Action learning

Action learning is a continuous process of learning and reflection that happens with the support of a group or ‘set’ of colleagues, working on real issues, with the intention of getting things done. The voluntary participants in the group or ‘set’ learn with and from each other and take forward an important issue with the support of the other members of the set. The collaborative process, which recognizes set members’ social context, helps people to take an active stance towards life, overcome the tendency to be passive towards the pressures of life and work, and aims to benefit both the organization and the individual. As definitions don’t always give a clear picture, we explore here the answer to the question What is action learning?, a regular question in introductory workshops and sessions.

Personal and management development
Action learning was initially developed by Reg Revans in post-Second World War Britain and he worked intrepidly, ploughing a very innovative path compared to the prevailing norms of training and development. He was very much at the frontier. Advances made in the USA, emanating from the west coast and found in such excellent works as Pfeiffer and Jones (1977), enabled people engaging in personal and management development to work in ways that involved them – that is, their whole person – in activities that at least they could relate to their own direct experience. In the UK, learner-centred development was slower to develop.

In higher education lecturing to students was the norm, and case studies of past events used as material for qualifications like the MBA, modelled on the Harvard one, where the expertise lay mainly with the lecturer leading the case, represented the mainstream. The main alternative in the development field lay with the emphasis on ‘up front’ training. In both the above examples, authority and expertise lay firmly with the lecturer or trainer.

This simply reflected the tendency to authoritarian ways of inculcating learning, even though it ignored much of the research, which suggested that in adult learning the significance of personal experience is crucial. Relatively advanced programmes in the development field at least used simulations that emphasized key issues such as the need for planning, strategy and task/process. In these programmes the participant was actually involved in undertaking a task, albeit using Lego or film. It is perhaps unfair from this vantage point to be critical of the latter methods – for they are still useful as part of the overall development of individuals both within and outside organizations.

Outdoor activities that promote personal and group understanding and team development, for example, come to mind. However, all the above come under the critical gaze when attention is paid to the life experience of the individual and the utilization of that experience by the individual. That experience was usually overtly left at the door to the training or development event. It is here that action learning becomes increasingly relevant for it does just the opposite – bringing life experience to the fore as the single most important resource in enabling the individual to move and learn and develop with the support of others.

Moreover, action learning is increasingly in line with the resistance to what are in effect authoritarian methods to induce learning. By its nature there is, in action learning, a fundamental respect for where people are coming from, their values and their right to learn at their own pace in a democratic environment. Action learning also reflects the growing recognition that learning and development can be, and is, supported by a social context in which learning is shared as a social activity. This again is in contrast to the notion that learning is best conducted in isolation and in competition with others.

There is a tension here in that much of the contemporary life of work is competitive. Again that is part of the appeal of action learning. It creates the conditions for collaboration amid that competitive environment that are also needed for a sane life. Further, while capitalism is the current order, it nevertheless has enormous downsides, and developing alternative collaborative ways of working and living may be pointers to the future.

In the 1980s, one of us, for our research leading to a PhD, investigated the organization of work and the advocacy of industrial democracy by those primarily on the left of politics – including the British Labour Party.
A key feature was the advocacy of collaborative ways of working, a facet of industrial democracy. The espousal of that appeal to democratic ways of working was almost always defeated in the lack of realization of that appeal. While there were often ‘real politik’ reasons why it was not feasible, even where the conditions were possible, it did not work for the simple reason that the actors did not know how to work collaboratively.

What is the connection here with action learning? It is this: to work effectively, action learning requires in the participants a value criterion that promotes collaborative approaches to the task in hand. This includes sets where there is a facilitator. The facilitator is, in the early stages, creating the conditions within the voluntary framework for collaborative work and learning. While the facilitator may lead the process, once set members become aware of and familiar with it, the set can move to more collaborative modes, sharing responsibility and gradually moving into autonomous mode without the facilitator.

Moreover, members of sets collectively share their concerns, issues and proposed actions, which itself may be novel. Just as important is the process by which the learning set works through a set member’s issues. The process is a shared, collective one where the learning about how to work on issues collectively is made explicit. Thus set members gain practice in a way of working that is designed to be collective as well as reflecting upon that practice. This reflection on practice ensures that the learning is made explicit – the practice is sensed, articulated, and incorporated into the set member’s repertoire of behaviour.

This enhanced and ‘different’ repertoire is then applicable in other contexts outside the action learning set, in work as well as in other social contexts. The repertoire of behaviour is different in that the aim is to learn, develop, and engage in tasks in a collaborative way, typified by the term ‘win–win’ rather than ‘win–lose’ strategies.

