In this Assignment, I will be introducing various learning concepts and how the development of learning has progressed through famous theorists throughout the ages, to what we have now.
I will also be discussing experimental learning by means of Kolb’s cycle and how this will benefit me while on work placement. The implicit learning theories that follow the traditional methods in education are of a rational idealistic approach. Through epistemology, a diverse perspective of learning has been developed for the progression of education. This has been discovered through cooperative learning in the work place and throughout life activities. This learning outlook has been constructed by its intellectual ties with Lewin, Dewey and Piaget. (Kolb, 1984). Furthermore, the purpose of this viewpoint is to emphasize the vital role experience plays in learning. This type of learning is known as “experimental” Learning.
The rational idealistic Approach and Experimental learning are differentiated by the rationalist’s tendency to offer prime focus on acquisition, influence, and recall of intangible symbols, and from behavioral learning theories that refute any role for consciousness and subjective experience in the learning process. (Kolb, 1984). David Kolb formed his learning styles model in 1984 from which he developed his learning style inventory, which derived from the intellectual teachings of well-known theorists, which are mentioned above.
(Kolb, 1984). Kolb’s experiential learning theory is constructed of a four-stage cycle of learning. Much of Kolb’s theory is concerned with the learner’s internal cognitive processes. (Kolb, 1984). The cycle includes, having the experience (Concrete Experience), reviewing on the experience (Reflective Observation), Learning from the experience (Abstract Conceptualization); and finally, trying out what the individual has learned, in everyday life (Active Experimentation). “Learning is the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience” (Kolb, 1984, p. 38).
Kolb’s (1974), formed his theory on learning to clearly construct his four styles of learning, which are based on a four-stage learning cycle (see above). He informs us that each individual chooses a preferred single style of learning. Kolb (1974) shows that there are a number of factors that molds an individual’s chosen style. For instance, the environment of their social interaction, experiences from one’s education, or the basic cognitive structure of the person. When understanding an individual’s learning style (and your own), it allows the method to be oriented to the person. However, everyone will respond to a stimulus, in all types of learning to one extent to another.
Kolb (1974), states it’s the use of emphasis that suits the situation at the time, and a person’s learning style preferences. Kolb (year) mentions his learning style called ‘diverging’, in the sense that people will actually respond to situation that require brainstorming in a manner of performing better. The learning style of diverging, includes having broad cultural interests and enjoy researching information of what they like. The Assimilating learning predilection includes a concise, logical approach.
Conceptions and concepts are more paramount than people. These people require good clear explication rather than a practical opportunity. They excel at understanding wide-ranging information and re-forming it in a clear, logical format. People with an assimilating learning style are less fixated on people and more intrigued with conceptions and abstract concepts.
Individuals with this form of style are more magnetized to logically sound theories than approaches predicated on practical value. This learning style is consequential for efficacy in information and science vocations. In formal learning situations, individuals with this style prefer readings, lectures, exploring analytical models, and having time to celebrate things through. People with a converging learning style can solve quandaries and will utilize their cognition to find solutions to practical issues.
They prefer technical tasks, and are less concerned with people and between-people aspects. People with a converging learning style are most proficiently adept at finding practical uses for conceptions and explications (of why things work or transpire the way they do). They can solve quandaries and make decisions by finding solutions to questions and quandaries. People with a converging learning style are more magnetized to technical tasks and quandaries than convivial or between-people issues.
A converging learning style enables specialist and technology faculties. People with a converging style relish to experiment with incipient conceptions, to test out (in a way that’s proximate to the authentic thing), and to work with practical uses. The Accommodating learning style is ‘hands-on,’ and depends on (gut feeling or deep-down opinion) rather than logic.
These people use other people’s analysis, and prefer to take a practical, (cognate to experiencing things) approach. They are magnetized to incipient challenges and experiences, and to carrying out plans. They commonly act on ‘gut’ feeling rather than logical analysis. People with an accommodating learning style will incline to depend on others for information than carry out their own analysis.
This learning style is prevalent within most people. In the area of social work, managers have report that they are underqualified in the behavioral faculties. the incrementation in the number of behaviorally underqualified managers over behaviorally underqualified direct-accommodation workers would seem to result from a failure to learn how to respond to the incremented behavioral demand, in regards to cognate to managing and running a company or organization jobs.
However, an immensely colossal percentage of administrators visually perceive themselves as under qualified in the other three areas of competence, as well as in the behavioral area that appears to be neglected in professional convivial- work inculcation. These suggests that failures of vocation adaption in convivial work are as much a result of generalized lack competencies to deal with the professional tasks in the administrative role that are often proximately infeasible, as they are a result of professional deformation. To understand my preferred learning style, I used the Johari Window.
The model was formed by Joseph Luft and Harrington Ingham. The aim of the model, is to create a physical map of an individual’s awareness of their personalities. I began by choosing a list of fixed of personality traits, then asking one’s friends to choose their list of traits, that best describe me. By doing this a grid of overlapping and difference will be constructed.
To show my outcome in more detail, I will discuss my ratings on the scale that was supplied and explain the results of my learning style assessment. Active vs. Reflective Learning: I received a result of 9 on the scale towards reflection. In my opinion, the result is accurate; as I intend to spend too much time reflecting, until I get a full understanding of what it is I am doing, before I begin an assignment. I naturally find myself researching the topic before I put pen to paper.
This does not always work in my favour as it gives less time to in doing the assignment. I do have difficulty getting straight in to an assignment. Assessment: My interpretation of the result suggests that I require to commence orchestrating my time sagaciously, when I am doing an assignment. I require to find a balance in Active and Reflective learning.
I could put some time away for myself during the weekends to read about the topics that I have an interest in and concentrate at the task. Senses Vs. intuitive: Learning: I received a 7 towards the intuitive dimension. I incline to work more facilely when I am just given the information to work to my own advices.
I relish learning through theory. I learn more by my instinct then practical work. I relish to ken what I am getting in to afore I commence. Assessment: The result suggests that I work towards an intuitive path when learning compared to practical work or working through my senses. I prefer information that is abstract, pristine and oriented towards theory. I endeavor to visually examine the sizably voluminous picture and endeavor to grasp all patterns in lieu of utilizing practical observations. Visual Vs.
Verbal: Learning: I received a 1 leaning towards visual. This suggests I am fairly well balanced on the scale. I incline to work comfortable through a visual designates or a verbal betokens. In my construal, Visual Learners prefer visual presentations of the material and verbal learners prefer explications with words.
I incline to initially learn through visual and they perpetuate by verbalizing about it. Assessment: My interpretation of the result is that I am quite balanced on the cognition spectrum between visual and verbal and that I am in the right spot. I sanction myself the opportunity to learn through visual and verbal equipollent.
Sequential Vs. Ecumenical Learning: I received a 5 gravitating towards Ecumenical learning. This suggests that I prefer to organize information more holistically and in a ostensibly desultory manner without optically discerning connections. I often seem scattered and disorganized in my cerebrating from others yet I often arrive at an ingenious or ingenious end product. In lieu of, organizing my cognition style in a linear pattern in a systematic way. I do not concur with this result as my way of cerebrating is getting an overall cerebrating process afore beginning on a piece of work.
Assessment: In my opinion, my cognition type is more akin to the designation of sequential learning. As I incline to learn in logically sequenced steps and work with information in a more organized way.