NLP

This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester]
On: 11 June 2010

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 915545541]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Curriculum Journal
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713695259
Neuro-linguistic Programming and learning theory

Anna Craft
To cite this Article Craft, Anna(2001) 'Neuro-linguistic Programming and learning theory', Curriculum Journal, 12: 1, 125
— 136
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09585170122455
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585170122455
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
The Curriculum Journal Vol. 12 No. 1 Spring 2001 125–136
Neuro-linguistic Programming
and learning theory
A N N A CR A F T
The Open University
Downloaded By: [The University of Manchester] At: 19:04 11 June 2010
ABSTRACT
This article explores relationships between Neuro-linguistic Programming – a

growing school of thought and practice – and established learning theory, drawing a
distinction between models, strategies and theories. Some evaluative comments are
made about the coherence of Neuro-linguistic Programming as it currently stands,
both in terms of its internal consistency, and in relation to established learning
theories. In relation to its internal structure, questions are asked as to how far copying
an expert’s behaviour can really lead a learner to becoming an expert, and about the
lack of attention within the theory given to the domain of application. Two other
important areas are examined: the dissonance between the claim that Neuro-linguis-
tic Programming caters to individuality in learning while also proposing a view that
learning is best done experientially; and a speci c aspect of the theory, named the
‘logical levels’, asking whether learners are really as predictable and as subject to
cause/effect as this theory would suggest. Finally, the epistemological basis of Neuro-
linguistic Programming is questioned. It is argued that, though Neuro-linguistic Pro-
gramming has begun to make an impact in education, it remains a set of strategies
rather than a theory or a model, and these internal inconsistencies need to be
addressed if it is to have a place among the dominant learning theories of our age.
KEY WORDS
Neuro-linguistic Programming; learning theory; pedagogy.
SOME PRINCIPLES OF NEURO-LINGUISTIC

PROGRAMMING AS AN APPROACH TO LEARNING
Neuro-linguistic Programming has evolved since its inception in the

mid-1970s by Bandler and Grinder (1979), to encompass the modelling of
The Curriculum Journal ISSN 0958–5176 print/ISSN 1469-3704 online

© 2001 British Curriculum Foundation
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/0958517001001778 1
126 T H E C U R RI CU L U M JO U R N A L Vol. 12 No. 1
successful strategies of top performers in any eld, together with a set of

practical strategies for achieving desired outcomes in one’s life. Thus it offers
a positive, practical view of learning as a way of becoming consciously more
effective in the world, as a learner of whatever age. As part of its approach to
learning, Neuro-linguistic Programming relates words, thoughts and behav-
iours to purposes and goals. It focuses on effective communication and pro-
poses as a tool to facilitate the taking of perspectives on any live set of issues.
It is rooted in the practices of everyday life, on a number of levels, including
the spiritual.
The notion of logical levels was developed by Dilts, described here by
O’Connor and McDermott (1994: 26) (their italics):
The rst level is the environment: the context, our surroundings and the
other people we relate to.
The second level is behaviour: the speci c actions we carry out.
The third level is skills and capabilities: what we can do.
The fourth level is beliefs and values: what we believe and what matters to
us.
Next there is our identity: our basic sense of self, core values and mission
in life.
Additionally, most people have something beyond themselves to which
they relate (spiritual).
The signi cance of the logical levels is to raise awareness of the need for con-
gruence, or match, between these levels and also to highlight the level which
might need most attention in one’s life. This will be illustrated in a teaching
context in relation to creativity. According to Dilts’s logical levels, the belief
that all learners are capable of creative thought will be re ected in the physi-
cal learning environment which a teacher sets up and the behaviours which
she exhibits as a facilitator of learning. The learning facilitated in the class-
room will, according to Dilts, be even more powerful if the teacher’s own
self-concept is one of being a creative person. Similarly, the games teacher
who mocked me as a child for being unable to catch a ball, and who used to
say that I was stupid, was confusing identity level with skill level. The result,
suggests Dilts, is a damaging impact on identity. This may form part of the
explanation for my continued inability to catch a ball.
Thus congruence between levels may lead to powerful and positive facili-
tation of learning. On the other hand, dissonance between levels may not. The
notion of modelling forms an important strand within Neuro-linguistic Pro-
gramming. As O’Connor and McDermott (1996: 144) put it, ‘Modelling suc-
cessful performance leads to excellence’, on the basis that if you can understand
how someone else does something, you can copy that process and teach it to
others. In this sense, personal construction is central to Neuro-linguistic Pro-
gramming. Indeed, the creation of what O’Connor and McDermott (ibid.)
N E UR O -L IN G U IS TI C P R O G RA M M IN G 127
describe as one’s own ‘map of reality’ as opposed to what they call ‘reality
itself’ is an important principle. The notion of one’s own map of reality is not
original to O’Connor and McDermott; indeed, the notion of maps of reality
has been used elsewhere and beyond in many contexts.
The existence and usefulness of a range of perspectives is embedded within
Neuro-linguistic Programming as a skill of communication and analysis. The
rst position is one’s own reality. The second is another’s reality. The third is
an attempt at a systemic overview of both. The idea is that the more per-
spectives you manage to hold, the more valuable is the information available
to you. Taking action, then, is an important aspect of Neuro-linguistic Pro-
gramming; indeed, O’Connor and McDermott (1996: 144) suggest that one
of the presuppositions of the programme is that learning happens by doing:

