learning-styles

Recommendations

Info

Sadler-Smith, Spicer and Tsang (2000) related CSI scores to levels of responsibility in two local government organisations. In their large sample of 501 workers, there was a clear and consistent trend across four levels of responsibility, with senior managers presenting as the most intuitive and managed staff as the most analytic. The effect size when these two groups are compared is very large (1.06). Hill et al. (2000) found similar results in the UK and Finland, but not in Poland. In a Finnish study of 102 managers and 126 managed workers in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the service sector and production industry, Löfström (2002) also found that managers were as a group more intuitive than those they managed. The ‘matching’ hypothesis In a study of 142 manager–subordinate dyads in two large manufacturing organisations, Allinson, Armstrong and Hayes (2001) investigated the hypothesis that similarity in cognitive style would help to produce positive relationships. This turned out not to be the case, since the more intuitive the style of managers was relative to the style of their subordinates, the more they were seen as non-dominant and nurturing and were liked and respected. The differences on these measures between the extremes of intuitive manager with analytic subordinate and analytic manager with intuitive subordinate were moderate to large (effect sizes between 0.72 and 0.98). It is worth noting that this study focused on comfortable feelings rather than performance. Another context in which the matching hypothesis has been studied is that of mentoring (Armstrong, Allinson and Hayes 2002). In this case, rather different findings were obtained, which may reflect important differences between managerial supervision and mentoring. The main finding was that when mentors were more analytic than their protégés, a close match in cognitive style was associated with perceived psychosocial advantages on the part of protégés and perceived practical career-development action by mentors. Overall, perceived similarity in personality, ability and behaviour was correlated with mutual liking, and liking was in turn associated with the delivery and receipt of psychosocial and career support. However, in this study, there was no evidence that intuitive mentors were liked more than analytic ones. This suggests that advantages may be derived from pairing analytic mentors with analytic protégés, but that pairing according to mutual liking rather than cognitive style may, where practicable, be generally more effective. This is an interesting area of research, in which a tentative interpretation is that differences in cognitive style can be stimulating and productive in manager–subordinate relationships when the manager is seen as a person who gets things done. However, in the mentoring situation, people who have many qualities in common may work together more effectively. Implications for managers and teachers A number of cross-cultural comparisons of the CSI style of managers have yielded substantial differences. The study by Allinson and Hayes (2000) is typical, reporting moderate and large effect sizes for differences between highly intuitive British managers and more analytical samples in India, Jordan, Nepal, Russia and Singapore. They suggest that managers need training in how to recognise and deal with such differences. They also suggest that companies should select staff for international work on the basis of cognitive style and should exercise ‘caution in the transfer of management practices from one part of the world to another’ (2000, 168). All this begs the question as to whether achieving a stylistic match (however contrived) is worth the effort. Perhaps we need to ask a more serious question: is there any basis for the assumption that an intuitive management style is the most effective response to information overload in rapidly changing business conditions? As we have seen, and irrespective of culture, the weight of evidence suggests that within a particular organisation, managers are likely to be more intuitive than their subordinates. Allinson and Hayes (2000) also found that British managers are generally more intuitive than undergraduate management students (effect size 0.52). What does this mean? One interpretation is that as they become more experienced, people change in style to accommodate to new situations and responsibilities. On this basis, managers who are promoted into contexts where rapid decisions have to be made come to base those decisions on ‘gut feeling’ or ‘big picture’ thinking, grounded, one would hope, in a wealth of experience. Similarly, lower-level workers in rule-bound organisations may learn to stick with or adopt an analytic coping style, keeping to the book and attending to detail. Another interpretation is that successful managers delegate time-consuming analytic tasks and therefore no longer need to use the analytic abilities they actually have. A less reassuring interpretation is that some managers enjoy risk taking and change for its own sake and even welcome situations where there is no time for considered planning. Without longitudinal research which considers change, development and outcomes in a range of contexts, we cannot determine causality and are therefore unable to draw out practical implications. However, although we know little about the flexibility of intuitive and analytic styles at different levels of responsibility, it may be advantageous for an organisation to plan how best to use and develop the diverse skills of people with preferred intuitive and analytic approaches.
