What is the value of understanding learning styles of children whom are reluctant learners?

What is the value of understanding learning styles of children whom are reluctant learners?

“An essay explored in light of child development, systems thinking, and educational leadership”

Submitted for Comprehensive Exam Question 2.

Christopher Molnar

Fielding Graduate University

May 24, 2009 (Revision 2)

 

Every child that walks into a classroom is different. Every child that a teacher teaches learns in a slightly different way. Some may learn by studying and reading, some may learn by group activity, some by discussion, and some by repetition, some by hands-on active learning, and some with a mix of all of these. We currently live in economic times where teachers are being laid off, class sizes are growing bigger, and the educational laws, while attempting to do the right thing, do not take into account the differences found in the students. While school districts pride themselves on how many “magnet schools” they have, the grades on the last standardized tests, and the number of students going into college they are forgetting the principle of education: to educate all children and to provide them with a means to become gainfully employed members of the democratic society. Our schools fixation on the idea of mainstreaming, or “tracking,” allows our schools to increase class size, decrease the number of teachers, and say the school “is treating everyone equally and providing the same education to each student.” That is where the system fails the students, where the system fails the teachers, and where the system fails the future because every child cannot learn the same way and can become discouraged when they are forced into the mold.

In this paper I will be answering the question “what is the value of understanding the learning styles of children whom are reluctant learners?” I will be exploring this question in the light of child development, systems thinking, and educational leadership. I will show that the current laws, which require all students to receive education in the least restrictive environment, may not be the best for the children involved, and may in fact, provide more restrictions on the creative use of education for these children as well as their non-disabled peers. I believe that this least restrictive environment may be part of why the schools are creating the dumbest generation yet. Before I proceed further I must define the term “reluctant learners” with reference to this paper.

A “reluctant learner” is any student not succeeding in the “normal” mainstreamed classroom. The “normal” classroom is the one that all of us have been a part of in the past. It is the classroom where the teacher teachers and the student is taught; it is the classroom in which the teacher provides the structure, the discipline, and the rules and the student obeys or is disciplined; and it is the classroom in which the student does the work, plays by the rules, does the homework, and is given a grade as a reward or punishment. The “reluctant learner” is the one that does not succeed in this environment because for some reason this environment is not meeting this student’s needs. The reluctant learner could include the student with a physical disability, the student with a mental disability, the student with a behavioral disability, and the student that just has a different way of learning. I need to make it clear that the term “reluctant learner” is not a negative term; it is a way of grouping learners needing additional attention.

Early on in a child’s life they begin to develop their cognitive and social abilities. This development may be behaviorally based, may be socially based, may be morally based, or may be a combination of all of the above. This child development will last from birth until early adolescence when the child moves into adulthood. This development will affect the learning styles of the student as well as the relationship that the student has with teachers and classmates as well as their attitude towards education.

DEVELOPMENT THEORY DEVELOPS LEARNING STYLES

Modern child development theories began in the 1800’s with Watson (1878-1958) and his studies of behaviorism. Behaviorism is a scientific study that attempted to explain how both animal and human behavior is affected by rewards, punishment, and both positive and negative reinforcement. Graham (2008) wrote that this was the primary learning theory in the 1950s and 1960s. Watson (1913) described learning as a relatively permanent change that is based on these external responses, a reflex behavior that is based on the rewards or punishments. Watson also explained that the environment is important as it provides the required stimuli to promote this change. An example of the behaviorist theory would be the rat in a cage pressing one lever to get food and another lever to get an electric shock. The rat will slowly learn to press the lever that provides the food and will stay away from the lever that provides the shock. The behaviorists believe that children learn and develop by using discipline to mold their behavior. They also believe that the environment is important, as well as is interaction with adults since they are the ones doling out the rewards and punishments. In this theory the experience and the consequences can affect development. The problem with the behaviorist theory is that it does not include observation of others in the child’s development.

