Throughout the variety of self assessment tests I took to determine my learning style strengths and weaknesses it was obvious which of my methods of learning were more favorable. The overall theme produced by the results of the Kolb assessment is that I tend to learn best by confronting and drawing from concrete experiences. Almost just as strongly I use an abstract conceptualization, presumably taken from the concrete experiences, and assimilate the information into working ideas and understandings. These were followed, in order, by active experimentation (which I likely often use to test my understandings gathered from concrete experiences and molded by abstract conceptualization) and reflective observation (probably used lastly to reflect on the outcomes of mine or others actions or situations to gain a further understanding). The Gardner testing placed me in favor of a more verbal or linguistic learner followed by leaning heavily on interpersonal and intrapersonal skills. I think my strengths in these two separate tests support each other in a relatable way. My inter- and intra-personal skills can be seen from my ability to draw from concrete experiences, whether relating to my own past experiences or relating to peoples present experiences. I think the abstract conceptualization materializes in a verbal form which Gardner testing is showed to be my most favorable trait. The ‘literacy works’ MI tests showed me to be mostly verbal, followed by intrapersonal and interpersonal. I disagree with the lack of the logical/spatial results from this MI testing, possibly from the wording, due to knowing my natural tendency to weigh and analyze all ideas and concepts through reason and logic. This is supported by the high testing of the abstract conceptualization from the Kolb test. A possible reason for the skewed logical spatial results is their approach from a more mathematical side, something I had poor foundations in and naturally never eagerly approached. I am very good at math and happened to make it to Calculus without ever paying attention. I tend to use more verbal skills to draw out my logical and reasonable ideas- usual from a more philosophical standpoint. BUT- I did take other online MI tests and they all showed pretty similar results. On one I was more logical, followed by intrapersonal, verbal, and interpersonal and so on. Another indicted that I was more intrapersonal, followed by verbal, interpersonal, and logical. They all showed a solid tendency towards being spatial/visual and kinesthetic followed by naturalist and lastly music. These were all varied depending on the tests.
I do think that every situation calls for a different perspective and therefore a different set of tools to adapt. I don’t think this test accurately measures the ability to use these tools when confronted with the specific situations, but rather to show the natural tendency the things you’re most familiar with to contemplate and handle every day life, not necessarily overcoming challenges.
I find it pretty unreasonable for these tests to try and encapsulate the unique dynamics of an individual into such a limited array of concepts. I think they do aid offer a starting point to begin addressing what a person’s most natural tendencies look like. I do think they do a good job providing some insight. It’s really debatable as to whether my other tendencies are any less developed than the ones I favor most to approach life, which can be misleading. For instance, when going about my day I rely heavily on my communication skills to relate to other people. This all encompasses the verbal, intrapersonal and interpersonal results. To ensure what I’m saying in reasonable and logical I use the logical skills to analyze my responses. The other intelligences would not be used unless I was in an environment where I would be called to use music, nature, or visual tendencies. I am well versed in them, playing guitar in the jazz band and taking music theory classes throughout high school as well as being an avid artist and taking art school classes for about eight years in my youth. I also have always been involved year round with athletics since an early age and still maintain a demanding workout regimen.
To illustrate the general accuracy of the Kolb test, I’ll provide examples of my natural functioning. The concrete experience was the highest score achieved. This makes absolute sense when I reflect back on the tremendous amounts of experiences I’ve gathered throughout my short life. Moving twelve times; having many friends die of suicide and drug overdose; attending eleven schools: six elementary, two middle, three, high school, in six different states; attending public, private, boarding schools; attending large schools with under 100 students a class to large schools with 700 a class. The list of experiences keeps could go on but you get the point. I have gathered from these experiences to make the best sense out of life. This is how I understand things to be, based on the collection of many experiences. I’ve met a lot of people who have been all very different, yet similar at heart. I’ve learned to relate to a diverse group through these experiences. This has also causes me to realize my honest love for people and the desire I have to see people achieve their full potential. The second greatest strength was the abstract conceptualization. I tend to spend a lot of time in my head assimilating all my different understandings and experiences. I think and think and think. This is where I weigh every understanding I conjure up and analyze it critically with abstract conjectures. Before I write a paper or talk about something, my mind needs to dwell on it and think about it, assimilating and organizing my thoughts before they are elaborate enough to expand on.
