Thinking-Style Profile

Identifies which natural preferred approach to solve problems you have: o Measures your analytical approach in arriving at conclusions; o Helps you understand why your solution is not the same as others. Identifies why people have difficulties understanding how others solve their problems: o Often times, we perceive the other solutions as moron, but why? o Helps you understand why others solve problems differently. Identifies why people have disagreements in arriving at their conclusions: o Often times, we couldn't possibly think their solutions would ever work! o Helps you agree to disagree. Identifies the blind-spots in people's approach to solve problems: o Blind-spot is where we get stuck! o Helps you to open your mind to your loved one. Identifies there is not just one "right" way to solve problems: o They are just different way to approach to the solution. o Although the approaches are opposite, then end-results are not that much different. Improves communication between loved-ones: o If we understand that it is just differences in thinking style,

we would appreciate that the other does have a point (and value their opinions). Identifies the advantages and benefits of each type of thinking style: o When we are stuck, there may be a better way to do things! o Helps you to acknowledge that others do have a point! 4 basic Thinking styles: HORIZONTAL thinker
positive traits: sees forests sees big pictures whereas Horizontal turned Vertical: negative trait: unyielding

VERTICAL thinker
positive traits: sees trees sees details whereas Vertical turned Horizontal: negative trait: indecisive

LINEAR thinker
positive traits: takes straight path takes direct route whereas Linear turned Nonlinear: negative trait: unreasonable

NONLINEAR thinker
positive traits: takes circuitous paths takes indirect routes whereas Nonlinear turned Linear: negative trait: uncompromising

Sternberg-Wagner Thinking Styles Inventory

Topics: * Adaptation * Assessment * Learning Disabilities * Self Help * Skill Development Summary: Take the Sternberg-Wagner Thinking Styles Inventory Variations of Thinking Styles Over the past few decades learning styles, thinking styles , and cognitive styles have become an important part of our understanding of how people learn. Styles are preferred methods of thinking or methods of processing information. They are independent of abilities. Styles are methods of using abilities. The Sternberg-Wagner Thinking Styles Inventory is one of several learning style type inventories (Also see the Multiple Intelligence Inventory). The thinking styles inventory is based on a Theory of Mental Self-Government, developed by Robert Sternberg and his associates. The theory models thinking around a governmental structure. Simply stated, governments require legislators, who create legislation, executors who implement the legislation, and judiciaries, who evaluate or judge whether the legislation is effective or not. These functions within government roughly parallel three functional types of thinkers: creators, implementers, and evaluators. The Theory of Mental Self-Government also introduces four forms of thinking styles: Monarchic individuals tend to be focused, single minded individuals. Hierarchic individuals tend to be organizers or priority setters. Oligarchic individuals tend to be "multi-taskers", sometimes disorganized, but flexible in their approach to learning. Anarchic individuals might be considered "antisystematic", but are often creative and contribute by questioning the status quo. Functions and forms of thinking styles add to an individual's profile of thinking preferences. A thinking styles profile also includes levels, scope, and a leaning toward an open or closed way of thinking. Levels of thinking styles span from broad ranging, big picture, global thinking, to narrow ranging, detailed, local thinking. The scope of thinking styles ranges from personal, task-oriented, internal thinking, to social, people oriented, external thinking. The leanings of thinking styles tend to lean toward a liberal or a conservative style. Liberal thinkers think "beyond existing rules and procedures and seek to maximize change". Conservative thinkers on the other hand tend to stick to existing rules and procedures, minimize change, and prefer familiarity. There are no better or worse, right or wrong, thinking styles. Learners tend to possess aspects of all thinking styles, and those styles tend to change from situation to situation, and over one's lifetime. In groups, a combinations of different types of thinkers can be a powerful tool in collaborative efforts, but by the same token, mismatched combinations of styles can produce less than desirable results; competing styles of different individuals may clash. It is highly recommended that you find, or purchase, yourself a copy of Robert Sternberg's book "Thinking Styles". It will provide you with detailed descriptions of the various aspects of thinking styles, with practical examples applied to school, employment, and everyday settings. Note that the inventory linked above, provides standardized results for non-student adults. Standardized results are also available for student adults in Sternberg's book. Some of the inventory items may not be suitable for younger groups. A knowledgeable adult should assist in interpreting results for younger learners. Purpose/Objective:

Your goal in completing the Sternberg-Wagner Thinking Styles Inventory should be to understand how you think within the model associated with the Theory of Mental SelfGovernment, and to understand that others are likely to think differently than you do. Understand how knowledge of others thinking styles can help you in all walks of life. Be sure to read Variations of Thinking Styles for a brief summary of principles and behavioural characteristics Sternberg associated with thinking styles. Also read Sternberg's article: Allowing for Thinking Styles

Variations of Thinking Style (excerpts from Sternberg, 1997.)

The following are brief excerpts from the book "Thinking Styles" by Robert J. Sternberg. Readers are encouraged to read the book for detailed coverage of thinking styles, and of the "Theory of Mental Self-Governement."

Principles of Thinking Styles

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Styles are preferences in the use of abilities, not abilities themselves. A match between styles and abilities creates synergy that is more than the sum of its parts. Life choices need to fit styles as well as abilities. People have profiles (or patterns) of styles, not just a single style. Styles are variable across tasks and situations. People differ in the strength of their preferences. People differ in there stylistic flexibility. Styles are socialized. Styles can vary across the life span. Styles are measurable. Styles are teachable. Styles valued at one time may not be valued at another. Styles valued in one place may not be valued in another. Styles, on average, are not good or bad -- it's a question of fit. We confuse stylistic fit with levels of ability.

Functions of Thinking Styles

Legislative Style
Legislative people like to do things their own way. They like creating, formulating, and having things. In general, they tend to be people who like to make their own rules. Legislative people enjoy doing things the way they do them. They prefer problems that are not prestructured for them, but rather that they can structure for themselves. Legislative people also prefer creative and constructive planning-based activities, such as writing papers, design projects, and creating new business or educational systems.

Executive Style
People with the executive style are implementers: they like to do, and generally prefer to be giving guidance as to what to do or how to do what needs to be done. Executive people also like to enforce rules and laws (their own or others'). Executive people prefer problems that are given to them or structured for them and like to do and take pride in the doers - in getting things done. Executive people tend to gravitate toward occupations that are quite different from those to which legislative people are attracted. Executive people will tend to the valued by organizations that want people to do things in a way that appears to a set of rules or guidelines.

Judicial Style
People with a judicial style like to evaluate rules and procedures and to judge things. Judicial people also prefer problems in which they can analyze and evaluate things and ideas. They like to judge both structure and content. Legislative and judicial people can work well together in a team. For example, selection procedures tend to be largely judicial, and are well suited to people who like to evaluate. The legislative person may well not be ideal to read the applications and judge them, for lack of interest in dealing with the job the way it should the done.

Forms of Thinking Styles

Monarchic Style
People who are predominantly monarchic style tend to be motivated by a single goal or need at a time. Monarchic people also tend to be single-minded and driven by whatever they are singleminded about. They have a tendency to see things in terms of their issues. Monarchic people often attempt to solve problems, full speed ahead, damn the obstacles. They can be too decisive.

Hierarchic Style
People with a hierarchic style tend to be motivated by a hierarchy of goals, with the recognition that not all of the goals can be fulfilled equally well and that some goals are more important than others. They thus tend to be priority setters who allocate carefully. They tend to be systematic and organized in their solutions to problems and in their decision making.

Oligarchic Style
In oligarchy, several individuals share power. Individuals with the oligarchic style tend to be motivated by several, often competitive goals of equal perceived importance. They have trouble deciding which goals to give priority to. The result is that they may have trouble allocating resources.

