learning styles and self-study

[Guest guest]

[in one simple but accurate scheme], Anthony F. Gregorc described

four kinds of learners [though clearly many have elements of more

than one]:

 

concrete-sequential - these learners like direct hands on experience,

they like learning to be in a logical order

concrete-random - these learners like exploring, discovery, trial and

error and doing independent projects

abstract-sequential - these learners prefer reading and listening,

and understand verbal and symbolic meanings quickly

abstract-random - these learners are very people oriented, they learn

best through discussions, and questioning sessions.

 

I would submit that only when the third type of learning dominates in

a person does the learner derives significant benefit from unguided

reading (which would include such things as premodern case studies).

This is underscored by my observation that the busiest clinicians I

know of tend to be more concrete in their learning style (this is not

an insult - thomas Edison was concrete-random, for example, and we

owe pretty much all of modernity to him). Many orthos are concrete-

sequential. they typically use proven techniques in a well defined

order and structure. the so-called MSU crowd is mostly concrete-

random, IMO. they do as they please, ignore books and precedent and

if it seems to work, cool.

 

Abstract types make better herbalists, but not all abstractors are

good readers. Most of the great scholars of CM were clearly

abstractors. According to Unschuld, the confucian gents hated to get

their hands dirty, most of them. But most rank and file px of CM

were no doubt much more towards concrete. We strive to emulate the

scholarly tradition (without losing sight of practical knowledge, we

hope), but just like the modern chinese, we have discovered that very

few people at all in any culture in any era tend to be " bookworms "

or type 3 above. Perhaps the skill isn't rewarded in modern society

or perhaps it is a genetic rarity (it goes with a certain amount of

introversion, which is not a great reproductive strategy meaning

there are always many less introverts than extroverts in any

society). For a more detailed study of your own learning styles and

how this may impact your educational choices, see the PLSI

questionnaire I sent some time ago at http://www.calstatela.edu/

faculty/jshindl/plsi/

 

There are many variable in what constitutes essential material

necessary for mastering any discipline. As learners, we tend to

teach how we were taught or how we learned if given the the chance.

But this is an unexamined point of view. It assumes that what worked

for us tells us anything about what works for others. But that is

like practicing medicine w/o differential diagnosis, n'est-ce pas?

For those who do not learn well from self-study of purely textual

materials, the accepted wisdom amongst educational researchers is

that such study is not just less good, it is actually detrimental to

understanding. If you need an oral explanation or live demo to learn

something well, then relying solely on text will likely result in

errors in comprehension. So while 1 person gets great insight from

studying a case or a research study only available in chinese,

another merely applies the material completely out of context. But

the second person is no less smart, not necessarily. They just need

instruction. Just about every major herbalist in our field is a

reader and abstractor. You can tell from how they write (me

included). but most students and arguably most traditional

herbalists were not. We (including me) have often worked with the

presumption that since the mainstream practice is so text heavy that

those who can't handle the text load are unfit to practice. However

if the mainstream practice was actually much less text heavy and much

more story and apprentice like in nature, then there is no reason to

demand that all CM docs be scholars now when so few have the

inclination or ability to learn that way (whichever you choose).

China's healthcare needs were served largely by those who learned in

the trenches, not the libraries. We need our scholars to advance the

field, but we have no need to ostracize our non-scholar clinicians

based upon a historically unsubstantiated position (according to

historians). That's what the ancient chinese did to each other. We

have the benefit of hindsight (or should).

 

 

 

 

Chinese Herbs

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

 

I agree.

 

Bob

 

, wrote:

> [in one simple but accurate scheme], Anthony F. Gregorc described

> four kinds of learners [though clearly many have elements of more

> than one]:

>

> concrete-sequential - these learners like direct hands on experience,

> they like learning to be in a logical order

> concrete-random - these learners like exploring, discovery, trial and

> error and doing independent projects

> abstract-sequential - these learners prefer reading and listening,

> and understand verbal and symbolic meanings quickly

> abstract-random - these learners are very people oriented, they learn

> best through discussions, and questioning sessions.

>

> I would submit that only when the third type of learning dominates in

> a person does the learner derives significant benefit from unguided

> reading (which would include such things as premodern case studies).

