How We Learn

There has been significant thought into the ways that we are intelligent, and as a by-product how we learn, and despite this there is little if any practical application of this in the business world. While much could be written about intelligence and learning and the variety of ways people embrace it, the fine point I'd like to make is that educational research is in no way embraced or taken into consideration in the business world by and large.

The accepted or conventional wisdom in this expanding field of research is that individuals (students) are intelligent and soak up new information, skills or capabilities in one or more of seven* primary ways. If this idea is new to you, here's a very high level overview:

• Visual Spatial Learners - those who use visual representations to understand an idea or concept
• Verbal Linguistic Learners - those who benefit from listening or hearing to understand
• Bodily - Kinesthetic Learners - those who learn best through physical experience or doing
• Logical-Mathematic Learners – those who grasp in a formula or abstract (usually formulaic) way
• Interpersonal Learners – those who learn best when alone, and left to their own devices Intrapersonal Learners – those who learn best when in groups, and from watching others
• Musical-Rhythmic Learners – those whose skills in learning tend towards the musical

(* there are 2 new intelligences identified in the last 5 years- “Naturalistic” and “Existential”, the school’s out on these, so for the purposes here I’ve not included them. The above ideas are attributed to Howard Gardner who published it in the early 1980’s and I should offer here isn’t without its opposing views. )

Without a doubt you've all run into others who seems to have an extra capability (or an extra hindrance) in one particular area. There are the 'naturals' - those around us that can just do things, play an instrument or a sport or relate information magically as if they're on some special wavelength. Then there are those who can't read a map, retain information that's read aloud to them, or pick up a dance-step. We've commented on it probably in others or ourselves. One other point I should make here clearly is that people aren’t uniquely aligned to one approach or another; we simply have natural strengths in one area that make us this orientation. A natural musician is often good mathematically, while the ‘inter’ and ‘intra’ specific strengths often correspond to another strength – we just prefer to do it alone or with others accordingly.

Now, with these seven types identified, let's think now about the last corporate training you had. Was it a video presentation, or just someone speaking. Were there exercises to do that complemented the topic ? Was there a chance to role play, or creatively set the concept in a way that appealed to you ? In other words how deep did it go, to ensure everybody gets the desired information - in the way that they naturally will get it. Chances are that everyone got something out of it, but you would have needed to break down the audience by learning types to understand how much actually sunk in. You see the type of learning I favour doesn't mean I can't benefit from the others, it just means I'm much more adept one way than the others. The failure of addressing the multiple dimensions of intelligence and learning within a given organization means a fair portion of the training or up-skilling of the workforce is wasted time and money. More so than that, it's a wasted opportunity to do it right. I’m not suggesting that every training ought to have a component set to a song – but really…has that ever been done before .. ever ?

The next time you are faced with training in any form, ask what proportion of the content will be delivered in a variety of ways to address the various learning types in your audience. It'll be time and effort well saved if the answer isn't the one you seek.