M.Ed, HRD: Reflections on my learning

I understand conscientization as being a sort of collective consciousness, or the knowledge held within a group.  This relates directly to situated learning and communities of practice in that it suggests the group takes on its own identity, and that each individual member learns in relation to that group’s collective consciousness.  In other words, the learning acquired by being a member of the group is situation-specific, and would not be the same if experienced in any other setting.  

According to Freire, conscientization of oppressed individuals involves questioning and often rejecting or rising up against the dominant consiousness.  Conscientization is required in order for these folks to gain strength in their mission.  It is a way of intellectually empowering those who have never experienced power before, thus enabling them to engage in meaningful learning.

I definitely believe I’ve had a number of transformational learning experiences in my life.   Most of these transformations have been gradual in nature, and usually result from an accumulation of new experiences over time.  I don’t know that I’ve had a lot of those ”aha moments” some people speak of.   Moving away from home for the first time (to college) was very transforming.  During my freshman year, I think I learned a lot about independence, time management, and decision-making.  Based on my experiences–both successes and failures–I learned new skills and values which caused me to change my personal views and/or behaviors.   Living in a 15 x 15 dorm room with another person, for example, taught me to value neatness and organization in a way I never had before.  I became very conscious of cleaning up after myself and ensuring that the shared space was inhabitable for us both (which, I must admit, was quite different from the behavior I exhibited growing up).

Going to classes and interacting with other students about various world issues (i.e. social, political, economic, philosophic, etc.) also transformed me a great deal, and this transformation continued on into graduate school.  These transformations have primarily affected my belief systems and values.  Whenever I hear another person’s viewpoint, I automatically compare  it to my own and make a judgment about it.  If I agree with it, I will change my perspective so as to accomodate for it.   In this way, I am continually transforming.

I was not surprised to see that I scored highly in both the “developmental” and “nurturing” perspectives on Pratt’s TPI.  Developmental was my highest, at a total of 44 points; nurturing was a close runner-up with 42.  According to Pratt, practitioners of developmental education tend to find ways of connecting past experience/knowledge with new information and use a lot of questioning to stimulate critical thinking in learners.   Nurturing educators tend to view learners holistically, exercise empathy when teaching, and focus on creating a positive learning environment that is both safe and accommodating.

I definitely feel that I use methods from both schools of thought, and I think they both sort of feed into one another.  For example, both of these perspectives assume that all learners are different and thus go about learning in different ways–there is no “one size fits all” manner of educating (as Dr. Gerber would say).   As such, I also believe that effective educators will naturally blend at least two of the perspectives Pratt suggests.  In my opinion, the learner kind of has to dictate the learning.  In a perfect world, an educator would have the time, resources, and expertise to apply all five perspectives (transmission, apprenticeship, developmental, nurturing, and social reform) within the same classroom setting.

Since we do NOT live in a perfect world (alas), I understand that educators will likely slip into one of these models and use it the majority of the time.  And I believe that each are legitimate methods of educating.  However… I do feel that some combination of these methods (two minimum) should be employed so as to account for differing learning styles in adults.  For example, a student who learns best through direct, hands-on experience will likely not do very well with a “transmission” style instructor who provides a great deal of well-delivered information, but little opportunity for  practicing it.   Similarly, a student with developmental or emotional difficulties may require that educators use at least some semblance of the “nurturing” style in their teaching practices.

Yes!  How refreshing to read an article that takes into consideration the intrinsic nature of humanity and also CELEBRATES it.  Rogers’ “The Interpersonal Relationship in the Facilitation of Learning” echos my own sentiments as an educator in a number of ways.  First, I agree that teachers are people before they are teachers.  It is virtually impossible (and, as Rogers points out, even unwise)  for educators to veil themselves in cloaks of neutrality and/or dominance.  When teachers come across as knowledge-infused, superior beings whose primary goal is to create their own image in their students, learning is seriously hindered.  I’ve seen it happen!  I know that, personally, my own best learning experiences occur when three factors are in place:  mutual trust between myself and my teacher, the ability to explore (i.e. not simply to obey, or to follow directions), and a sense of empathy in both instructor AND in other students.  Rogers points out that when teachers display empathy in the classroom, students are more likely to follow suit, leading to a more positive classroom environment overall.  “Empathy breeds empathy”, so to speak.

I love the idea of educator as facilitator.  Students are not blank slates that a teacher can mold into whatever ideal he/she sees fit.  Rather, students are people with a hugely diverse array of prior knowledge and life experiences.  Educators MUST have empathy, and must realize the need for varied facilitation methods in the classroom.  They must also understand that real learning takes place when it builds on what students already know, and that part of being able to build on what you already know is being able to self-analyze and reflect.  Instead of “instructing” new information, teachers should focus on guiding students to assimilate that information and connect it to prior experiences. 

