|
Hi Jan
Thank you very much for posting this article which you sent us after your participation in Maximising Impact and I've re-read it again with interest. The Professor in question, Daniel T Willingham, is the same one as highlighted in Alyse's post on 'Learning Styles', so my thoughts apply to both posts.
Firstly, I need to say that I am neither an academic nor a scientist - neuro or any other kind. I struggled with many subjects at school, left at 16, and it is only in my later years that I have had the confidence to attempt learning at a higher level. I am very much a 'pragmatist' in Honey & Mumford terms, therefore my responses are based on what I see working. Memory loss in my 40s occurred whilst studying for the CIPD post-grad level qualification, and I would never have passed my exams, if I had simply relied on the 'traditional' methods which were being used - albeit by the 'good teachers' cited by Willingham.
For me, in order to get 'meaning' out of learning (a fundamental for Willingham), there has to be a memory in the first place, so that you can explore it and make sense of it in your own world. Because everyone is different, I believe we need as many learning 'contact' points as possible, so that there is the greatest chance that the learning will be remembered. So we use 5 senses to help information to be absorbed, 8 intelligences to explore it, and Stella and I routinely use over 40 memory triggers to help the learning stick. Plus we pay attention to what may be happening physiologically, psychologically and environmentally for our learners - this is part of what 'brain-based' means to us.
Now I do believe that some people will be remembering more information visually, some auditorily, etc. but their memory is supported by all the other learning contact points they have experienced during the learning session. Those who have learned with us will know that whilst we may suggest that information could be input using one 'learning style', as facilitators we have a responsibility to our learners to encourage them to develop lots of different ways of taking in and exploring learning - precisely because this will help them to make 'meaning'.
I remember very well in my early days of using these multi-pathed approaches, that a learner on day 2 of a workshop was delighted to have come 'top' in the review test we did at the start of the day. I thought nothing more about it, until he approached me at the morning break, and told me that what I didn't know about him (he had attended training with me previously) was that he had dyslexia, and had never come out on top of any learning tests in his life. Applying brain friendly methods to his learning, he went on to achieve an MBA.
Now I can't tell you what contact point or points worked for him - or in fact for the many thousands of learners who have passed through brain friendly learning facilitators' hands and who have been labelled as 'failures' by traditional learning methods - all I know is the joy on people's faces when they 'get' learning - often for the very first time. I remember my own joy at getting 96% on an Accounts exam as a brain friendly learner, having 'failed' Maths O-Level at school - yes, I am that old!
So I shall carry on reading what the academics and neuroscientists say with interest, and am open to trying different things they suggest. However, what I equally value is the feedback from our own learners when they tell us how an exercise could be done differently so that it works better for them; feedback which enables us to continuously refine our methods to achieve the measurable results we have documented elsewhere.
Sorry this is lengthy - but it is responding to 2 posts!
Ann
|
Favoured: 0
!