The approach is not adversarial. Another facet of our experience in working with a wide range of people employed in organizations is the tremendous pressure, often oppressive, from which it is very difficult to disentangle oneself without total withdrawal through voluntary or involuntary retirement or burn-out. It is quite clear that some enthusiastic participants are attracted to action learning because the set is a haven of sanity and reflection.

Working conditions commonly provide little time for shared reflection. Asked if time is feasible in the day, week, month or year for reflection (and the necessary conditions for learning and development), the answer is usually raised eyebrows and laughter. Yet we are asking organizations to make that leap to engage in organizational learning without providing the means for it, often for their most senior staff, let alone the seedbed staff of the future.
Read More : Action learning

What is action learning?

Action learning builds on the relationship between reflection and action. Learning by experience involves reflection, ie reconsidering past events, making sense of our actions, and possibly finding new ways of behaving at future events. We believe that reflection is a necessary precursor to effective action and that learning from experience can be enhanced by deliberate attention to this relationship. The theoretical basis for reflection is discussed at length in Chapter 6. Taking part in an action learning set provides the time and space to attend to the relationship, ie the link between reflection and learning. Set members enable their colleagues to understand, explore and judge their situation as well as helping them to realize underlying feelings which influ-ence behaviour. The action learning process is supportive and challenging, while recognizing the subjective world of set members and the social context of their work and lives.

Action learning is often assumed to be an everyday activity – ‘Oh yes, that’s learning by doing’ or ‘I use action learning all the time but I’ve never been in a set’ (Pedler, 1997: 263).

Why is a set necessary for action learning?
Casual conversations in groups or one-to-one or even just talking through  ideas with colleagues may be seen as reflective – why use a special name for it? The answer lies in the deliberate and intentional provision of time and space for set members to engage in reflective learning. Action learning multiplies the kind of support which a trusted friend or colleague would offer, listening without judgement and, without giving advice, helping the individual concerned to discover his or her own solution.

Not one but several people focus on supporting one person, with the knowledge that this will be reciprocated later in the session or at a later session. Action learning sets formalize reflective learning and legitimize the allocation of time and space to it, with consistent voluntary group membership over an extended period of time.
How is action learning different from ordinary groups?
Action learning is unlike other kinds of group such as:
• formal meetings;
• seminars;
• teams;
• support or self-development groups;
• counselling or therapy groups.

Formal meetings have a chairperson, an agenda, open discussion, minutes and sometimes a vote. An action learning set focuses on the presenter’s issue and set minutes are simply action points, not a record of the meeting. A seminar is a presentation of prepared material for discussion by the group. The material is based on factual knowledge in the public domain.

The rules are rarely helpful to the presenter, being adversarial in style, and no consequent action is expected. Action learning sets are wholly focused on assisting the presenter to reflect on action and move towards action. A team is a group with a well-defined group task. Members may support each other but the objective is primarily completion of the task. Action learning sets work for the benefit of individual set members, not an externally imposed task. If set members share a task or project, they become a team, and the action learning process would have to be created in addition to team/task-focused meetings.

Support or self-development groups are often focused more on support than challenge. See Chapter 11 for challenge vs. support in action learning sets. The aim in action learning is to enable the individual to take responsibility, decide on action, and move on.

Action learning is not a counselling or therapy group. The presenter will be listened to and will be offered empathic support – aimed at helping. Counselling will not be offered in an action learning set. When personal
problems arise, set members should seek counselling or therapy elsewhere. So if it’s not a team, support group or seminar, what issues can set members bring to a set? For action learning to be effective, the presenter’s issue should be:
• important to her;
• something where she has authority to act (or is concerned about her lack of it);
• not trivial;
• owned – not about someone else.

The ‘authority to act’ issue may well look different after the set discussion and the presenter may use the set to work with feelings related to her perceived lack of power. We look now at what the provision of time and
space means in action learning.

Time and space
How long should the action learning set meet for? How often should the set meet? How much time should the set and each person have?

How long?
A typical set cycle is likely to be over one calendar year, but set cycles vary from six months to two years depending on the nature of the set. Sets may re-contract at the end of cycle review stage and start a second or even third cycle. What is important is the need for a clear commitment to an agreed number of meetings, which include a review, an ending and an evaluation.

How often?
The frequency of set meetings is negotiated and agreed at the start of the cycle, and set meeting dates are decided and diaried in advance. This is particularly important with independent sets where set members are coming from different organizations and different geographical locations. An interval of one month or six weeks between set meetings is usual; any longer affects the momentum and work of the set.

