People Learn in Different Ways

People learn in different ways’

In the movement towards understanding the psyche and why individuals follow certain dominant paths in key areas such as learning, a new avenue of research was opened, Experiential learning. David A. Kolb was the forerunner in this area with his study Experiential Learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (1984) (Source: Don Clark, www.nwlink.com, 2000).

Kolb in his research developed a theory whereby he illustrated that each individual adopted one of four main learning styles. He followed a view that the development of a style followed much the same pattern as any behaviour implemented and developed by that individual. In identifying these learning styles he has provided us with an important tool for refining and maximising not only our methods of learning but also impacting on our styles of leadership, business interaction etc. His original model of learning styles has been modified and updated over the years by various learning theorists but is essentially the work that we base our understanding of this topic on. There are those detractors who argue that the work is over simplified and non-specific with flaws in deductions drawn from the model but they have yet to significantly alter the direction that his research has led in.

Kolb theorised that in order for learning to occur all four processes needed to be present. It was surmised however that few individuals utilised or developed all but seemed to have one or at most two dominant.

The first of these four styles is the �Activist’; this style implies an active role on the individual’s part to gain the knowledge and the willingness to take risks to produce results. This style on its own could be destructive in a learning environment where structure and theory are used, as change is one of the mainstays of this style. They focus on influencing people and situations. On the positive side this may catalyse the other individuals who are more reticent in their learning styles toward action. Ideally combining this decisive style with a style which encourages more forethought based on facts rather than emotion, could be a powerful tool in gaining knowledge. This style does well in a loosely structured environment where initiative is encouraged and experimentation is welcomed.

The second style is �Reflective’ based on the act of thinking and observation rather than implementation of ideas. The weighing up of ideas and concepts rather than following up on the act of doing the task.. This is an introverted style with reticence towards action. The individual here would focus on the meaning of the idea but generally not participate in active learning by experimentation and tasks. This is an important part of the overall learning process where the ability to critically assess the situation would provide some of the necessary information for practical application. They themselves tend not to provide the tools with which to apply this.

The third aspect of the learning cycles the �Theorist’; is keyed more toward clear cut analysis than those previously mentioned. Here the focus is not on the emotional but on logic. This individual would rather base their analysis of a situation or task on the assembling of the facts and examining them than delving into the meaning thereof. It is here that we begin to see the importance of all these various aspects of learning. The abstract individual is effective at distancing themselves from the emotional which allows them to view a situation critically. This is perhaps not the individual who would do well in situations where they are required to relate to the human factor or where their decisions have to be based primarily on the