Hi Carmen, http://tschofen.wordpress.com/2008/12/04/293/
“As “open” courses become more common, they need to offer (or continue to offer) a middle ground, an opportunity to practice skills and master new material and ideas – a learning double whammy– without the (if only imagined) potential for vast public scrutiny and the threat of digital foreverness, as Emerging Tech does.”
I agreed. It’s a matter of choice for the blogger (and learner). Not everyone is comfortable with blogging or even discussion in forum.
My experience is that one’s learning or teaching style may have a great significance towards whether you would like to blog or not.
One may be a director, a relater, a reflector (analyst) or a thinker.
Directors would prefer directing others to specific goals, or strategies in the teaching/learning process. They may prefer teaching over others. This style is especially suitable for teaching novice learners, who have limited knowledge and skills. A lecturing style could be adopted to guide the learners. This may still be a predominant style in university lecturing for first year degree students, or lower grades of K-12.
Relaters would prefer to relate to others through building up the connections, relationships. They would like to communicate with others in an effective way using technologies. This style is suitable for building up morale amongst networkers, and to achieve a spirit of team working. Team leaders would naturally be relaters in most cases. Passion may be more important than reason for relaters.
Reflectors or Analysts would prefer to reflect on what they have learnt through observations, readings or research. This stye is suitable for most facilitators and learners. Praxis, as mentioned in my previous post on blogging, also adopts such approach. Reasons are more important than passion for reflectors or analysts.
Thinkers would prefer to learn individually through deep searching of philosophies and research. They are likely the researchers. Newton is a typical example of great thinker. This style is suitable for those who like to conduct individual research (some PhD’s), where autonomy and creativity is important in the search of “truths”.
Whilst no one is adopting one or two of the above styles all the time, one could be having a predominant style of reflector, and a secondary style of relaters, at a certain stage of her life.
Or you could be a relater in the network, but a reflector in your personal learning journey.
For successful networking, it seems that relaters could sustain a more lasting relationships with other networkers. This of course depends on whether the relaters have also included something valuable to contribute or share in the connections or not.
Here is my observations and finding:
People having the attributes of a relater or reflector may more likely blog, whereas directors may prefer the forum and thinker may prefer a personal private blog (not necessarily sharing with the public).
- People who are relaters would like to network with others more than the thinkers
- People who are reflectors would like to share ideas with reflectors and thinkers, more than the directors
- People who are directors may find difficulties in sustaining connections with thinkers
- People who are thinkers would prefer to relate to thinkers (peer review in research)
The above are based on my limited observations and studies and so further research is required to validate the findings.
You could find the above “concepts” in many pioneering work. I presented the above in my own words, so you are welcome to comment and discuss. I may include links to those concepts if you would like to explore further.
It’s a challenge to post a blog under public scrutiny, and may be it’s safer to do so in a closed course. So before you decide to blog, would you like to ask yourself?
Are you a
(a) Director?
(b) Relater?
(c) Reflector or Analyst?
(d) Thinker?
Will a person’s style change throughout the stages of her life? Probably.
Are you interested in researching on this topic?
Would you mind sharing your thoughts with me?
suifaijohnmak
I like what you have summarized and written here. I think I would be classified as a reflector, but i am not sure if i am using the word in the same way as you. Why a reflector? I think i am reflecting on what i have said about connectivism, and i think that in some whays i reflect what Stephen is saying about connectivism, what i mean is that He was written many things, and people like me spread his messages by reflecting outward what He says. In this way we act as reflectors or mirrors of another persons thoughts. At the same time, your post here has caused me to ‘reflect’ on what i am doing in my little wiriting and in some ways i do performa as you have descrived the word reflector: i like to share ideas and help facilitate the spread in this case of Stephen’s ideas about connectivism. What do you think of this? I hope that I understand your points here and i am not away off topic.
-U
Hi John,
These are interesting categories, and I can relate to them on several levels of identity:-) I think either GS or SD posted a link to an analysis of the validity of learning styles analysis http://www.lsda.org.uk/files/PDF/1543.pdf that might have some bearing on this going forward. I’d certainly agree that these categories would change over time, and, as you note, I also suspect they may change depending on a number of environmental factors, both on and offline. Keith mentioned Goffman, and Sherri Turkel’s work would also be something to pursue.
I’m not sure how much I’m going to focus on connectivism specifically going forward, but certainly my interests overlap… I will look forward to continued dialogue.
Cheers,
Carmen
Hi Ulop and Ctscho,
Many thanks for your valuable insights.