How much time?
The total time for each set meeting will also be agreed at the start. The set members may not be totally free to determine how much time they can commit to each meeting. There may be personal and organizational constraints or, for independent sets, logistical limits to their commitment.
Two models are currently in use:

• Half-day: This is rather short for a set of five or six members but a typical choice for many. We recommend an absolute minimum of 30 minutes per member, plus 30 minutes each for opening and closing the set meeting, as the minimum below which the action learning work of the set would be compromised. One approach is to accept that only two set members can present at each set meeting, ensuring that every set member has the opportunity to present over the whole set cycle.
• Full day: Here it is possible for five or six members to take their time at every set meeting, as well as providing time for a process review. When set members become familiar with the action learning format, they can confidently adapt the process to suit their own situation. A set may choose to have fewer presentations to enable greater depth and consideration.

How much time each?
Time within the set meeting can be allocated evenly to each set member. If the set chooses to alter this arrangement by consensus, timing can be flexible. This may occur when a presenter’s issue has stimulated deep issues or strong emotion.

When not presenting, set members are actively working to support the presenter – there is no let-up in activity! Set meetings can be exhausting; they are not cosy chats, so the environment, the setting and venue are important.

Space
We recommend that set meetings take place in a comfortable and quiet environment. The set needs privacy as sensitive issues may be discussed and strong emotions may be expressed. The meeting room must be appropriate for the session, without interruptions. Fixed phones should be disabled, while mobile phones or pagers should be switched off as part of the ground rules. When it is necessary for people to be available for urgent calls, these can be taken at the breaks. Refreshments are an important ingredient for keeping the set’s energy levels up and a sandwich or buffet lunch, well presented, ensures that the set keeps active in the afternoon.
Read More : What is action learning?

A typology of action learning

Another way of considering the uses of action learning is to view them in terms of different approaches or ‘schools’ of action learning. Action learning has developed according to different philosophies of learning and change that in turn have influenced its design and practice. For more detail on philosophies of learning, readers may refer to Part II and Brockbank and McGill (1998). Marsick and O’Neil (1999) have provided a very useful typology of action learning, which classifies three ‘schools’ of action learning.

The schools have commonalities and differences. Marsick and O’Neil importantly point out that ‘these “schools” do not exist in practice’ (1999: 161). We would endorse this. One of the healthy characteristics of action learning is that its advocates and practitioners have sought to build on each other’s work without corralling a particular approach.

The first ‘school’ is characterized by its originator – Reg Revans – as being the ‘scientific’ method of action learning (1980, 1982, 1983). Given Revans’ physicist background, he validated action learning with recourse to the scientific method. For Revans this involves three stages: 1) understanding the system in which the problem being addressed resides; 2) negotiating and implementing a solution against a background of the scientific method – survey, hypothesis, experiment, audit and review; 3) finally the action learner brings his or her ways of seeing the world to check reality.

The second ‘school’ is characterized as the ‘experiential’ school based on Kolb’s ideas on the learning cycle of: action, reflection, theory and practice. Here set members have a starting point of a current, proposed or emerging action which they are undertaking and reflect upon it with the support and challenge of others in order to yield changes in actions and behaviour rather than simply repeat previous actions and habits. Marsick and O’Neil cite the first edition of action learning by McGill and Beaty (1992) as exemplifying this school.

Further characteristics of this school include making the learning of set members explicit by attention to the importance of process of the set and enabling the set members to learn how to learn. In addition, crucially, is the recognition and significance of emotion and the social context in contributing to learning. The third ‘school’ is characterized by ‘critical reflection’.

In addition to the experiential school, proponents of critical reflection highlight the need to reflect on the assumptions and beliefs that shape practice. This approach draws upon Mezirow’s (1990) notion that critical reflection can transform perspectives. Perspectives drawn from life experience may be ‘flawed’ for being filtered through unexamined views, which may distort the person’s understanding of their situation. We have drawn attention to this above in relation to the work of Schön as developed in Part II and in Brockbank and McGill (1998).

This is where action learning can have a transformational effect for the set member and for organizational change. An explicit recognition of this radical potential is appropriate for set members who wish to embark on this route. Marsick and O’Neil conclude their article with a cautionary note for those who embark upon action learning and that:

it is often a first step for participants in a journey toward greater self-insight, greater capacity to learn from experience, and greater awareness of the political and cultural dimensions of organizational change. For organizations, it is often a first step toward linking individual learning with systemic learning and change. (1999)

Our experience is that transformational change is possible at the individual level. Transformational as opposed to instrumental change (for improvement) at organizational levels is more an aspirational than a practical reality. Where individuals have senior roles in an organization they may be able to effect significant change, particularly in association with others who have experienced action learning. The example of the public sector organization preceding this section is a good example of action learning leading to organizational improvement.
Read More : A typology of action learning

The values in action learning

Working with action learning presumes a core of values, ideas and assumptions that are worth making explicit at this stage in the handbook. Action learning is very different from traditional methods of education, learning and most forms of training and development. We review below some of the core values that are essential to action learning. The section below is not intended to be conclusive – some other values will emerge later in the blog.

