Use of energizers, ice-breakers and lesson closures in Andragogy

      Author: Odhinn Kohout

 

     On the topic dealing with lesson closures I believe that an extensive summative evaluation process must be used to gauge whether learning (comprehension, assimilating of material etc.) is in fact taking place. Without some type of evaluation “closure” has no context unless it is surface level. IE: “The class left the course and FELT really good about the overall experience.”

Relating this to Kolb’s ASSIMILATING theory (-reflective observation, abstract conceptualization) there is a direct link between “lesson closure” and “assimilating” as a learning outcome. Kolb points to how the curriculum learned by the student can be used in conjunction with their own past experiences and prior skillsets in tandem for practical applications. On the outset this seems logical but from my own experience in taking courses it is rarely applied and in this lay the genius of Kolb to identify the root problem. Reflective Observation can only occur if the student is using some sort of mental comparative analysis to measure the validity of the material which in turn inevitable leads to abstract conceptualization or in more simpler terms “thinking outside the box.”

Pratt’s NUTURING category provides some clarity and can be used in conjunction with the other topics; energizers, ice-breakers and closure. Motivation as identified by Pratt is part of an ongoing perpetual continuum which relies on support from not only the Facilitator but also the peer group. It also ties into alternative learning theories that we discussed in the last post identifying the Kirkpatrick model in which the first category “reaction to training” has a strong correlation to Pratt’s Nurturing concept.

I have redesigned the Kirkpatrick model to show how it can updated and used for modern Military/Police Training:

  

 

Illustration by: Odhinn Kohout

 Both (Kirkpatrick/Pratt)require an emotional or “affective state” (as in Bloom) to occur in order for the student to incorporate what they are learning. One example would be to tie lesson closure into a prior needs assessment in which remedial training would be set up not as an afterthought but integrated into the actual closure. A student’s well-being would be addressed in the nurturing process even in the final state of closure through offer of extra help by the Instructor which in turn aid in the delivery “Transmission/content” aspect

Defining the four styles of learning as defined by Kolb Accomodating, Diverging, Convergent and Assimilating is in reality extremely difficult to put into place and requires among other things an organized lesson plan which takes into account multiple forms of media to effectively deliver content. Every student assimilates information in a different way but due to time constraints and deadlines Instructors may experience problems in the difference between learning Kolb’s theories and employing them in an actual syllabus with real students

Q: Should Kolb be used in the form of a questionnaire and given out at the beginning of a course for determining learning styles?

Cohesion is instrumental in individual student development. Knowles “Orientation to Learning” and “Readiness to Learn” from his principles of adult learning align themselves with utilizing ice-breakers, energizers and closures successfully.

I have seen ice-breakers used an effective tool but on the flip side more suited to pedagogy when they werel ill-conceived by the Instructor. On one course the visiting Instructor tossed a red ball followed by a question to each one of us and had no concept of the classroom experience as a whole. In referencing Knowles, “Experience” in conjunction with “self-concept” would have been more appropriate as we were already motivated learners.