Ormond (1999) wrote that social learning theory includes the mimicking of others is part of child development. He explained that learning can occur through observation alone and that this learning through observation is the foundation of cognitive learning. Ormond (1999) explained that learning can be based on the awareness and expectations of future punishments or reinforcements, and that these reinforcements can affect the behaviors that people exhibit. During his Ph.D. studies in 1952 at the University of Iowa, Bandura (1977) conducted a series of experiments with children on social learning. These studies, referred to as the Bobo doll experiments, placed a video of a blow-up clown doll in a room with children. The model on the video attacked the plastic clown. After watching this video the children were put into a room with attractive toys that they could not touch. This caused retention and the children got angry. The children were then moved to a room with the same doll used in the video. Bandura found that 88% of the children imitated the same behavior shown by the model on the video. The children were tested again eight months later and 40% of the children still imitated that same behavior. Bandura explained that child development was based on modeling, which included the steps of attention (watching what is happening), retention, reproduction, and motivation. The ideas of cognitive development, thought and language were not part of his studies.

The next step in the studies on child development was constructivism that was developed by Jean Piaget (1896-1980) and was for the most part based on observations of his own children. The idea behind constructivism is that, as an infant the child thinks about the world in concrete terms. The child sees an object and as long as it is visible it exists, when the child moves to another room the object no longer exists and the child does not think about it. A constructivist believes that as the development of the child progresses the child’s thinking becomes less concrete and more abstract. The child slowly begins to remember that the object exists in the other room, along with what they can do with it. This heightened abstract thinking allows the child to slowly be freed from the “concrete” world around them and in the final stages of their development the child’s mental process becomes entirely abstract and the child is able to reason both hypothetically and systematically. This change in thinking leads constructivists to be able to believe that children think differently from adults (Ormond, 1999).

Ormond (1999) wrote that Piaget believed that children develop progressively and constructively. As the child becomes more competent and begins to act in more complex ways they are slowly building new mental representations of how the world works. There are three processes central to constructivism and these are intrinsic motivation, assimilation, and accommodation. While Piaget’s theory does allow some children to develop faster than others he believed that most children developed universally because of the maturation of the child’s brain and the child’s interaction with the environment (Rathus, 1988). While Piaget’s work included the recognition of cognitive development, he did not include the ideas of thought and language, which would be the next step in development theory.

In 1978, fifty-two years after his death, Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky’s work was published. Vygotsky (1978) introduced the theory of social constructivism that was based on the idea that thought and language provided the framework for learning. Vygotsky (1986) wrote that humans are the only species that create culture and that adults must pass this cultural meaning onto their offspring by the use of language. According to Vygotsky when children are newborns they begin to develop language skills and these skills are concrete. The child wants food; he knows to ask for food. Vygotsky wrote that as children reach about two years of age the speech and thought merge and become one. This language now becomes cultural with the child taking both the environment and the language and using it for thought and reasoning. Vygotsky described development as being interactive as in a two-way communication between teacher and the student as well as the student and other students.

The differences in development theories, the differences in the environment in which the child develops in, the differences in the beliefs of the adults nurturing them mean that children will develop differently. It is reasonable to say the child brought up in a household believing in strict discipline and punishment would react differently when given direction than a child that grew up in a household believing in social learning theory or social constructionism. One would require rewards and punishment, one would require demonstration, and the third would require conversation. Learning styles are dependent on the development of the child. The learning style of the child will allow them to either succeed or fail in the classroom, and this success or failure is dependent on the methods employed by educators in the classroom.

LEARNING STYLES INFLUENCE WORK IN THE CLASSROOM

Kolb (1981) wrote:

As a result of our hereditary equipment, our particular life experience, and the demands of our present environment, most of us develop learning styles that emphasize some learning abilities over others. Through socialization experiences in family, school, and work, we come to resolve the conflicts between action and reflection and between immediate experience and detached analysis in characteristic ways. (pg. 237)

Kolb described students learning styles as ones that have been developed based on their development experiences, their life experiences at home, their experiences at play, and at school. For example some children may develop logical minds that allow them to assimilate different facts into theories. Some children may develop minds that allow them to learn by doing, for example taking something apart and putting it together. Some children may develop with minds that allow them to see something, like a video or diagram that allows them to understand a topic. The key is that very few people have a single learning style, but most people have one that is more dominant than another.

