aproaches to learning theories of learning styles
Kolb (1984), in launching the idea of the experiential learning cycle along with learning designs, defines learning as the method whereby “knowledge is created throughout the transformation of expertise”. He suggests that way of doing something is not fixed but are produced and altered through current and past experiences. His learning circuit consists of several stages; completing each stage is important to further improve learning in the next stage: Energetic Experimentation (The learner positively uses the theories produced and also tries them in new conditions.
The latter requires him returning to the start of the cycle.
) – Concrete Experience (The learner is encouraged to become associated with new activities. ) – Reflective Remark (The novice reflect on his experience via different point of view. Enough time and supportive responses is helpful through this stage. ) – Subjective Conceptualisation (The learner forms ideas and logical hypotheses. ) Naturally , not everyone acts in the same manner, some favor considering most possible alternatives whilst other folks like checking out as much as possible.
Hence, Kolb affiliated four learning styles together with his learning routine: the Converger, who is applicable ideas within a practical way, the Accommodator, who have carries out ideas and jobs involving him in fresh experiences, the Diverger, who has good imagination and concepts, and finally the Assimilator, whom creates theoretical models.
Kolb likewise points out that learning styles are not set personality traits although relatively secure patterns of behaviour. Based on Kolb’s style Honey and Mumford (1992) developed the same model with new terms for Kolb’s learning preferences (Honey and Mumford conditions in brackets):
Active Testing (Activist) – Concrete Experience (Pragmatist) – Reflective Observation (Reflector) – Abstract Conceptualisation (Theorist) In accordance to Honey and Mumford four learning styles can be distinguished: the Activist, the Pragmatist, the Reflector, plus the Theorist: Activist’s strengths: – Acting quickly; interested in truly doing things – Adding ideas in to action Activist’s weaknesses – Lack of planning and focus on detail – Unlikely to consider various alternatives Pragmatist’s strengths – Integrating theory and practice.
– Assessment things to be able to get right solutions Pragmatist’s weaknesses – Lack of creativity – Impatient – Not interested in concepts and theories Reflector’s strengths: – Collecting data by variety of sources – Highlighting on experience Reflector’s disadvantages: – Has to have a lot of time before they can start – Dislike correct instructions Theorist’s strengths – Creating assumptive models – Paying attention to detail and systematic analysis Theorist’s weaknesses – Overcautious – Relies on common sense and usually does not trust emotions – Requires a stated goal.
Honey and Mumford created a Learning Styles Customer survey to be applied as a directory to identify their learning desire. Kolb states the mix of all four learning forms produces the highest standard of learning simply by allowing stronger and adaptive forms of finding out how to emerge. But still, there is the hazard of labelling people since ‘theorists’ or perhaps ‘pragmatists’ though most people exhibit more than one good preference. To overcome this issue other advocates, e. g. Schmeck (1988) and Entwistle (1998), make use of the expression ‘learning strategy’ which will also includes personal traits.
Relating to these people people cannot be labelled because they usually behave flexibly on learning, with respect to the expected result: A student may read a book about the British background because he is really interested in or because he needs to read it to pass an exam. In any event involves learning, but in the second case the student is less likely to take notes about details he is interested in but those the guitar tutor may request. Bibliography: Bendrey, M. ainsi que al (1996), Accounting and Finance in Business. London: Entier. Cottrell, S i9000. (2003) The Study Skills Guide.
New York: Palgrave Macmillian. Entwistle, N. (1998) Styles of Learning and Instructing. London: David Fulton Writers. Brown, R. and Hawksley, B. (1996) Learning abilities, studying designs and profiling. Dinton: Tag Allen Posting. Honey, P. and Mumford, A. (1992) The manual of learning styles, Maidenhead: Peter Honey Publications Ltd. Honey, L. and Mumford, A. (2000) The learning styles helper’s guide. Maidenhead: Philip Honey Magazines Ltd. Kolb, D. A. (1984) Experiential learning: experience as the cause of learning and expansion. Englewood Coves, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.