Adult learning ethos advocates Blooms Taxonomy and the use of the Cognitive, Psychomotor and Affective domains in the classroom to facilitate learning. But the natural preferences of a trainer can dictate to a large degree what domain will be the predominant focus for a particular lesson. For instance, a trainer who prefers the androgogic approach might wish to put a group into the Affective domain to encourage deeper learning, whereas a trainer who relies more on a pedagogic approach may feel that the Cognitive domain would be more appropriate.
Decisions taken in the lesson-planning/design stage can also fundamentally affect the way a lesson is managed, because a trainer who chooses to focus on the Affective domain is highly likely to use different methodology to achieve lesson objectives compared to the trainer who chooses the Cognitive domain.
Personality traits or types are fashioned from personal values, personal philosophies and socialisation. It is therefore difficult to perceive how a trainer’s underpinning training style (i.e. a Pedagogic v Androgogic approach) can be changed to any great degree, even with current trainer training methods. Couple this with not addressing individual Learning Styles (Kolb) and you have a recipe for an unsuccessful learning experience.
A trainer can be given the tools to enable a more androgogic approach to be adopted, but if they are naturally driven to a more pedagogic approach then, when the pressure is on and the trainer has to think on their feet, how often will they revert to their underpinning training style because their fundamental personality, their makeup, is what makes them who they are?
Is it possible, through a combination of experience and reflective practice, to sustain a positive change in your personality, and subsequently your training style, in the classroom?