‘If you want to understand – act. The learning is in the doing.’ The act of
choice as necessary to action is also emphasized; indeed, the widening of
choice is seen as an important goal. The senses are considered to be the key
to processing information; and the mind and body are seen as mutually in u-
encing one another. It is an experiential approach. Alder has described it as
‘the art and science of personal excellence’ (1994: 4).
Neuro-linguistic Programming operates from a positive context; it
assumes that all human action is positive in intention. O’Connor and Mc-
Dermott also suggest that ‘the unconscious mind is benevolent’ (1996: 143).
In addition, individuals are seen as resourceful. This is summarized by
O’Connor and McDermott in the following way: ‘people work perfectly’
(144) and ‘There are no unresourceful people, only unresourceful states’
(144). Neuro-linguistic Programming values learning from experiences, and
removes the evaluative labelling of these. Thus, as Alder puts it, ‘If things do
not work out the way we plan, we usually think we have failed. But the
Neuro-linguistic Programming view is that what happens is neither good nor
bad, but merely information’ (1994: 17).
It has had a signi cant impact in the workplace and in the world of train-
ing for continuing professional development for adults. But how does it relate
to the dominant learning theories used to understand and facilitate the learn-
ing of children? This is an important question to be explored by any organiz-
ation which wants to use Neuro-linguistic Programming in education, since
our underpinning models of learning drive what sorts of learning experiences
we set up and value in classrooms.
DOMINANT LEARNING THEORIES IN EDUCATION
The dominant western learning theories in the education of children may be

grouped in a variety of ways. One way of doing this is to divide the theories
into three main approaches, as shown in this excerpt from Craft (1996a: 162):
1 Learning as growth, i.e. learning is seen as ‘the growth of cognitive struc-

tures along an internally directed course under the triggering and partially
shaping effect of the environment’ (Chomsky, 1980); the key is to provide
children with free experience to bring out what is already there and to
enable their innate powers to develop. Examples of adherents to this view
include Montessori, Rousseau and Froebel.
2 Learning by association, i.e. on the premise that events occurring together in
experience will be represented together in the mind, learning is seen as the
acquisition of such associations. For example, we learn common categories
(e.g. dog) by associating their key features (e.g. domesticated, barks, has a
tail, four legs, fur, etc.). Behaviourism takes this notion one step further by
adding the principles of positive and negative reinforcement. In other words,

