My preferred learning styles
The Kolb learning inventory shows that I learn better from Abstract Conceptualization (sounds rather abstract to me...) than from Experience, while the Reflecting and Doing are balanced in their minimal contribution to my learning. I would say that this analysis coincides with my own self-assessment, but that's only part of the story.
I believe that my learning style depends on the subject matter and on the purpose of learning.
When I'm trying to acquire expertise in certain area, be it software quality assurance, HTML or philosophy, I conscientiously would follow a process which starts with the conceptual learning:
Step 1. Understanding the concepts
In any field I can imagine it's possible to rush into action and even achieve something. Yet from my past experiences I learned that if you don't invest in getting to the roots of things, in getting to know the methods that govern the fields, it will harm you badly when you will try to do some advanced stuff. So I will work to understand the mode of thinking that characterizes the discipline, basic standards, history, etc. Sometimes it will be quick, as with HTML; in other cases, as with philosophy, it would take enjoyably long.
Step 2. Trying it out and having a dialogue
I will try to implement the concepts learned, but I will be in a need of somebody to talk to about it. In many areas a small mistake at a point with high downstream dependency would cause lots of frustration and wasted time - yet one word from an expert can help to correct it. Also, many times I realize the shortcomings even without feedback - the presence of another person, physical or virtual, is enough. When I don't have this possibility, I sorely miss it and start bugging my wife to listen to my musings about things like ITIL standards or Kant's antinomy of pure reason.
Step 3. Diving into it
Now is the time to drive the highway, yet keeping an RSS feed hooked up to the news and the expert's phone number close.
However, when I'm trying to learn something I do not wish to develop an expertise in, e.g., cooking, I would short-cut to step 2.
In terms of sources, I love to use books, paper as electronic. Interpersonal dialogue is, of course, essential to my method. Unfortunately, Skype, WebEx and Second Life are not as widely used for group discussions as I would wish.
I believe that my learning style depends on the subject matter and on the purpose of learning.
When I'm trying to acquire expertise in certain area, be it software quality assurance, HTML or philosophy, I conscientiously would follow a process which starts with the conceptual learning:
Step 1. Understanding the concepts
In any field I can imagine it's possible to rush into action and even achieve something. Yet from my past experiences I learned that if you don't invest in getting to the roots of things, in getting to know the methods that govern the fields, it will harm you badly when you will try to do some advanced stuff. So I will work to understand the mode of thinking that characterizes the discipline, basic standards, history, etc. Sometimes it will be quick, as with HTML; in other cases, as with philosophy, it would take enjoyably long.
Step 2. Trying it out and having a dialogue
I will try to implement the concepts learned, but I will be in a need of somebody to talk to about it. In many areas a small mistake at a point with high downstream dependency would cause lots of frustration and wasted time - yet one word from an expert can help to correct it. Also, many times I realize the shortcomings even without feedback - the presence of another person, physical or virtual, is enough. When I don't have this possibility, I sorely miss it and start bugging my wife to listen to my musings about things like ITIL standards or Kant's antinomy of pure reason.
Step 3. Diving into it
Now is the time to drive the highway, yet keeping an RSS feed hooked up to the news and the expert's phone number close.
However, when I'm trying to learn something I do not wish to develop an expertise in, e.g., cooking, I would short-cut to step 2.
In terms of sources, I love to use books, paper as electronic. Interpersonal dialogue is, of course, essential to my method. Unfortunately, Skype, WebEx and Second Life are not as widely used for group discussions as I would wish.
William Kline is our philosopher with an interest in ethics. I think he might enjoy being on your committee.
ReplyDelete