About the Author
Dr. Patricia Marcellino is an assistant professor with the
Ruth S. Ammon School of Education.
Developing a Learner-Centered Classroom
Patricia Ann Marcellino
Have you ever wondered how an instructor develops a learner-centered classroom? In the university classroom, there are a multiplicity of intelligences and a diversity of learning patterns that become interconnected as instructor and students meet and interact. Because of the impact of change on society, Drucker (1999) advocated knowledge of various learning models and learning theories so that future managers and leaders could adapt and develop understanding of themselves as continuous learners in regard to their own career development. According to Dr. Christine Johnston and Gary Dainton, their Learning Connections Inventory ©, a research-based tested instrument, can help instructors develop a learning contract with their students as well as an understanding regarding the learning patterns of each student in their courses.
Mind-Brain Connection Model
Johnston’s (1996, 1998) Interactive Learning Model (ILM) is a mind-brain connection-based model, which uses a process (the Let Me Learn Process ©) to frame individual and group learning (Pearle, 2003). Moreover, Johnston’s ILM model is an original theoretical model that focuses on how the mind translates and formats information collected by the five senses. Johnston’s theoretical framework rests on a foundation of constructs that can be traced to the interaction of the brain’s operations and the mind’s symbolic interpretation of those operations including: cognition (thinking), conation (processing) and affectation (feeling) capabilities. The interaction of these constructs manifests itself in four behavioral learning processes or patterns: Sequential, Precise, Technical and Confluent (Let Me Learn website: http://www.letmelearn.org). Individual learners are represented by all four learning patterns and the interaction of each defines the learner and the approach to learning. According to Silverberg (2003), the four learning patterns are defined as follows:
- Sequential: the process of organizing, planning, seeking order and consistency;
- Precise: the process of using information and words, detail-oriented, seeking confirmation of what is valid, right and/or true;
- Technical: the process of practical, active, autonomous problem-solving;
- Confluent: the process of generating ideas, reading between the lines, and making connections, comfortable with taking risks, trying and failing and trying again, seeking to do it “my own way.”
Each learner utilizes the four patterns of sequential, precise, technical and confluent in different interacting combinations. A maximum learning pattern score for each learning pattern is 35. Learners fall into three learning pattern ranges: “use first” (scores 25-35), “use as needed” (scores 17-24) or “avoid” (scores 7-16). A person’s score is self administered on the Learning Connections Inventory© (LCI©). The LCI© is a 28-item self report instrument with Likert scale (1-5) questions and three open-ended questions. The inventory incorporates Johnston’s ILM and theoretical frame by assessing the interaction of the four learning patterns. The LCI© quantitatively and qualitatively captures the degree to which an individual uses each of the four learning patterns. Nationally and internationally validated, the LCI© has test-retest reliability (Learning Connections Resources Website: http://www.LCRinfo.com) as well as content, construct, and predictive validity (Johnston & Dainton, 1997a, 1997b). Overall, the interaction of learning patterns defines the learner, the instructor and the approach to learning that takes place in the university classroom. After the LCI© is administered, the instructor continues to monitor the interaction of the learning patterns as the class evolves. LCI© inventory scores are shared among class members and learning patterns are demonstrated in class through a series of tasks based on Johnston’s ILM.
Guiding and Coaching the Learner
If problems develop, it is suggested that the instructor guide and coach class members to investigate the differences in their learning patterns as a possible source of team tensions. Rather than being considered a passive recipient of information, the learner takes control of making learning work and for co-constructing knowledge (Pearle & Head, 2002). The ILM assumes that if an individual knows his or her set of integrated learning patterns, he/she can use that knowledge to attend to the learning task. The learner takes responsibility for making the learning work. According to Pearle (2003), the conceptualization moves from the internal mental functions and operations of the individual to the external world of social operations within a teaching-learning context.
See Table 1 for ILM Learning Pattern Characteristics in regard to cognition, conation and affectation.
A Comparison to Other Learning Models and Instruments
In addition, it should be noted that if an instructor were to compare multiple intelligence theory (Gardner, 1983) to learning pattern theory, the researcher would have to note that multiple intelligence theory is a cognitive based model, primarily; it does not address the constructs of affectation or conation. Moreover, the LCI© is not a personality or behavioral inventory and further research would also be needed regarding the correlation of a personality instrument, such as the Myers-Briggs inventory (Leonard & Straus, 1997) or a Learning Styles inventory (Kolb, 1984) with the LCI©.