Kolb (1981) developed four categories of learning styles: the converger, the diverger, the assimilator, and the accommodator. Each of these four styles has specific ways they assimilate knowledge and interact with others in the classroom. The first style is the converger. Convergers’ primary learning abilities are that of abstract conceptualization and active experimentation. They are drawn to practical application of ideas. Kolb wrote that this person does best in situations where there is a single correct answer, like on a multiple choice standardized test. Liam Hudson (1966)performed separate research on the converger style of learning and concluded that convergers are more likely to want to deal with things than people, as convergers tend to be unemotional. Directly opposite the convergers in learning styles are the divergers.

Divergers excel at concrete experience and reflective observation. Divergers are imaginative and can view a concrete issue from multiple perspectives. Kolb (1981) wrote that divergers are great in brainstorming sessions and are imaginative and emotional. Divergers are more apt to specialize in the arts than the sciences and are apt to choose a career path as a counselor, or in human resource management. Another type of learning style is that of the assimilator.

Assimilators have learning styles that consist of abstract conceptualization and reflective observation. They do well with inductive reasoning, and more often are found within the basic science and mathematical disciplines rather than in the abstract sciences. In industry Kolb (1981) wrote that the assimilators are most often found in research and planning departments. The learning style opposite that of the assimilator is the accommodator.

Kolb (1981) described accommodators as having a learning style consisting of active experimentation and concrete experience. Their strengths lie in “doing things, in carrying out plans and experiments and becoming involved in new experiences” (pg. 238). Kolb also described the accommodators as risk takers because in life if a plan does not “fit the facts” they are often apt to ignore the plan. Kolb wrote that in education the accommodators are likely to be found in technical or practical fields and in later life are apt to be found in action-oriented jobs such as sales and marketing (pg. 238). While Kolb theorized on how individuals learn cognitively he did not address how learning was affected by the innate abilities of the individual with respect to mind, body, and relationships, this came later with Gardner’s (1983) multiple intelligences theory.

Gardner (1983) wrote that individuals do not have a single strength or weakness; rather individuals display a wide range of abilities. In his work Gardner redefined intelligence. He believed that intelligence is not a single skill; rather it is the ability to solve problems, and to meet a goal in a cultural setting. For example if a child understands the sciences easily that child is not more intelligent than the child who does not. The second child may excel in music rather than science and have an entirely different set of abilities. While prior theorists had defined verbal and computational as the two intelligences, Gardner described seven categories of intelligence: logical-mathematical, linguistic intelligence, spatial intelligence, musical intelligence, bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, personal intelligence, and interpersonal intelligence. It was Gardner’s belief that each of these intelligences allows a student to be more successful in certain subjects and may cause them to struggle with others.

Gardner (1983) theorized that people with the logical-mathematical intelligence have a better understanding of patterns; people with this intelligence are more apt to think logically and reason deductively. People with this type of intelligence tend to find careers as scientists, engineers, doctors, economists, and mathematicians. In the traditional classroom this intelligence allows the students to adapt to sequentially delivered instruction (McKenzie, 1999).

Gardner (1983) defined the second multiple intelligence as the verbal-linguistic intelligence. Gardner wrote that those with this ability could manipulate language to express themselves rhetorically as well as poetically. Those with this intelligence are also able to use language as means to remember information. They are good at telling stories, reading, writing, and memorizing words as well as dates. People with this intelligence are likely to have careers as writers, lawyers, journalists, poets, politicians, and teachers. In the traditional classroom students with this intelligence adapt to learning by listening to lectures and presentations. This intelligence is also the basis of traditional assessments such as standardized testing (McKenzie, 1999).

Gardner (1983) described the third multiple intelligence as spatial intelligence. This intelligence allows the individual to visualize and manipulate objects. People with this type of intelligence have a strong puzzle solving ability, have a strong visual memory, and are artistically talented. People with spatial intelligence are seen as having good hand-eye coordination and generally have a good sense of direction. People with this intelligence are likely to become artists, architects, and engineers.

The fourth multiple intelligence that Gardner (1983) described was musical intelligence. People with this intelligence tend to have a greater sensitivity to sound, rhythms, tones and music. They are often able to sing, play musical instruments, and compose music. Some may have absolute pitch. People with this intelligence often find success in careers as composers, disc jockeys, conductors, orators, singers, instrumentalists, and sales representatives.