for behaviourists the learning of associations can be strengthened by the use
of positive reinforcement or rewards, when appropriate behaviour takes
place. The best known adherent of behaviourism is Skinner.
3 Learning as development and construction, i.e. learning is seen to depend
on the development of mental structures for organizing, sorting and con-
ceptualizing the world around us. This development is seen as being aided
by providing problems for a child to ‘discover’ solutions to. Adherents of
this view of learning include Piaget and the writers of the Plowden report.
Within each approach then, there are major proponents and a set of key prin-
ciples which drive the way in which learning is understood. Each perspective
involves a different role for the teacher. Modelling understanding and pro-
cedures and ‘scaffolding’ children’s constructions of meaning by providing a
framework of expectations, experiences and feedback, are central to the
teacher’s role in constructivist approaches to learning. Social constructivist
approaches emphasize social engagement between learners and also between
learner and teacher. Providing a rich, enticing and stimulating learning
environment on the assumption that individuals will engage with self-chosen
aspects of it, is dominant in theories of learning as growth. Providing experi-
ences where cognitive learning is associated with certain conditions, includ-
ing rewards and punishments, is the key to learning by association.
TEACHERS AND THEORY
However, individual teachers may at times consider different approaches to

be particularly helpful or accessible. Thus, a teacher may consider her role to
be one of enabling children to make sense of the world by active engagement
with it (and thus may characterize themselves as a ‘constructivist’ teacher).
Another may consider her role to be primarily one of providing a nurturing
environment, rather like a garden, in which the individual child’s true nature
may ‘unfold’. Although the views of learning held within the three traditions
are contrasting and potentially con icting, I would argue that all teaching and
learning are likely to involve elements of each theoretical perspective, for in

practice in schools there will be times when children are expected to learn in
all three ways.
In a primary classroom, children may learn to associate the ringing of a bell
with playtime, or tidy-up time with having a story on the carpet, or letter
names with sounds. Children may also learn through physical and social con-
struction about, for example,
tens and units by playing with uni x cubes;
the properties of ice and what happens when it is brought to room tem-
perature by handling it with other children;
social roles in shopping through role-play in the classroom shop.
They may also be encouraged to learn by ‘unfolding’ at their own rate,

through choosing what they would like to play or work with at certain times,
or by doing ‘play writing’ in the literacy corner of the classroom.
Fashions dictate which perspective teachers value. Thus, in the late 1990s,
research by psychologists has focused on social constructivist approaches to
learning, a re nement of the notion of learning as construction and develop-
ment. The construction of meaning by physical and social engagement with
the learning environment builds on the work of both Piaget (emphasizing the
physical learning environment) and also Vygotsky (emphasizing the social
environment). Many current studies of children’s learning investigate the
nature of learning in a social context, the construction of shared meanings
and the dynamics of collaboration in learning (see, for example, Tharp and
Gallimore, 1988). In part because of the impact of such fashions in learning
theories, there may be times when teachers experience dilemmas about which
of the perspectives should dominate their practice. Thus, a reception teacher
may want to emphasize the individual’s construction of meaning in most con-
texts, but may want children to associate walking in a crocodile into assem-
bly with the rest of the school with silence. She may use a system of rewards
to ensure this happens.
Different forms of education value different theoretical perspectives over
others. It might be argued, for example, that schools based on Steiner’s prin-
ciples (McDermott, 1996) value learning as growth over other approaches.
Similarly, a school organized on Montessori principles might be seen as
valuing learning by association and learning as development and construc-
tion, over learning as growth. A sixth form college might value learning as
development and construction over the other two forms.
TEACHERS’ BELIEFS AND THEORIES OF ACTION
However, it is certainly the case that many teachers do not consider their
practice to be consciously driven by learning theories. Indeed, many would
be unable to name any theoretical perspective as underpinning what they do

or value. As the Teacher Training Agency and other arms of government
policy ourish, the role of theoretical underpinning is degraded further and
further in initial teacher education and in-service training. But, as I have
argued elsewhere (Craft, 1996a), all practice is underpinned by implicit
theories about how the world works, including how learning happens. Beliefs
about teaching and learning affect one’s approach to both teaching and pro-
fessional development. They also in uence what is sometimes referred to as
a practitioner’s theory or theories of action. West (1992), referring to the ideas
of Argyris and Schon, de nes a teacher’s espoused theory of action as how a
teacher describes what he or she does when teaching in order to produce
intended outcomes in appropriate circumstances. A teacher’s theory of action

