learning-styles

Recommendations

Info

Table 23 Activities and preferences Source: Honey and Mumford (2000) Activists react positively to: Reflectors react positively to: Action learning Business game simulations E-learning Learning reviews Job rotation Discussion in small groups Listening to lectures or presentations Observing role plays Role playing Training others Outdoor activities Reading Self-study/self-directed learning Theorists react positively to: Analytical reviewing Exercises with a right answer Listening to lectures Self-study/self-directed learning Solo exercises Watching ‘talking head’ videos Pragmatists react positively to: Action learning Discussion about work problems in the organisation Discussion in small groups Problem-solving workshops Group work with tasks where learning is applied Project work Recently, Honey and Mumford’s LSQ was used by Price and Richardson (2003) to examine the relationships between learning style and performance and different instructional methods. They also studied the usefulness of the LSQ in predicting students’ preferences among instructional models, and students’ performance, study techniques and recall processes. The LSQ consistently failed to predict all these aspects of students’ performance and preferences. Price and Richardson concluded (2003, 294) that ‘…tests of generalised individual differences are inappropriate for understanding performance in task-specific and context-dependent situations’. Implications for pedagogy When it comes to matching learning activities with learning style preferences, Honey and Mumford claim (2000, 28) that: ‘Our research into a number of different training methods showed the following positive correlations’. Unfortunately, what follows is not a set of correlations, but a list of activities which match each of the four learning styles, a list which is reproduced above in Table 23. No further information is given either about the research or the correlations. It is also clear from Honey and Mumford (2000) that the two main uses for the LSQ, as envisaged by the authors, are to devise personal development plans and to show the activist manager, the reflector manager, the theorist manager and the pragmatist manager how to help their staff learn by, for example, choosing activities that are congruent with the preferred style of the learners. Honey and Mumford argue (2000, 52) that ‘managers, if they encourage learning at all, will tend to do so in ways consistent with their own learning styles’. An approach which improves the quality of support for workplace learning is to be welcomed, particularly given the findings of research which show that ‘a major factor affecting a person’s learning at work is the personality, interpersonal skills, knowledge and learning orientation of their manager’ (Eraut et al. 1999, 29). Empirical evidence of pedagogical impact No empirical evidence of pedagogical impact is quoted in the guide to the LSQ (Honey and Mumford 2000) and we have found no other such studies. Conclusions The research summarised above has clearly cast doubt both on the psychometric robustness of the LSQ and its ability to predict performance. If trainers in firms and FE and HE tutors are to continue to use the LSQ, they need to be aware of these deficiencies and of the dangers of labelling individuals; and they also have to make the prior professional decision either to concentrate on trying to change the learning styles of individuals, or the learning culture of the organisation, or any of the many other factors which affect learning. If the LSQ is used, as Honey suggests, purely as a stimulus to discussion with a knowledgeable tutor about how people can become more effective learners, then perhaps little harm and some good will be done. The original intention of the authors needs to be kept in mind – namely, to help managers who want to improve their own performance as well as the performance of the people they are responsible for. A more satisfactory outcome, however, would be a revision of the LSQ to answer the criticisms which have been made of it. Perhaps the more fundamental problem is the implicit assumption that one instrument of 80 statements can capture all the complexities and the multifaceted nature of learning as well as the cycle of learning. In addition, Honey and Mumford based their LSQ on Kolb’s model, but because they found its bipolar structure untenable, they designed the LSQ so that the style preferences are aligned to the stages in the learning cycle. They have not, however, produced an alternative to Kolb’s bipolar theory. For all these criticisms, the LSQ remains very popular as a self-development tool with practitioners, is used extensively – for instance, by industrial trainers and FE tutors – and can now be completed online.
LSRC reference Section 6 page 76/77 Table 24 Honey and Mumford’s Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ) General Strengths LSQ probes the attitudes and behaviours which determine preferences with regard to learning. To be used for personal/organisational development and not for assessment/selection. Not a psychometric instrument, but a checklist about how people learn. Weaknesses Danger of labelling people as ‘theorists’ or ‘pragmatists’, when most people exhibit more than one strong preference. Design of the model Based on Kolb’s model, with new terms for style preferences which are aligned to the four stages in the learning cycle. Evaluation by researchers has become increasingly critical, eg percentage of variance explained by personality and learning style put at 8% (Jackson and Lawty-Jones 1996). Reliability Only moderate internal consistency has been found. Validity Face validity is claimed by authors. Validity not assessed by authors. More evidence is needed before LSQ is acceptable. Implications for pedagogy To help managers/ employees to devise personal development plans. To show managers how to help their staff learn. To be used as a starting point for discussion and improvement with a knowledgeable tutor. Suggestions made to help people strengthen an under-utilised style. All the suggestions are derived logically or from practice with using the LSQ; they have not been rigorously tested to see if they work. Evidence of pedagogical impact No evidence quoted by authors. No evidence found by researchers. Overall assessment Key source Has been widely used in business, but needs to be redesigned to overcome weaknesses identified by researchers. Honey and Mumford 2000
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 69 and 70: Section 6 Flexibly stable learning
Page 83: LSRC reference Section 6 page 74/75
Page 99 and 100: Section 7 Learning approaches and s
Page 127 and 128: Section 8 Implications for pedagogy
Page 135 and 136:
LSRC reference Section 8 page 126/1
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?