Gardner (1983) described the fifth multiple intelligences as bodily-kinesthetic intelligence. This ability has to do with bodily movement and psychology. Those with this intelligence are generally good at physical activities, such as sports, dancing, and performing. Gardner theorized that those with bodily-kinesthetic intelligence tend to remember things through their bodies, such as verbal memories or images. They are good at building things and learn more by doing. Careers in which people with this intelligence may find themselves are builders, athletes, dancers, doctors, soldiers, and surgeons.

The sixth multiple intelligence that Gardner (1983) defined is interpersonal intelligence, or the interaction with others. People with this type of intelligence tend to have high interpersonal feelings, they are sensitive to others moods, temperaments, and their ability to work as a part of a group. These individuals are able to communicate and empathize easily and enjoy either being leaders or followers as long as they are working as a part of a group. Individuals with interpersonal intelligence are likely to be found working as salespeople, politicians, teachers, social workers, and managers.

Gardner defined the seventh multiple intelligence as personal (intrapersonal) intelligence. People having this type of intelligence are typically introverts and tend to want to work alone. They are able to self-reflect and understand their own motivations, strengths, and weaknesses. Gardner wrote that people with this intelligence often have a higher understanding of thought-based work such as philosophy. Careers that tend to capture people with this intelligence are psychology, theology, journalism, and science.

In the late 1990’s Gardner added to his theories on multiple intelligences by adding the eighth and ninth intelligences: naturalistic and existential intelligence. Gardner (1999) wrote that people with naturalistic intelligence tend to have a greater sensitivity to nature. They understand how to nurture and grow things, and have a greater ability to interact with animals in activities such as taming and caring for them. People with this naturalistic intelligence are able recognize and classify things. They are able to learn the most when they can build upon existing knowledge.

The ninth intelligence that Gardner (1999) added was existential intelligence. People with this type of intelligence are able to see the larger picture. They are able to see themselves with relationship to all that is around them. They seek to learn by connecting things to real world applications. Human resource managers, software developers, and project planners often have existential intelligence, as they are able to see the larger picture.

Both Kolb‘s (1981) and Gardner’s (1983, 1999) research and theories, while different in some respects, have significant impact for the classroom. McKenzie (1999) wrote:

What parent cannot see gleaming rays of genius in their child? And yet, how many children come to school and demonstrate their own unique genius? There was a time when it might have been a joke to suggest “Every parent things their kid’s a genius.” But research on human intelligence is suggesting that the joke may be on the educators! (¶1)

McKenzie went on to conclude that the continued research on learning and intelligence must change the way teachers teach in the classroom. It is important to look at the teaching methods used, and to mix as many methods into the classroom to serve all of the students equally. McKenzie suggested that it is time for teachers to stop teaching the textbook and begin to teach “each child according to their orientation to the world” (¶3).

Learning styles have also evolved with time and generations of people. Wagner (2009) described the learning styles of Matures or Veterans, and the Baby Boomers (those born in 1925 – 1964) as “preferring to learn via formal classroom instruction and printed texts; they tend to be more verbal than visually oriented communicators” (pg. 6). Wagner described the Gen Xers (those born in 1965 – 1979) as “prefer[ing] informal learning but are adept at formal classroom learning as well. Gen Xers strongly prefer action-oriented learning focusing on solving real problems” (pg. 6). Wagner went on to mention that the Gen Xers were the first generation to grow up with some access to computers and thus their learning is sometimes more visual than verbal. The Gen Xers can remember the discovery of AIDS and the World Wide Web. Oblinger (2003) wrote that these Gen Xers remember seeing the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War. However the Gen Xers are not the greatest challenge or change to the educational system.

Schmidt and Hawkins (2008) wrote that while the Xers as parents are revolting against the “all about me” attitude of their Baby Boomer parents. They still tend to hover around their children as helicopter parents but are starting to return to the traditional values with their children, such as ethics, responsibility, education, and self-worth. Their children, the late Generation Yers and the new Generation Z are coming out of primary school with a completely new set of values and learning styles.