Voluntary nature of action learning
Participants in action learning engage in the process voluntarily. That is, they make a positive conscious decision to join an action learning set. Action learning does not work where it is imposed on the person. Voluntary implies a willingness to engage with the process. Resistance to the process may result in negative outcomes, leading to behaviour that militates against constructive learning. The effect is likely to lead to departure from the set and potentially the breakdown of the set as a whole. Because the action learning process is unusual in the context of traditional forms of learning, potential set members may come to the early meetings of a set with a degree of scepticism or doubt about its potentiality.

This is understandable given the past that most of us have experienced in education and subsequent development where we have had to accept the burden of endurance before the benefits. Provided the facilitator accepts this healthy scepticism and set members are asked to suspend judgement until some experience of the process occurs, new set members are likely to pass beyond their scepticism into a positive approval of the novel form the process takes. Voluntarily embarking on action learning is more likely to yield a positive approach to the whole experience and substantially underpins the trust that emerges.

Confidentiality and trust
Confidentiality is an essential precondition for action learning to work effectively. We will say more about this subject later. Essentially it means that set members do not disclose the content of other set members’ contributions outside the set. Each set member may take their own issues elsewhere. This forms the basis of any trust that develops in the set and is a core need to enable significant learning and development. Without trust, set members are not going to disclose what may be, to them, a vulnerability, a perceived weakness or helplessness. Yet these qualities in each of us can also be a strength, when revealed, that enables us, with the support of others, to move on. Emerging trust is also the basis of the story and history that will inevitably be created by the set about its life, which in turn has the effect of endorsing and building that trust.

Recognition of all the domains of learning
Traditional learning lays emphasis upon knowledge or cognition and its transmission and acquisition. We do not underestimate its importance in our development. The approach, however, understates the other two aspects. The three ‘domains’ of learning have long been identified by educationalists (Bloom, 1964), and they cover the three aspects as follows: cognitive (knowing); conative (doing); affective (feeling) (Brockbank and McGill, 1998).

These terms are abstractions which overlap in practice. However, they may be presented in terms which describe the outcome of learning in each domain, eg cognitive learning results in knowledge; conative learning results in action/changes in the world; affective learning alters appreciation of the self in relation to self and others. If learning is limited to one of these domains, the others are affected and learning is limited. The emphasis on cognition in adult (including higher education) learning has neglected the development of conative and affective intelligence. While practical applications have become an integral part of much adult development, the denial of emotion in learning remains in place for many parts of adult development. In action learning the affective and conative aspects of learning are given their significance in the learning and development process – a recognition of the emotional and action dimensions in learning. In the facilitator’s role is embodied knowledge, self and world, the three domains of expression, whereas in traditional teaching and training the practice emphasizes primarily one domain, that of knowledge.

Autonomy and mutuality
Action learning is noted for its development of the individual with greater autonomy and independence. Action learning works primarily by individual set members bringing their issues to the set and working towards some form of resolution and potential action. This journey to autonomy and independence needs to be qualified. We are not suggesting an individualistic journey, for we are asserting that while the learner may be experiencing a journey towards that autonomy and independence of learning, it is one undertaken with others.

Learning is a social process. Here we are using that term to convey the interdependence between facilitator and learners and between learners. The interaction between these ‘actors’ represents a relationship between them. By relationship we are implying a mutuality. In the words of Buber ‘I-Thou establishes the world of relation’ (1994 p.18), in contrast to an object relation where thou is an it or object.

Such a different way of relating with the learner can be achieved through facilitation, where the focus is on the learner, as learner (not as object). Therefore, we are putting forward the idea that facilitators of learning, both facilitators and other set members, will move into a different way of seeing their role, a different way of being and relating with the set member as presenter, and will do things that are different from traditional teaching or ‘up front’ training.
Read More : The values in action learning

Computer-Assisted Learning

Quite simply, computer-assisted learning (CAL) has been used to refer to any aspect of learning that is enhanced or assisted by the use of computers (even when it may be debatable whether or not the computer use has actually assisted worthwhile learning!). The term is less commonly used now than it was in the 1980s and 1990s, usually replaced by the term ICT (Information and communication technology) in learning.

This term is more all-embracing than CAL because it makes clear that communication technology, e.g. e-mail, the Internet and on-line discussion groups, or mobile phones and other mobile devices, may be involved (the former may be called e-learning; the latter is sometimes called m-learning). Similar terms to CAL, also coined in the 1980s and earlier, are CBL (computer-based learning) and CALL (computer-assisted language learning). Newer initialisms, which reflect aspects of e-learning, are CMC (computer-mediated communication), CSCL (computer-supported co-operative learning) or CSCW (computer-supported co-operative work), ITOL (IT-based open learning) and even JITOL (just-in-time IT-based open learning!).

