The model — two continuums, four styles
The last topic of Day 1 part two maps participants' learning styles onto two crossing continuums, a framework that comes from David Kolb's experiential learning cycle, with the four style names popularised by Peter Honey and Alan Mumford. The vertical axis is perception — how people take experience in: from concrete experience (having an experience) down to abstract conceptualisation (drawing their own conclusions). The horizontal axis is processing — what they do with it: from active experimentation (putting theory into practice) across to reflective observation (reflecting on it). Cross them and four quadrants appear. Activists learn by doing — throw them in, they'll figure it out in motion. Reflectors learn by watching and thinking — they want to observe before they commit. Theorists learn by understanding the model — they need the logic to hold together before they trust it. Pragmatists learn by application — they are only interested once they can see how it works in practice.
Why a trainer cares
Every room contains all four. That is the practical point: a session built entirely of lecture delights the theorists and loses the activists within minutes; a session that is all games energises the activists while the reflectors quietly wish you would stop and let them think. The answer is not to diagnose each participant and serve them individually — it is to design around the full cycle, so every style gets its moment: an experience (activists), a pause to debrief (reflectors), the underlying model (theorists), and a real application (pragmatists). Which, I notice, is exactly the shape our trainer has been running all day: balloon game, debrief, framework, apply-it-to-your-work. The course keeps demonstrating itself.
Case Study
my own score, and what it does to my teaching
We each took the assessment during the session. My result: Pragmatist 19, Theorist 17, Reflector 15, Activist 11. So I am a pragmatist-theorist: I learn best when a solid model meets an immediate, practical use — which is precisely how I have been writing this journal, taking each framework and instantly stress-testing it against my own operation. The profile fits embarrassingly well. But the case study is what the profile predicts about my teaching, because trainers default to designing for their own style. My natural session shape would be: here is the concept, here is why it works, now go apply it — theorist opening, pragmatist ending. Exactly the session that underserves the two styles I score lowest on. Activists (my 11): I rarely open with an experience — I explain first, and my instinct says letting people fumble before instruction is wasted time. The evidence says otherwise: it creates the need to know. Reflectors (my 15): my pacing is fast, and I treat silence after a question as a problem to fix rather than thinking time to protect. Two commitments for the next run of my AI course, one per blind spot: open each mission with a two-minute try-it-cold challenge before any explanation, and build in explicit pause-and-write moments — thirty silent seconds after each demo — before asking for responses. Design against my profile, not from it.
Reflections
The deeper lesson connects back to the four theoretical perspectives from this morning: frameworks about learners are really mirrors for the trainer. Knowing the room's styles matters, but knowing my own bias matters more, because the bias is what I will unknowingly build into every session. The assessment cost ten minutes and handed me the two most specific improvements of the whole day.