The biggest change to learning styles and expectations came with the Gen Yers or the Millennials (born in 1980 – 1995). They were born into the age of the computer and Wagner described their learning as “a team process and occurs through networks and connections. They prefer to do things their own way rather than to be told how” (pg. 6). Oblinger (2003) explained that Millennials:

• .gravitate towards group activity;

• .identify with their parents’ values and feel close to their parents;

• .spend more time doing homework and housework and less time watching TV;

• .believe “its cool to be smart”;

• .are fascinated by new technologies;

• .are racially and ethnically diverse; and

• .often (one in five) at least have one immigrant parent. (pg. 38)

Additionally when asked about the biggest problems that are facing their generation Oblinger wrote that the millennials responded that it is the poor example set for them by adults. The millennials preferred learning styles include teamwork, experiential activities, and the use of technologies.

A few of my colleagues and myself survey our students on a somewhat regular basis in order to better understand their learning styles; the students also have access to their own results with the hope that these results can help them learning about themselves and their learning methods. This happens about every six months as new students come into our classes and other students graduate or leave. Recently I asked to see the results of the survey in the Medical Assisting department. Twenty-two students were surveyed using the Pharmacist’s Inventory of Learning Styles (PILS) from the University of Toronto (Austin, 2004). The survey asks students to rate themselves as “usually”, “sometimes”, “rarely”, and “hardly” for seventeen study and learning habits. The results are tallied and are used to identify a primary learning style. The results from the most recent survey showed that out of these twenty-two students 14 of them are assimilators, five of them are convergers, two of them are divergers, and none of them are accommodators. If these results are accurate, and if the learning style matters in the classroom then one style of teaching cannot accommodate all of these students.

The successful instructor in the above class must understand that the different groups of students need different instruction. If we use Kolb’s (1981) experiential learning styles as our guide then the assimilators need an environment with expert teachers as well as time to reflect and discuss before being asked to perform. Second the convergers need an audience that they can impress with an achievement. Third the divergers need a supportive peer structure with time to reflect and discuss before performing. Sanchez and Young (2007) wrote that the teaching methods for each group are also different. The divergent teaching methods must include reflection, non-time pressured group work, mentoring, unstructured activities, and learning just to learn – not just for a test. The convergent teaching methods must include purpose and time driven group work, competitions, role-playing, practice activities, mentoring and learning for the purpose of a test. The accommodative teaching methods must include a “just-in-time” curriculum (very time orientated and structured), time and resource efficient learning, practical problem solving, mentoring, and learning for the purpose of solving problems.

Using Gardner’s (1983, 1999) multiple intelligence theories as the guide, the teacher in a diverse classroom must provide students the opportunity to “see” things for the visual/spatial intelligence, and the chance to hear about things for the verbal-linguistic intelligence. The same teacher (or classroom) must provide the opportunity to learn through problem solving for the mathematical-logical learners, and the opportunity to interact with things for the bodily-kinesthetic learners. Other students in the same classroom must be provided the option to interact with others for the interpersonal learners, the chance to study and work alone for the intrapersonal learners, and the option to learn through patterns, rhythm and music for those with musical intelligence. Additionally some students need the opportunity to learn by building upon prior knowledge for the existential learners, and naturalistic learners must have the opportunity to learn through classification and categorization.

Learning styles among students in the classroom are as diverse as the students themselves. Every student comes with a difference in development, learning style, and generational values. As the ages of the student population becomes more diverse so will their skills, their learning styles and their needs. There is no longer one mold, one learning style, one intelligence, one set of abilities, or one generation that is specific to a classroom, educators must realize and embrace the diversity that is part of the educational system.

SYSTEMIC OPPORTUNITIES FOR EDUCATION

Before I can discuss the educational system I need to define my interpretation of what a system is. Last summer when I began my Doctoral studies I looked out my office window and saw a very dry creek bed in my backyard. There was a little water trickling through the rocks; just barely enough to support the plants and crayfish that live in the creek. As the summer progressed the creek dried up even further and the living things had to move or grow further into the creek bed. Winter came and the creek froze. The plants died, the crayfish did whatever the crayfish do when they get cold, and the creek became a beautiful ice flow. Then came spring and the snow began to melt. The spring rains came and the creek bed melted. The stream began to grow until it filled, and overfilled its path. The roots of the plants from last year as well as the trees growing near the stream have prevented the stream from eroding and removing the earth that the plants depend on. Now the plants have begun to grow and while I have not had time to venture down to look, I would think that the creek is starting to see some signs of the crayfish returning. Senge (2006) wrote of systematic relationship between the Spring rains, the climate, and life. My stream is an example of a system as well, without the stream life would not exist, but the stream, and the beauty of the stream is dependent on that life as well.

