, however the current primary system does not.
There are many, many more learning theories that I find of great interest and that I feel are appropriate to consider when reflecting upon my own learning experiences, but I have not the space to cover them all here. But in brief I would like to mention the idea of intuition, which I am a strong believer in, having spent many an hour trying to explain to someone how I came to know the answer to a particularly difficult Maths equation when I couldn’t explain the path used to reach my conclusion. I would also like to momentarily draw attention to the idea of mind mapping developed by Carl Rogers. He argues that the human mind is made up of a map as demonstrated here:
My Mind Map
English Information Technology
Cooking Programming
Car mechanics Film
The closer a subject is to the centre of the mind map the easier the individual finds that subject to study. Alan Rogers argues: “this implies that learning includes a process of redrawing these maps so as to bring the desired learning subjects closer to the self-centre. So long as adults feel that any subject is ‘not for me’, they will experience great difficulties in learning”. In my experience of learning I have often found some subjects almost impossible to study, whilst others I appear to have learnt with ease. The subject of programming in particular I always found particularly difficult at University. I appeared to have a mind-block to the subject and felt as if I could not learn C++. However, I went on to take an industrial placement year at Reuters where I programmed every day, albeit in a different language, but because I saw the programming as part of a daily task instead of as a subject unto itself I approached it in a different way, or it could be argued that the subject had moved closer to the centre of my mind map. In fact this change in ability to learn could be debated for a further few thousand words but I will reflect privately upon the transition. In conclusion I would stress that there are too many learning theories to be covered in this one assignment, but I hope that I have offered some insight into the ways in which I have learnt to date.
Word Count: 3,095
Bibliography
Claxton, G (May 1998) “Investigating human intuition: Knowing without knowing why”, The Psychologist, pp. 217-220.
Claxton, G (1990) Teaching to Learn. London: Cassell Education Ltd.
Darbyshire, P (1993) “In defence of pedagogy: A critique of the notion of andragogy”, Nurse Education Today, (13), pp. 328-335.
Davenport, J “Is there any way out of the andragogy morass?”. In: Thorpe, Edwards and Hanson (ed.) Culture and the process of Adult Learning. London: Routledge.
FEDA Further Education and Development Agency (1995) Learning Styles. London: Further Education and Development Agency
Honey, P (ud) Learning Styles and Learning Styles Questionnaire
Knowles, M.S (1978) Adult Learner 'a neglected species'. Houston: Gulf Publishers.
Knowles, M.S (1980) “What is Andragogy?”. In: Knowles, M.S (1980) The Modern Practice of Adult Education: From Pedagogy to Andragogy. New Jersey: Cambridge Adult Education.
Kolb, “The Process of Experiential Learning”. In: Thorpe, Edwards and Hanson (ed.) Culture and the process of Adult Learning. London: Routledge.
Owens, G (1998) “Behaviourist Approaches to Adult Learning”. In Sutherland, P (ed.) (1998) Adult Learning: A Reader. London & Stirling (USA): Kogan Page.
Rogers, A “Learning and Adult Education: How can we promote it…?”. In: Rogers, A. Teaching Adults. 2nd Ed. Buckingham. OU Press.
Sutherland, P (1998) “Experiential Learning and Constructivism: Potential for a Mutually Beneficial Synthesis”. In: Sutherland, P (ed.) (1998) Adult Learning: A Reader. London & Stirling (USA): Kogan Page.
Critical and Vygotskian theories of education: a comparison. URL: http://psych.hanover.edu/vygotsky/wardekkr.html.
