Individual Learning 

Our investment in training is a national disgrace. That should come as no surprise. Despite lip service about people-as-our-most-important-asset, we value hardware assets over people, and have done so for the last century.

T. Peters (1989) Thriving on Chaos, Pan, London: 324

Requisite variety is a concept developed in cybernetics by W. Ross Ashby, it states that an organism needs to be at least as complicated as its environment in order to survive. Or, more formally, Morgan outlines it thus: "…the internal diversity of any self-regulating system must match the variety and complexity of its environment if it is to deal with the challenges posed by that environment…any control system must be as varied and complex as the environment being controlled.". Ashby puts it more succinctly, "…only variety can destroy variety."

G. Morgan (1995) Images of Organization, Sage London: 112
W. Ross Ashby (1979) An Introduction to Cybernetics, Methuen, London: 207.

Taking responsibility for one’s own learning is central to many personal development programmes and represents a major challenge to the established orthodoxy that learning at work… is subject to external control, either by training specialists or the personnel management function.
Megginson et al. (1995) Human Resource Development, Kogan Page, London: 98

Kondo (1990) gives a vivid account of everyday life on the shop floor of a small family-owned sweet factory in Tokyo… she is sent to an ethics school with two other employees… Here is a brief description of the activities before breakfast each day. The day started at 5 am with a call to rise. Waking up late was regarded as unnatural, indulgent, selfish, slovenly. Cleaning came next and was a standard ingredient of spiritual education. Each cleaning task was to be performed with a glad heart. The counsellors would lead the group in chants of ‘Fight!’ as they hosed down the toilets, emptied the tins of sanitary napkins, and scrubbed the floors. After cleaning they jogged to the statue of the founder and after a rousing shout of good morning, they were lectured on an inspirational theme. A tape recorder played the national anthem as the flags were raised. They then had shouting practice where they were required to scream greetings at the top of their voices or shout ‘I am the sun of ‘x’ company. I will make ‘x’ company number one in Japan.’ Every word was rewarded by shouts of encouragement from the others and rounds of applause. The idea was to inculcate receptiveness and a willingness to greet and appreciate others and eliminate resistance toward responding positively towards authority. They ran for at least 1.5 miles as a rehearsal for the 7.5 kilometre marathon scheduled for the end of the programme. Shouting and chanting was required during running. Speed was not the issue, it was more important to finish and not give up. Neglect of the body was seen as lack of appreciation of the gift of life. Ritual ablution ceremonies with cold water, in order to give thanks to water, followed. The morning classes were for reciting in unison phrases like ‘Hardship is the gateway to happiness’ and ‘Other people are our mirrors’. Students would be given instructions on how to bow at the proper angle, have a pleasant facial expression, and use the appropriate language level.

F. Wilson 1999, Organizational Behaviour: A Critical Introduction, Oxford: 143

In pairs or groups of three, discuss this approach to education. Is this really a school?

The aim of this section of the handout is to help you understand what your scores on the Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ) mean for you as a learner. This involves discussion of two relevant theories of learning:

Honey and Mumford’s Learning Styles
Scoring the LSQ should have left you with a score for each of the four categories (Activist, Reflector, Theorist and Pragmatist). Calculating your dominant or preferred style is not simply a matter of seeing which of your four scores is the highest. In order to do this each score needs to be compared with a profile of general norms representative of the wider population. This profile (based on a sample of 1302 people) is shown below.

From this table it can be seen that a score of eleven in each category would indicate a strong preference for Activist, but only moderate preference for Theorist, and low preference for both Reflector and Pragmatist styles. This is shown to reinforce the point that calculating your dominant or preferred style requires reference to the profile sample. This is what is meant by ‘normalizing’ your LSQ score.

In the table above, the sample profile of 1302 people is meant to represent the population as a whole, but within different occupations there are likely to be other norms (typical profiles) of preferred learning styles. For example, people attracted to sales are more likely to be nearer a preferred activist style, than scientists, who may be closer to the theorist preferred style.

A more comprehensive way of representing different profiles on the LSQ is via plotting the four scores in each style on a graph and joining it up to make a 2-dimensional shape which can be compared with other norms.

Below are general descriptions for the different styles taken from Honey and Mumford. These may help you gain self-insight into your personal style preferences. For example this might help you to understand why you could be inclined to have certain views on the relative usefulness of lectures as opposed to reading / discussion in workshops / role playing exercises / team activities etc.

Activists
Activists involve themselves fully and without bias in new experiences. They enjoy the here and now and are happy to be dominated by immediate experiences. They are open-minded, not sceptical, and this tends to make them enthusiastic about anything new. Their philosophy is, "I’ll try anything once". They tend to act first and consider the consequences afterwards. Their days are filled with activity. They tackle problems by brainstorming. As soon as the excitement from one activity has died down they are busy looking for the next. They tend to thrive on the challenge of new experiences but are bored with implementation and longer term consolidation. They are gregarious people constantly involving themselves with others but, in doing so, they seek to centre all activities around themselves.

Strengths: Flexible and open minded, happy to have a go, happy to be exposed to new situations, optimistic about anything new and unlikely to resist change.

Weaknesses: Tendency to take the immediately obvious action without thinking, often take unnecessary risks, tendency to do too much themselves and hog the limelight, rush into things without preparation, get bored with implementation / consolidation.

