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.
In chapter 9 of The creative brain, Herrmann (1989)<br />
offers many constructive and detailed suggestions<br />
for expanding mental preferences by changing frames<br />
of reference in terms of values, reasoning and decision<br />
making. He claims that shifting into opposing modes<br />
may be resisted, but can provide enormous pleasure,<br />
making mental life more creative as well as more varied<br />
and interesting.<br />
Herrmann admits that it is not easy to involve<br />
top management in new <strong>learning</strong>, but his study<br />
of international and gender differences in the profiles<br />
of 773 chief executive officers (CEOs) provides food<br />
for thought, not least for multinational companies.<br />
He found that CEOs were generally strongest in the<br />
experimental ‘D’ quadrant, especially in Australia,<br />
where conceptualising and creative aspects were<br />
highly ranked and teaching and training were valued<br />
more highly than elsewhere. The UK sample ranked<br />
conceptualising, creative aspects, interpersonal<br />
aspects and writing much lower than their US<br />
counterparts, while giving higher priority to planning,<br />
implementation, analytical thinking and organisation.<br />
Gender differences were not marked, but were in line<br />
with the general tendency for women to be rather<br />
more interested in people than in analytic thinking.<br />
Empirical evidence of impact<br />
Martin (1994) describes the Herrmann ‘whole brain’<br />
approach to teaching and <strong>learning</strong> and how it appeared<br />
to benefit a large client company in the UK. However,<br />
apart from the impressive business portfolio of the<br />
Ned Herrmann Group and the six pages of testimonials<br />
from participants in Applied Creative Thinking<br />
courses, there is very little published research evidence<br />
to convince sceptics of the potential value of the<br />
Herrmann approach for large-scale use in post-16<br />
education and training. Nevertheless, its inclusive<br />
and optimistic stance and the fact that it does not rely<br />
on gimmicky techniques are very positive features.<br />
Conclusion<br />
It is highly likely that any four-category<br />
or two-dimensional model of approaches to thinking<br />
and <strong>learning</strong> will be oversimplistic for certain purposes.<br />
However, Herrmann is aware of this and certainly<br />
does not seek to label and confine individuals<br />
or organisations. He positively encourages change<br />
and growth, whether for short-term adaptive purposes<br />
or for the longer term, on the basis of more mature<br />
values and attitudes.<br />
With his model and the HBDI, Herrmann has provided<br />
a creative space which has already been enriched<br />
through empirically-checked revisions. It almost<br />
certainly needs further work if it is to be used with<br />
a wider constituency of younger, less experienced and<br />
less literate post-16 learners than those to be found<br />
at higher levels of responsibility in the business world.<br />
The psychometric properties of the HBDI appear to<br />
be sound, but there is a pressing need for up-to-date<br />
independent study of the instrument and of its<br />
many possible uses.<br />
There are good reasons to recommend the use of the<br />
HBDI as a means of individual and group reflection<br />
on thinking and <strong>learning</strong> preferences. It is more detailed<br />
and situation-focused than many of its competitors,<br />
while accommodating many of the constructs which<br />
receive incomplete or less reliable and valid coverage in<br />
other instruments. Herrmann’s model is concerned with<br />
thinking, feeling and doing as an individual and in social<br />
contexts. It addresses both long-established habits<br />
and personality traits as well as situationally-dependent<br />
preferences. As it is concerned with process rather<br />
than product, it is largely independent of cognitive<br />
ability. It is possible to envisage considerable benefits<br />
to be derived from its use by policy-makers and<br />
course designers as well as in organisations concerned<br />
with education and training. The design and delivery<br />
of lifelong <strong>learning</strong> experiences may then more<br />
effectively promote ‘whole person’ and ‘whole<br />
organisation’ balance.<br />
The HBDI is a transparent instrument and should<br />
not be used ‘for making a decision about a person that<br />
is beyond the control of that person’ (Herrmann 1989,<br />
341). It is presented as a tool for <strong>learning</strong>, for use in<br />
a climate of openness and trust. However, like other<br />
such tools (for example Kolb’s LSI, Honey and Mumford’s<br />
LSQ and McCarthy’s 4MAT), its potential to improve<br />
the quality of teaching and <strong>learning</strong>, formal and<br />
informal, has not yet been substantiated in a rigorous<br />
manner, other than to the satisfaction of its proponents.