Learn How to Learn

          When do you think learning begins? When you start school in Kindergarten or preschool? When you are a toddler at home, learning to walk and talk and beginning to explore your world more independently? Maybe even at birth, as you learn your parents’ faces and what your fingers and toes are all about? Some researchers say that we begin learning even before we are born, while we are in our mothers’ wombs. And an unproven yet widely held theory holds that human beings actually inherit learning from our ancestors, that certain memories (and learning is all about memory) are present in our DNA!

          Learning is a process, then, that begins in the womb, at least, and continues throughout our lifespans…and perhaps beyond. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11^th edition) defines the verb to learn as “…to gain knowledge or understanding of or skill in [a topic] by study, instruction, or experience.” Harold D. Stolovitch and Erica J. Keeps, authors of Telling Ain’t Training, define learning as simply adaptation and change. To them, learning is transformational. We are different after we emerge from a learning experience. We know or understand more or differently than we did before the experience, and perhaps we are able to do something that we weren’t able to do before. Learning changes us.

          We can choose two different perspectives on how we approach a learning situation. If our locus of control is external, then we hold others responsible for our learning. If we learn something well, then it’s because we had a good teacher. If we don’t, then it’s the instructor’s fault. However, if our locus of control is internal, then we take responsibility for our own learning. We can learn something well both because of and in spite of the aptitude of our instructor, because we are in control of our learning. Of course, learning is a shared responsibility. The subject matter experts—those who possess the knowledge, understanding, or skill to be learned—are responsible for providing true, accurate, up-to-date knowledge and skills to the best of their abilities, while the learners—we who desire to be changed by the learning experience—are responsible for receiving what the subject matter expert has to offer and accommodating that into our learning framework, or schema, to the best of our abilities.

          As a partner in this teaching-learning process, we students can improve our performance by becoming aware of our own styles and preferences. First, it’s important that we have a good understanding of our innate personality types and preferences. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, or MBTI, is a descriptive system for identifying how individuals perceive the world and make decisions. The MBTI utilizes four dichotomies:

• Extraversion (a preference to act, then reflect, then act again) and Introversion (a preference to reflect, then act, then reflect again);
• Sensing (gathering information using the five senses) and Intuiting (gathering information intuitively based on prior learning or on holistic analysis, or how something fits into the “big picture”);
• Thinking (using logic and reason to make decisions; using one’s “head”) and Feeling (making decisions based on how it makes oneself or others feel; using one’s “gut”); and
• Judging (logical, empathetic, like to bring matters to a close) and Perceiving (concrete, abstract, keeping matters open-ended).

        Another assessment often used to help individuals describe their personality preferences is the Strong Interest Inventory, widely used in career counseling to help individuals create a career path that best suits their preferences in the workplace. The types used in the SII are based on the six personality codes developed by psychologist John Holland:

• Realistic types prefer the world of things and processes more than ideas or people.
• Investigative types are often intellectual and introspective, preferring to solve problems or conduct research.
• Artistic types are creative and expressive, often preferring unstructured environments where they can freely express their feelings and use their imaginations.
• Social types enjoy working with people and helping others in some way.
• Enterprising types are often outgoing, adventurous, and readily take risks, preferring to lead, persuade, and compete.
• Conventional types tend to be conservative, organized, and practical, paying close attention to detail and going by the rules.

         Second, a good understanding of our intelligence will indicate what we may be naturally good at learning, and where we might need some additional support when learning. A currently popular theory of intelligence is Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences. Gardner proposes that there are eight basic abilities where intelligence is displayed, and that all people have a strength in at least one of these areas, and can gain intelligence in any area with proper support and opportunity. These eight abilities are:

• Musical: sensitivity to sounds, rhythms, tones, and other aspects of music.
• Visual-spatial: ability to visualize, or picture things in one’s mind, and relate well to spaces and the things in them.
• Verbal-linguistic: aptitude for words and languages.
• Logical-mathematical: talent for using numbers and data to perform tasks requiring critical thinking and analysis, often identifying cause-effect relationships.
• Bodily-kinesthetic: controlling one’s body and manipulating objects well.
• Interpersonal: ability to sense others’ moods and feelings and work well in a group.
• Intrapersonal: knowing oneself well; introspective and reflective.
• Natural: sensitivity to the natural world of plants, animals, the environment, and nature.

