The first resource, Learning to Learn (Study Guides and Strategies, n.d.), provided the opportunity for learning process review and reflection, beginning with analyzing past learning processes and outcomes, moving through current learning methodology, allowing for the formulation of new or modified processes to ensure future learning success.

Past processes included reading, problem solving and interpretation of subject matter.  Study groups or collaborative learning processes were used in a limited capacity, preferring independent learning strategies instead.  The use of summarization and reflection was often limited to thinking about content rather than using written or recorded reflection for study purposes; it was of interest to note that study sessions were often erratic and chaotic (use of distractions such as television or music in background), and of a longer nature.

Present processes reiterate my commitment to lifelong learning, with the tendency to gravitate more toward learning opportunities as a means of professional development, rather than as a general interest endeavour.  Being inquisitive in nature promotes the utilization of additional resources to supplement learning, along with the continued improvement of critical thinking skills, as it requires an independent evaluation of learning materials, asking ‘is this resource relevant to my professional practice?‘, and ‘what is my opinion on the material contained within the resource (do I agree or disagree with ideology)?‘.

Reviewing my processes, I have noticed that since adopting the use of multimedia resources for reflective purposes, I have evolved my processes to engage more in a recorded reflective process, though I do still prefer to engage in quiet solitary reflection as a thought process only.  How do I evaluate my learning to see measurable improvements in knowledge of subject matter along with improvements in the overall learning process?

This is one of the few times that I have actively reflected on my personal learning, re-evaluating my learning philosophies first defined as an undergraduate, and exploring my personal learning styles, since that early reflection.  The product is captured in Learning about my learning (Davidson, 2016), a Moovly video I based on the results and subsequent analysis/reflection, obtained from the completion of the Index of Learning Styles Questionnaire (Felder & Soloman, n.d.).  Interestingly absent in my reflection is the self-regulated learning (SRL) strategy of goal setting, leaving me wondering if this is due to my own perception of the goals I set for myself in each of my learning endeavours.  Is it that my own knowledge of goal setting theory is relatively limited, whereby I sub-consciously downplay its necessity in the general learning and SRL processes?

In the second online resource, Too Comptent to Seek Help?: Organizational Values that could Jeopardize Employee Progress (Corporate Training and Development, 2012), the author focused on the SRL competencies of goal orientation (intrinsic), and self-efficacy, with the focus on the SRL strategy of asking for help from colleagues or superiors in a corporate setting.  Of interest is the attitude of learners in the workplace, which reinforces the relevance of SRL in adult education.  It is okay to seek out subject matter experts in the workplace in order to maximize the learning experience for both self and other learners.  Collectivism in adult education and workplace learning is a valid and growing learning trend both within the realm of SRL, and to the greater corporate training and development learning experience.  What are the best practices for incorporating SRL competencies into adult education in the workplace?

References

Corporate Training and Development. (2012, November 29).  Too competent to seek help?: Organizational values that could jeopardize employee progress [Weblog].  Retrieved from: https://effecetivelearning.wordpress.com/2012/11/29/too-competent-to-seek-help-organizational-values-that-could-jeopardize-employee-progress/

Davidson, C.M. (2016, January 26). Learning about my learning [Video file].  Retrieved from: https://www.moovly.com/gallery/user/b03ea104-c1d9-8820

Felder, R.M., and Soloman, B.A. (n.d.). Learning styles and strategies [Website].  Retrieved from: http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/ILSdir/styles.htm

Study Guides and Strategies. (n.d.). Learning to learn [Website].  Retrieved from:  http://www.studygs.net/metacognitiona.htm

 

 

 

David Bouchard’s video Nokum is my Teacher (2010), is rather captivating, and it merits mentioning the distinct contrast between traditional Indigenous pedagogies, and non-Indigenous (settler) approaches to learning.  The way the dialogue moves from traditional learning to incorporating non-Indigenous pedagogies was surprising, as our traditional Indigenous ways of knowing (and our traditional knowledge) have been systematically stripped from our peoples, through government genocidal assimilation practices.  There are undertones of reconciliation when Nokum asks “our we not all the children of the one great Manitou?” (Bouchard, 2010); suggesting our common bond (humanity) between Indigenous people and settler-allies, while acknowledging a need for Indigenous and Western knowledge and pedagogies to ally themselves in our modern world, if we intend to reclaim our Indigenous identity individually and collectively.

