In class on Monday we discussed the difference between fixed and flexible learning styles, and were given the opportunity to say which we felt we were and why.
In class we loosely defined the difference between these styles to be that fixed learners tend to believe that they are highly intelligent and thus have nothing more to learn. When they get a bad grade it is not because they themselves didn't do something correctly, but because the assignment was "stupid" or "badly" written. While Flexible learners always believe there is something to be learned from every situation.
With the above set up it is easy to view the difference as being good (flexible) vs. bad (fixed), but the more I think about it the more this black and white division bothers me. In class I identified myself (as did everyone else) as a flexible learner, and I believe this is accurate. One example I gave in class and one that I stand by is that the further I go in my education the more aware I become of how much I do not know. This is not to say that I don't learn and grow as an individual, nor does it mean that I don't see myself as being intelligent, quite the contrary. What I mean is simply that the more I understand a subject area or discipline the more I realize there is to know, and thus I can begin to have an understanding of just how vast the expanse of knowledge on a subject is and how little of it I personally posses.
For example, in undergrad I majored in theatre focusing on theatre history and specifically Shakespeare and other early modern English dramatists. I had a greater expertise in this subject than most of my peers and thus could and would often speak with authority on the subject. I was not under the impression that I knew everything there was to know on the subject, but I did fancy myself rather well informed. Following undergrad I entered an M.A. in English specializing in Shakespeare Studies, I was well prepared for the program and did well graduating with the second highest honors. However, it was in my graduate degree where I really began to grasp the idea that the more I learned the more aware I was of the nuances of a subject. Things I might once have with confidence seen to have a yes or no answer I would now likely respond with "well that depends on how you look at it."
So yes I see myself as a flexible learner, but the more I thought about it after class and throughout the week the more I felt as though I was in some ways being dishonest with myself if I could not admit that I am also very fixed in many ways. I can be extremely strong-willed, opinionated, and stubborn, and have on more than one occasion been deeply frustrated with courses that I believed to be a total waste of my time, because I wasn't being taught anything of value or that common sense wouldn't take care of. I certainly think that my sister, the social worker, would consider me to be fixed. She has always expressed distaste for my sarcastic and sometimes cynical sense of humor and my unwavering opinions on certain subjects.
An example of my fixed nature would come from a theatre history course I took in undergrad where my professor rather proudly explained that she had managed to do a Ph.D. in theatre history without reading or seeing a single Shakespeare play. Add to that the fact that she openly didn't care about theatre prior to the 20th century, even though she was teaching a course that started with Greek theatre, and I immediately and permanently lost any respect I might have had for her. I was furious and in spite of the fact that I was a mere undergrad, I could not believe her ignorance. I reasoned that if you profess to be a theatre historian that you did not need to like Shakespeare or the Greeks, but you did need to understand them. After all, they formed the basis for all of Western theatre. I personally don't care for Greek theatre, but I applied myself to learning about it because I understood its importance to the evolution of theatre in Western culture. If you question my fixity, let me say that my opinion of that professor has not changed to this day.
I think ultimately it would be inaccurate to classify myself as either fixed or flexible. I think that the perception of fixity as a negative is a little unfair. A certain amount of fixity combined with maturity and self-awareness can be good, and can lead to an individual being more likely to challenge ideas and norms, and speak up when they do not agree with something. I believe that where fixity becomes a problem is when an individual lacks self-awareness and the ability to perceive when and why they are forming a fixed stance on something.
In class we loosely defined the difference between these styles to be that fixed learners tend to believe that they are highly intelligent and thus have nothing more to learn. When they get a bad grade it is not because they themselves didn't do something correctly, but because the assignment was "stupid" or "badly" written. While Flexible learners always believe there is something to be learned from every situation.
With the above set up it is easy to view the difference as being good (flexible) vs. bad (fixed), but the more I think about it the more this black and white division bothers me. In class I identified myself (as did everyone else) as a flexible learner, and I believe this is accurate. One example I gave in class and one that I stand by is that the further I go in my education the more aware I become of how much I do not know. This is not to say that I don't learn and grow as an individual, nor does it mean that I don't see myself as being intelligent, quite the contrary. What I mean is simply that the more I understand a subject area or discipline the more I realize there is to know, and thus I can begin to have an understanding of just how vast the expanse of knowledge on a subject is and how little of it I personally posses.
