lottaya.blogg.se - Type to learn 2

Type to learn 2 full#

Sequential thinking arranges information in a logical, linear way, while a random approach is multidirectional and unpredictable.

Concrete perceptions happen through the senses, while abstract perceptions deal with ideas.

This theory put us all on a spectrum between concrete and abstract thinking, and between sequential and random ordering of our thoughts. Anthony Gregorc's Mind StylesĪnthony Gregorc and Kathleen Butler went into more detail about how we think, and how this might affect the way we learn. To find out more about Kolb's model, and about Honey and Mumford's Learning Styles, see our article on the 4MAT approach to learning. They identified four new learning styles: Activist, Pragmatist, Reflector, and Theorist – using terms that we might naturally pick to describe ourselves and our colleagues. Peter Honey and Alan Mumford developed Kolb's model by focusing on how learning is used in practice, particularly at work. Kolb said that it was beneficial to know which type of learner you were, in order to "play to your strengths." He also believed that educators and trainers could tailor their teaching methods to different people's learning styles. They extended their understanding by developing new theories of their own. They understood theories, but wanted to test them out in practice.ĭivergers tended to use personal experiences and practical ideas to formulate theories that they could apply more widely.Īnd Assimilators, according to Kolb, were most comfortable working with abstract concepts. Those strengths were said to give rise to personal preferences, which Kolb described in terms of four learning styles: Accommodating, Converging, Diverging, and Assimilating.Īs Kolb saw it, Accommodators were "hands-on" types, keen to learn from real experience.Ĭonvergers were supposed to deal better with abstract ideas, but still liked to end up with concrete results.

David Kolb and Experiential Learningĭavid Kolb's model of "experiential learning" stated that we learn continually, and, in the process, build particular strengths.

Learn more about the theories behind learning styles – and their drawbacks and limitations.ĭifferent Learning Styles: 6 Influential Models and Theories 1.

Type to learn 2 full#

It could revolutionize education, training and L&D, and help all of us to reach our full potential as learners.īefore we explain why many experts now have little faith in learning styles, let's explore how some of the original ideas came about. What's more, by understanding other people's needs, we'd know how best to support them to learn. It's an attractive thought: if each of us could identify one, "ideal" approach to learning, we'd be able to focus on it – and be consistently successful. The notion that everyone has their own learning style became popular in the 1970s. We also show why it's still valuable to understand your personal approach to learning – even if there's no single, "magic bullet" solution for any of us. In this article, we look at how the key learning styles theories were developed, and explore their intentions and limitations. There are even concerns that the "labels" they produce might actually limit people's learning. Despite this, many scientists, psychologists and education experts have tried to identify distinct, innate "learning styles."īut serious doubts have arisen about some of the most popular models – especially the ways in which they have been applied. And our preferred learning techniques might not, in fact, be the most useful. So, however helpful it would be to find out how each of us does it "best," there are many reasons why even asking the question is far from straightforward.Īfter all, how we learn depends a great deal on what we're learning. And we absorb and apply new concepts, skills and information in different ways at different times. But it can also be dangerous.Įveryone's approach to learning is based on a complex mix of strengths and preferences.

It's tempting to try to pin down one "perfect" way of learning.