The three L’s meet the three R’s in adult learning

Indigenous learning is familial, communal, and observational (visual and auditory) in nature  (the three L’s), look, listen, and learn (Miller, 1996); while non-Indigenous pedagogies are focused on cognitive and skills development that is subject matter specific (the three R’s), reading, writing, and arithmetic.  In the field of adult education, whether post-secondary or within the workplace, there is value to incorporating both Indigenous and Western pedagogies into lesson planning and curriculum development, to create an overall more holistic learning experience.

In professional practice, to compliment the three L’s, I often reflect upon the medicine wheel, and its construct, looking for a balance between the mental (intellectual), physical, emotional, and spiritual aspects of the lesson.  Spirituality is the one aspect that often is neglected during the development of technological skills in the workplace.  Spiritual balance may be attained by changing or controlling extrinsic factors in the workplace/classroom, if necessary.

 

As with many concepts in the field of adult education, self-regulated learning (SRL) is one that seems rather ambiguous and abstract in that its definition is fluid and strategic in nature.  The self-regulated learner does not manifest in one specific metacognitive package, rather existing as the product of a selection of learning strategies applied in tandem with intrinsic interest (Zimmerman, 2002) related to any form of subject matter. Pintrich (1995) presents four case studies, each presenting with different learning outcomes that seem to be directly related to the learning strategies employed by the individual learners.

Learning strategies and characteristics related to SRL (Pintrich, 1995; Wolters, 2010; & Zimmerman, 2002):

• goal setting
• time management
• self-evaluation, self-reflection
• self-efficacy
• intrinsic task interest
• learning goal orientation
• cognition and metacognition
• behaviour control
• motivation
• active learning
• critical thinking
• problem solving
• independent, self-starting
• willingness to learn from others

In professional practice, there is an observable difference in the learner characteristics between civilian and military learners with similar intrinsic interests.  The inherent nature of military operations require the development of collaboration skills, with the emphasis often taken off the self and put on the team.  Self-motivation comes often as a direct result to competition with others, a factor that Pintrich (1995) considers detracting from the development of self-efficacy.  The civilian workplace is certainly more conducive to promoting SRL competencies in its learners; however, motivation outside intrinsic interests are rarely addressed, leaving the development of learning goal orientation (Zimmerman, 2002) lacking.  How detrimental is it to the learner, as an individual, in either civilian or military contexts, to focus on the development of certain SRL strategies over others?  Is it realistic to bring SRL strategies into technological skills development programs, while maintaining the requisite learning objectives?

References:

Pintrich, P.R. (1995). Understanding self-regulated learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 63(1), 3-12.

Wolters, C.A. (2010). Self-regulated learning and the 21st century competencies. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, United States of America.  Retrieved from: http://www.hewlett.org/uploads/Self_Regulated_Learning__21st_Century_Competencies.pdf

Zimmerman, B.J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview.  Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64-70.

Centred around Freirian praxis ideology, Critical Educational Gerontology [CEG] is premised on emancipation, “to illuminate the social and political rights of old age” (Findsen & Formosa, 2011, p. 93).  Cusak (1999; Cusak & Thompson, 2003, as cited in Findsen & Formosa, 2011) developed programming to address CEG, “to liberate senior students from stereotypical assumptions about what it means to be old, change attitudes towards older people, and open up new possibilities in later life” (p. 94).  It is within the scope of Cusak’s programming that I draw my own conclusions as to what CEG (or critical geragogy) should encapsulate; the challenging of stereotypes and assumptions of ageing and older adult learning, to empower and emancipate the learner.

An interesting journal article was shared on CEG:

Critical educational gerontology:  A third statement of first principles

 

Traditional Indigenous Knowledge Preservation Powtoon presentation.