LSRC reference Section 6 page 88/89 While successful managers often say they are intuitive in approach, there seems to be clear evidence that to succeed in management and business-related courses in HE contexts, analytic qualities are required. Armstrong (2000) found that 190 analytic students obtained significantly higher degree grades than 176 intuitive students, although the effect size was rather small (0.26). This result is consistent with Spicer’s (2002) finding that for 105 students across 2 years, there was a low positive correlation between analytic style and academic achievement. In an exploratory study involving 118 management students and their final-year dissertation supervisors, Armstrong (2002) found that analytic supervisors were better for students than intuitive supervisors. Students rated the quality of supervision provided by analytic supervisors as being better and also obtained higher grades (effect size 0.44). Analytic students who had analytic supervisors obtained substantially higher grades than intuitive students with intuitive supervisors (effect size 0.64). This finding could reflect the fact that analytic supervisors take time to help students with every part of a structured linear task which requires analysis, synthesis and evaluation Armstrong (2000) draws attention to the apparent paradox that if business organisations appoint graduates on the basis of degree level, they may be rejecting many candidates with good management potential. Unfortunately, we do not have any studies which track the development of successful managers and entrepreneurs over time. Therefore we do not know whether the expertise of such people is built on an initially intuitive approach or on the successful application of analytic skills in earlier life. It would be unwise to make radical changes in HE pedagogy and assessment practice without evidence that placing a higher value on intuitive performance leads to more successful career and business outcomes. However, degree courses could usefully seek to develop a broader range of competencies than the ‘systematic analysis and evaluation of information resulting in cogent, structured and logically flowing arguments’ (Armstrong 200, 336). Conclusions Despite the claims of its authors, the CSI has been shown to measure two related, albeit multifaceted, constructs. We believe that the basically sound psychometric properties of the CSI would be further improved if the revised two-factor scoring system proposed by Hodgkinson and Sadler-Smith (2003) were generally adopted. The multifaceted nature of the CSI means that people will respond not only in terms of underlying style, but in terms of the opportunities their work affords as well as what they believe to be socially desirable responses for people in similar situations. For example, not many office workers will admit to not reading reports in detail, or to not following rules and regulations at work. Similarly, few managers will assess themselves as having less to say in meetings than most other participants, and students deep into their dissertations are unlikely say that they find formal plans a hindrance. If responses to the CSI are situation-dependent, it is difficult to sustain the idea that their short-term consistency is brain-based, other than in extreme cases. The popularised stereotype of left- and right-brainedness creates an unhelpful image of people going through life with half of their brains inactive. If British managers are among the most right-brained in the world, this would mean that they would be virtually inarticulate, unable to use the left-brain speech and language areas and unable to deal with the simplest computations. While this is clearly a caricature, the idea that the CSI measures a consistent single dimension based on consistently associated functions within each brain hemisphere does not do justice to what is known about the enormous flexibility of human thought. The relationship between CSI scores and cognitive abilities needs further investigation, preferably on a longitudinal basis. Intellectually able students are usually flexible in their thinking and learning and can therefore adopt an analytic approach when necessary (as in university contexts and when appropriate in the early stages of a career). If, in addition to good reasoning and problem-solving abilities, they have the confidence, creativity and drive to become high achievers in the business world, it is likely that their approach to decision making will become more ‘intuitive’ in the sense that it is based on expertise. It is too early to assess the potential catalytic value of the CSI in improving the quality of learning for individuals or organisations. Although the CSI was not designed for pedagogical purposes, it may be that future research will show that it helps people become more aware of important qualities in themselves and others, leading to measurable benefits in communication and performance. So far, however, the ‘matching’ hypothesis has not been upheld in studies with the CSI, so there are no grounds for using it to select or group people for particular purposes. At the same time, it is clear from the amount of interest it has received since publication in 1996 that it is well regarded as a means of asking pertinent questions about how adults think, behave and learn in the world of work.
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 95: LSRC reference Section 6 page 86/87
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?