Some of the thinking in the early days of CAL was valuable for classifying the types of learning that could be assisted by using computers. Some of this thinking is still valuable today in considering where the ‘added value’ lies in the use of ICT; and also in deciding what counts as authentic labour in a learning situation. A useful classification of types of CAL was made in 1977 by Kemmis, Atkin and Wright. This identified four ‘paradigms’ by which students learn through the use of ICT (a paradigm is defined as a ‘pattern, example or model’ by the Oxford English Dictionary). They are:
1 the instructional paradigm;
2 the revelatory paradigm;
3 the conjectural paradigm;
4 the emancipatory paradigm.

The instructional paradigm
The overall aim in this paradigm is to teach a learner a given piece of subject matter, or to impart a specific skill. It involves breaking a learning task into a series of sub-tasks, each with its own stated pre-requisites and objectives. These separate tasks are then structured and sequenced to form a coherent whole.

Computer-assisted learning of this type is now given names like ‘skill and drill’, ‘drill and practice’, ‘instructional dialogue’, and so on. Perhaps its main problem is that in the early 1980s some teachers and others involved in education saw it as the dominant paradigm in CAL. This probably resulted in their poor perception of educational programs and the belief that microcomputers were a ‘passing fad in education’ like the programmed learning machines of the 1960s.

The revelatory paradigm
The second type of ICT use involves guiding a student through a process of learning by discovery. The subject matter and its underlying model or theory are gradually ‘revealed’ to the student as he or she uses the program.

In contrast to the instructional form, where the computer presents the subject matter and controls the student’s progress ‘through’ it, in revelatory CAL ‘the computer acts as a mediator between the student and a hidden model’ of some situation. This situation may be real, e.g. an industrial process, historical, e.g. Viking England, theoretical, e.g. the particle theory of matter, or even imaginary, e.g. a city of the future. The revelatory paradigm is still exemplified in educational programs by numerous simulations of various types.

The conjectural paradigm
This third category involves increasing control by the student over the computer by allowing students to manipulate and test their own ideas and hypotheses, e.g. by modelling. Modelling must be distinguished from simulation. Every simulation involves using a simplified representation, i.e. a model, of some situation, but in a simulation the model is ready-created by the programmer. The user can then alter and experiment with the external conditions and variables affecting the model, but cannot tamper with the model itself, i.e. internal conditions. In modelling, however, the user creates a model of the situation himself and then may go on to test it, for example by seeing how well it represents and predicts reality.

The potential of model building and model testing is still being increasingly explored in ICT use in learning and particularly in science and technology courses. A model can be formed of some physical phenomenon, e.g. the expansion of a liquid, the motion of a projectile. The patterns predicted by the model could then be compared, say, with the results of an experiment. Clearly, this involves far more control by the learner over the computer. A similar modelling exercise could be used in history, e.g. by studying data in a local census, searching for patterns and forming hypotheses. These hypotheses could then be tested by studying further data, and searching for new evidence in their support. Encouraging pupils to create, use and test their own models can have great educational value.

The emancipatory paradigm
The fourth and final paradigm involves using a computer as a labour-saving device, a tool that relieves mental drudgery. As such, it can be used for calculating, for tabulating data, for statistical analysis, or even for drawing graphs. In this type of CAL the learner uses the computer as and when he or she wants to as an unintelligent, tedium-relieving slave in aiding his or her learning task.

This paradigm relates to the distinction made in another entry between authentic and inauthentic labour. The authentic labour is the central, indispensable part of the learning task. The inauthentic labour is not an integral part, nor is it valued for its own sake, but is still necessary, e.g. doing endless calculations, searching through a filing cabinet, sorting information into alphabetical order, making a bibliographic search, etc.

The distinction is not always an easy one to make. Doing calculations may be seen as a worthwhile exercise in itself. But where the distinction can be made, the computer can be seen as a useful tool, e.g. in handling information in a history lesson. The fourth type of CAL is perhaps unique in two ways: first, it uses the computer purely as a tool for the learner’s convenience, to be used when and where it is needed; second, the computer is only partly involved in the learning process, i.e. to take over the ‘inauthentic’ part of the learning task. These paradigms have stood the test of time and are still valuable today in evaluating
and looking critically at the use of ICT in learning situations.
Read More : Secondary Education: The Key Concepts (Routledge Key Guides)

Accelerated learning

Accelerated learning is the notion that a child’s (or an adult’s) learning can be speeded up by certain means. The means vary but are by no means uncontroversial. For example, the suggestions for accelerating learning put forward by Smith (1996) are summarised by the acronym NO LIMIT. This represents seven principles.