        Many proponents of Gardner’s theory promote the existence of a ninth mode of intelligence, existential, which is a sensitivity to religious and spiritual experiences.

        Finally, knowing one’s learning style preferences can be helpful when receiving new information and knowledge. Many educators subscribe to the VARK theory of learning preferences:

• Visual learners prefer to take in new information through the eyes, by watching demonstrations and videos, and by reading literature with many illustrations.
• Auditory learners prefer to hear the new knowledge or information, taking it in through the ears.
• Reading/writing learners prefer the written word for receiving new knowledge and information.
• Kinesthetic learners like to move and manipulate things, using their hands and bodies while learning.

        Some learning experts discount this theory, claiming that there is no solid research to prove that individuals have one style preference over another. The fact is that human beings learn in all of these ways to some degree, and some learning experiences might require one mode more than the others. You, the learner, can decide for yourself what your preferences are and adjust your learning habits accordingly. A multimodal approach is probably best for all involved in the teaching-learning experience.

        Once you are familiar with your personality, intelligences, and learning style preferences, you can better adapt yourself in order to make the most of your learning experiences. For example, if you are an Extraverted and Social type with Interpersonal intelligence, you might learn best in groups. You could form or join a study group and look for classes that provide lots of opportunities to discuss the material to be learned and/or work in groups. On the other hand, if you are more Intraverted and Investigative with a Logical-Mathematical intelligence, you might prefer learning experiences that are more individualized, tasks that require analysis and problem-solving, and classes that provide opportunities for independent study and learning. In either case, you can capitalize on your learning by understanding what your personal input preferences are and looking for modes of delivery that match those preferences. If your instructor doesn’t already provide multimodal opportunities, ask her to direct you to websites and other resources where you might find material that does match your personal preferences.

        If you’d like to learn more about MBTI, Holland Codes, multiple intelligences, and personal learning style preferences (especially VARK), just type in these terms in your favorite Internet search engine. You’ll even find free, online assessments. Be careful, though; some of these assessments have not been scientifically validated, and the websites might actually be “phishing” for your information so that they can send you junk email. It’s better to look for websites that are linked to your school’s or workplace’s own website because those have been vetted by professionals at your school or workplace. For starters, try the California Career Zone [www.cacareerzone.org] for some free online assessments, and the VARK Questionnaire [www.vark-learn.com]. If you’re attending a school, college, or university, see a counselor, academic advisor, or career specialist for more information and guidance on how to be a better learner. If you’re already in the workforce, your human resources office might have learning resources available to you.

        You might believe that you aren’t and never have been a “good” student, but if you’re able to read and understand this blog, you’re able to learn, and that means that you are able to learn how to learn. Remember, you started learning before you were born, and no one knows for sure when you’ll stop learning. No matter how old you are, it’s never too late to learn how to be a better learner.

Sources:

1. Carey, Benedict. (2014). How We Learn. New York: Random House.
2. Holland Codes. (2015, March 16). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 21:56, March 16, 2015, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holland_Codes&oldid=651668506
3. Myers–Briggs Type Indicator. (2015, March 16). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 21:55, March 16, 2015, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator&oldid=651626380
4. Stolovitch, Harold D. and Erica J. Keeps (2011). Telling Ain’t Training. The American Society for Training and Development.
5. Theory of multiple intelligences. (2015, March 16). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 21:57, March 16, 2015, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theory_of_multiple_intelligences&oldid=651668282

A note from Wikipedia.org about citing their articles:

        "Most educators and professionals do not consider it appropriate to use tertiary sources such as encyclopedias as a sole source for any information—citing an encyclopedia as an important reference in footnotes or bibliographies may result in censure or a failing grade. Wikipedia articles should be used for background information, as a reference for correct terminology and search terms, and as a starting point for further research. As with any community-built reference, there is a possibility for error in Wikipedia's content—please check your facts against multiple sources and read our disclaimers for more information."