would include:
what they feel characterizes the way their pupils engage in learning;
the attitudes, skills and key concepts they are aiming to develop;
how they characterize the way they teach a particular subject or area.
West sees such a theory as ‘enabling us to engage in our work, to be able to
predict what might happen, and in consequence, control events within our
work setting’. However, there can be a mismatch between someone’s theory
of action and what they actually do in practice, what West describes as ‘theory
in use’. West proposes a role for processes such as self–evaluation and
appraisal as highlighting any mismatch and in con rming congruence.
Because theories of action can be implicit rather than explicit, it has been
argued (Craft, 1996a) that there may be a role for self-evaluation in helping
teachers to articulate what they are aiming to do. Neuro-linguistic Program-
ming involves awareness of both one’s own theoretical foundations as well as
one’s performance, in practice. Thus, it can be seen as a theory of action. But
is it a theory?
THEORIES, MODELS AND STRATEGIES – WHICH IS

NEURO-LINGUISTIC PROGRAMMING?
Given the increasing interest in approaches such as Neuro-linguistic Pro-

gramming in the wider market, including that of education and teacher edu-
cation, it is timely to ask how this approach engages with these dominant
perspectives. I want to distinguish here between theories, models and strat-
egies. I see these terms as representing three different levels of understanding
in the following way:
Theories: over-arching approaches to explanation, which encompass a
range of models. Theories provide fundamental assumptions which then
underpin the workings of models of understanding.
Models: ways of explaining phenomena which are built on the underpin-

ning assumptions of speci c theoretical frameworks.
Strategies: practical activities stemming from models, in turn informed by
fundamental assumptions provided by theory.
To apply this set of distinctions, I would suggest that Neuro-linguistic Pro-
gramming draws on the fundamental assumptions of the theoretical frame-
work of social constructivism. As I explored at the start of the article, it
involves construction. It is considered to be experiential. It is social. It is
action-based and it involves the negotiation of meaning and the exercising of
choice, via information purposefully sought from a range of perspectives. The
Neuro-linguistic Programming approach thus appears to be a constructivist
one, involving active engagement, both physical and social, in the construc-
tion of meaning. The concept of each individual creating their own ‘map’ of
understanding underpins the approach. The notion of working through
errors or ‘failures’ as information is constructivist in orientation. It appears,
then, to be possible to understand this approach within the framework of
social constructivism as a theoretical perspective.
It also provides ways of understanding and trying to replicate behaviour,
through its principle of ‘modelling’. Here ‘modelling’ is used in a different
way to my use of the term ‘model’, for Neuro-linguistic Programming aims
to replicate speci c behaviours in analogous contexts rather than providing
a way of explaining behaviour across situations. But does it contain models
of learning in the sense I have described these? One possible candidate is
Dilts’s ‘logical levels’, for this provides a framework for exploring behaviour.
I would suggest that this is indeed a model, for it appears to stem from the
underpinning beliefs of constructivism.
Thus far, I have suggested that Neuro-linguistic Programming draws on
social constructivism and that it contains at least one model of learning.
However, with its powerful emphasis on practical outcomes, it is fundamen-
tally a set of strategies. Neuro-linguistic Programming offers practical
approaches to improving performance, and draws on both the Dilts model
and the underpinning assumptions of constructivism in doing so. In the nal
section of the article I want to examine the assumptions built in to the practi-
cal strategies of this approach.
DOES IT ADD UP?
A major claim made by Neuro-linguistic Programming is that by ‘becoming’

or ‘pretending to be’ someone else, one can learn how to do speci c processes
more effectively. This involves copying what one is aware of – often ‘surface
features’ of another person’s behaviour. For, although one may become aware
of deeper aspects of another person’s performance, which may include
beliefs, physiology, strategies, sub-modalities, etc., at root, becoming