| Cognitively | Conatively | Affectively | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Model adapted from Let Me Learn Process ® Christine A. Johnston Proceedings of the 2003 American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Il., April 21-25, 2003. Copyright © 2001, Let Me Learn, Inc. | |||
| Sequential | Organizes information | Makes lists. | Thrives on consistency and dependability. |
| Mentally analyzes data. | Organizes. | Needs things to be tidy and organized. | |
| Breaks tasks into steps. | Plans first, then acts. | Feels frustrated when the game plan keeps changing. | |
| Feels frustrated when rushed. | |||
| Precise | Researches information. | Challenges statements and ideas. | Thrives on knowledge. |
| Asks lots of questions. | Documents research and findings. | Feels good when correct. | |
| Wants to know more. | Writes things down. | Feels frustrated when incorrect information is accepted as valid. | |
| Writes long e-mail messages and leaves long voice mail messages. | Feels frustrated when people do not share information. | ||
| Technical | Seeks concrete real world relevance. | Hands on. | Enjoys knowing how things work. |
| Only wants information as needed – nothing extraneous. | Tinkers. | Self-sufficiency feels good. | |
| Solves the problem. | Feels frustrated when a task has no real world relevancy. | ||
| Enjoys knowing things, but doesn’t need to share information. | |||
| Confluent | Reads between the lines. | Takes risks. | Enjoys energy. |
| Thinks outside the box. | Not afraid to fail. | Feels comfortable with failure. | |
| Brainstorms. | Talks about things a lot. | Does not enjoy having ideas criticized. | |
| Makes obscure connections between things that are seemingly unrelated. | Might start things and not finish them. | Frustrated by people who are not open to new ideas. | |
| Starts a task before directions are given. | Enjoys a challenge. | ||
| Feels frustrated by repeating a task over and over. | |||
Utilizing the LCI© to Form Teams
As a senior adjunct instructor in the School of Business and more recently, as a full time assistant professor in the School of Education, I have been using the LCI© in my classes since 1999. I began by utilizing the inventory to place M.B.A. students in diverse teams and now I apply it to the Educational Leadership and Technology students, primarily. The business students adapted the LCI© and assigned team members to team roles based on preferred learning patterns. For example, the sequential learner became the initial team organizer, the precise learner became the initial team communicator, the technical learner became the team’s problem-solver and the confluent learner became the team’s challenger.
In 2001, when I was hired by the School of Education, I continued to apply the inventory on a team basis with the educational leadership students. In addition, I also utilized the LCI © on an individual basis in the other courses I taught in the School of Education, such as “Management Theory/Organizational Behavior” (a course adapted from the School of Business), “Educational Research,” “Inquiry 1,” and “Research and Evaluation.” Each time I teach a course and apply the LCI©, I learn more about my students, their learning patterns and myself as an instructor. To become more proficient in my use of the LCI©, I attended four of Johnston’s Summer Institutes.
Who I Am as a Learner
Through the years, I learned that as a learner, I lead by confluence, which means I tend to look at the big picture first, then I apply
my precise learning pattern and fill in the details. I then organize myself stressing my sequential pattern and then, I apply my
technical pattern by solving the problem at hand in or outside the classroom. For more information on my use of the LCI as a learning
instrument, please read my article in the Cabell’s listed periodical under Marcellino, P.A. (2005). Bridging disciplines and setting
up diverse teams. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management,6 (3) 167-210. Editor: Dr. John Humphreys, Eastern New Mexico University.
References
- Drucker, P.F. (1999). Management challenges for the 21st century. New York: Harper Collins.
- Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books.
- Johnston, C.A. (1996). Unlocking the will to learn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
- Johnston, C.A. (1998). Let me learn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
- Johnston, C. A., & Dainton, G.R. (1997a). The learning connections inventory. Pittsgrove, NJ: Learning Connections Resources, LLC.
- Johnston, C..A., & Dainton, G. R. (1997b). Learning connections inventory users’ manual. Pittsgrove, NJ: Learning Connections Resources, LLC.
- Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
- Leonard, D., & Straus, S. (1997). Putting your company’s whole brain to work. Harvard Business Review, 75 (4), 111-126. Reprint #97407.
- Learning Connections Resources Website: http://www.LCRinfo.com.
- Let Me Learn Website: http://www.letmelearn.org.
- Marcellino, P. A. (2005, May). Bridging disciplines and setting up diverse teams. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 6 (3) 167-210.
- Pearle, K.M. (2003). Intentional learning as transformational learning: The ILM and adult learners. American Educational Research Association Conference, Chicago, Illinois; April 22, 2003.
- Pearle, K.M., & Head, L. M. (2002). Using your brain to build teams at work: A study of the freshman and sophomore engineering clinics at Rowan University. American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition.
- Silverberg, R. (2003). Developing relational space: Teachers who came to understand themselves and their students as learners. American Educational Research Association Conference, Chicago, Illinois; April 22, 2003.
◆ 49512 visits. ◆