The first initial comes from the word kNow: the learner and teacher should know how the brain works in a learning situation—that the brain has different parts, that the right and left sides of the brain should be active and ‘linked’ and that visual, auditory and kinaesthetic (VAK) inputs can enhance this (see multiple intelligences and metacognition).

The second principle refers to Open and relaxed learners: learning is said to be more enjoyable and longer lasting when the environment is enjoyable and the learner is confident and comfortable. For example, if music is played during a learning situation, this may help create the right environment for some learners. This assertion can be challenged, however; it can be the case that learning, especially outside the classroom, sometimes takes place under stressful or even traumatic conditions, e.g. at the scene of an accident.

The third initial L is for learning: by setting step-by-step targets, learners are given a challenging but supportive environment—experiencing success in achieving targets will motivate learners. Input, the fourth principle, is based on the idea that a variety of inputs is needed, e.g. VAK as above.

Fifth, the idea of multiple intelligences leads to the principle that different learners have different intelligences that need to be nurtured and different styles in which they learn. Children may be smart in one area, e.g. ‘number smart’, and can excel in this, if not in other areas.

The sixth principle is to invest in several strategies that can improve self-esteem and enhance learning—these are represented by another acronym, BASIS, with five elements: belonging, aspiration, safety, identity and success (Smith, 1996; Prashnig, 1998).

The final initial in NO LIMIT refers to try it, test it and review it: the idea of constantly reviewing work within a targetsetting system. All the above principles are said to create a supportive learning environment, with a range of sensory inputs, which can motivate learners, enhance their understanding and improve retention of learning (Smith, 1996).

Some of the principles of accelerated learning are said to be based on theories of the brain and how it works. In brief, the brain is said to have three main parts, each with different functions. The ‘reptilian brain’, at the base of the skull, controls our basic and instinctive functions such as breathing or ‘fight and flight’. The middle or ‘limbic’ brain is the seat of our emotions and long-term memory: it has been suggested that we remember best when our emotions are involved in learning.

inally, the ‘neo-cortex’ is the area where higher-order thinking skills and problem solving are said to take place. One of the benefits of this model of the brain is the realisation that all parts of the brain, including the emotions, are involved in learning. Cognition (i.e. skills, knowledge and understanding) is intimately connected with emotion. Positive emotions can encourage effective learning.

Conversely, the implication is that fear and stress can cause activity in the brain to move towards the ‘reptilian’ section, thus reducing activity in the neo-cortex area—consequently suppressing or even negating learning. Again, this hypothesis could be challenged because learning can occur in stressful or traumatic situations in everyday life.

Furthermore, the thinking part of the brain (the neo-cortex) is said to be in two hemispheres. The right side is responsible for creativity, images and visualisation, music, rhythm and rhyme, art and design, and gaining the holistic picture. The left-side processing involves words, language, logic, number, writing and reading and analytic activity. It has been said that artistic people are ‘right-brained’ while mathematicians are left-brained’, though this has been challenged (OECD, 2002).

If we assume that there is some value in these models of the brain, the practical question arises: what is the classroom teacher to do about them, especially when faced with a class of 30 pupils, each with different learning styles and preferences? On the one hand, the teacher could focus on the learning strengths and preferences of individuals and try to build on or exploit them; on the other, they could try to develop the underdeveloped learning styles in the hope of increasing each learner’s repertoire. This is a difficult choice for the classroom teacher to make.

In reality, many teachers opt for a mixture of VAK ingredients in their lessons when planning and conducting them, in the hope of giving something to all learners and learning styles. There are clearly dangers in relying on the two-sided model of the brain too closely as a basis for learning and teaching, especially if learners become labelled as ‘right-sided’ or ‘left-sided’ and this is deemed to be their learning style or learning preference, e.g. holistic imagers in contrast to analytic verbalisers.

Accelerated learning has become something of an industry in the twenty-first century, spawning a host of websites and consultancies. Certain activities and techniques have been developed, allegedly based on theories of the brain, and promoted at in-service and pre-service teacher training events, e.g., ‘brain gym’, target setting, VAK input and creating conducive environments using music.

However sound or unsound the scientific basis for these activities may be, my own view is that the emphasis on improving or even accelerating learning has had certain beneficial effects, e.g. more varied input by teachers built into their lesson planning; increased self-awareness by learners of the way they learn; realisation by teachers that different learners learn in different ways; and the use of activities and environments that can enhance the learning process for many pupils.
Read More : Accelerated learning

BRAIN-BASED LEARNING

The late 1990s and the early twenty-first century saw a huge growth in several related trends that can be grouped under the label of ‘brain-based learning’ (BBL) (indeed, the 1990s were designated the ‘Decade of the Brain’ in the USA). These trends, some would say bandwagons, were given labels such as brain gym, personalised learning and wholebrain thinking.