someone else involves copying. I want to examine the assumption that by
copying or ‘pretending to be’ someone else who is an expert performer
necessarily leads to others being able to do that same activity.
I have suggested that Neuro-linguistic Programming appears to rest on
constructivist theory. This would suggest that learning is personally con-
structed and negotiated through practical and social interaction in the world.
The most powerful constructivist learning theories propose that this involves
a form of direct apprenticeship, in which the expert helps the novice gradu-
ally to gain in con dence, understanding and competence. Neuro-linguistic
Programming, however, is much less concerned with the expert practitioner.
I would therefore question how far merely copying, without negotiation, can
really lead to expert performance.
Second, Neuro-linguistic Programming (in common with other
approaches to improving learning and performance) gives no role to the
domain of application. And yet there is now increasing understanding within
psychology that performance within one domain does not necessarily, or
automatically, transfer to performance within another – a perspective known
as ‘situated cognition’ where learning is seen as enculturation into a speci c
domain of knowledge (Brown, Collins and Duguid, 1989). It has been argued
(Craft et al., 1997; Craft, 2000) that in the case of creative thought, the role
of the domain is as important as creative processes and personal attributes.
Third, Neuro-linguistic Programming is said to be ‘experiential’. But what
of studies which suggest that some people learn best through other modes?
Among these are Honey and Mumford (1986). They identify four basic
learning styles, which are termed Activist, Re ector, Theorist and Pragmatist.
Honey and Mumford suggest that individuals have a range of preferences for
each style of learning, from very low to very strong. Thus they have preferred
or dominant styles of learning but can be encouraged to adopt and develop
others. Table 1 summarizes Honey and Mumford’s analysis (from Craft,
1996a).
Honey and Mumford’s is only one approach to learning styles, but it is
offered in order to set the ‘copying’ or ‘modelling’ principle of Neuro-
linguistic Programming within a wider framework; according to their model,
the Neuro-linguistic Programming one is an approach which re ects the
learning of ‘pragmatists’ in particular. It is one which would suit the ‘re ec-
tor’ or ‘theorist’ learning style much less well. Thus a weakness is that it
claims to be accessible to all when this appears not to be the case, and in that
it appears to make no reference to practical research focused on learning
styles.
Fourthly, are Dilts’s logical levels, on the other hand, awed because
people and learning are really not as predictable and not as subject to
cause/effect as this theory would suggest? Earlier in the article I suggested
that, according to Dilts’s ‘logical levels’, a person who sees themselves as cre-
ative is more likely to be able to foster creativity in others, because congru-
ence between levels is likely to foster powerful and positive learning. While
some research (Craft, 1996b; Craft with Lyons, 1997) does suggest that
teachers do seem to need to nourish themselves in order to foster the cre-
ativity of others, it is by contrast also possible for teachers’ own creativity to
expand to marginalize others, including learners with signi cantly less power
than themselves. Thus congruence between beliefs, values and identity (as a
creative person) does not necessarily mean that a person will be effective in
their behaviour, skills or attitudes. On the other hand, Neuro-linguistic Pro-
gramming advocates might argue that it is congruence through all of the
levels which will result in a creative person.

It could also be argued that dissonance between levels may foster power-
ful (although potentially painful) learning experiences. {The games teacher
who called me stupid for not being able to catch a ball, thus confusing skill
level with identity level, nevertheless helped me to learn that I could not catch
a ball; a lesson which has stayed with me throughout adult life.} Neverthe-
less, Dilts’s schema does offer a tool for analysing components of situations
and thus may help in identifying potential ways to solve problems.
Finally, the epistemological position of Neuro-linguistic Programming
appears to be that reality ‘exists’ out there. As O’Connor and McDermott
say, ‘People respond to their map of reality and not to reality itself. We
operate and communicate from those maps. Neuro-linguistic Programming
is the art of changing these maps, not reality’ (1996: 143). Thus, although
Neuro-linguistic Programming stresses the making of individual meaning, it
appears to suggest that nevertheless reality does exist ‘out there’. But con-
structivist theories imply at their heart that reality is socially constructed, and
thus to say that ‘reality itself’ exists ‘out there’ would be inconsistent with
constructivism.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
I have outlined the principles of Neuro-linguistic Programming. I have intro-

