learning-styles

Recommendations

Info

Construct and concurrent validity The other two factor analytic studies were designed to establish construct validity and involved a considerable number of other instruments as well as the HBDI. The second of these analyses was based on the current version of the HBDI. Cognitive ability measures, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory (LSI) and 11 other measures of thinking styles and learning strategies were included. The sample comprised 182 students. The analysis yielded two higher-order factors. The first was a bipolar factor, contrasting the Herrmann C and A quadrants, with significant loadings on extraversion-introversion, a preference for learning in groups, learning through personal experience, visual imagery and Kolb’s ‘concrete experience’ scale. Bunderson (cited by Herrmann 1989) suggested that there is conceptual congruence between this bipolar factor and Witkin’s dimension of field dependence-independence. The second factor had relatively lower loadings, but contrasted Herrmann’s D and B quadrants and had something in common with the Myers-Briggs perceiving-judging and intuition-sensing categorisation, as well as with six other measures suggesting a non-verbal, divergent thinking preference. It is of interest that one of the HBDI factors was more closely related to measures from the MBTI than from Kolb’s LSI. In an earlier factor analytic study by Bunderson, the largest single factor also contrasted the D and B quadrants and had relatively high loadings from the same two Myers-Briggs measures (perceiving-judging: 0.61; and intuition-sensing: 0.69). The correlation between the HBDI and the Myers-Briggs measures of extraversion-introversion was 0.73. Bunderson suggested that the overlap between the two instruments was such that the item clusters ‘may ultimately be explainable by a common set of constructs’ (cited by Herrmann 1989, 377). At a conceptual level, Herrmann’s model shares important features with those of theorists other than those mentioned above. Gregorc’s Mind Styles Model has four quadrants which correspond closely to those of Herrmann, but which are differently organised in that abstract sequential qualities, resembling those of Herrmann’s theorists, are diametrically opposed to those of Herrmann’s innovators, and concrete sequential qualities, resembling those of Herrmann’s organisers, are contrasted with those of his humanitarians. The lack of factor analytic support for Gregorc’s model (see Section 3.1) contrasts with the relatively strong support provided by Bunderson for that of Herrmann. Among the theorists whose models are conceptually related to that of Herrmann are Allinson and Hayes (1996), who contrast left-brained analysis with right-brained intuition. McCarthy’s 4MAT model (1990) includes what she calls ‘right mode’ and ‘left mode’ phases. Kirton (1976) distinguishes between adapters and innovators just as Herrmann does between organisers and innovators. Sternberg’s descriptions (1999) of legislative, executive and judicial thinking styles bring to mind Herrmann’s innovators, organisers and theorists respectively. It is also possible that there is some connection between the opposition of the B and D quadrants in Herrmann’s model and motivational features in the Dunn and Dunn model (Dunn and Griggs 2003) and in Apter’s (2001) model of motivational styles. It is likely that Herrmann’s creative innovators are sometimes non-conforming and do not welcome structure, unlike organisers. In Apter’s terms, Herrmann’s B-D axis offers possibilities of reversal within the means-ends and rules domains, while the A-D axis offers reversal within the transactions and relationships domains. Herrmann’s interest in the need to develop stylistic flexibility fits well with Apter’s concept that reversing between opposites increases the likelihood of psychological satisfaction. Herrmann’s concept of harmonious and conflicting combinations of quadrant preference receives some support from the distribution of double dominance profiles found in a large UK sample (Martin 2003). ‘Harmonious’ combinations (A-B and C-D) are the most common patterns in the database of 3400 profiles (62%), followed by the upper (A-D) and lower (B-C) pairings (31%) and then by the conflicting diagonal pairings (A-C and B-D) which occur in only 7% of cases. Gender, ethnic and occupational differences Although Herrmann (1996) had no theoretically based reasons for predicting gender effects, it soon became clear that there are very substantial gender differences on the HBDI. These boil down to a strong male preference for the A (theorist) quadrant and a strong female preference for the C (humanitarian) quadrant. The same pattern is apparent in Martin’s (2003) UK sample, where the gender ratios are often greater than 3:1 for dominant profiles. It is not clear how far these large gender-related differences are socio-culturally determined, or indeed whether they are self-presentational rather than behavioural. However, there is a striking similarity between what is revealed by the HBDI and Baron-Cohen’s portrayal (2003) of ‘systematising’ (male) and ‘empathetic’ (female) brains. It is abundantly clear from the Herrmann Group’s international database that ethnic differences are minimal or non-existent. Herrmann (1996) presents virtually identical mean profiles for Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, Asians and Whites.
LSRC reference Section 6 page 82/83 Table 28 Illustrative occupational group norms Source: Herrmann (1996) Profile type A Descriptor Rational Occupational group Chemical engineer; actuary B Safe-keeping Assembly-line processor; bank clerk C Feeling Nurse; primary school teacher D Experimental Artist; entrepreneur AB Left brained Production engineer; bank manager CD Right brained Minister of religion; psychologist AD Cerebral Physicist; forestry manager BC Limbic Secretary; homemaker Multi-dominant Balanced Director; customer service manager However, major differences have been found between typical profiles in different occupations. These are summarised by Herrmann (1996) in the form of the average profile patterns drawn from a database of over 113,000 returns – certainly sufficient to demonstrate that the differences are real. Some examples are given in Table 28. The visual presentation used by Herrmann permits only an eyeball analysis of the size of the differences summarised in Table 28, but they appear to be very substantial. It would be good to see further statistical analyses of occupational differences broken down by age, gender and social class. Implications for teaching and learning Like many other theorists, Herrmann (1996, 151) makes the reasonable assumption that ‘every classroom represents a complete spectrum of learning style preferences’. Both in educational and in business settings, he claims that there is up to 50% wastage because of a lack of alignment between learners and courses. His recommended solution is ‘whole brain teaching and learning’, whereby each key learning point is taught in three or four different ways, while peripheral matter is removed. He describes an application of this approach in teaching creative thinking, in which the use of metaphor plays a central part. After an initial interest in the subject has been established, the phases of preparation, verification, incubation and illumination correspond to the A, B, C and D quadrants of experience, with didactic and experiential approaches complementing each other. As well as providing a wide range of creative materials and individual and group activities to encourage people to move beyond their comfort zones, the leaders set up problem-solving activities, first in groups of homogeneous learning style, then in heterogeneous pairs, and eventually in heterogeneous communities of six, so that participants can encounter ‘both the enhancements and challenges of having different mental modes at work in the same group’ (1989, 234). Herrmann does not speculate on the implications for teaching and learning of the very substantial gender differences revealed by the HBDI, other than to point out the advantages of working in gender-balanced (and therefore more stylistically balanced) teams. This is clearly an area where further investigation is needed, especially in areas of educational practice traditionally dominated by one gender or the other. The main thrust of the Herrmann Group’s work with business organisations is to help them make better use of their creative potential, and at the same time, to achieve greater synergy between all stylistic approaches. Herrmann (1996) presents a four-quadrant classification of 77 creative thinking processes. Again, he argues for diversity in approach, to increase the overall level of learner engagement and chances of success. For example, attribute listing, the Delphi method, interactive brainstorming and creative dramatics each appeal to different styles of thinking, and if four creative methods of problem solving (or even all 77) are made available, individuals and groups will gravitate to the processes which they understand and which work for them.
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 89: LSRC reference Section 6 page 80/81
Page 99 and 100: Section 7 Learning approaches and s
Page 127 and 128: Section 8 Implications for pedagogy
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?