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.
6.2<br />
Honey and Mumford’s Learning Styles<br />
Questionnaire (LSQ)<br />
Introduction<br />
In the late 1970s, Alan Mumford was in charge of senior<br />
management development at the Chloride Organisation<br />
and invited Peter Honey, a chartered psychologist,<br />
to join him in studying the then relatively neglected topic<br />
of how managers learn. They began by administering<br />
Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory (LSI), which was the first,<br />
and for some time the only, available diagnostic tool<br />
for exploring how individuals learn. Because the LSI<br />
was found to have low face validity with managers,<br />
Honey and Mumford spent four years experimenting<br />
with different approaches to assessing individual<br />
differences in <strong>learning</strong> preferences before producing<br />
the Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ) in 1982.<br />
So instead of asking people directly how they learn,<br />
as Kolb’s LSI does – something which most people<br />
have never consciously considered – Honey and<br />
Mumford give them a questionnaire which probes<br />
general behavioural tendencies rather than <strong>learning</strong>.<br />
The new instrument was designed to be used as<br />
a starting point for discussion and improvement.<br />
Peter Honey has continued working in the same vein,<br />
producing a series of manuals for trainers and self-help<br />
booklets for learners (eg Honey 1994).<br />
The links with Kolb’s work remain strong, however,<br />
because the four <strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong> are connected to<br />
a revised version of Kolb’s experiential <strong>learning</strong> cycle.<br />
So, for example, activists are said to have a predilection<br />
for experiencing; reflectors for reviewing experiences<br />
or mulling over data; theorists for drawing conclusions;<br />
and pragmatists for planning the next steps (see<br />
Figure 11). Honey and Mumford’s intention is that<br />
learners should become proficient in all four stages<br />
of the <strong>learning</strong> cycle.<br />
Definitions and descriptions<br />
Honey and Mumford (1992, 1) define a <strong>learning</strong> style<br />
as being ‘a description of the attitudes and behaviour<br />
which determine an individual’s preferred way<br />
of <strong>learning</strong>’. The four <strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong> are described<br />
as those of activists, reflectors, theorists and<br />
pragmatists and the following lists in Table 21 give<br />
a brief summary of the strengths and weaknesses<br />
of each style:<br />
The authors are keen to emphasise (2000, 43) that<br />
‘no single style has an overwhelming advantage<br />
over any other. Each has strengths and weaknesses<br />
but the strengths may be especially important<br />
in one situation, but not in another’. They are also<br />
careful not to exaggerate the significance of personal<br />
<strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong> and explicitly acknowledge that they<br />
constitute only one factor in a range of influences<br />
which include past experiences of <strong>learning</strong>, the range<br />
of opportunities available, the culture and climate<br />
for <strong>learning</strong> and the impact of the trainer/teacher,<br />
among many other factors.<br />
Moreover, it is emphasised that the LSQ should be<br />
used for personal and organisational development and<br />
not for assessment or selection, an approach which,<br />
it is argued, encourages respondents to behave<br />
honestly. Honey and Mumford also provide answers<br />
to some of the most frequently posed questions about<br />
<strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong>, the most significant of which are briefly<br />
discussed here.<br />
Are there only four <strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong>?<br />
The figure of four is defended because ‘they are easy<br />
to remember, they reinforce the stages people need to<br />
go through to become balanced learners and they are<br />
widely understood, accepted and used by learners…’<br />
(Honey and Mumford 2000, 19).<br />
Can <strong>learning</strong> style preferences change?<br />
Learning <strong>styles</strong> ‘are modifiable at will’ – for example,<br />
to strengthen an underdeveloped style; or ‘by a change<br />
of circumstances’ (Honey and Mumford 2000, 19) –<br />
for example, a change of job to a firm with a different<br />
<strong>learning</strong> culture.<br />
How accurate are self-perceptions?<br />
It is admitted that ‘self-perceptions can be misleading<br />
[and that] the answers are easy to fake if someone is<br />
determined to give a misleading impression’ (Honey and<br />
Mumford 2000, 20). The latter is considered less likely<br />
if people have been assured that the LSQ is a tool for<br />
personal development.<br />
Why does the LSQ allow a binary choice – tick or cross?<br />
‘To keep it simple’ (Honey and Mumford 2000, 21).<br />
This does not obviate the difficulty many people find<br />
in being forced to respond ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to such items as<br />
‘I tend to be open about how I’m feeling’ or ‘I’m always<br />
interested to find out what people think’.<br />
Aren’t labels misleading/stereotyping?<br />
The labels ‘are a convenient oversimplification … [and]<br />
a starting point for discussion on how an individual<br />
learns. That discussion will remove any misleading<br />
judgements’ (2000, 21). This presupposes that<br />
the LSQ is always used by trainers/tutors who are<br />
knowledgeable about the strengths and limitations<br />
of the approach, who are aware of the dangers<br />
of labelling and stereotyping and who discuss the<br />
results of the LSQ individually with the learners. Indeed,<br />
elsewhere, Honey and Mumford (2000, 41) argue that<br />
a trainer needs to be ‘…adept at interpreting the<br />
questionnaire and counselling interested parties<br />
in its implications’.