learning-styles

Recommendations

Info

The theory is an evolving one and Apter (2001, 307) acknowledges the need for ‘a systematic developmental underpinning for the theory’ as well as the ‘need to develop specific techniques that would allow people to come more in control of their own reversal processes’ (2001, 306). This is a difficult area, since Apter has posited an unconscious biological basis for reversal without fully accounting for its adaptive value. There is, nonetheless, an impressive amount of empirical evidence which supports reversal theory. Apter and Heskin (2001) have summarised the research evidence which supports the basic propositions of the theory, including some studies in which reversal was monitored during educationally relevant activities such as studying statistics and reading. While Apter does not claim that his four domains are the only way of conceptualising psychological needs, he does (2001, 39) claim exhaustiveness in the sense that for a given pair of motivational states, ‘one or the other will be active during the whole of waking life’. He allows that a pair of states may be more or less central or peripheral in awareness, but not that both may disappear altogether from consciousness. However, it is not clear whether this is a logical or empirical claim, and if the latter, whether it is falsifiable. Apter does not seem to allow for the simultaneous activation of pairs of states such as goal-oriented (telic) and activity-oriented (paratelic). Yet if simultaneous activation does not occur, it is difficult to explain behaviour where both are required, such as the performance of musicians and stand-up comics, where the experience of flow is at once enjoyment and achievement. Apter’s treatment of arousal-avoidance and arousal-seeking is not fully consistent, since these are assimilated within the telic-paratelic dimension in much of his writing, but treated as a separate dimensi on in the MSP. The MSP approach is more convincing, since while peace and quiet may generally help people to focus on goal achievement, this is not always so. Reversal theory is based on clear definitions and has a clear structure, despite the use of invented terms to refer to the poles of two dimensions (‘telic’ and ‘paratelic’ in the case of the means-end dimension and ‘autic’ and ‘alloic’ as applied to relationships). While some features of the theory can be questioned, Apter (2001) has set it out in a highly coherent form, with four basic assumptions and 10 basic propositions. Although it is a theory of personality rather than of learning, reversal theory does provide a conceptual framework for asking questions in a systematic way about approaches to learning, especially about motivation, feelings about learning and personal style. Its dimensions are not new, but the concept of reversal is refreshingly novel and provides a real challenge to theorists who seek to pigeonhole individuals in terms of fixed characteristics. It is helpful to consider reversal theory in the context of other theories and models of thinking, learning and personal style. Apter’s telic-paratelic dimension is conceptually linked with extrinsic versus intrinsic motivation and with convergent versus divergent thinking. A telic orientation may also be what motivates some learners to approach study with the aim of gaining high examination marks, while some students who do not take their studies seriously may have a paratelic orientation. Deep absorption in studying a subject can be an end in itself or be motivated by a serious academic ambition, while ‘surface’ learners may become more interested if teachers find ways of making learning more enjoyable. There is a family resemblance between Apter’s conformist-negativistic dimension, Sternberg’s (1998) hierarchic and anarchic thinking styles and Kirton’s distinction (1989) between adaptors and innovators. Apter’s concept of autic mastery reflects values of individualism and competitiveness, while alloic sympathy reflects values of social belonging and cooperation. Most importantly, the key concept of reversal has major implications for how we think about learning styles. It leads us to expect reversals between learning styles as well as some degree of individual consistency over time, and it strongly suggests that productive learning styles can be fostered by creating learning environments though which important values are conveyed and in which reversals through boredom and satiation are less likely to occur. Evaluation of the MSP and of related instruments The MSP items are written in simple language, with a readability level of about 9 years. Most are clearly expressed, but some (especially those beginning with ‘I like…’) can be read in more than one way. For example, I may respond that I always ‘like to be liked’, meaning that being liked is a common experience for me; or I may, by the same response, mean that I always like the experience of being liked, even though I do not have it very often. The MSP is fairly robust in psychometric terms, with internal consistency of the 14 sub-scales in the range 0.64 to 0.89 for the UK version and test–retest correlations in the range 0.73 to 0.92 over a 12-week period (Apter, Mallows and Williams 1998). The most stable sub-scales were those for other-oriented affection, optimism, excitement and fun.