I strongly believe that human relationships are crucial to personal growth and development in all aspects (including learning); perhaps that’s why Rogers’ article strikes such a chord with me.

I first took the Kolb Learning Style Inventory assessment about two years ago.  At that time, I’m almost certain my score indicated that I was an “Accommodating” style learner.  When I took it again last week, my results had mysteriously changed to classify me as a “Diverging” style learner.  Hmmmm.  After contemplating why this transformation might have occurred, I’ve determined that I’m probably a little of both, depending on the given  circumstances (my “kite” is, admittedly, kind of in between the two).

According to Kolb, diverging style learners tend to place particular emphasis on creativity, social relationships, cultural aspects of learning, emotional connections to learning, and the ability to see situations from multiple perspectives.  That description fits me pretty well.  I definitely use emotional intelligence a great deal in my daily life; I am always conscious of my own emotions and am usually very aware of the emotions of others.   I also like to analyze situations from various viewpoints and try to fit new information into a cultural context.

That being said, I feel I also have some characteristics intrinsic to the “Accomodating” style learner. Kolb suggests that “Accomodators” like to learn via hands-on experience, often act on intuition (as opposed to “logical analysis”), and often prefer to rely on others for technical information.  I certainly feel that I “learn by doing” in most situations.  For example, it’s very difficult for me to learn a new software application by simply reading the manual and then trying to apply what I’ve read (believe me, I’ve tried).  I have to sit down with the program and practice it hands on until I’ve mastered it.  And I definitely rely on my instincts when learning (which may also be a factor in my occasional spontenaeity when making decisions).  Lastly, I think I do look to others for knowledge, especially as it pertains to my professional environment.  A lot of that has to do with the fact that I am a relative newcomer to my department, and am still absorbing a lot of information from my colleagues.

Kolb’s idea that learners cycle through the various stages of concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation makes sense.  I feel these can all be parts of the information assimilation process.   However, I do not feel that all learners complete this process the same way every time.  Again, learning is very situational in nature.  As a “diverger” Kolb assumes that I will generally begin my learning process with either concrete experience or reflective observation.   I know this is not always true for me– it depends on the task.  For most physical sorts learning (i.e. putting something together, playing a sport, using a new appliance) I almost always start by doing (active experimentation).  I jump right in to whatever the task may be and consult a manual/other people/etc. as necessary.   Of course, I suppose this can be explained due to my “split personality” as a “Diverger-Accommodator”. 

Overall… I feel Kolb’s theory is a bit simplistic.  I just don’t know if people can fit neatly into categories like this.   I do agree that folks may tend to rely primarily on one style of learning as opposed to another given the circumstances, but I’m not sure I believe they can be labeled so definitively.  I’m a prime example, as exemplified by the fact that my score changed from one test to the next.   I would like to see this theory developed to include variations on each learning style, as well as combinations of two, three, or even all four of them.

             The effects of changing demographics, increasing globalization, and advancing technology are significant in my workplace.  I am currently employed as the Office Manager for the Honors College here at VCU.  Although changes in demographics are recognizable campus-wide, I feel the Honors College is home to a particularly diverse population of students from numerous cultural, ethnic, and religious backgrounds.  This affects the administrative staff in a number of ways.  There are often language barriers when communicating with the parents/family members of international students.  In most cases, the students themselves have a firm grasp on the English language.  But I’ve found this is not always the case with their older relatives, who were not born in the United States.  Thus we’ve had to learn new methods of communicating with these folks.  Also, we have learned to keep track of Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, and other religious holidays.   Students are not penalized for missing classes due to religious reasons, nor are they prohibited from wearing clothing that expresses their religious or cultural beliefs. 

            Technology has hugely impacted my workplace over the years.  When the Honors College (then known as the “Honors Program”) first came into existence, everything was done on paper—applications, student files, timekeeping records, course scheduling requests…you name it.  Now, all of those documents are completed and/or stored online, or on some sort of electronic network.  Emails have replaced inter-office memos (and even telephone conversations, in many cases).  We have “Smart Classrooms”, a full student computer lab, a network scanner, and a Facebook page.  When the internet goes down, the office virtually stops functioning.  We are completely reliant on technology. 

