learning-styles

Recommendations

Info

In chapter 9 of The creative brain, Herrmann (1989) offers many constructive and detailed suggestions for expanding mental preferences by changing frames of reference in terms of values, reasoning and decision making. He claims that shifting into opposing modes may be resisted, but can provide enormous pleasure, making mental life more creative as well as more varied and interesting. Herrmann admits that it is not easy to involve top management in new learning, but his study of international and gender differences in the profiles of 773 chief executive officers (CEOs) provides food for thought, not least for multinational companies. He found that CEOs were generally strongest in the experimental ‘D’ quadrant, especially in Australia, where conceptualising and creative aspects were highly ranked and teaching and training were valued more highly than elsewhere. The UK sample ranked conceptualising, creative aspects, interpersonal aspects and writing much lower than their US counterparts, while giving higher priority to planning, implementation, analytical thinking and organisation. Gender differences were not marked, but were in line with the general tendency for women to be rather more interested in people than in analytic thinking. Empirical evidence of impact Martin (1994) describes the Herrmann ‘whole brain’ approach to teaching and learning and how it appeared to benefit a large client company in the UK. However, apart from the impressive business portfolio of the Ned Herrmann Group and the six pages of testimonials from participants in Applied Creative Thinking courses, there is very little published research evidence to convince sceptics of the potential value of the Herrmann approach for large-scale use in post-16 education and training. Nevertheless, its inclusive and optimistic stance and the fact that it does not rely on gimmicky techniques are very positive features. Conclusion It is highly likely that any four-category or two-dimensional model of approaches to thinking and learning will be oversimplistic for certain purposes. However, Herrmann is aware of this and certainly does not seek to label and confine individuals or organisations. He positively encourages change and growth, whether for short-term adaptive purposes or for the longer term, on the basis of more mature values and attitudes. With his model and the HBDI, Herrmann has provided a creative space which has already been enriched through empirically-checked revisions. It almost certainly needs further work if it is to be used with a wider constituency of younger, less experienced and less literate post-16 learners than those to be found at higher levels of responsibility in the business world. The psychometric properties of the HBDI appear to be sound, but there is a pressing need for up-to-date independent study of the instrument and of its many possible uses. There are good reasons to recommend the use of the HBDI as a means of individual and group reflection on thinking and learning preferences. It is more detailed and situation-focused than many of its competitors, while accommodating many of the constructs which receive incomplete or less reliable and valid coverage in other instruments. Herrmann’s model is concerned with thinking, feeling and doing as an individual and in social contexts. It addresses both long-established habits and personality traits as well as situationally-dependent preferences. As it is concerned with process rather than product, it is largely independent of cognitive ability. It is possible to envisage considerable benefits to be derived from its use by policy-makers and course designers as well as in organisations concerned with education and training. The design and delivery of lifelong learning experiences may then more effectively promote ‘whole person’ and ‘whole organisation’ balance. The HBDI is a transparent instrument and should not be used ‘for making a decision about a person that is beyond the control of that person’ (Herrmann 1989, 341). It is presented as a tool for learning, for use in a climate of openness and trust. However, like other such tools (for example Kolb’s LSI, Honey and Mumford’s LSQ and McCarthy’s 4MAT), its potential to improve the quality of teaching and learning, formal and informal, has not yet been substantiated in a rigorous manner, other than to the satisfaction of its proponents.
LSRC reference Section 6 page 84/85 Table 29 Herrmann’s Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI) General Strengths The HBDI and new ways of using it effectively have been developed over more than 20 years. The ‘whole brain’ model is compatible with several other models of learning style. Weaknesses Design of the model It is based on theory which, although originally brain-based, incorporates growth and development, especially in creativity. Learning styles as defined by the HBDI are not fixed personality traits, but to a large extent, learned patterns of behaviour. As with most self-report instruments, it is possible to complete it with the intention of presenting a particular profile. Some will find the HBDI items hard to read and understand. Reliability and validity Internal evidence suggests that the HBDI is psychometrically sound, and new analyses can draw on an enormous international database. There are very few independent studies of the reliability and validity of the HBDI. Implications for pedagogy HBDI-based feedback does not seek to attach permanent labels to the individual. Herrmann provides rich accounts of how people think and learn, valuing diversity and arguing for mutual understanding. Teachers, students, managers and workers may be stimulated to examine and refine their ideas about communication and learning. Herrmann argues that all learners need to develop stylistic flexibility and, where appropriate, extend their range of competence. The pedagogical implications of the ‘whole brain’ model have not yet been fully explored and tested. Evidence of pedagogical impact Although well established in the business world, the use of the HBDI has yet to be extensively validated in education. Overall assessment Key source A model which, although largely ignored in academic research, offers considerable promise for use in education and training. It is more inclusive and systemic than many others, taking an optimistic, open and non-labelling stance towards the development of people and organisations. Herrmann 1989
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 91: LSRC reference Section 6 page 82/83
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?