LSRC reference Section 5 page 54/55 Figure 8 Possible motivational style reversals in four experiential domains Need Style Need Style Achievement Serious Fitting in Conforming Means-ends domain Rules domain Fun Playful Freedom Challenging Need Style Power Competitive Transactions domain Love Affectionate Need Style Individuation Self-oriented Relationships domain Transcendence Other-oriented In terms of reversal theory, it is appropriate that each pole of a dimension should be rated separately, but if the poles are indeed opposites, one would expect this to be confirmed by factor analysis, with the polar opposites having positive and negative loadings on a particular factor. However, Apter, Mallows and Williams (1998) did not find this pattern with the main five dimensions, and only ‘optimism’ and ‘pessimism’ items loaded in this way (positively and negatively) on a single factor. They did, however, find that with very few exceptions, all the items in a given sub-scale loaded on the same factor. The predicted association between the paratelic and arousal-seeking scales was found, but not the corresponding association between the telic and arousal-avoidance scales. In general, it cannot be said that factor analysis has shown the MSP to adequately measure the ‘binary oppositions’ on which reversal theory is built. There are other serious concerns as to whether the MSP does full justice to the theory on which it is based. It does not provide a measure of the frequency of reversals, nor does it indicate the extent of change. The method of calculating ‘salience’ is also questionable. A person who self-rates as ‘seldom conforming’ and ‘seldom challenging’ will gain a very low salience score, even though their thoughts may be filled with criticisms of society and the futility of trying to change it. The problem of assuming equal numerical intervals between ratings is illustrated by the fact that the same salience score will be obtained by someone who self-rates as ‘always conforming’ and ‘never challenging’ as by someone who self-rates as ‘often conforming’ and ‘sometimes challenging’. So far as concurrent validity is concerned, Apter, Mallows and Williams (1998) report on two studies in which extraversion was found to be positively correlated with the paratelic, arousal-seeking and autic mastery sub-scales. Neuroticism was strongly related to pessimism, as well as (negatively) to the paratelic, arousal-seeking and alloic mastery sub-scales. All of these relationships are consistent with theory and everyday experience. We are all familiar with lively, cheerful extroverts who like to be in control of events and to dominate others, as well as with fearful, nervous people who are not much fun, avoid taking risks and are not good team players. It is, however, rather paradoxical that some of the ‘big five’ personality dimensions (neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness and conscientiousness) are used to validate the MSP when reversal theory is intended to provide a challenge to trait theories. We conclude that better evidence in support of reversal theory is likely to come from process and observational reports of change over time, rather than from data collected through rating scales such as the MSP. We are unable to evaluate the Apter Team Contribution System (ATCS) and the Apter Work Impact System (AWIS), as there is, as yet, no published research about their construction and use. Implications for pedagogy The implications of reversal theory for learning have not been fully elaborated or widely researched, except in specialised fields such as sport and addiction. Nevertheless, the theory is intended to have wide application and to hold good across the lifespan and across cultures. Apter sees it as being relevant to groups and organisations as well as to individuals, and for this purpose, has set up a management consultancy, Apter International, with a website at www.apterinternational.com Achievement, motivation, boredom, frustration and satiation are concepts of considerable interest to educators. Other key concepts in reversal theory which are especially relevant in learning and instruction are those of arousal seeking, arousal avoidance and cognitive synergy (including aesthetic experience and humour).
Page 1 and 2:
LSRC reference Learning styles and
Page 3 and 4:
LSRC reference Learning styles and
Page 5 and 6:
LSRC reference Contents 1 9 13 37 4
Page 7 and 8:
LSRC reference Figures and tables L
Page 9 and 10:
LSRC reference Acknowledgements The
Page 11 and 12: Section 1 A systematic review of le
Page 13 and 14: LSRC reference Section 1 page 2/3 E
Page 15 and 16: LSRC reference Section 1 page 4/5 T
Page 17 and 18: LSRC reference Section 1 page 6/7 T
Page 19 and 20: Figure 3 Vermunt’s model of learn
Page 21 and 22: We devised this classificatory syst
Page 23 and 24: The popular appeal of the notion th
Page 25 and 26: Figure 5 Gregorc’s four-channel l
Page 27 and 28: From the evidence available, we con
Page 29 and 30: Table 1 Gregorc’s Mind Styles Mod
Page 31 and 32: Table 2 Variables and factors in th
Page 33 and 34: The measures Over 25 years, Dunn an
Page 35 and 36: Table 4 Percentages of respondents
Page 37 and 38: The BES instrument has elements for
Page 39 and 40: Shwery (1994) also questioned aspec
Page 41 and 42: However, the notion of ‘gifted’
Page 43 and 44: Second, the model encourages teache
Page 45 and 46: Table 6 Dunn and Dunn’s model and
Page 47 and 48: The most influential member of the
Page 49 and 50: Table 9 Studies of the interaction
Page 51 and 52: Riding and Rayner (1998) do not def
Page 53 and 54: Implications for pedagogy Riding (2
Page 55 and 56: Section 5 Stable personality type L
Page 57 and 58: LSRC reference Section 5 page 48/49
Page 61: LSRC reference Section 5 page 52/53
Page 69 and 70: Section 6 Flexibly stable learning
Page 99 and 100: Section 7 Learning approaches and s
Page 113 and 114:
LSRC reference Section 7 page 104/1
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Section 8 Implications for pedagogy
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Our recommendation in favour of inc
Page 143 and 144:
As for the research evidence in fav
Page 145 and 146:
Learning styles in practice: labell
Page 147 and 148:
Table 44 13 learning-styles models
Page 149 and 150:
It may be argued that it is importa
Page 151 and 152:
The comparative neglect of knowledg
Page 153 and 154:
LSRC reference page 146/147 Referen
Page 155 and 156:
LSRC reference References page 148/
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
LSRC reference page 166/167 Author(
Page 175 and 176:
LSRC reference Appendix 1 page 168/
Page 177 and 178:
Appendix 3 Glossary of terms LSRC r
Page 179 and 180:
LSRC reference Appendix 3 page 172/
show all

learning-styles

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?