Wearing Our Faith

          It being a warm, sunny day yesterday, I opted to eat my lunchtime sandwich while sitting on a low wall near a parking lot of the community college across the street from where I work. There was a light amount of foot traffic passing by, mostly the late-teens and twenty-somethings that comprise the majority of the college’s student population. From a distance I could see two figures who did not represent that population, though. Their distinctive white shirts, short-cut hair, and name tags gave their identity away, along with the fact that there were two of them. They’re always in pairs.

          I watched as they greeted students who walked past, asking if they could give them a brochure. Of course they stopped to chat with me. One asked if I was having a good day. “So far, so good,” I replied. Then the other asked if I was a student or teacher at the college. Good tact, I thought. Being mistaken for a student always makes me feel a little good about myself, even if that’s not what the speaker intended. I replied that I worked at the language school across the street. He then informed me that they worked at a school across the street, too, pointing to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints training facility on the other side of the parking lot.

          The young men were very friendly and pleasant, although one of them did most of the talking. Of course the conversation quickly steered toward “the prophet.” The chatty one asked me if I thought it was possible for God to call a prophet for our modern times. I replied that I believe it is possible for God to call whomever God wants and whenever God wants for whatever purposes God decides. They seemed to like that answer. When they inquired more about my faith, I explained that I am a deacon in the Presbyterian church. We talked about Presbyterian missionaries and their terms of service. We talked a little bit about what Presbyterians believe and so on. They invited me to a meeting where I could learn more about “the prophet.” I politely declined.

          By that time I had about ten minutes left before I needed to be back at work, so we amicably parted. Later, as I reflected on the conversation, I wished that I had thought to ask these young men some questions: Why does only one of you do most of the talking? How often do you get to call or write home to your family? Why don’t I ever see black or brown-skinned Mormon missionaries? Or overweight Mormon missionaries, for that matter? Why does your church hate LGBT people so much? And why do you keep talking about “the prophet” when your church is called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? Why not talk about Jesus and His message more? And do you really wear special undergarments that have been blessed by your church’s leadership?

          Then my thoughts turned to other religious people practicing their faith—or obeying their religion’s mandates—in public places: the Salvation Army in their pseudo-military getups; the Muslim men wearing beards and robes and head dressings, tabling on the sidewalk on the campus; the Jehovah’s Witnesses, looking like the rest of us until they whip out those Watchtowers; there are even a few bare-headed, robed, tambourine-shaking Hare Krishnas leftover from the 1970s here and there, at least in California. There are no pretenses with all these people. You know who you’re talking to when you see them, or at least once you see what kind of literature they’re holding in their hands. And while I don’t personally agree with all of their religion’s precepts, as long as they proclaim a message of peace and love, I can tolerate them as long as they tolerate me.

          It’s when the messages stray from peace and love to practices of exclusion, thought control, domination and submission—an “us vs. them” attitude—that I begin to have a problem with these or any religion’s practices. This morning there was a story online of the Salvation Army’s public service campaign in South Africa to raise awareness of domestic violence. The ad showed a pretty white female model wearing the now-famous white and gold/blue and black dress of recent internet popularity. The model was covered with bruises, and the caption asks why it's so hard to see black and blue (you can see the ad here). I inwardly applauded their noble efforts to help put an end to this detestable practice, but I quickly stopped my clapping when I saw a related story about how the Salvation Army had possibly denied long-term shelter to a homeless transgendered woman. Where’s the love of Christ there? Are attractive white females more worthy of God’s grace than homeless individuals who don’t fit the Salvation Army’s definition of womanhood?

          My finger of blame may be pointing to the Salvation Army, Mormons, and other groups who claim to be a part of the body of Christ, but there are three other fingers pointed right back at myself. I grew up in a strict, predominantly white, Southern-rooted Christian denomination that still doesn’t ordain women as pastors or deacons, still doesn’t allow a divorced man to serve as a pastor or deacon, still condemns dancing, drinking alcohol, and playing cards, and would not tolerate a “practicing homosexual” to worship in their midst (Lord only knows what they’d do with a transgendered individual). This denomination is very male-dominated, patriotic, and focused on the avoidance of sin. I was taught that if a person died before asking God to forgive them of a particular sin, that person would go to Hell. Although I have traveled far from that black-and-white, rules-bound upbringing in my own faith journey, the evil spirits of judgment and labeling, of the “us vs. them” mentality, are hard to exorcise. It’s just that now my “them” are the people whose practices show disrespect for diversity, disregard for the environment, ostracization of the outcast, idolization of country and military might and weapons—basically all the things I am now against. But I know in my heart of hearts that I have such a problem with “them” because I was once them, ignorant and living in spiritual darkness, and inside my soul some of that darkness still struggles against the Light.