duced three major theoretical perspectives which, I have argued, underpin
teachers’ practice. Having discussed the difference between theories, models
and strategies, I have suggested that Neuro-linguistic Programming is best
understood as a strategy which at rst sight appears to draw on constructivist
theories of learning. However, I have raised some problems in both the strat-
egy itself ( rst, the lack of awareness of learning and performance styles, in
that although it comes from the perspective that individuals respond uniquely
to the world, it nevertheless offers an experiential approach to learning; and
second, the possibility that Dilts’s ‘logical levels’ may not be as ‘tidy’ as they
Table 1 Activists, Re ectors, Theorists and Pragmatists
1. ACTIVISTS
Learn best from opportunities where:
there are new experiences/problems/opportunities
they can get engrossed in short ‘here and now’ activities, e.g. role-playing
exercises
there is excitement/drama/crisis, and things chop and change with a range of
diverse activities to tackle
they have high visibility (e.g. can chair meetings, lead discussions, give
presentations)
they can generate ideas, without policy or feasibility constraints
they are thrown in at the deep end with a task they think is dif cult
they work with other people, e.g. in a team
it is appropriate to ‘have a go’
Learn least from situations where:

learning involves being passive
they are asked to stand back and not be involved
they are required to assimilate, analyse and interpret lots of ‘messy’ data
they are required to engage in solitary work by reading, writing, thinking alone
they are asked to work out beforehand what they will learn, and evaluate it
afterwards
there is a lot of repetitive activity (e.g. practising)
they have precise instructions to follow with little room for manoeuvre
they have to do a thorough job
2. REFLECTORS
Learn best from activities where:
they are allowed/encouraged to watch/think/chew over activities
they can stand back and listen/observe
they are allowed to think before acting
they can carry out some painstaking research
they have the opportunity to review what has happened, or what they have
learned
they are asked to produce carefully considered analyses and reports
they are helped to exchange views in a structured situation
they can reach a decision in their own time, without pressure and tight deadlines
Learn least from activities where:

they are in the limelight
they have to take action without planning
they have to do something without warning
they are given insuf cient data on which to base a conclusion
they are given cut and dried instructions of how something should be done
they are worried by time pressures or rushed from one activity to another
in the interests of expediency they have to make short cuts or do a supercial job
Table 1 Continued
3. THEORISTS
what is offered is part of a system, model, concept or theory
they can explore associations and interrelationships between ideas, events and
situation, methodically
they have the chance to question and probe the basic assumptions or methodology
they are intellectually stretched
they are in structured situations, with a clear purpose
they can listen or read about ideas and concepts that emphasize rationality or logic
they can analyse and then generalize
they are offered interesting ideas and concepts, even if they are not immediately
relevant
they are required to understand and participate in complex situations

they are asked to do something without context or apparent purpose
they are asked to explore or express feelings or emotions
activities are unstructured, ambiguous or uncertain (i.e. open-ended)
they are asked to act without a basis in policy, principle or concept
they are faced with a mixture of alternative or contradictory techniques or
methods, and are not given a chance to explore them in any depth
they doubt that the subject matter is methodologically sound
they nd the subject matter groundless or shallow
they feel themselves out of tune with other participants (i.e. when with lots of
Activists, or people who are less intellectual)
4. PRAGMATISTS
there is an obvious link between the subject matter and a problem or opportunity
on the job
they are shown practical techniques
they have a chance to try these out with coaching/feedback from a credible expert
(who can do the techniques themselves)
they are exposed to a role-model they can emulate
they are given immediate opportunities to implement what they have learned
they can concentrate on practical issues (e.g. drawing up action plans)

the learning is not related to an immediate need they can recognize
organizers of the learning seem distant from the reality
there is no clear practice or guidelines on how to do it
they feel people are not getting anywhere, or going round in circles
there are political, managerial or personal obstacles to implementation
there is no apparent reward from the learning activity
Source: adapted from Honey and Mumford (1986).