References:

Akena, F. A. (2012). Critical analysis of the production of Western knowledge and its implications for Indigenous knowledge and decolonization.  Journal of Black Studies, 43(6), 599-619.  DOI:  10.1177/0021934712440448

Alfred, T. (2009a).  Peace, power, righteousness:  An Indigenous manifesto (2nd ed.). 

Toronto:  Oxford University Press.

Alfred, T. (2009b).  Wasase: Indigenous pathways of action and freedom.  North York:  University of Toronto Press.

Alfred, T. and Corntassel, J. (2005). Being Indigenous: Resurgences against Contemporary Colonialism. Government & Opposition, 40(4), 597-614. doi:10.1111/j.1477-7053.2005.00166.x

Atkinson, B. (2010). Teachers responding to narrative inquiry: An approach to narrative inquiry criticism.  The Journal of Educational Research, 103(1), 91-102.  DOI:  10.1080/00220670903323461

Cruikshank, J. (2012).  Are glaciers ‘good to think with’? Recognizing Indigenous environmental knowledge.  Anthropological Forum, 22(3), 239-250.  DOI: 10.1080/00664677.

2012.707972

Enn, R. (2014).  Re-learning of traditional knowledge in times of modernity.  Campus Wide Information Systems, 31(1), 14-23.

Friesen, J.W. (2000).  Aboriginal spirituality & biblical theology:  Closer than you think.

Calgary:  Detselig Enterprises Ltd.

Hoffman, R. (2013).  Respecting Aboriginal knowing in the academy.  AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 9(3), 189-203.

Lafleur, G.S. (2014). Ojibwe Elders’ experiences of peace: To teach our well-being with the Earth [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation].  Brock University, St. Catharine’s, Ontario.

Lane, P., Bopp, J., Bopp, M., and Brown, L. (2012). The sacred tree: Reflections of Native American spirituality (4th ed.). Twin Lakes, WI: Lotus Press.

McGregor, D. (2004).  Coming full circle:  Indigenous knowledge, environment, and our future.

American Indian Quarterly, 28(3/4), 385-410.

Merriam, S.B., Caffarella, R.S., and Baumgartner, L.M. (2007).  Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide (3rd ed.).  San Francisco, CA:  John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Munro Hendry, P. (2010). Narrative as inquiry.  The Journal of Education Research, 103(1), 72-80.

Neeganagwedgin, E. (2013).  Ancestral knowledges, spirituality and Indigenous narratives as self-determination.  AlterNative:  An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples,

9(4), 322-334.

Popova, U. (2014). Conservation, traditional knowledge, and Indigenous peoples.  American Behavioural Scientist, 58(1), 197-214.  DOI:  10.1177/0002764213495043

Ray, L. (2012). Deciphering the “Indigenous” in Indigenous methodologies.  AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 8(1), 85-98.

Sherwood, J. (2009). Who is not coping with colonization? Laying out the map for decolonization [Special Supplement]. Australian Psychiatry, 17, S24-S27  DOI: 10.1080/1039850902948662

Simpson, L. (2011). Dancing on our turtle’s back: Stories of Nishnaabeg re-creation, resurgence and a new emergence.  Winnipeg:  Arbeiter Ring Publishing.

Taiaiake. (2013, December 13).  Being and becoming Indigenous: Resurgence against contemporary colonialism [Web log post].  Retrieved from: http://taiaiake.net/2013/12/13/being-and-becoming-indigenous-resurgence-against-contemporary-colonialism/

Wenzel, G. W. (2004).  From TEK to IQ: Inuit Quajimajatqangit and Inuit cultural ecology. Arctic Anthropology, 41(2), 238-250.

Wilson, W.A. (2004). Indigenous knowledge recovery is Indigenous empowerment.  American Indian Quarterly, 28(3/4), 359-372

Photo Credits:

All images were obtained through the Powtoon program using images from Flickr’s creative commons.  No copyright information was provided.

