Learning Styles, Hidden Secrets

Learning style questionnaires, if we are not careful, can be little more than a technicality, especially in my area. After all, how many ways can you teach someone to draw? Explaining how only goes so far, this is not English comprehension, you have to get the students to see it, and do it.

Typically we have students for art that have high visual and high kineasthetic prefference, and this makes sense given what art & design entails. Typically they have a lower relative auditory preference. Something like this:



This is what we expect for art. However we have 2 students with the reverse.



When they clearly have a preference for auditory learning, and they are less strong on a visual or kineasthetic approach, why choose Art? I might expect this profile from an English Literature student or something.

A quick peep at their Literacy diagnostic showed them both to still have strong L2 literacy skills, with one of them exhibiting some L3 literacy skills. So, I ask again, why Art?

I believe the answer is that they both have a disability which makes learning via their preferred method difficult. One is Dyslexic and the other Dysgraphic (writing is an issue).

Basically, they don't have as strong a natural leaning to learning art the way art learning works (visually, and by doing), so it seems they picked art because their disability means they are prevented from learning other subjects that better match their natural learning style.

These learners will need particular help (lots more describing than is normal for an art student) since in some ways it appears that they are choosing to go against their own nature by doing art. (That's my view, but I welcome your comments.)

I wonder how much support this lends to my theory that some students choose art, not because they are great at it, but because they simply found other subjects even more difficult (on account of Dyslexia for instance). What do you think?

Teaching Art or Multimedia (Unit by Unit or Everything Linked?)

When I first started teaching multimedia after working for several years in industry, I was pushed in the direction of teaching each unit of the course separately from the other. The college approach seemed to be one of individual teachers taking responsibility for individuals units (or subjects) and each being taught independent of the others during different sessions across the week.

At the time (several years ago now) I was so new to teaching that I didn't argue. After all, I am the newbie, what do I know? However as my teacher training progressed (now complete I am glad to say) I came to see how this approach was not really the ideal for our students. I did not feel the approach would adequately make the students into what I call whole creatives. Instead of seeing the course as 18 units, I began to see teaching and learning in multimedia as being essentially split into just 2 main areas:

• Design Processes/Design Thinking
• Tools and Tool Techniques

These areas appear in each unit in different degrees. Some are very strongly focused on design thinking, while others on tools. While the titles of these two areas could probably do with some refinement, the idea is that while different types of knowledge or skills can be taught independently initially, ultimately learners need to be able to use these together to be a whole creative individual. We call this bringing of knowledge or skills of different kinds together synthesis.

I have developed a model to explain this below:

Synthesis of skills over time allows greater learner maturity, freedom and creativity

For instance a learner can be taught how to use Photoshop during one session or unit, and methods for generating ideas in another session or unit. But this only goes so far, they must then be able to use those two skill areas together to meet creative objectives.

I did not feel that teaching units independently of each other was going to achieve this.

In changing the unit by unit approach however, it needs to be understood that you still can't pour everything together into a big pot straight away either. The problem there is that the concept of using skill areas together is too large and complex to be a good starting point and learners will simply drown. Initially then learners must be taught some different skill areas independently but then (as soon as possible and as they become ready) they should be guided so that their understanding in these different areas becomes linked together

This is essential for several reasons.

Learners who remain strong in design processes are usually good at understanding design problems, and generating and refining ideas - but unless they learn about production tools (e.g. Photoshop or Studio Max) they will not fully understand how the technology impacts on the suitability or production of their ideas.

Learners who are strong on tools and techniques for using tools are able to use technology efficiently - but unless they learn to apply the design process they will be under-developed creatively and relegate themselves to the role of technician, essentially reproducing the ideas of others. They may be efficient, but not as effective as they could be.

The aim then is for learners to be able to use tools and techniques in conjunction with design process and design thinking, thus making them whole creative individuals.

So I don't worry about one unit per lecturer any more, or one unit per session. Instead we teach by project, we link units to projects and work on them in every session, and every tutor brings their expertise to each project.

This is actually one of the benefits of the BTEC National Diploma system. While the whole qualification is made up of 18 units (each one being a different subject), we are free (and encouraged to by Edexcel, if not your particular college) to link these units together wherever possible.

I like to teach new tools or skills separately and give short projects or homework to ensure these new skills are understood. Then I like to feed these new skills into larger projects where they must be used in conjunction with the design thinking and design process skills, or other tools skills the learner has.

In this way learners get to learn processes, and tools, and bring them together. It is not always easy, but learners do have the opportunity to become better creatives who can see how everything they learn fits together, and can make intelligent decisions based on a real understanding of the whole picture.

A Degree in Selling Cars

The ripples of the Leitch Report spread far and wide, and it seems universities are not immune to its influence. That, and of course the drive for universities to generate funding, has no doubt led in some small way to the idea that universities need to provide more training to meet employer's skill shortages.

This BBC article talks about Loughborough University's collaboration with Ford to create a BSc in Car Dealership. Going, it seems, are the days when multinational corporations were capable of training their own staff to meet the needs of their business, from the expertise held within the company.

While some may chuckle at the idea, doing it this way does have some advantages for the individual, not least of which is that their training, while useful to the company, will also be a formally recognised qualification.

From the government's point of view this is great because it means more people are getting university degrees (one of their other priorities along with basic skills for the under achieving), but I will talk more about this and the magic growth in favour of the "Foundation Degree" over HNDs and L4 NVQs in another post.

Which Costs More? Evening Classes or Mental Heath Care?

The BBC reports that the government's response to the Leitch Report, while driving a focus on basic skills, has left adult learners missing out on Life-long Learning.

Associate Director of the National Institute of Adult Coninuing Education (Niace) Stephen McNair is reported to have said:

"There are clear benefits in terms of public health and social cohesion from life-long learning that are not recognised by the government..." (BBC)

It seems that Niace is now using this approach to try to pressurise the government into increasing funding for education for personal development (perhaps Life-long Learning in its purest sense).

In response the government reckon they are investing a further £210 million in "informal adult learning". No small sum but only a teeny tiny % of the total LSC budget.

I suspect that what we have heard of the government's response is, at least for now, the best statement they can give to the press at this moment in time. Meanwhile I hope they do look at how feasible it is to oil the machinery giving money to "informal adult learning" on a grander scale.

Being cynical for a moment I suspect they will do it in style if it means they spend less on mental health via the NHS (in other words produce cost savings elsewhere) but otherwise the momentum they have in developing basic skills, and "upskilling" the "work force", will mean that education for recreation or personal development will probably not get much light in the near future. Don't forget, the government are trying to get the economy going, as well as improving the UK's position internationally as a base of skills and that means giving people work skills.

Evening classes for the long term incapacitated, women at home with small children, carers and the elderly, in languages and art, hardly fits that bill. So for now they are unlikely to become a pressing government priority.

Having said that, I do agree with Niace on this one. But then I am biased, any proposal that allocates more funding to FE institutions is, from my perspective, a good thing. After all, I do work for one.