Garder’s theory holds true in similar whys. Regarding my inclination to use linguistic or verbal abilities to learn, I recently I read a quote that resonated with me: “How do I know what I think if I can’t see what I say?” E.M. Foster. This quote embodies my understanding of the thinking process via writing and oral communication. In order to solidify my thoughts I need to materialize them through daily written or oral communication. The better the vocabulary, syntax, and overall rhetorical style, the better I can convey and illustrate my thoughts and ideas to the finest mental and emotional detail. My intrapersonal tendencies stem out of my introspective approach to things. I constantly assess where I am in relation to my personal expectations and the expectations of the world around me. This helps constantly maintain a healthy perspective and keep me calibrated for things to come. My love for people is where the interpersonal inclination arises. I watch people and empathize with their struggles, doing my best to relate to them and learn from them at the same time.
I am located almost directly in the middle of the grid, only slightly towards the accommodator. The accommodator’s strengths include getting things done, leadership, and risk-taking. Weak points include too much: trivial improvements & meaningless activity; and not enough: work not completed on time, impractical plans, not directed toward goals (all of which, except my tendency to over focus on trivial improvements and the occasional meaningless activity, I’d disagree with).
Given the Kolb assessment as being a slight accommodator, I’d work most compatibly with an assimilator since they are more planning and goal oriented. The accommodator seems like they can implement the people and resources for a task while the assimilator is focused on developing a plan of attack and various approaches to a strategy.
I think this is evaluation is true. It’s not hard for me to get side tracked and off focus but through training I’ve learned the importance of being goal oriented, spending a lot of time developing plans and goals in order to get things done.
Before coming to Landmark, I accomplished my introspection and decided that I was best suited for and most interested in people and business. I looked into a well rounded field and found business consulting the encompass many of the various skills I possessed. The accommodator career recommendations all revolve around people and business oriented fields. I think this makes perfect sense.
This assessment reaffirmed a lot of what I already knew about myself. It was helpful in presenting new approaches to realizing it. This made it more colorful and helped create some more depth to my personal understanding.
As previously stated, these two tests illustrated a correlation in the way I approach learning. The Kolb says that using my concrete experiences I assimilate the information gathered using my abstract conceptualization in order to come to an understanding. The test showed me to be pretty well-rounded in the learning style type grip, with moderate favoritism towards the accommodator. I happened to take multiple MI tests that illustrate his theory. I do know I like language, thinking and analyzing, introspection, and people. These are always a strong passion of mine. In the academics this exemplifies through my writing, the clubs I’m apart of and the eagerness to help people when they are struggling with work or personal problems. I’ve been writing in a journal for the past seven years which is a good way for me to think as well as refine my ability to communicate what’s inside to other people or just on paper. As far as the clubs, I’m actively involved as the President of the business club and constantly continue to develop new ideas and strategies to implement on behalf of the club. I like people and unfortunately Landmark doesn’t have a huge social scene or community to submerse myself with challenging interesting people. Instead it houses many people who usually bring me down due to their natural tendency to settle and put forth the minimal effort in everything they do. I do like helping them though and I feel it is very rewarding.
These tests really placed no bearing on processing speed, thus eliminating anything related to Jeff Hawkins theory. Regarding Robert Sternberg, these tests really did a vague job illustrating his points as well. One could say that someone who’s more kinesthetically and possibly spatially inclined would be very practical. One could say that the logical side of the MI is one with analytical tendencies. The creative intelligence would be a bit harder to encapsulate as the MI tests really did not show much to demonstrate lateral thinking. Possibly you could associate linguistics and verbal with creativity, which is usually a generally accepted notion. What clashes here is putting things like musical tendencies into boxes like practical, analytical/logical and creative since it is known that musicians are both very much logical (usually very good in math) and creative (write brilliant compositions out of thin air). This goes for naturalists and the visual/spatially inclined as well. Architects can be logical and creative etc. I could go on but I’m sure you see my point.
My EQ test showed me to be very emotionally aware. They explained a caveat that may occur is I didn’t have a good idea of who I am, but I think the testing reflected who I was and backed up by reflecting on the MI and Kolb tests. On the MI, as it related to EQ, I tested high in both intrapersonal and interpersonal consistently throughout the tests. This indicates I am very self-aware and think a lot about my actions and the implications of my thoughts as it pertains to me and those around me (I also tested high in verbal which could be I could communicate myself effectively and efficiently). It also indicates I am very much aware of others and their feelings and what works best in situations when things need to happen. I have a strong desire to relate to other people and do my best to pick up on as many que’s as possible to find the best relationship for healthy communication and teamwork so we both can progress towards our ideals.
William Dare 