Jacobs (2003) also wrote about the system and environmental applications of education when he suggested that the reader “picture a world without wilderness. Trees appear only in cemetery-like rows. There are no wild creatures that fly, swim, or crawl. Four-legged animals exist only as stock. Garbage covers the last underdeveloped landscapes. Polluted air, costly light, towering buildings, and rapidly moving vehicles overwhelm your senses” (¶2). Jacobs suggests that this nightmare may be a symbol and a result of our educational system. The students that emerge from our system too often do not understand life as a system and are unable to provide leadership for true change. They understand the concrete things, the math, the chemical names, and the equations, but are unable to connect those things with true life and the world.

Freire (2000) described education as a system that is broken. Freire wrote that the educational system is void of communication, and that it is a transactional system that could be compared to a bank. The teachers deposit the information that they wish to share into the students; some that will accept the deposits and some that will reject them. Freire explained that in this banking system of education the students and the teachers are not creative and are not learning how to mutually grow in the education process and thus education is a failure. Freire described the ideal educational system as one in which the teacher poses a problem to the students and through mutual understanding, communication, and dialogue the student-teacher relationship shifts so that the students and the teacher are learning together.

At the beginning of this paper I theorized that the “least restrictive environment” that our education laws mandate for all students may in fact be the most restrictive because of the differences between all students. The system of education must change and educators must realize that one educational system does not fit all students. Teachers must open up their minds to the fact that students are different based on their learning styles and generational differences. This change will require leadership, it will require a break from the past, just as the oppression of the past has required leadership.

Guild (2001) described the current classroom as one in which teachers know that students learn in different ways, know about learning styles, and know about diversity, and continue teaching everything the same way. Because our educational system is rooted in the past, and to the political ambitions of our leaders the same tests are given, the same statistics are used, and the same textbooks are used for all students. Guild wrote that in the past 50 years little has changed. The schools, the politicians and the educators still do not understand the various learning styles of the students, nor do they understand how to manage all of these styles in a single classroom, or in the educational system.

Returning to my original question, “what is the value of understanding the learning styles of children whom are reluctant learners?” I would suggest that large numbers of students will continue to be reluctant learners until their learning styles and abilities are understood. The classrooms of the past are not working. A school district can no longer demand that a teacher must stand in front of a class and deliver the lecture in a certain amount of time, in a certain way, and use a standardized testing format to make sure all students have learned the material. The system must change to set goals and expectations but to embrace the diversity on how the students reach these goals.

Experiential education is one method of education that embraces the entire system: education, life, culture, and the future. Experiential education is learning by doing. Kolb and Fry (1975) wrote that effective learning must include experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation. The experiential educational model allows the student to do just that, it is a system that allows those with various learning styles to participate in a hands-on experience, reflect on it, conceptualization, and then experiment using what was learned. This is a systematic view of instruction.

An example of this experiential education is found at The Graham School (2008). The Graham School provides students the opportunities to learn through research, teaching, and service learning experiences. According to the school’s web site the goal is to allow the learner to gain knowledge and experience skills through real world opportunities, and then the learner reflects on these experiences. The method encourages the learner to use these reflections to learning about themselves and their roles in their communities and life.

The Graham School begins the experiential learning program in the 9th grade year with the “foundations” program that introduces the experiential learning curriculum. They visit different service sites in the communities and spend time in small groups with other students and their mentors. They volunteer at these sites and begin to realize the importance of trust, safety, self-advocacy, and community service. In their 10th grade year the students focus on a curriculum of service. They learn about time management, conflict resolution, and communication. The students pick a service site and work closely with a site mentor as well as their school mentor and a small number of other sophomores. The program continues through the 11th grade year, where as juniors they focus on leadership. They learn about leadership theories and styles, and experience more freedom from the mentors as they work at a large number of sites. They participate in advisory classes to focus on the goals of the curriculum.

