learning-styles

Recommendations

Info

6.3 The Herrmann ‘whole brain’ model and the Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI) Introduction Ned Herrmann developed his ‘whole brain’ concept while he was in charge of management education for General Electric. Throughout his education and professional career, he was actively involved with the creative arts as well as with science and technology. Having developed a format of self-assessment by questionnaire, followed by group learning activities, he left General Electric in 1982 to set up the Ned Herrmann Group. The group is now established in more than a dozen countries, offering services in personal, interpersonal, staff and organisational development. These services are derived from the profiling procedure built into the Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI). At the time of writing, over 1m mental preference profiles have been analysed by occupational category and in other ways, including international comparisons of management style. The ‘whole brain’ model has been applied in many contexts, including personal growth, counselling, group processes, teaching and learning, decision making and management. Origins and description of the model The HBDI provides, on the basis of 120 items, a four-category classification of mental preferences or thinking styles (sometimes also referred to as ‘learning styles’). The first version was developed in 1982, after Herrmann had achieved only limited success in identifying electroencephalographic (EEG) correlates of specialised left- and right-brain functions. He was inspired by the widely publicised split-brain research carried out by Roger Sperry, winner of the Nobel Prize (Sperry 1964). However, following MacLean (1952), Herrmann (1989) also took into account hypothesised functions of the brain’s limbic system, which is located beneath the surface layers (or cerebral cortex). The four categories in Herrmann’s model can be summarised as follows. A Theorists (cerebral, left: the rational self) Theorists are said to find it difficult to accommodate the feeling self and the humanitarian style. B Organisers (limbic, left: the safe-keeping self) Organisers are said to find it difficult to accommodate the experimental self and the innovatory style. D Innovators (cerebral, right: the experimental self) Innovators are said to find it difficult to accommodate the safe-keeping self and the organising style. C Humanitarians (limbic, right: the feeling self) Humanitarians are said to find it difficult to accommodate the rational self and the theoretical style. Although Herrmann began with a brain-based theory of hemisphere dominance, he later accepted that this was an oversimplification with inadequate empirical support and recommended (1989, 63) that A, B, C, D quadrant terminology be used instead: ‘The whole-brain model, although originally thought of as a physiological map, is today entirely a metaphor.’ The metaphor is expressed in many different ways, using a range of descriptors based on the 120 items in the HBDI, and in Appendix E of The creative brain (1989), Herrmann devotes 14 pages to graphic representations of his model, each differing in the labels used. Two of these representations locate the ‘whole brain’ model within the surrounding culture (ethnic, family, social and organisational) and environment (physical, geographic, economic, temporal and motivational). Table 25 is a representation which illustrates how people who strongly prefer one of the four categories (or quadrants) are said to differ in their approach to learning. Virtually the same representation appears in Herrmann (1996), where it is described as a model of learning styles. The quadrant model and the concept of ‘dominance’ is not meant to imply that most people have a strong preference for one quadrant only. In fact, Herrmann states that this is true of only 7% of the population studied. The most common pattern (for 60%) is to have strong preferences in two quadrants, followed by strong preferences in three quadrants (30%). Only about 3% of those assessed have what is termed a ‘quadruple dominant’ or ‘whole brain’ profile. Herrmann states (1989, 89–90) that these people ‘are capable of developing an extraordinarily balanced view of any given situation. They can also communicate easily with people who favor one of the other quadrants, and act as translators among people of different mental preferences.’ Another feature of Herrmann’s model is the idea that certain combinations of preference are more harmonious than others, especially the ‘left-brain’ combination of A and B quadrants and the ‘right-brain’ combination of D and C quadrants. Conflict is more likely to arise between ‘diagonal’ quadrants – that is, experimental as opposed to safe-keeping tendencies and rational as opposed to feeling appraisals (D/B and A/C). The ‘whole brain’ model is not based on biological determinism. Indeed, Herrmann (1989, 20–21) is persuaded that ‘the way a person uses the specialised brain results from socialisation – parenting, teaching, life experiences, and cultural influences – far more than from genetic inheritance’. He believes that it is in the interest of individuals and organisations to develop sufficient flexibility to respond, against their natural preferences, to meet particular situational demands; and, where necessary, to make longer-lasting value-based adjustments, especially if this can release latent creativity in an individual or in an organisation.
LSRC reference Section 6 page 78/79 Table 25 ‘Whole brain’ learning and design considerations Source: Herrmann (1989) Quadrant A: upper left Learns by: Acquiring and quantifying facts Applying analysis and logic Thinking through ideas Building cases Forming theories Learners respond to: Formalised lecture Data-based content Financial/technical case discussions Textbooks and bibliographies Programmed learning Behaviour modification Quadrant D: upper right Learns by: Taking initiative Exploring hidden possibilities Relying on intuition Self-discovery Constructing concepts Synthesising content Learners respond to: Spontaneity Free flow Experiential opportunities Experimentation Playfulness Future-oriented case discussions Visual displays Individuality Aesthetics Being involved Quadrant B: lower left Learns by: Organising and structuring content Sequencing content Evaluating and testing theories Acquiring skills through practice Implementing course content Learners respond to: Thorough planning Sequential order Organisational and administrative case discussions Textbooks Behaviour modification Programmed learning Structure Lectures Quadrant C: lower right Learns by: Listening and sharing ideas Integrating experiences with self Moving and feeling Harmonising with the content Emotional involvement Learners respond to: Experiential opportunities Sensory movement Music People-oriented case discussions Group interaction
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 85: LSRC reference Section 6 page 76/77
Page 99 and 100: Section 7 Learning approaches and s
Page 127 and 128: Section 8 Implications for pedagogy
Page 137 and 138:
LSRC reference Section 8 page 128/1
Page 139 and 140:
LSRC reference Section 8 page 130/1
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?