I have been cooking since as long as I can remember, and people who know me would tell you that I like using cooking metaphors when I speak about other subjects. Including learning.

“How did you learn to do that?” We all hear that question a lot. If anyone asks me how I learned something, my answer is “when I tried it myself”. As a kid, I was baking cookies, boiling soups and grilling meat, but I have never tried to make bread. So at a recent teambuilding event, I struck my coworkers with the fact that it was not till the age of 25 that I made my own first bread. But it is true. I’d seen my mom do it, read tons of recipes but never tried it myself. Then the day came and I did try. From that day on, I can say I know how to bake bread myself. It disappears at once, so it must be good as well. :)

For certain individuals this might sound surprising. I know people who read a library full of books, and then try to do pottery, make a fire or cook a dish. Theoretically it all sounds nice but not until you have tried to chop, braise or broil the ingredients, you do not know how that feels.

Learning is a complicated process. It starts at a very early age, right when we are born. We start taking small steps to learn how to walk, speak or write, and then continue with more complex things. From the early stages of development learning works more or less on a subconscious level, not a formal level. Once humans reach a certain age, educational institutions take over their development, and here the process gets somewhat formalized.

People respond differently to learning and this diversity is good. It has to do with one’s personality, habits, environment, subject and a list of other characteristics that define a person’s style. And we need to think about learning and teaching as interconnected activities which means that there are two aspects to learning: we are all teachers to each other and we are all learning from the process.

I spent a rewarding few days with the future tutors of CEF certification programs, and as a tutor, I learned a lot from the group. We talked about our learning styles, opening our mind to the fact that mentoring a group of certification program candidates would be a challenging job, as all participants would have their own learning style and environment where they function best, whereas working in one group it is important that a carefully blended mixture of styles is present so that there would be something for everyone.

There are numerous styles of learning that function best in a particular environment. Several educational theoretical approaches can be found, while the most explored and widely used is the one of Honey and Mumford (1982) and based on their theory, we have been exploring our learning styles.

Most people develop a preference for one of the four learning styles below:

Activists are known for their radiance and like being in the center of attention. They jump into practical hands-on activities with great enthusiasm also taking risks. They are enthusiastic and seek new experiences and opportunities for learning. However, as soon as one activity is finished, they want to rush into the next without taking the time to reflect on what they have done.

Reflectors learn best when they are able to sit back and observe from various perspectives before reaching any conclusions. They are cautious in their approach, and like to take the time to thoroughly absorb, analyze and digest what they have learned before putting it into practice. They appreciate time to formulate their opinions and review their learning without pressure of deadlines.

Theorists learn by questioning, exploring and probing the logic behind assumptions and concepts. They appreciate being intellectually challenged, and like to take the time to analyze disparate facts and synthesize them into coherent theories. They take a logical, rational approach, and tend to be detached and objective.

Pragmatists need to see the link between learning and its practical application, and they like to experiment with ideas to see if they work in practice. They like to get on with things and don’t like lengthy deliberation before action is taken.

It does not mean that a person can be squeezed into just one style, but one of them is usually the leading one, with others joining and making a unique situation for each individual.

Knowing your learning style can help you identify the learning methods that would work best for you. Wherever possible, you should try to use a method that suits your learning style, even though sometimes it is not possible, since some training activities are linked to certain methods of delivery. For example, it would not normally be appropriate for a trainee to read about digging a hole – it might give a good aspect but there is nothing like picking up a shovel and trying it yourself.

Throughout the years I have been involved in the delivery of training of trainers for CEF certification programs, and every here and then I would join the group of trainees and fill in the self-evaluation test for identifying one’s own learning style. Surprisingly, the results have been consistently similar over the years. My leading style is and has been a high-end activist, mixed with a moderate pragmatist. Which is quite surprising. We often discuss with training participants that it is worth doing the self-evaluation test again in a couple of months after the learning event and observe the possible changes that might occur, and often do. But my own evaluation remains solid.

When designing a methodological course, I always start by learning something about the audience. Have they been involved in delivering a training before, how many years of experience do they have in their field of expertize, what are their fears and what do they believe they are good at? And learning continues when we meet for the first time in class and in a friendly and relaxed environment discuss everyone’s expectations for the days that we will spend together. It is about realizing that we are all different but need to achieve the same goal, and how important it is to be aware of the differences. Only by understanding this variety, we can design a training course that would fit all the styles – of course not at the same time, but producing a mixture of activities, methods and topics appealing to all styles. There will always be, and has to be, the unavoidable theoretical part. It may not be the most interesting part but it gives us all a solid ground understanding of the subject. We will spice it up with do’s and don’ts, how and when the practical aspect would fit in and how to go as further away as possible from the plain delivery of the substance through dry lectures. The aim of a well-organized course is to involve everyone in several roles – from learning participants to teaching experts. But how do we define who is who, when we all learn from each other…

Note: The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the CEF. 

References:

Honey, P. & Mumford, A. (1982) Manual of Learning Styles London: P Honey