I feel that advances in technology are wonderful and that they have improved learning in many ways for both staff and students—I really do.  But I also feel we’ve become a bit dependent on them.  We are a society addicted to spell checkers, cellular phonebooks (who actually memorizes a phone number anymore?), “click-and-pay” online shopping, text messaging, etc.  Additionally, I often feel that increases in technology have actually led to decreases in meaningful human interaction.  For example, time that could be spent with a friend or loved one is instead spent posting status updates and wall comments on Twitter and Facebook.  I know this because I’ve been guilty of it myself. 

            Globalization has affected learning in my workplace by bringing more and more foreign students to VCU’s campus, thus influencing person-to-person interaction and the methods instructors use to teach these students.  We also have numerous student exchange programs and have designed courses to foster global thinking.  I feel that advancing technology brings about increasing globalization, which in turn brings about changes in demographics and increased diversity.  All three work together to affect our society, and are not possible without the others.

Wow… there’s definitely a lot to learn about learning disabilities!  This course kicked off to a great start tonight– I can tell that it’s going to be a very interesting and challenging class.  We were presented with a great deal of information, some of which was pretty surprising to me.  For example, I never realized that people with learning disabilities (including dyslexia) have average to above average intelligence as a rule.  I also had no idea that there were so many HIGHLY successful individuals out there living with learning disabilities!  This really was an eye-opener, and made me want to find out more about the intricacies of learning disablement. 

The biggest “take away” point for me tonight was the understanding that all learning disabled people are very different and that there is no ”one size fits all” method of accomodating or understanding them.  Therefore,  it is extremely important to ask the right questions (i.e. “Tell me what exactly you have trouble with” or “What particular tasks are difficult for you?”).  As an HRD specialist, it will be my responsibility to assess employees’ individual learning issues and find ways to facilitate their learning in a way that works for them.   

Let’s be honest– there’s nothing quite like the sweet relief of turning in your final paper, kicking back for a moment, and taking a deep breath of relaxation.   Whew!  Two classes down–eleven more to go.  What a journey lies ahead! 

But I know it will be a fun and exciting journey to take, and I’m so happy I’ve embarked upon it.  I believe this course did an excellent job of preparing me for what I’m going to experience in the Adult Learning Program.  Teamwork is essential to productivity, and we must be able to function with other people in order to accomplish goals.  Groups and teams are everywhere–at home, at work, at school, in the community, etc.  They are unescapable, and therefore one must be able to operate effectively within them.  I now feel that I have learned some of the essential “ground rules” for success in groups, and that I can apply them to other aspects of my life.  I am especially looking forward to utilizing these new skills at work, particularly in my duties as a supervisor/personnel administrator. 

I have learned that it is often necessary to place one’s trust and confidence in other people.  Before taking this class, I often experienced difficulty with relinquishing control and depending on others for outcomes directly affecting me.  Letting go is a difficult (and scary!) thing to do sometimes.   However, I quickly learned that I could depend on my teammates, and that we were all equally comitted to our goals.  It was a great feeling!  I think we accomplished a great deal this semester, and that it was an excellent experience over all. 

Tonight’s class focused primarily on the Skilled Facilitator’s Fieldbook, and on our group facilitation exercises to be presented next week.  Instead of “lecturing”, Dr. Carter allowed us to teach one another the material from our assigned readings.  Each group focused on key points from one of the assigned chapters, and then relayed that information back to the class via creative posters hung around the room.   It was a great method for getting all the information across!  The class was very engaged with it.  Also, it prepared us for what we’re going to be doing next week as facilitators.  I definitely believe in hands-on, interactive learning.  I feel that most students are able to retain more information this way, and that the information learned is more meaningful to them because they’ve participated in it.  It was a great class! 

I felt really great about this class.  Our team worked hard to give an educational (and fun!) presentation on “Intergroup Dynamics”.  I thought we did a very nice job with it and worked extremely well together.  Our presentation essentially consisted of five parts:  1) an introduction, 2) a team-building exercise, 3) an informational PowerPoint tying in information from both our readings in Levi and “Remember the Titans”/”Apollo 13″, 4) an activity designed to demonstrate intergroup dynamics, and 5) an extensive evaluation/discussion.  I felt that our puzzle activity was especially effective in demonstrating how all parts must come together to equal a whole.  At the end of this exercise, the class had (I believe) learned that it is often necessary for teams to work together to successfully complete a project.

The “Infrareds” also did an outstanding job with their presentation on Paradoxes!  It was a very tricky subject to address, but they did so beautifully.  I felt that they gave lots of good examples of paradoxes in every day life, and that the exercises we did as a class helped us to really talk things out and start to understand the material a bit better.