Based on the summary from 'How do People Learn', CiPD, 2007 - but with a few additional resources thrown in for good measure!
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator©
This model classifies learners according to their preferences on scales derived from psychologist Carl Jung’s theory of psychological types: extraverts or introverts; sensors or intuitors; thinkers or feelers; judgers or perceivers
For more detailed information see:
http://www.aptcentral.org/aptmbtiw.htm
www.gsu.edu/~dschjb/wwwmbti.html
http://members.tripod.com/~PersonalityInstitute/Myers-BriggsTypeIndictor.htm
http://www.myersbriggs.org/
Felder-Silverman Learning Model
This classification has five categories – sensing or intuitive learners; visual or verbal learners; inductive or deductive learners; active or reflective learners; sequential or global learners
For more detailed information see:
http://www.universaleducator.com/LearnStyle/felder.html
http://www2.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/ILSpage.html
Hermann Brain Dominance Instrument
This method classifies learners in terms of their relative preferences for thinking in four different modes – left brain cerebral (logical thinkers); left brain limbic (sequential thinkers); right brain limbic (emotional thinkers); right brain cerebral (holistic thinkers)
For more detailed information see:
http://www.universaleducator.com/LearnStyle/brain.html
Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory
This classifies learners as having a preference for (a) concrete experience or abstract conceptualisation, or (b) active experimentation or reflective observation
For more detailed information see:
http://www.universaleducator.com/LearnStyle/kolb.html
http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-explrn.htm
Honey and Mumford’s Classification
Developed from the Kolb’s inventory and learning cycle this model has four components – activists; reflectors; pragmatists; theorists
For more detailed information see:
http://www.peterhoney.com
(“Learning in Practice”, CiPD, p.44, 2007)
Showing posts with label theory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label theory. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
What John said...
The lovely John Millner asked a really interesting question in our H806 tutor group about whether or not instruction was akin to behaviourism. I’ve had a mull and the following was my resulting ponderings on his question…
John Millner writes:
“Im doing the reading on behaviourism, and am having difficulty understanding why instruction per se is regarded as a stimulus/reward process. Up to now I would have thought that attending a traditional lecture was an example of learning as understanding (ie, in the cognitive camp) but apparently it is more about behaviour modification thru instruction, and therefore in the behaviourist camp.
can anyone help me out here?”
Me in response:
“The CiPD report “How do People Learn”, p.17, says that:
"Practice takes the form of question (stimulus)-answer (response) frames that expose the learner to the topic in gradual steps. The learner is conditioned to make a response each time and receives immediate feedback. Learning is ordered in stages of difficulty so that the response to each step is likely to be correct; thus offering opportunities from positive reinforcement. Progress is achieved in small incremental steps and is 'shaped' towards a positive outcome".
If you think about a typical 'stand at the front and spout' lecture, the lecturer is drip, drip, dripping information at the students. They might ask a question which they expect a particular response to in order to continue the lecture. This is positive reinforcement. The students are being conditioned to respond in a particular way which is deemed behaviourally appropriate by the incremental accummulation of knowledge and the questions which are set to test that knowledge. The response consequence is the 'correct' answer achieved. There is a power relationship there as well. The lecturer lectures the students. It isn't the students lecturing, is it? Someone has the knowledge. Someone else doesn't. The book describes the behaviourist approach as having the focus on the expert - the lecturer is the 'expert' in this context. However, other types of learning such as social learning can happen outside the lecture theatre context, for example, chatting things over with others in the Student Union etc - so although there may be behaviourist aspects to the traditional lecture, the university environment affords the application of several different types of learning.
I get the impression that all of these types of learning are not distinct learning events but can flow into and out of one another. If you view a lecture as not belonging in the behaviourist camp, it's probably because its effectiveness was heightened by mixing it with other contexts and muddying the waters of why a particular learning theory was in place at any point. But that's probably just my blurry ideas on what it's all about... or something!”
Anyway, my feeling is that this sort of reflection on what I’ve read may be useful. Not least because I’m prone to hefty shifts in thinking having had a think about someone else’s perspective on a topic! Will keep on chewing it over. :o)
John Millner writes:
“Im doing the reading on behaviourism, and am having difficulty understanding why instruction per se is regarded as a stimulus/reward process. Up to now I would have thought that attending a traditional lecture was an example of learning as understanding (ie, in the cognitive camp) but apparently it is more about behaviour modification thru instruction, and therefore in the behaviourist camp.
can anyone help me out here?”
Me in response:
“The CiPD report “How do People Learn”, p.17, says that:
"Practice takes the form of question (stimulus)-answer (response) frames that expose the learner to the topic in gradual steps. The learner is conditioned to make a response each time and receives immediate feedback. Learning is ordered in stages of difficulty so that the response to each step is likely to be correct; thus offering opportunities from positive reinforcement. Progress is achieved in small incremental steps and is 'shaped' towards a positive outcome".
If you think about a typical 'stand at the front and spout' lecture, the lecturer is drip, drip, dripping information at the students. They might ask a question which they expect a particular response to in order to continue the lecture. This is positive reinforcement. The students are being conditioned to respond in a particular way which is deemed behaviourally appropriate by the incremental accummulation of knowledge and the questions which are set to test that knowledge. The response consequence is the 'correct' answer achieved. There is a power relationship there as well. The lecturer lectures the students. It isn't the students lecturing, is it? Someone has the knowledge. Someone else doesn't. The book describes the behaviourist approach as having the focus on the expert - the lecturer is the 'expert' in this context. However, other types of learning such as social learning can happen outside the lecture theatre context, for example, chatting things over with others in the Student Union etc - so although there may be behaviourist aspects to the traditional lecture, the university environment affords the application of several different types of learning.
I get the impression that all of these types of learning are not distinct learning events but can flow into and out of one another. If you view a lecture as not belonging in the behaviourist camp, it's probably because its effectiveness was heightened by mixing it with other contexts and muddying the waters of why a particular learning theory was in place at any point. But that's probably just my blurry ideas on what it's all about... or something!”
Anyway, my feeling is that this sort of reflection on what I’ve read may be useful. Not least because I’m prone to hefty shifts in thinking having had a think about someone else’s perspective on a topic! Will keep on chewing it over. :o)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)