> This is underscored by my observation that the busiest clinicians I

> know of tend to be more concrete in their learning style (this is not

> an insult - thomas Edison was concrete-random, for example, and we

> owe pretty much all of modernity to him). Many orthos are concrete-

> sequential. they typically use proven techniques in a well defined

> order and structure. the so-called MSU crowd is mostly concrete-

> random, IMO. they do as they please, ignore books and precedent and

> if it seems to work, cool.

>

> Abstract types make better herbalists, but not all abstractors are

> good readers. Most of the great scholars of CM were clearly

> abstractors. According to Unschuld, the confucian gents hated to get

> their hands dirty, most of them. But most rank and file px of CM

> were no doubt much more towards concrete. We strive to emulate the

> scholarly tradition (without losing sight of practical knowledge, we

> hope), but just like the modern chinese, we have discovered that very

> few people at all in any culture in any era tend to be " bookworms "

> or type 3 above. Perhaps the skill isn't rewarded in modern society

> or perhaps it is a genetic rarity (it goes with a certain amount of

> introversion, which is not a great reproductive strategy meaning

> there are always many less introverts than extroverts in any

> society). For a more detailed study of your own learning styles and

> how this may impact your educational choices, see the PLSI

> questionnaire I sent some time ago at http://www.calstatela.edu/

> faculty/jshindl/plsi/

>

> There are many variable in what constitutes essential material

> necessary for mastering any discipline. As learners, we tend to

> teach how we were taught or how we learned if given the the chance.

> But this is an unexamined point of view. It assumes that what worked

> for us tells us anything about what works for others. But that is

> like practicing medicine w/o differential diagnosis, n'est-ce pas?

> For those who do not learn well from self-study of purely textual

> materials, the accepted wisdom amongst educational researchers is

> that such study is not just less good, it is actually detrimental to

> understanding. If you need an oral explanation or live demo to learn

> something well, then relying solely on text will likely result in

> errors in comprehension. So while 1 person gets great insight from

> studying a case or a research study only available in chinese,

> another merely applies the material completely out of context. But

> the second person is no less smart, not necessarily. They just need

> instruction. Just about every major herbalist in our field is a

> reader and abstractor. You can tell from how they write (me

> included). but most students and arguably most traditional

> herbalists were not. We (including me) have often worked with the

> presumption that since the mainstream practice is so text heavy that

> those who can't handle the text load are unfit to practice. However

> if the mainstream practice was actually much less text heavy and much

> more story and apprentice like in nature, then there is no reason to

> demand that all CM docs be scholars now when so few have the

> inclination or ability to learn that way (whichever you choose).

> China's healthcare needs were served largely by those who learned in

> the trenches, not the libraries. We need our scholars to advance the

> field, but we have no need to ostracize our non-scholar clinicians

> based upon a historically unsubstantiated position (according to

> historians). That's what the ancient chinese did to each other. We

> have the benefit of hindsight (or should).

>

>

>

>

> Chinese Herbs

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

, " Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001>

wrote:

>

>

> I agree.

>

> Bob

 

 

 

Really? You have been an ardent advocate of rigorous self-study of chinese

texts for many

years. Have you changed your mind? I will admit my recent posts on this

subject definitely

reflect a shift in my attitudes on this matter. But I have never argued for

reading chinese as

an essential component of practice, for example. I am a terminology hawk, but

thats still a

rung down the ladder of rigor, IMO. Are you referring solely to unguided study

of premodern

texts or unguided study in general? Because I think most learners have trouble

with all

unguided study. Unguided study is certainly the source of much MSU (meaning the

real

made up stuff, not bonafide but obscure oral traditions). That should be enough

to give

pause right there.

 

[Guest guest]

, " " wrote:

Are you referring solely to unguided study of premodern

> texts or unguided study in general? Because I think most learners have

trouble with all

> unguided study.

 

 

For a point of comparison, your current version of the pi wei lun provides a

form of guided

study as does Mitchell's SHL with all the commentary in either case. Raw

translations

alone are not as useful. either people don't read them at all or they use them

as the basis

for outrageous claims and ideas that they made up. the same would have to go

for

chinese originals. Now well organized case study books with detailed

explanations and

problems to work through is one thing, but just reading cases is another

altogether.

 

We all have really enjoyed Bob Damone's presentations on premodern cases over

the years.