The movements are also linked to ideas and initiatives such as accelerated learning, thinking skills, learning styles and learning preferences, such as VAK (visual, auditory, kinaesthetic) and multiple intelligences. For example, ‘whole-brain thinking’ (http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art28465.asp) is said to occur when the two hemispheres of the brain work together to create a ‘whole brain thinking pattern’.

This is said to enhance our logical thinking, intuition, analytical skills and artistic ability—quite a tall order. The idea is based on the theory that the two cerebral hemispheres are responsible for different aspects of our thinking/cognition. The ‘left brain’ is thought to be the location of logical, rational, sequential, analytical, objective and rational thinking; the right brain is the intuitive, aesthetic, holistic, synthesising and subjective part.

Allegedly, most learners and thinkers have a definite preference for one side or the other but some people are said to be capable of using both hemispheres and both modes of thinking. Advocates of whole-brain thinking claim that engineers and scientists are often leftbrain thinkers, while most poets and artists are right-brain thinkers, though the evidence for this is somewhat hazy.

Some of history’s greatest inventors and pioneers, such as Leonardo da Vinci, are said to be whole-brain thinkers. It is said that schools and formal education tend to emphasise the use of the analytic, logical half and play down the holistic right brain. They do not give enough weight to the creative, imaginative, synthesising right hemisphere. This can be rectified by including more activities such as patterning, role playing, visual activity and the use of metaphors and analogies. This must be matched by new forms of assessment, which value and involve right-brain activities.

Brain gym
Brain gym is said to have originated in the 1970s with the work of educators Paul and Gail Dennison (Dennison and Dennison, 1974) (it is sometimes called educational kinesiology). It is basically a range of simple movements or exercises designed to engage, energise and relax students, and prepare them for learning. Advocates of ‘brain gym’ argue that its use can get the two halves of the brain working together and that it can bring about clear and rapid improvement in pupils’ concentration, memory, reading, writing, organising, listening and physical coordination. Some examples of the actual activities (from a list of almost 30) that pupils are encouraged to do are:

• head patting and tummy rubbing: pat your head with your right hand whilst rubbing your tummy with your left; do this 20 times, then swap hands;
• lazy 8s: draw the figure 8 three times in the air or on paper with each hand about three times, then with both hands together;
• writing your name in the air: first with each hand and then with both hands—again, the bigger the better;
• double doodle: draw with both hands at the same time, in, out, up and down;
• neck rolls: breathe deeply, relax your shoulders and drop your head forward. Allow your head to slowly roll from side to side as you breathe out any tightness. Your chin draws a smooth curve across your chest as your neck relaxes;
• belly breathing: rest your hand on your abdomen. Blow out all the old air in your lungs in short, soft little puffs. Take a slow, deep breath, filling up gently, like a balloon. Feel your hand softly rise as you inhale and fall as you exhale. If you arch your back after inhaling, the air goes even deeper.

Brain gym has become a worldwide movement, some would say an industry, and a brief surf through the World Wide Web will show you a wide range of sites, some more evangelical than others, on this area. Two interesting starting points are:
● http://www.braingym.org.uk/
● http://www.tagteacher.net/grapevine/index.htm?http://www.tagteacher.net/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000372.html

Why have schools seized upon brain-based learning?
It seems that many schools in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries latched on to BBL, for understandable reasons. Some were perhaps searching for ‘scientific authority’ for the way they were working with a huge variety of learners, learning styles and learning preferences. Others were perhaps desperately seeking ways of improving learning and attainment in schools that were said to be ‘failing’ by inspectors and the media. It could be said, harshly, that they were clutching at straws.

Others may have genuinely been persuaded by the science behind BBL and were able to see its benefits in the classroom for pupils, e.g. by introducing variety into lessons; by having actual breaks (such as brain gym) in lessons; or using brain gym activities to get lessons started and pupils focused. For many teachers, it worked and still works and that is justification enough—whatever the neuro-scientists, using the latest scanning techniques, discover or hypothesise about the human brain.

Critics and sceptics
Throughout the history of education, as a movement springs up and gains momentum, so do its critics, rather like predator and prey. For example, Bruer (1997) argued strongly against the claims made by certain brain-based learning advocates: ‘these ideas have been around for a decade, are often based on misconceptions and over-generalizations of what we know about the brain, and have little to offer to educators’. He claimed that the advocates of BBL are trying to ‘build a bridge too far’.

In a similar vein, Ravitch (2000) called brain-based learning a troubling trend, and a ‘distortion of what cognitive scientists have learned about how children learn’. She suggested that brain-based learning might be a commercial bandwagon. My own observations of the proliferating number of courses, companies and consultants offering expensive workshops and resources on BBL support her view of its commercial impact.