 

 

 

The concept of intelligence being only measurable indirectly (Findsen & Formosa, 2011, p. 64) leads me to question its validity as an accurate indicator of a person’s intellectual abilities.  The validity is questioned academically, as researchers tend to favour the “use of cross-sectional research designs where results may be a reflection of cohort or generational differences rather than actual changes as in longitudinal approaches” (Findsen & Formosa, 2011, p.66).  If intelligence measurement is questionable, then why do we put so much attention toward evaluating a person’s intelligence quotient (IQ) as a means of measuring cognitive abilities?

The psychological concept that stood out the most for me was wisdom, and the ideology of late-life learning encompassing, “a reflective mode of thinking, contemplate the meaning of life, come to terms with their past, and hone their quest for self-fulfilment and spiritual advancement” (Findsen & Formosa, 2011, p. 74).  Surprisingly this concept is reflected in trauma and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder literature as a coping mechanism for dealing with traumatic events; making meaning from the event and putting perspective on life as it was before the trauma, and life as it is in the here and now, coping with trauma and trauma recovery.

 

Using this blog as more of an ePortfolio for this post, I have opted to capture the Session 8 (6 Mar 14 to 12 Mar 14) seminar I collaborated in for ADED4F35; designed and facilitated by Cindy Davidson, Tracey Lamb, and Petronella VanBruggen:

Reflection Disempowered

The collaborative process has been trying in some ways, as we have three separate and distinct interpretations of the material presented.  Discussing critical reflection leads to many intense conversations about ideology, and I find myself forming my own distinct style taking from each theory the portions that speak directly to my own logic.

As a practitioner, I have to find a means of engaging in the critical reflection process that synthesizes the learning experience in a meaningful way.  Do I take to one of the three reflective practices showcased in the Reflection Disempowered seminar?  That I cannot answer at this point in time as I can see the validity and value of each method.  I find that I opt to engage in public reflection (this blog) to open my ideas to challenge from my colleagues, in order to solidify my position on any given topic.

A captivating idea of critical reflection in geragogy emerges, with the idea of the reflective process becoming an empowering tool for the ageing adult, whereby writing mirrors, “Freire’s ideology which emphasises a dialogical split between ‘us’ (oppressed, the participants) and ‘them’ (oppressors, the status quo) where the former are expected to gain empowerment following the learning experience” (Findsen & Formosa, 2011, p.107).  Empowerment is found in part in controlling learning expectations, outcomes and evaluations (Findsen & Formosa, 2011, p.108).  One consideration for curriculum for ageing adults, to promote autonomy and empowerment is the idea of modern financial realities with banking and credit cards with chip and PIN technology becoming a requirement for many transactions in daily living (Findsen & Formosa, 2011, p. 110).  

Studying traditional indigenous knowledge transfer led me to an interesting text focusing on indigenous spirituality.  The Sacred Tree (Lane, Bopp, Bopp & Brown, 2012) introduces indigenous ways of knowing (learning) and introduces the four dimensions of ‘true learning’, “these four aspects of every person’s nature are reflected in the four cardinal points of the medicine wheel [mental, physical, spiritual, and emotional]” (p. 29), which relates to Illeris’ (2004) three dimensions of learning – cognitive, emotional and social (Findsen & Formosa, 2011, p. 22).  In both cases learning is an holistic experience, not just one based upon the cognitive action of knowledge acquisition.

In later life, when adults are no longer required to focus on education for vocational/workplace training, we see a shift in philosophical orientations in learning.  Elsey (1986) illustrates the focus shifting to four philosophical orientations (models):  recreational-leisure, work-training, liberal-progressive, and radical (Findsen & Formosa, 2011, pp. 26-27).  Learning becomes a means of increasing social interaction, and orientations involving the social focus seem to be the ideal formats for capturing Illeris’ three dimensions of learning (2004, in Findsen & Formosa, 2011, p. 22).  Holistically, the social aspect then reflects the indigenous model (Lane et al, 2012, p. 29), by embracing the physical and spiritual aspects of learning, fitting the premise of the recreational-leisure model (Findsen & Formosa, 2011, p.26).  Is there a value in integrating the indigenous models of learning in with the philosophical models, for a more holistic approach to facilitating lifelong learning?