Reflectors
Reflectors like to stand back to ponder experiences and observe them from many different perspectives. They collect data, both first hand and from others, and prefer to think about it thoroughly before coming to any conclusion. The thorough collection and analysis of data about experiences and events is what counts so they tend to postpone reaching definitive conclusions for as long as possible. Their philosophy is to be cautious. They are thoughtful people who like to consider all possible angles and implications before making a move. They prefer to take a back seat in meetings and discussions. They enjoy observing other people in action. They listen to others and get the drift of the discussion before making their own points. They tend to adopt a low profile and have a slightly distant, tolerant unruffled air about them. When they act it is part of a wide picture which includes the past as well as the present and others’ observations as well as their own.

Strengths: Careful, thorough and methodical, thoughtful, good at listening to others and assimilating information, rarely jump to conclusions.

Weaknesses: Tendency to hold back from direct participation, slow to make up their minds and reach a decision, tendency to be too cautious and not take enough risks, not assertive – they aren’t practically forthcoming and have no ‘small talk’.

Theorists
Theorists adapt and integrate observations into complex but logically sound theories. They think problems through in a vertical, step by step logical way. They assimilate disparate facts into coherent theories. They tend to be perfectionists who won’t rest easy until things are tidy and fit into a rational scheme. They like to analyse and synthesise. They are keen on basic assumptions, principles, theories, models and systems thinking. Their philosophy prizes rationality and logic. ‘If it’s logical it’s good’. Questions they frequently ask are: "Does it make sense?" "How does this fit with that?" "What are the basic assumptions?" They tend to be detached, analytical and dedicated to rational objectivity rather than anything subjective or ambiguous. Their approach to problems is consistently logical. This is their ‘mental set’ and they rigidly reject anything that doesn’t fit with it. They prefer to maximise certainty and feel uncomfortable with subjective judgments, lateral thinking and anything flippant.

Strengths: Logical ‘vertical’ thinkers, rational and objective, good at asking probing questions, disciplined approach.

Weaknesses: Restricted in lateral thinking, low tolerance for uncertainty disorder and ambiguity, intolerant of anything subjective or intuitive, full of ‘shoulds’ and ‘oughts’ and ‘musts’.

Pragmatists
Pragmatists are keen on trying out ideas, theories and techniques to see if they work in practice. They positively search out new ideas and take the first opportunity to experiment with applications. They are the sort of people who return from management courses brimming with new ideas that they want to try out in practice. They like to get on with things and act quickly and confidently on ideas that attract them. They tend to be impatient with ruminating and open-ended discussions. They are essentially practical down to earth people who like making practical decisions and solving problems. They respond to problems and opportunities ‘as a challenge’. Their philosophy is: ‘There is always a better way’ and ‘If it works it’s good’.

Strengths: Keen to test things out in practice, practical, down to earth and realistic, businesslike – gets to the point, technique oriented.

Weaknesses: Tendency to reject anything without an obvious application, not very interested in theory or basic principles, tendency to seize on the first expedient solution to a problem, impatient with waffle, on balance – task oriented not people oriented.

The underlying theory for Honey and Mumford’s learning styles is Kolb’s learning cycle, shown in the handout.

This gives us a framework for looking at how people learn. Kolb’s cycle shows learning as a circular process with no start or finish. Often people move through this instinctively and smoothly so that they become more effective in situations which initially caused them difficulties (Harrisson 1997: 225). However, sometimes learning is not as smooth and people can become stuck or keep repeating mistakes which means that change is slow, or fails to occur altogether.

We can link this cycle to the idea of learning styles if we think of each of the four styles as indicating a preference for a particular stage in the cycle:

Activist – oriented towards concrete experience

Reflector – oriented towards reflective observation

Theorist – oriented towards abstract conceptualisation

Pragmatist – oriented towards active experimentation

The reason we use the phrase ‘oriented towards’, is because this linkage is something of a simplification. Kolb’s cycle is a dynamic, process model, while the LSQ classifies preferences and gives a more static, or content model.

Once again it is important to stress that it is more instructive when assessing your personal style preference to look at the overall profile of the four scores, rather than settle on a label such as ‘I’m a theorist’. You can do this by plotting a 2-dimensional ‘diamond’ on a graph. Comparing this to the norm (general profile) will indicate where you may have particular strengths and development areas. It may even help to indicate what kind of career you are most readily suited to. However, care must be taken that these models (and other models) are ‘taken with a pinch of salt’. They are not meant to provide you with a rationale or excuse for why you cannot do something. Neither should you feel discouraged by a score or outcome from tests such as the LSQ. People’s learning styles can and do change over time. Understanding can help bring about such change.

Where theories such as this are likely to be most useful is if you can use them to consider what you intend to do differently when you undertake certain tasks. Kolb’s cycle (and the LSQ) should reinforce learning by, "…linking the act of doing with thinking about doing…Knowing what we are doing and why presupposes some theoretical understanding of how people learn…Its absence can only limit progress in the search for ways to make learning more effective." (Megginson et al 1993)

References:
Harrison R. (1997) Employee Development, IPD, London.
Honey P. & Mumford A. (1992) A Manual of Learning Styles, Honey, Maidenhead.
Kolb D.A Rubin I.M & McIntyre J.M. (1979) Organizational Psychology: An Experiential approach, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Megginson D. et al (1993) Human Resource Development, Kogan Page, London.