learning-styles

Recommendations

Info

Table 15 Apter’s Motivational Style Profile (MSP) General Strengths The theory provides a structure for understanding human behaviour and experience, not in terms of fixed personality ‘types’, but by outlining the dynamic interplay between ‘reversing’ motivational states. Weaknesses The MSP is a measure of personality, not learning style alone. Design of the model There are four domains of experience in which there is interaction between emotion, cognition and volition. These are: means-ends, rules, transactions and relationships. Reversal theory is about systems in nature, bridging between biology and lived experience. Apter’s claim that one of the four pairs of motivational states is always in operation is as yet unproven. Reliability The MSP has acceptable levels of internal consistency and test–retest reliability. Validity There is an impressive amount of empirical evidence which supports reversal theory. In general, it cannot be said that factor analysis has shown the MSP to measure adequately the ‘binary oppositions’ on which reversal theory is built. Implications for pedagogy Reversal has major implications for how we think about learning styles, leading us to expect reversals between learning styles as well as some degree of individual consistency over time. Productive learning can be fostered by creating learning environments in which reversals through boredom and satiation are less likely to occur. The implications of reversal theory for learning have not been fully elaborated or widely researched, except in specialised fields such as sport and addiction. Evidence of pedagogical impact None as yet. Overall assessment Key source A theory which poses a threat to fixed-trait models of learning style and which merits further research and development in educational contexts. Apter 2001
LSRC reference Section 5 page 56/57 5.3 Jackson’s Learning Styles Profiler (LSP) Origins The LSP is described as ‘an applied neuropsychological model of learning styles for business and education’ (Jackson 2002). Chris Jackson, an organisational psychologist now at the University of Queensland, developed it in the UK over 10 years, working in the research culture of Eysenckian personality theory and drawing on the psychobiological theories of Gray (1982) and Cloninger (1993). Definitions, description and scope For Jackson, learning styles are a sub-set of personality, having a biological basis and constituting ‘the learnt basis of personality’ (2002, 12). Four learning styles are proposed, which resemble the Honey and Mumford (2000) styles, but are not claimed to be totally independent or to form part of a learning cycle. They are: initiator, reasoner, analyst and implementer. There are 80 items in the LSP, randomly ordered, with 20 for each style. Respondents have to select from the options ‘yes’, ‘no’ and ‘can’t decide’. There is a computerised version of the LSP which provides feedback in the form of a percentile score for each style and a detailed profile containing advice for getting future learning experiences right and improving weaker learning styles. The four item-derived characteristics which, according to the item analysis reported in the manual, are the best indicators of each style are given in Table 16, together with the descriptors from the LSP manual (Jackson 2002). The four LSP styles, with the strengths and weaknesses claimed for each in the LSP manual (Jackson 2002) are listed in Table 17. The initiator style is thought to be linked with Gray’s (1982) Behavioural Activation System (BAS), which initiates approach behaviour when there is a chance of reward, whereas the reasoner style is thought to have a basis in Gray’s Behavioural Inhibition System (BIS), which inhibits behaviour in response to cues associated with punishment. Following Cloninger (1993), the analyst style is seen as a self-regulatory, goal-oriented tendency which serves to maintain interest in a problem so that it can be thoroughly understood. No neuropsychological basis is claimed for the implementer style, which is seen as a logically necessary addition if plans are to be carried out. The LSP is intended for use with adults, and has been standardised in the UK on 1394 people aged between 20 and 60+. It is intended for use in a wide range of settings, but the emphasis so far has been placed on business organisations. Evaluation Reliability Internal consistency reliability for each of the four scales is provided in the manual (Jackson 2002), on the basis of three studies, the largest of which involved 1524 people. In that study, the alphas were in the range 0.72 to 0.75. Test–retest reliability for 42 students over a 10-week period was: 0.85 for initiator, 0.47 for reasoner, 0.74 for analyst and 0.73 for implementer. In another study involving 61 students who were tested in their first and third college years, the figures were: 0.63 for initiator, 0.52 for reasoner, 0.75 for analyst and 0.73 for implementer. These figures can be taken as moderately encouraging, with the exception of the reasoner scale. Validity Factorial validity for the styles is claimed on the basis of a four-factor solution for 400 students. This reveals some problems with nearly half the items, either because of low loadings or because of higher loadings on other scales. The latter problem is most acute with the initiator scale, since six of the items are more closely aligned with the analyst scale. The items with the highest loadings on each factor are generally those listed in Table 16 below, with the exception of the initiator scale. In this case, the four items which appear in Table 16 all had higher loadings on the analyst scale. The four highest-loading initiator items emphasise spontaneity, fun and excitement, which is consistent with Jackson’s summary descriptors. On balance, it seems that some further refinement of items is needed, especially in the initiator scale. The initiator and reasoner styles are, on theoretical grounds, expected to act against each other. This idea is partially substantiated by a negative correlation of –0.28 between their respective scales. The opposition of introversion and extraversion is reflected in a negative correlation of –0.50 between the initiator and reasoner scales. As might be expected from inspection of the items, there is some overlap between the reasoner and analyst scales, reflected in a positive correlation of 0.38. Although the LSP style names closely resemble those used by Honey and Mumford (2000) in their Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ), the construct validity of one or both instruments is called into question by a study involving 817 New Zealand workers. None of the correlation coefficients obtained were high. The percentages of shared variance for the four pairs of scales are shown in Table 18. Jackson argues that this is a positive finding since other researchers such as Swailes and Senior (1999) and Duff and Duffy (2002) have concluded that the Honey and Mumford LSQ is a poor measure of learning. However, it is also possible that the style names chosen by Jackson are not good descriptors of the underlying constructs.
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 63: LSRC reference Section 5 page 54/55
Page 69 and 70: Section 6 Flexibly stable learning
Page 99 and 100: Section 7 Learning approaches and s
Page 115 and 116:
LSRC reference Section 7 page 106/1
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?