Honey and Mumfords' learning styles

To get the most out of any learning opportunity, we need to understand how best to approach it. This includes understanding how we learn and how others may learn differently.

The learning styles tool devised by Honey and Mumford, a development from earlier work by Kolb,  is used widely. 

It categorises people as belonging to one of four types:

• Activist
• Reflector
• Theorist
• Pragmatist

These types  have a profile which suggests the ways in which each may prefer to learn 

Based solely on descriptions of the profiles, I estimated to the nearest 5%, the extent which I thought  I matched each of the four. This rapid self-assessment came out as follows:

I identified most strongly with the Theorist learning style and least strongly with Activist

I decided  to find out how closely my view of myself matched how I would be 'properly' assessed.

Various versions of assessment tool have been developed to help categorise people into the four styles. From Honey and Mumford themselves, there is a 'basic' 40-question version and also an 'extended' 80-question version. There is a variety of online material, including some web based renderings of assessment tools. It is not obvious how faithful these are to the originals

I found a couple of free, online assessments.  In both, I was bemused to find that I was assessed as being a Reflector not a Theorist. The tools were based on 40, or so, questions. 

I needed to find out how the assessment tool worked

I  located a copy the more extensive (80 question) version of the tool. In this one, the scoring system was laid bare. The results of applying tool are presented against my original self assessment as follows:

There is a broad similarity between my approximation and the scored position. But the overall outcome places me most, again,  in the Reflector category, although with Theorist a close second.

The scoring schema shows that each question - which must be answered true or false  - is designed to tip towards one learning style

For example Question 73: I do whatever is expedient to get the job done Yes/No?

Yes is a mark for Pragmatist. No is no mark

There is an inherent problem with this kind of scoring system. We are expected to come off the fence and pick either Yes or No. Once Yes is picked 100% of the mark is awarded. This construction is sometimes described as 'forced choice'.

It may be that most people are not really strongly polarised in their behaviour. Few people would always do whatever was expedient to get the job done; few people would never do what was expedient. Perhaps this is more of a spectrum in which behaviours are aligned something like the bell-curve shape of the normal distribution

The 'forced choice' system makes no distinction between a person who is barely one side of neutral and one who is strongly polarised. Both these widely differing types would be scored the same  

Another issue is that the fewer questions that are answered Yes, the more influence answered questions have on the outcome

A way to mitigate against this would be to replace the Yes/No  1/0 scoring system with a graduated system. Most people will be familiar with the Likert method now used extensively in feedback surveys

• Strongly agree
• Agree
• Neither agree nor agree
• Disagree
• Strongly disagree 

This would allow  degrees of affinity to be expressed

This 5-level system would allow 'fence sitters' such as myself to steer a neutral path straight up the middle of the entire 80 questions. So, to retain an element of forced choice, I set up an alternative 6-level  scoring system. In this, each question could be answered  with one of 0, 0.2, 0.4. 0.6. 0.8 or 1 to express the degree of affinity

When I retook the 80-question test using my 6-level graduated scoring system, my results came out as follows:

This rebalances the outcome slightly more in favour of Theorist. It also boosts the Activist style. I suspect  that by the time I retook the test with the graduated scoring system, I had sufficient detailed knowledge to make subconscious skewing likely.

Over each of these cycles, the picture emerging is that I am some kind of  Reflector/Theorist rather than an Activist/Pragmatist. But I can also see that I have elements of all four styles.

The mechanisms of the standard assessment tools used to assess Honey and Mumford learning style can be criticised in that they over simplify in to two stages: 

Firstly, the forced choice scoring system represents behaviour as polarised extremes

Secondly, arriving at an outcome of a single learning style may obscure significant  contributions of other styles. 

While the assessment processes may have are some pitfalls, the model may help us understand our current and past learning experiences.

The big question is what to do it.

If we recognise our dominant learning style and plan our future around that, are we enhancing or constraining future learning? Probably both. If we stay within the comfort of our preferred style we will make good progress.  If we break through the discomfort of other styles of learning, might we be able to learn even more?

Edgar Bolton

09/03/2021

References:

https://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/doctoralcollege/training/eresources/teaching/theories/honey-mumford

https://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/doctoralcollege/training/eresources/teaching/theories/kolb

https://www.eln.io/blog/honey-mumford-learner-types-1986-questionnaire-online

http://www.emtrain.eu/learning-styles/