seem) and also in its relationship with the underpinning theoretical per-
spective (the nature of learning and the nature of knowledge). If Neuro-
linguistic Programming is to have a place among the dominant learning
theories of our era, it seems to me that these inconsistencies need to be
addressed.
REFERENCES
Alder, H. (1994) Neuro-linguistic Programming: The Art and Science of Getting What
You Want. London: Piatkus.
Bandler, R. and Grinder, J. (1979). Frogs into Princes. London: Real People Press.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A. and Duguid, P. (1989) ‘Situated cognition and the culture of
learning’. Educational Researcher 18(19): 32–42. Washington, DC: Educational
Research Association.
Chomsky, N. (1980) Rules and Representations. Oxford: Blackwell.
Craft, A. (1996a) Continuing Professional Development: A Practical Guide for
Teachers and Schools. London: Routledge.
Craft, A. (1996b) ‘Nourishing educator creativity: a holistic approach to CPD’.
British Journal of In-service Education 22(3): 309–22.
Craft, A. (2000) Creativity across the Primary Curriculum: Framing and Developing
Practice. London: Routledge
Craft, A. with Dugal, J., Dyer, G., Jeffrey, B. and Lyons, T. (1997) Can You Teach
Creativity?. Nottingham: Education Now.
Craft, A. with Lyons, T. (1997) ‘Nourishing the educator: knowing what you need’.
In Craft, A. et al., Can You Teach Creativity?. Nottingham: Education Now.
Honey, P. and Mumford, A. (1986) The Manual of Learning Styles. Maidenhead: Peter
Honey and Alan Mumford.
McDermott, Robert A. (1996) The Essential Steiner: Basic Writings of Rudolph
Steiner. San Fransisco: Floris Books.
O’Connor, J. and McDermott, I. (1994) Training with Neuro-linguistic Programming.
London: Thorsons.
O’Connor, J. and McDermott, I. (1996) Principles of Neuro-linguistic Programming.
London: Thorsons.
Tharp, R. and Gallimore, R. (eds) (1988) Rousing Minds to Life: Teaching and
Learning and Schooling in Social Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
West, N. (1992) Classroom Observation in the Contrast of Appraisal: Training Manual
for Primary Schools. Harlow: Longman.

NLP

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NLP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester]

On: 11 June 2010

Neuro-linguistic Programming and learning theory

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article explores relationships between Neuro-linguistic Programming – a

Neuro-linguistic Programming; learning theory; pedagogy.

SOME PRINCIPLES OF NEURO-LINGUISTIC

Neuro-linguistic Programming has evolved since its inception in the

The Curriculum Journal ISSN 0958–5176 print/ISSN 1469-3704 online

successful strategies of top performers in any  eld, together with a set of

of the presuppositions of the programme is that learning happens by doing:

DOMINANT LEARNING THEORIES IN EDUCATION

The dominant western learning theories in the education of children may be

1 Learning as growth, i.e. learning is seen as ‘the growth of cognitive struc-

adding the principles of positive and negative reinforcement. In other words,

TEACHERS AND THEORY

However, individual teachers may at times consider different approaches to

learning are likely to involve elements of each theoretical perspective, for in

They may also be encouraged to learn by ‘unfolding’ at their own rate,

TEACHERS’ BELIEFS AND THEORIES OF ACTION

be unable to name any theoretical perspective as underpinning what they do

intended outcomes in appropriate circumstances. A teacher’s theory of action

THEORIES, MODELS AND STRATEGIES – WHICH IS

Given the increasing interest in approaches such as Neuro-linguistic Pro-

 Models: ways of explaining phenomena which are built on the underpin-

DOES IT ADD UP?

A major claim made by Neuro-linguistic Programming is that by ‘becoming’

beliefs, physiology, strategies, sub-modalities, etc., at root, becoming

levels which will result in a creative person.

I have outlined the principles of Neuro-linguistic Programming. I have intro-

Table 1 Activists, Re ectors, Theorists and Pragmatists

Learn least from situations where:

Learn least from activities where:

Learn least from activities where:

Learn least from activities where:

Source: adapted from Honey and Mumford (1986).

You might also like

successful strategies of top performers in any eld, together with a set of

Models: ways of explaining phenomena which are built on the underpin-

Table 1 Activists, Re ectors, Theorists and Pragmatists