Background
Becoming an experiential educator involves more than just being a facilitator or matching learning style with teaching style. Experiential education is a complex relational process that involves balancing attention to the learner and to the subject matter while also balancing reflection on the deep meaning of ideas with the skill of applying them.
Aim
To describe a dynamic matching model of education based on Experiential Learning Theory and to create a self-assessment instrument for helping educators understand their approach to education.
Method
A dynamic matching model for “teaching around the learning cycle” describes four roles that educators can adopt to do so—facilitator, subject expert, standard-setter/evaluator, and coach. A self-assessment instrument called the Educator Role Profile was created to help educators understand their use of these roles.
Results
Research using the Educator Role Profile indicates that to some extent educators do tend to teach the way they learn, finding that those with concrete learning styles are more learner-centered, preferring the facilitator role; while those with abstract learning styles are more subject-centered preferring the expert and evaluator roles.
Conclusion
A model for the practice of dynamic matching of educator roles, learner style, and subject matter can aid in the planning and implementation of educational experiences. With practice, both learners and educators can develop the flexibility to use all educator roles and learning styles to create a more powerful and effective process of teaching and learning—in Mary Parker Follett’s words to, “. . . free the energies of the human spirit . . . the highest potentiality of all human association.”
This article presents a comprehensive perspective of leadership development that addresses the unique needs of women in organizations. The authors propose 7 categories of leadership development practice and examine the opportunities and obstacles in each of these practices for women. The authors offer recommendations for consulting psychologists and human resources professionals targeted to female clients and to organizational practices in order to advance women's leadership development. Finally, the authors discuss the overarching themes emanating from their research and implications for women and leadership development.
Effective coaching and mentoring is crucial to the success of individuals and organizations, yet relatively little is known about its neural underpinnings. Coaching and mentoring to the Positive Emotional Attractor (PEA) emphasizes compassion for the individual's hopes and dreams and has been shown to enhance a behavioral change. In contrast, coaching to the Negative Emotional Attractor (NEA), by focusing on externally defined criteria for success and the individual's weaknesses in relation to them, does not show sustained change. We used fMRI to measure BOLD responses associated with these two coaching styles. We hypothesized that PEA coaching would be associated with increased global visual processing and with engagement of the parasympathetic nervous system (PNS), while the NEA coaching would involve greater engagement of the sympathetic nervous system (SNS). Regions showing more activity in PEA conditions included the lateral occipital cortex, superior temporal cortex, medial parietal, subgenual cingulate, nucleus accumbens, and left lateral prefrontal cortex. We relate these activations to visioning, PNS activity, and positive affect. Regions showing more activity in NEA conditions included medial prefrontal regions and right lateral prefrontal cortex. We relate these activations to SNS activity, self-trait attribution and negative affect.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.