learning-styles

Recommendations

Info

The Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI) The HBDI is a self-report instrument covering the following types of preference and performance rating: handedness strong and weak school subjects work elements (eg administrative, innovating, teaching/training) key descriptors (eg verbal, emotional, factual) hobbies (eg fishing, photography, travel) energy level (eg day person, night person) motion sickness (frequency and connection with reading) adjective pairs (forced choice: eg controlled/creative) introversion/extraversion (nine-point scale) 20 questions (five-point scale: eg ‘I dislike things uncertain and unpredictable’). The Flesch-Kincaid readability level of the 20 questions is 12–13 years and the vocabulary demand of the work element, key descriptor and adjective pair items is such that Herrmann provides a 43-item glossary. This suggests that the instrument will be inaccessible, without personal mediation, to people with low levels of basic literacy. Reliability The only reliability statistics published by the Herrmann Group (1989) are test–retest figures, based on a sample of 78 individuals (see below). The figures are remarkably high (except for quadrant B), but it should be noted that no information is provided about the interval between the two assessments, or about the feedback that may have been provided after the first assessment. The test–retest study formed part of a doctoral dissertation by Ho (unreferenced): A the rational self: 0.86 B the safe-keeping self: 0.73 C the feeling self: 0.97 D the experimental self: 0.94 introversion/extraversion rating: 0.73. While short-term test–retest reliability is perhaps more important than internal consistency in an instrument of this kind, it is clear that there is a pressing need for a rigorous independent study of the reliability of the HBDI. Validity Herrmann’s categories appear to have good face, factorial and construct validity and are claimed to have catalytic validity when applied in education and in the business field. However, there have been very few studies of reliability or validity carried out by independent researchers, and we have not been able to locate any longitudinal studies. As the descriptors in the feedback from a scored personal profile include many of those used in the HBDI itself, there is a high probability that respondents will judge the instrument to have good face validity. Our own impression is that this is the case, as clusters of items seem to relate to one’s life experience. The many individual and group case illustrations provided by Herrmann in his books also have an authentic quality. Factorial validity has been established through the analysis of four data sets, three carried out by Bunderson (a nationally known American psychometrician contracted by Herrmann for the purpose) and one by Ho (unreferenced). These are presented in some detail in Appendix A of Herrmann (1989). Two factor analyses were based on the HBDI items alone. The first of these was performed on an early, 91-item version of the HBDI, with a sample consisting of 439 people, including managers, other professionals and students. Nine factors were extracted, the first two being bipolar and corresponding to the main hypothesised dimensions. The most significant item loadings are presented in Table 26. The factor loadings were used to establish 12 sets of item parcels, which were then re-analysed, this time yielding a two-factor solution which provided an even better match to Herrmann’s theoretical model and led to a revision of the item scoring system. A higher-order left-right dominance factor was also found, supporting Herrmann’s concept of a closer affinity between quadrants associated with the same half of the brain (ie A with B; C with D). The factor analytic study by Ho (unreferenced) drew on a sample of 7989 people. This used the current 120-item HBDI and yielded five factors, including a handedness factor, which was unrelated to the other four. The first four factors again confirmed Herrmann’s model and are presented in Table 27.
LSRC reference Section 6 page 80/81 Table 26 Summary of positive and negative loading items on two HBDI factors Factor 1: safe-keeping preferences versus creative synthesis Preferring: Specific instructions Step-by-step methods Detailed planning Administration Organisation Avoidance of uncertainty Factor 2: analytical problem solving versus interpersonal/empathetic Preferring: Analytical Logical Technical Mathematical problem solving As opposed to: Conceptual thinking Dealing with creative aspects Desire to synthesise Desire to express ideas As opposed to: Interpersonal aspects Dealing with emotion Intuition Making decisions based on first impressions and hunches Table 27 Item loadings on the four main HBDI factors (120-item version) A quadrant factor: rational, logical Preferring: Logical Rational Mathematical activities/style D quadrant factor: creative, innovative Preferring: Innovating Conceptualising Creating Imaginative Original Artistic activities/style As opposed to: Emotional Spiritual Musical Artistic Reading Arts and crafts Introvert Feeling activities/style As opposed to: Controlled Conservative activities/style B quadrant factor: safe-keeping Preferring: Order Planning Administration Organisation Reliability Detail Low level of uncertainty C quadrant factor: people-oriented Preferring: Interpersonal Verbal People-oriented Emotional Musical activities/style As opposed to: Holistic thinking Conceptualising Synthesis Creating Innovating As opposed to: Analytical Technical Logical Mathematical activities/style
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 87: LSRC reference Section 6 page 78/79
Page 99 and 100: Section 7 Learning approaches and s
Page 127 and 128: Section 8 Implications for pedagogy
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?