During the final year the students at The Graham School focus on risk. They participate in a Senior Capstone Project, and participate in a Walkabout, which is an ancient aborigine rite of passage from adolescence to adult-hood. During this Walkabout the senior student takes risks that prepare them for life following high school and ties in the 9th, 10th, and 11th grade programs into the final project. The senior is also encouraged to finish all credits needed for graduation as well as taking advanced placement courses.

Other examples of experiential education exist. One such project in Pittsburgh takes eighth graders identified as potential dropouts and places them in a program known as OASES (Occupational and Academic Skills for the Employment of Students). These students spend three periods a day renovating homeless shelters. The students learn such skills as planning, communication, culture, decision-making, socialization, and industrial arts (or the trades). Coming away from the program they have been taught the required curriculum of math, English, science, political science, and anthropology all while doing (Unknown, 2009).

According to The Charles School (2008), another high school based on experiential education, experiential learning is important for students because through the use of real-world experiences and challenges students can work outside the classroom, with adult mentors and teachers. This allows them to make connections between the education in the classroom and the community. These connections allow them to build self-confidence, life long learning, community leadership, and self-direction. What the experiential education programs do is combine the classroom, with the community, with the skills, and allow the student to put it all together for their future lives. This is when education becomes a true system.

NEED FOR LEADERSHIP

There is a critical need for leadership in education in order to create the climate for change. Educational leaders need to be experts in their fields, they need to be risk takers, they need to be student managers, and they need to be curriculum designers (Wynne, 2002). Wynne wrote that the educational leader must be willing to challenge the “top-down” hierarchal approach towards education and encourage the community, the students, the teachers, and the school to all become partners in the process – or the educational system.

Hilliard (1991) described one such example of leadership was found at Garfield High School in Los Angeles during the 1990s. A teacher by the name of Jamie Escalante took on the systemic failure to teach minority students the basic skills of mathematics. He challenged the schools curriculum and over a ten year period was able to teach over 500 students, most of them Hispanic and low-income and teach them enough math so that they were able to pass the Advanced Placement Exam SAT calculus exam.

Hilliard (1991) questioned if educators are even listening to all the research and theories that they are exposed to during their training. He wrote:

It is hard to take seriously the idea that the masses of our children are geniuses when we embrace the wrong pedagogical paradigm – in spite of a new rhetoric to the contrary. We have maintained historical commitment to the same paradigm that we had when public school education began in the U.S., ascribing genius to a select few. We have embraced a related predication paradigm that tells us that the major task of assessment professionals is to forecast future performance, not to assist with problem solving in teaching and learning. We have continued to embrace the tracking paradigm. Even when children have been untraced organizationally, in our minds they remain “gifted,” “average,” and “retarded.” Otherwise our national achievement results would leave us with a greater sense of urgency than we now manifest. (pg. 34)

Hilliard went on to suggest that educators begin to listen to the research, the theories and the experts and begin to change how they apply these findings in the classroom. Hilliard described the teacher as the mediators of children “who provide or fail to provide the essential experiences that permit students to release their awesome potential” (pg. 35).

CONCLUSION

My primary learning style is that of a converger with a close secondary style of an accommodator. If my style holds true to the research (Austin, 2004) then I am practical and to the point, I do not want to waste time with irrelevant material, and I learn best when things are kept practical, organized, and to the point. For me to sit in a lecture and listen to a teacher drone on about theories and non-relevant background material is painful. But yet, that is the educational system that I grew up in. How many other students have grown up and drowned, or been oppressed by this environment that values university over diversity? How many other people have been pushed through a system in which their learning styles have not been understood or valued?

I will conclude that the educational system cannot begin to educate all students until everyone involved in the system begins to understand the impact of the learning styles of all students in education. Earlier in this paper I discussed various thoughts on child development, and then I wrote about varying learning styles and generations. In the classroom these theories come together and create an environment that is enriching, or an environment that is oppressing. The true leader in education will step back from the old transactional style of education that Freire (2000) described and embrace a transformational style of leadership, in which both the student and the teacher learn together. The true leader in education will use the theories of child development; the theories on learning styles; the systemic education found in experiential education, and create a better, more caring, more inclusive path for their students. This path will better prepare all students for a future and it will not mater if the student is a “reluctant” learning because they are all receiving the education that is truly the least restrictive. This education comes without boundaries.

References