Ulop: Reflectors prefer to think through. They like to listen, watch and gather data before committing themselves to a decision or conclusion. They tend to be cautious and conservative in the face of new knowledge and experience. They learn best:
- when given time to think or mull things over
-when they are given access to all available information to guide their decisions
-when they are not pressured by deadlines or hasty decision-making processes
Do you exhibit those characteristics?
People who are reflectors may keep a learning journal or diary (or a blog) and aim at adding several learning experiences per week, or one per day. So, you do. Don’t you?
Thinkers (or Theorists that some authors would refer to) are interested in ideas for their own sake. They like to assimilate and synthesise new information and fit it into their theories and explanations of how the world works. They learn best:
- when they can use models and systems that make sense to them
- when they can understand and explore links and connections between facts and ideas
- when the subject matter is objective and based on rational principles
People who are theorists/thinkers prefer to spend time reading books and journals (or research articles, on-line publications, urls, wiki, edublogs etc.) containing new information.
Based on my personal experience as a “theorist”, I like to keep a personal blog (sometimes private) or wiki – yet to develop, and use Delicious, RSS, Google search and reader, and aggregators to search or collect information.
Adapted from: The Complete Guide to Coaching at Work – P. Zeus, S. Skiffington 2003, with some additional personal comments.
The four learning styles mentioned in the above source are: activists, reflectors, theorists and pragmatists. They are also cited in the report referred by Ctscho.
Since there are so many models of learning styles, I have written one in my own words to avoid the breaching of intellectual property.
Ctscho – I greatly appreciate the learning style report (with URL) you have provided. I will analyse it and may prepare a post to respond to the findings.
I think further research in those learning style areas will also help in explaining how and why we learn through blogs, forums, etc.
I also noted that Professor Daniel T Willingham of the University of Virginia has posted a video on Youtube who commented that “the Learning Styles Don’t Exist” http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=related&v=sIv9rz2NTUk and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKkHiAA3xu0&feature=related He also said that “Good teaching is good teaching,……”
So, it could be an interesting debate.
The learning style may change based on changing personal needs, environmental factors and learning ecology, as you have mentioned.
Would it be of interest to explore it further?
Is it important in your learning?
For those who are interested I’ve posted a few of the better known literature summaries on learning styles:
http://www.danielwillingham.com/learningstylescitationspage
Thanks Professor Willingham for the resources, especially on learning styles.
I am interested in exploring how learning styles will affect both teens and adults in blogging.
There are some outstanding questions relating to the different indicators used in predicting one’s learning style, such as the validity of using Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. I found it intriguing in its interpretation as most academics will naturally fall into a particular category – reflective style with a theorist background, as it seems that most academics or scholars have been educated in such a way. However, this seems to be sterotyping scholars and academics in their way of learning, based on the behaviour and to some extent the cognitive learning style adopted. Such empirical approach seems appropriate for certain adults, but may be inadequate when analysing the learning style of developing children and teens, as their style of learning may keep changing throughout the development. Are there any studies validating such hypothesis?
What do you think may be a “more” scientific way of developing an indicator that more accurately predict one’s learning style? And are there any studies that validate the “learning style theories” based on a neuroscience approach?
John
John
I don’t think that the methodology has been bad. . .well, I guess I should say that when it’s been bad, it’s been transparently bad. But there have been enough solid studies to let us evaluate existing theories. . that’s why I’ve been negative about the concept of learning styles as a whole. . . there is not a theory that has been consistently supported by the straightforward experiments one can do. Naturally, that doesn’t mean that a better theory won’t be proposed at some point.
Neuroscience has not been supportive of learning styles to my knowledge, although I heard that Randy Buckner published something a few months ago that looked sort of like learning styles. . . sorry, I know that’s not specific enough to be much help. . . I tried to track it down but couldn’t find it.
Dan
Hi Daniel,
I agree with your point that there is not a theory that has been consistently supported by the straightforward experiments one can do.
I am disappointing to note that “neuroscience has not been supportive of learning styles”, as I think there would be some important relationship (whether it’s genetic, instinctive or that it could be nurtured in a net-learning environment) that exist, but may be worthwhile to explore it further from that “neural level”. I would reckon this may be the most important findings in search of the fundamentals of personal knowledge and learning. Just like the search of atoms and elements in physical science. Thanks for pointing me to Randy Buckner’s publication. I will continue to conduct some more literature research on this.
Renewed thanks for your insights on this.
Pingback: What is the purpose of blogging? « Suifaijohnmak’s Weblog
Pingback: I see, and I remember….. « Suifaijohnmak’s Weblog