learning-styles
learning-styles
learning-styles
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
LSRC reference Section 5<br />
page 56/57<br />
5.3<br />
Jackson’s Learning Styles Profiler (LSP)<br />
Origins<br />
The LSP is described as ‘an applied neuropsychological<br />
model of <strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong> for business and education’<br />
(Jackson 2002). Chris Jackson, an organisational<br />
psychologist now at the University of Queensland,<br />
developed it in the UK over 10 years, working in the<br />
research culture of Eysenckian personality theory and<br />
drawing on the psychobiological theories of Gray (1982)<br />
and Cloninger (1993).<br />
Definitions, description and scope<br />
For Jackson, <strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong> are a sub-set of personality,<br />
having a biological basis and constituting ‘the learnt<br />
basis of personality’ (2002, 12). Four <strong>learning</strong><br />
<strong>styles</strong> are proposed, which resemble the Honey and<br />
Mumford (2000) <strong>styles</strong>, but are not claimed to be<br />
totally independent or to form part of a <strong>learning</strong> cycle.<br />
They are: initiator, reasoner, analyst and implementer.<br />
There are 80 items in the LSP, randomly ordered,<br />
with 20 for each style. Respondents have to select<br />
from the options ‘yes’, ‘no’ and ‘can’t decide’. There<br />
is a computerised version of the LSP which provides<br />
feedback in the form of a percentile score for each<br />
style and a detailed profile containing advice for getting<br />
future <strong>learning</strong> experiences right and improving weaker<br />
<strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong>. The four item-derived characteristics<br />
which, according to the item analysis reported in the<br />
manual, are the best indicators of each style are given<br />
in Table 16, together with the descriptors from the<br />
LSP manual (Jackson 2002).<br />
The four LSP <strong>styles</strong>, with the strengths and weaknesses<br />
claimed for each in the LSP manual (Jackson 2002)<br />
are listed in Table 17.<br />
The initiator style is thought to be linked with Gray’s<br />
(1982) Behavioural Activation System (BAS), which<br />
initiates approach behaviour when there is a chance<br />
of reward, whereas the reasoner style is thought<br />
to have a basis in Gray’s Behavioural Inhibition System<br />
(BIS), which inhibits behaviour in response to cues<br />
associated with punishment. Following Cloninger<br />
(1993), the analyst style is seen as a self-regulatory,<br />
goal-oriented tendency which serves to maintain<br />
interest in a problem so that it can be thoroughly<br />
understood. No neuropsychological basis is claimed<br />
for the implementer style, which is seen as a logically<br />
necessary addition if plans are to be carried out.<br />
The LSP is intended for use with adults, and has been<br />
standardised in the UK on 1394 people aged between<br />
20 and 60+. It is intended for use in a wide range<br />
of settings, but the emphasis so far has been placed<br />
on business organisations.<br />
Evaluation<br />
Reliability<br />
Internal consistency reliability for each of the four<br />
scales is provided in the manual (Jackson 2002),<br />
on the basis of three studies, the largest of which<br />
involved 1524 people. In that study, the alphas were<br />
in the range 0.72 to 0.75. Test–retest reliability for<br />
42 students over a 10-week period was: 0.85 for<br />
initiator, 0.47 for reasoner, 0.74 for analyst and 0.73<br />
for implementer. In another study involving 61 students<br />
who were tested in their first and third college years,<br />
the figures were: 0.63 for initiator, 0.52 for reasoner,<br />
0.75 for analyst and 0.73 for implementer. These figures<br />
can be taken as moderately encouraging, with the<br />
exception of the reasoner scale.<br />
Validity<br />
Factorial validity for the <strong>styles</strong> is claimed on the basis<br />
of a four-factor solution for 400 students. This reveals<br />
some problems with nearly half the items, either<br />
because of low loadings or because of higher loadings<br />
on other scales. The latter problem is most acute<br />
with the initiator scale, since six of the items are<br />
more closely aligned with the analyst scale. The items<br />
with the highest loadings on each factor are generally<br />
those listed in Table 16 below, with the exception<br />
of the initiator scale. In this case, the four items which<br />
appear in Table 16 all had higher loadings on the<br />
analyst scale. The four highest-loading initiator items<br />
emphasise spontaneity, fun and excitement, which<br />
is consistent with Jackson’s summary descriptors.<br />
On balance, it seems that some further refinement<br />
of items is needed, especially in the initiator scale.<br />
The initiator and reasoner <strong>styles</strong> are, on theoretical<br />
grounds, expected to act against each other. This<br />
idea is partially substantiated by a negative correlation<br />
of –0.28 between their respective scales. The<br />
opposition of introversion and extraversion is reflected<br />
in a negative correlation of –0.50 between the initiator<br />
and reasoner scales. As might be expected from<br />
inspection of the items, there is some overlap between<br />
the reasoner and analyst scales, reflected in a positive<br />
correlation of 0.38.<br />
Although the LSP style names closely resemble<br />
those used by Honey and Mumford (2000) in their<br />
Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ), the construct<br />
validity of one or both instruments is called into<br />
question by a study involving 817 New Zealand workers.<br />
None of the correlation coefficients obtained were high.<br />
The percentages of shared variance for the four pairs<br />
of scales are shown in Table 18.<br />
Jackson argues that this is a positive finding since<br />
other researchers such as Swailes and Senior (1999)<br />
and Duff and Duffy (2002) have concluded that the<br />
Honey and Mumford LSQ is a poor measure of <strong>learning</strong>.<br />
However, it is also possible that the style names<br />
chosen by Jackson are not good descriptors of the<br />
underlying constructs.