learning-styles

Recommendations

Info

Table 16 Key characteristics of each style Initiator (sensation seeking, impulsive, extroverted) Does not usually think carefully before doing anything Generally does and says things without stopping to think Mostly speaks before thinking things out Considers all the advantages and disadvantages before making up his/her mind Reasoner (intellectual, rational, objective, has ‘theory of mind’) Rarely gets the feeling that it is useless trying to get anywhere in life Rarely feels that he/she doesn’t have enough control over the direction his/her life is taking Rarely feels that he/she has little influence over the things that happen to him/her Rarely finds life difficult to cope with Analyst (introverted, responsible, cautious, wise, methodological, insightful) Does not have a tendency to be inconsistent and untidy in his/her work Rarely leaves things to the last minute Does not have a tendency to ‘let things slide’ Can always be fully relied upon Implementer (expedient, realistic, practical) Rarely philosophises about the purpose of human existence Is not overcome by a sense of wonder when he/she visits historical monuments Rarely discusses the causes and possible solutions of social and political problems with friends Rarely pauses just to meditate about things in general Table 17 Strengths and weaknesses of the different preferences Initiator Strengths Engages problem Centre of attention Makes it happen Weaknesses Leaps without looking Focuses on self too much and on others too little Can make mistakes Reasoner Inhibits further initiation behaviour to increase understanding Identifies why things happen Provides a model Autonomous, self-reliant Independent Insightful More interested in theory than in action Doesn’t understand realities of the problem Analyst Knows all about the issues Great source of information Sees the pros and cons Wise, responsible and conscientious Maintains behaviour; insight learning Can’t see the wood for the trees Doesn’t get started Procrastinates Implementer Understands the realities Ver y practical Down to earth Has little ‘humanity’ Not enough imagination Table 18 The extent to which corresponding scales – Jackson (LSP) and Honey and Mumford (LSQ) – measure the same constructs Corresponding measures (LSP and LSQ) Initiator and activist Reasoner and theorist Analyst and reflector Percentage of shared variance 14 2 4 Implementer and pragmatist 0
LSRC reference Section 5 page 58/59 The latter interpretation receives some support when face validity is considered. The term initiator does not have the same connotation as the quality of impulsivity that comes through from the items in Table 16. Reasoner is not a good match for the quality of self-efficacy which the items in Table 16 convey, and analyst does not equate with personal organisation. The core construct items for implementer in Table 16 are negatively framed and clearly suggest reflection, which is not necessarily the opposite of practicality. Correlations with a range of personality measures are also reported by Jackson as evidence of validity. These may be summarised as follows: initiators tend to have high scores on risk taking, dysfunctional impulsivity and psychoticism; reasoners have few neurotic worries, are usually happy, purposeful and confident; analysts tend to have low scores on psychoticism, they may be ambitious, but tend to lie; and implementers cannot be clearly identified by personality tests. These findings are not clear-cut, providing some support for the hypothesised constructs, but also suggesting that other theories and interpretations should be considered, especially for the reasoner and analyst scales. Jackson argues that differences in the mean scores of various occupational groups support the construct validity of the LSP. This may be the case, but the argument stands just as well if different style names (with better face validity) are substituted for the originals. We might, for example, expect most engineers and computer people to have a greater sense of self-efficacy than male warehouse staff. Predictive validity has so far been studied in only one ‘real world’ context, a sample of 59 sales staff in an unnamed blue-chip company. It was found that both the initiator and analyst scales were low positive predictors of job performance. Implications for pedagogy Most practical applications of the LSP to date have been in organisational contexts. Jackson sees uses for it in selection and appraisal, in planning professional development and team building, and in creating learning cultures. There is a positive emphasis in the computer-generated recommendations for personal development which result from completing the questionnaire. The feedback is very detailed and contains suggestions for building on strengths, dealing with challenging situations and remedying maladaptive learning. The relevance, practicality and value of this feedback have yet to be evaluated. Jackson sees some learning styles, behaviours and strategies as being more easily modified than others. According to 131 raters, the analyst style is the most conscious in origin, which accords with its theoretical status as self-regulatory, goal-oriented and ‘interest maintaining’. The raters thought that the initiator style is the most instinctive in origin, which suggests that impulsive, pleasure-seeking behaviour is the most difficult to change. Overall, Jackson takes the view that for both individuals and organisations, it is desirable to build up multiple strengths, rather than encouraging people to work only in ways which come most naturally to them. Conclusions The LSP is a sophisticated instrument, but has some relatively weak aspects. The quantity and quality of statistical data accompanying its first publication in 2002 is most impressive and Jackson is to be commended for making it open to scrutiny on the internet. It is understandable that with such a new instrument, no published empirical studies by independent researchers are available at the time of writing. However, as indicated above, there are a number of theoretical, social, managerial and pedagogical questions which need to be addressed. While certain small technical adjustments to the LSP are desirable, there are more fundamental issues concerning its further development and use. It seems to suffer from a tension between a priori theorising and lived experience. Each scale includes a number of rather loosely associated variables and often the generic label is not the most appropriate one. Jackson’s theoretical stance is not rigid, and it is noteworthy that he does not see a problem in acknowledging that learning styles are influenced to varying degrees by biology as well as by experience and conscious control. By encouraging self-awareness about preferences, behaviour and beliefs, Jackson is promoting a positive attitude to personal evelopment. It is possible that this approach will prove more fruitful in organisational psychology, education and training than the many existing commercial applications which rely on theories of fixed personality traits.
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 65: LSRC reference Section 5 page 56/57
Page 69 and 70: Section 6 Flexibly stable learning
Page 99 and 100: Section 7 Learning approaches and s
Page 117 and 118:
LSRC reference Section 7 page 108/1
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?