I went to a training session this afternoon, titled 'Learning Styles for Effective Teaching', which was about trying to understand how people learn in different ways and tailoring classes to suit that. The essential concept was that people have different learning styles, some learn better through understanding how some theory or concept fits into a bigger picture, some learn through doing, some through watching others do and so on. We did an exercise based on four types identified in I think what was called the 'Honey Mumford' typology. The types were: Activist, Reflector, Theorist and Pragmatist. In some ways, you can see how everyone would have a little bit of each of these, but people may be inclined towards one or more of these more so than others. It makes perfect sense to design a lesson around appealing to all these aspects of learning, if only for the fact that surely learning something through four different styles is sure to drive the idea home one way or another.
When we were broken into groups, I was with a German guy who I am friends with and works in my department, a guy from Illinois who is in the English department and an Iranian guy who is studying law. It was quite funny to see the dynamic of the group. The American guy totally took over, though he was willing to listen to others as well. He wanted to be the one writing and took the pen straight away without asking, and then quickly organized our project. The Iranian guy didn't manage to get a work in edgewise but nodded a few times. I sort of put the onus on the German guy to provide the content for our lesson plan so he effectively explained global circulation systems to us and how he might teach them, and I input some suggestions about learning devices like short film clips and demonstrations. I joked that American guy was clearly an Activist, and he jumped on that with enthusiasm, as he did with everything seemingly. He was really funny, you could tell he wanted to be the star of the show.
It did make me think though, with a sort of affection, about the way that you often find Americans are: very impassioned, enthusiastic, and ready to run with almost anything and fully believe in it. Watching Stephen Fry does America the other night, he was talking to the guy who does the product design for the iproducts. He's a Brit actually, but based in California and he was talking about what it is about America that makes it a more favorable place for developing and inventing... and he said it was this kind of wide-eyed, innocent enthusiasm and belief that anything is possible. The sky's the limit. It's different from the British attitude of cynicism and witty sarcasm, which can also equate to restraint. I think it's true, the Brit attitude tends to be more tempered and balanced. There is less drama and passion, sure, but there is a blessed reasonableness about it. The war manifesto of 'Keep Calm and Carry On' is still so poignant. There is a distinct - and for me, much appreciated - lack of mass hysteria, no matter what atrocities are reported by the media, who do their best to stir up strong emotions with little clarity of focus and intent.
I guess as someone now living in the UK and appreciating the relative sanity of it (note: relative sanity), I have the luxury of being able to find American's endearing and amusing. Well actually, the majority of American's I met even when living in Canada tended to be endearing. They can be so loud, as though they think everyone will want to hear what they have to say; have this remarkable amount of confidence, even in ideas, ideologies; and also tend to be as individuals, really open and friendly. On the flip side of this, they voted in Bush twice, might still vote for Sarah Palin, and can hold the most extreme and bizarre of views which can be highly damaging to others. So as always, there are many sides to the story, and it would appear that you can't have that kind of open-faced confident enthusiasm if you also want careful, critically-thinking and more broad-minded types who like to ponder the many sides of an argument and are perhaps less inclined to act.
In short, I think our little group was an interesting cultural microcosm, suggesting that particular cultures have a tendency to produce people with different attitudes, and this applies not only to learning styles but to all forms of communication. When you know how people think you can address them in a way they are most likely to understand. Perhaps that is a strength of the British, and perhaps that suggests that there should be more of a focus an investment in diplomacy and also cultural studies in this country, because many international issues, such as the problems in Afghanistan and Iraq and of course Israel-Palestine seem to be crying out for much better understanding of people, of attitudes, of desires, of ways of thinking, and the careful production of communication and interaction that builds trust, reassures people and creates an environment of peace. That means being able to communicate effectively not only with the locals of these places, but also with the invading forces, particularly Americans. And if their learning style as it were is one of action and enthusiasm, then logically what the British contingent would need to do is present their ideas in that style in order to gain the support and cooperation of the Americans in more peaceable and thoughtful tactics.
No comments:
Post a Comment