For example, in undergrad I majored in theatre focusing on theatre history and specifically Shakespeare and other early modern English dramatists. I had a greater expertise in this subject than most of my peers and thus could and would often speak with authority on the subject. I was not under the impression that I knew everything there was to know on the subject, but I did fancy myself rather well informed. Following undergrad I entered an M.A. in English specializing in Shakespeare Studies, I was well prepared for the program and did well graduating with the second highest honors. However, it was in my graduate degree where I really began to grasp the idea that the more I learned the more aware I was of the nuances of a subject. Things I might once have with confidence seen to have a yes or no answer I would now likely respond with "well that depends on how you look at it."
So yes I see myself as a flexible learner, but the more I thought about it after class and throughout the week the more I felt as though I was in some ways being dishonest with myself if I could not admit that I am also very fixed in many ways. I can be extremely strong-willed, opinionated, and stubborn, and have on more than one occasion been deeply frustrated with courses that I believed to be a total waste of my time, because I wasn't being taught anything of value or that common sense wouldn't take care of. I certainly think that my sister, the social worker, would consider me to be fixed. She has always expressed distaste for my sarcastic and sometimes cynical sense of humor and my unwavering opinions on certain subjects.
An example of my fixed nature would come from a theatre history course I took in undergrad where my professor rather proudly explained that she had managed to do a Ph.D. in theatre history without reading or seeing a single Shakespeare play. Add to that the fact that she openly didn't care about theatre prior to the 20th century, even though she was teaching a course that started with Greek theatre, and I immediately and permanently lost any respect I might have had for her. I was furious and in spite of the fact that I was a mere undergrad, I could not believe her ignorance. I reasoned that if you profess to be a theatre historian that you did not need to like Shakespeare or the Greeks, but you did need to understand them. After all, they formed the basis for all of Western theatre. I personally don't care for Greek theatre, but I applied myself to learning about it because I understood its importance to the evolution of theatre in Western culture. If you question my fixity, let me say that my opinion of that professor has not changed to this day.
I think ultimately it would be inaccurate to classify myself as either fixed or flexible. I think that the perception of fixity as a negative is a little unfair. A certain amount of fixity combined with maturity and self-awareness can be good, and can lead to an individual being more likely to challenge ideas and norms, and speak up when they do not agree with something. I believe that where fixity becomes a problem is when an individual lacks self-awareness and the ability to perceive when and why they are forming a fixed stance on something.
I agree with you that fixed and flexible learning are probably not as black and white as discussed in class. I see myself as more of a fixed learner with regard to my own learning, but when looking externally, I am much more flexible. I also find I'm much more flexible of a learner when I am interested in the subject being studied. My mind is too caught up with the interesting facts and concepts that I do not really think about whether or not I will ever know it. It's when I do not like a subject that I become more fixed. I never really liked science, and I was convinced that it was because it was a stupid subject that had no real importance in my life. Why would I want to learn about that? I would never be good at it because it was a waste of my time.
ReplyDeleteI would also not characterize fixed learning as a bad thing! It never really limited me when I actually had to learn something, it would just make the process of learning more painful. Understanding my own intelligence has also given me confidence when studying for tests. I know I'm smart and I just need to continue to memorize enough terms etc. However, this did get me into trouble when I was younger and did not want to practice piano. I was convinced that I was simply not good at it, and no amount of practice would make me any better.
I also agree with you and Grace about fixed and flexible not being as definable as we discussed in class. As I was considering myself one way or the other, I was thinking about different situations I've been in, and whether I'd reacted in a fixed or flexible manner. I found myself surprisingly fixed on a few things, though overall I consider myself a flexible learner-- and I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing. For instance, I know that I reached my threshold for learning math when I hit calculus in high school, and since then I've been pretty fixed that I don't need to learn any more. It's just not interesting to me, I won't need those higher math skills for anything in my career or hobbies going forward, and I can put my time toward other pursuits instead of math. I tried to explain that to my dad once (back in high school) and he told me that of course I could learn anything, if I really invested in it. But I remained fixed in my decision to not pursue math, and I'd have to say that it certainly hasn't caused me any harm since, and has allowed me to pursue other interests. This applies to other areas, too: I really like to know my exact schedule for every day, but inevitably things change and I have to go with it. I'm fixed on the idea of becoming a children's librarian, but I'm ultimately flexible with gaining experience as an adult services librarian, too. I think the key is to recognize the points where we are fixed and flexible, and where a little of both is a necessary.
ReplyDelete