          Jesus, the model for my faith, loved everybody, even—and perhaps especially—those who persecuted him. And therein lies my struggle: it’s easy to love those who are like me, who agree with me socio-politically and theologically, who follow lifestyles similar to my own. It’s much harder to love those who are different from me, and the more different they are, the harder it is to love them. The labels for them come just as easily as those in my more conservative days: before, the terms “non-Christian” and “non-believer” encompassed anybody who didn’t fit my worldview, from Communists to liberals to feminists to gays to pacifists; now the labels are Islamophobes, homophobes, misogynists, gun worshipers, nationalists, warmongers, capitalists, and anything else that doesn’t fit my current worldview. I’m just as judgmental as before; it’s just that now I’ve stepped over the line and turned my lens back on the ones I used to stand with, years ago. What I really need to do is turn that lens on myself, get the “plank” out of my own eye in order to better see the “splinter” in my fellow human being’s eye.

          I posted a meme on my personal Facebook page recently, but I posted it as private because I was afraid that many of my conservative Facebook friends would judge me (How ironic, the judger is afraid of being judged!). It stated, “Buddha was not Buddhist. Jesus was not Christian. Muhammad was not Muslim. They were teachers who taught love. Love was their religion.” I liked this meme for several reasons: First, Jesus was not a Christian. He was a Jew. Many Christians throughout history and today conveniently ignore that fact. He worshiped in Jewish synogogues and temples, appointed a rough-around-the-edges Jewish fisherman to be the cornerstone of His community of followers, yet welcomed Gentiles, tax collectors, prostitutes, diseased people, and anybody else into His community, never once telling them that they had to become Jews, or even addressing the religious beliefs of those individuals. His message was all about simply turning to God and living in loving relationship with God and other people. In Jesus’ definition, sin was anything that kept one from loving God, loving others, and loving self completely. Yet like many of our Jewish spiritual forebears, we Christians (and many Muslims, too) became focused on identifying the particular sins of others; we became like the Pharisee in Jesus’ parable, publicly proclaiming how thankful he was that he was not like the nearby unrighteous tax collector. We became self-righteous by deflecting our unrighteousness onto those who did not conform to our own unrealistic expectations of righteousness. Like me, we judge others because we are too uncomfortable judging ourselves—or perhaps because we judge ourselves too harshly and can’t handle the resulting burden of guilt?

          Second, I feel that Christians have misjudged Buddha and Muhammad throughout the years. Buddhists are labeled as idol worshipers, while Muslims are labeled as expansionists and terrorists. Think about how Christians are labeled in many countries and cultures around the world based on the actions of some of those who profess to follow Christ. We are called warmongers, imperialists, and murderers because of what we have done in the name of Christ. What blasphemy against Christ’s name we have committed and continue to commit!

          I do not want to end this blog without acknowledging the Christians, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Salvation Army members, and others around the world who are united in their efforts to expand their particular group’s views into a more loving embrace of God’s people everywhere. These are the people who advocate for worldwide peace and nonviolence; who work for equity and fairness for the working poor and charity for those who cannot work; who not only invite members of the LGBT community into their fold, but affirm their identities and marriage commitments to each other; who seek to learn from, and not fear, other religious traditions; who respect all gender identities, all sexes, all races and nationalities and ethnicities and intellectual and physical abilities as being of equal value in God’s sight; who simply seek to love God with their whole being, and love others as they love themselves. I want to be like that. I want my only label to be “kind and loving person.” For if God truly is love, as 1 John 4:8 proclaims, then those who fit the label of kind and loving person must surely be a child of God.