One of the most popular BBL texts has been heavily criticised for its style over content approach, for its lack of scientific rigour and for being an ideas book rather than a research-based factual account. Despite its critics, many educators and researchers continue to follow the theory and practice that come under the broad label of ‘brain-based learning’. Some classroom teachers who have taken aspects of it into their practice seem to be firmly convinced that it makes a positive difference to learning and lessons.

Many teachers, for example, advocate the classroom use of ideas such as: the provision of drinking water, intermittent physical activity and lesson breaks, giving children an insight into the way the brain works, brain gym, VAK checklists in lesson planning and the sharing of learning objectives with pupils. The question of how effective BBL techniques are in improving learning remains open but there is no doubt that the publicity given to BBL has made an enormous impact on certain teachers.

The movement, and the industry behind it, look set to continue. To end on a positive note: the emphasis on ‘brain-based learning’ has certainly been one of the important factors contributing to the increased focus on learning that is now a welcome feature in educational debate. Certainly, there are four important points about learning that owe some debt to BBL: first, that a multi-sensory approach to learning and classroom teaching is vital—learning and teaching should involve visual aspects (pictures, images, diagrams), auditory activity (listening, speaking, using words) and kinaesthetic activity (touch, movement); second, psychological, emotional and physical safety and security are essential for learning to take place; third, it is vital that learners are active, engaged and in control of their own learning; and finally, research on the brain has shown that it has huge, untapped potential in terms of the billions of neurons and interconnections between them that could be made but are not, even in the most famous of brains, such as Einstein’s, which have been studied post-mortem.
Read More : Secondary Education: The Key Concepts (Routledge Key Guides)

Individuals as the problem: cultures, subcultures and learning styles

Hybridization in online classrooms thus evades extant frameworks of cultural analysis: moreover, the individual learner likewise escapes such frameworks – first, as we have seen, as the individual is more than simply a token for a presumptively monolithic national culture. In addition, individuals represent a constantly shifting intersection of multiple cultures and subcultures, which in turn alter over time at varying rates, that is, from national/linguistic cultures that change relatively slowly, to youth cultures, which change very quickly (e.g. as we have seen, with regard to such fundamental notions as privacy and the nature of the self).

A given individual may further reflect some number of ethnic and/or other subcultures, including those shaped by economic and social class. Insofar as each individual may be thought of as a distinctive construction and inflection of each of these diverse levels of ‘culture’, she or he may inhabit a near-infinite continuum of possibilities that are only poorly and incompletely captured by the five cultural dimensions articulated by Hall and Hofstede.

More radically, as we have seen, the cross-cultural online learning environment facilitates such individuals’ creation of distinctive new syntheses and amalgams of diverse cultural elements that again escape overly simple frameworks of cultural analyses. Hewling (2005), for example, documents forcefully how students in one of her intercultural online classrooms repeatedly exhibited communicative behaviours and values that (a) either could not have been predicted by using Hofstede or, worse yet (b), directly contradicted whatever predictions one might have made on the basis of those schema. So Hewling finds that among her students – Canadians, a North American, and a Sudanese – concerns about authority are expressed primarily by the (North) Americans. But according to Hofstede’s framework, (North) Americans, as members of a low-power distant country, should be least concerned about issues of authority.

Rather, as members of an individualist country, according to Hofstede, these students should be most likely to express their opinions directly and without hesitation. Hewling (2005), however, shows that this was not the case. For her part, Hewling proposes a content analysis methodology that she argues is more appropriate for analyzing the intercultural communication that takes place in online classrooms (2005) – a methodology that we can understand to incorporate both Koch’s second approach (‘culture as text’) and third approach (‘culture as community and practice’) to cultural analysis (Koch 2006: 221ff.).

Additional frameworks for cultural analysis have also been proposed. One of the most notable has been developed by Cantoni and his colleagues. Their frameworks take up Baumgartner’s much more complex matrix of cultural dimensions, one that adds to Hall and Hofstede an additional seventeen cultural factors developed in part from the theoretical work of Gould (2005). The resulting framework is then applied to a project involving ICTs for teacher-training in Brazil (Cantoni et al. 2006).

But again, this sophisticated enhancement of Hall and Hofstede as a framework for cultural analysis of intercultural online learning reiterates the point already made regarding intercultural communication online: while Hall and Hofstede (among others) may be used in initial ways, these frameworks provide only limited, and sometimes profoundly misleading, approaches to the realities of intercultural communication online.

While new, more comprehensive frameworks and approaches are being developed (e.g. by Cantoni et al.) that promise to offer us better understanding of online intercultural communication – and thus, of how we can shape both our technologies and their uses to foster the most effective intercultural communication and e-learning. We have only just begun.
Read More : Learning Cultures in Online Education