However one of the things that comes up in these discussions is how pithy many

of these

cases were. Often very little is revealed by the busy doctor and the reader is

left to

determine the intent. In these discussions, which often included many well

versed well

known chinese reading folks, what was evident was the range of interpretations

one might

have. In order to be sure of the correctness of such interpretations, it is

vital to discuss

the content with other " experts " in order to reach a consensus.

 

Merely having access to all possible information just leads to cognitive

overload for most

learners. For myself, having Bob Damone present those cases and hearing the

likes of Bob

Flaws and Craig Mitchell comment on them was far more instructive than reading

the raw

cases on my own would have been. And I am an abstractor!! For others, an even

more

concrete structured approach is called for. Here's the deal. What are we doing

and how

do we achieve it? Are there certain processes and procedures that can be

distilled from

the literature that reflect a consensus on expert practice? Or is there just

unlimited

individuality and creative expression? If it is the former, then education

should use cases

sufficiently to create the mental models and strategies to carry out the task at

hand. If it is

the latter, then education should focus on cultivating personal construction of

meaning by

each student.

 

If a profession is so lacking in basic procedures that one must continually

refer to cases,

then is it really a profession at all? This comes right back to the issue of

standards of

terms, education, practice. It reveals the irreconcilable rifts between those

who begin with

opposing fundamental premises which are often left unexamined. Those who insist

on the

complete individualization of medical practice often consider research on TCM

foolish and

standards impediments. How can there be a standard if all patients are

different? How

can there be research without standards being possible? Why waste our time?

Yet I

disagree with the fundamental premise that all patients are so different that

there are no

practice standards possible.

 

1. patients tend to cluster around certain patterns for certain complaints; so

while a range

of possibilities is theoretically possible, a much smaller cross section

actually appears in

practice.

 

2. research shows both allopathic and standardized formulas for patterns to

work at least

as well as completely individualized ones. There is evidence to support all

three methods

as equally effective.

 

3. While there are certainly fine nuances between a patients' presentations

even if their

disease and pattern are the same, the need to use slightly different formulas is

typically to

address differing SYMPTOMS. Depending on one's school of thought, formulas for

patients with liver depression spleen blood vacuity dysmenorrhea could vary

significantly,

with all patients taking xiao yao san, but some adding herbs for GI or

constipation or

bloating or low back pain. But some kanpo herbalists might just give XYS

unmodified to all

of them. There is no evidence that such fine-tuning of ingredients for symptoms

(or even

all mutually engendering patterns concurrently) makes any difference in

outcomes.

 

All this suggests to me that standards are not only possible, but desirable for

clinicians

with busy practices. Many of my more concrete students who do quite well when

given the

process tell me they don't have time or don't know where to start when

researching a case

in practice. Do any of us really want this type of practitioner to wing it or

are standards

within which they can evolve their practice through experience a safer bet.

 

[Guest guest]

>

>

> On Behalf Of

> 2. research shows both allopathic and standardized formulas for patterns

> to work at least

> as well as completely individualized ones. There is evidence to support

> all three methods

> as equally effective.

 

Can you back this up? I cannot think of that many studies that have

compared all three... hhmm IBS study... well the individualized style won

(long-term)... I want to hear more before I except such generalized

statements...

 

And should your word 'patterns' be 'diseases'?

 

-

[Guest guest]

" Really? You have been an ardent advocate of rigorous self-study of

chinese texts for many years. Have you changed your mind? "

 

 

 

No, I haven't changed my mind. I have always argued that there are

different styles of learning and intelligence and that what is right

for one person may not be right for another. That is why I was an

original supporter of the Alliance as opposed to the AAOM. I did not

want/do not want to see people required to study and practice Oriental

medicine only one way. I have often suggested to particular students

that they might be better suited to study one modality or one style of

Oriental medicine over another.

 

That being said, it is my experience that a reading knowledge of

Chinese is especially useful if one is doing individually written,

bulk-dispensed Chinese internal medicine. As I've said before, I think

acupuncture is a whole other kettle of fish, and I don't care whether

practitioners of that art do or do not read Chinese.

 

However, I do believe that every teacher of Chinese medicine should

have a reading knowledge of Chinese. Teachers are supposed to be

experts in their field, and it is not possible to be real expert on

Chinese medicine without being able to read the literature.

 

Sorry if my views are complex.

 

Bob