Anarchic Style
People with an anarchic style tend to be motivated by a wide assortment of needs and goals that are often difficult for others, as well as for themselves, to sort out. They tend to be not so much asystematic as antisystematic.

Levels, Scope, and Leanings of Thinking Styles

Global Style-Local Style
Global people prefer to deal with relatively larger and often abstract issues. They tend to focus on the forest, sometimes at the expense of the trees. Their constant challenge is to stay grounded and not to get lost on cloud nine. Local people prefer to deal with details, sometimes minute ones, and often ones surrounding concrete issues. They tend to focus on the trees, sometimes at the expense of the forest. Their constant challenge is to see the whole forest, and not just its individual elements.

Internal Style-External Style

People with an internal style tend to be motivated, task-oriented, sometimes aloof, and socially less sensitive than other people. At times they also lack interpersonal awareness, if only because they do not focus on it. People with an external style, in contrast, tend to be more extroverted, people-oriented, outgoing, socially more sensitive, and interpersonally more aware.

Liberal Style-Conservative Style

Individuals with a liberal style like to go beyond existing rules and procedures and seek to maximize change. They also seek or are at least comfortable with ambiguous situations, and prefer some degree of unfamiliarity in life and work. Individuals with a conservative style like to adhere to existing rules and procedures, minimize change, avoid ambiguous situations where possible, and prefer familiarity in life and work.

Style & Thinking Preference Test

(c) 1999 Ronald Fitzgerald DIRECTIONS: Circle the dot before only those statements that really describe you best in each quadrant A, B, C, and D. For example, look at the second item in quadrant A; circle the associated dot only if you are usually enthusiastic about studying science, but do NOT circle the dot if you either dislike science or if you have very mixed feelings about science study. When you have finished, score each quadrant by counting the number of dots you circled in the quadrant and placing that score in the quadrant box. Preference Test: Circle the dot before only each statement that really describes you best. Then, count the number of dots circled in each quadrant and record the total in that quadrant. QUADRANT A QUADRANT B I learn well by listening. I like learning from pictures, I enjoy studying Science and video tapes, films, or visual displays. solving problems. I like to draw or doodle or paint. I like to follow specific When I close my eyes I can directions. I like working with numbers. easily see pictures in my mind. I like to see the "Big Picture" I like reading and/or writing. before worrying about the I do well in word games like details. scrabble. I like to guess or imagine. I enjoy surprises and take risks. Score Quadrant A = Score Quadrant B = QUADRANT C QUADRANT D I am independent and have I learn best from doing things. strong opinions. I enjoy physical activity and I have clear goals for myself. moving around. I enjoy working alone on a When I talk, I often use hand task. gestures. I like to practice new skills. I love music. I like to organize activities. I like to work and talk with I like to direct the work of others. I like helping or teaching others. others to get things done. Score Quadrant C = Score Quadrant D = Most persons will show "dominance" or a higher score in some one of the quadrants. Some will show high scores in two or even four of the quadrants. There are no right or wrong answers, only the truth of

whatever preference pattern you happen to show. Now see Interpreting Your Preference Scores to gain some help on interpreting your test results

Interpreting Scores

Your

Preference

Your preferred learning or receiving style. If you circled the first statement in quadrant A, you have an AUDITORY receiving style. The first statement in quadrant B represents a VISUAL style. Read the New Brains article for information on how television grows this visual style in many young people today. The first two statements in quadrant D indicate a KINESTHETIC learning style. While we can all receive information in all three ways, many learners prefer one or two styles (such as visual and kinesthetic) over another. Your school should help you to use your preferred learning style most effectively. A high score in quadrant A. 1. The quadrants in this test are based on the multiple intelligences model of Dr. Howard Gardner. A high score here can indicate that you prefer auditory or linguistic work (first and last two items) and/or logical or analytical (mathematical) work (second, third, and fourth items). Auditorylinguistic students can explore such career areas as journalism and language translation; if they also have a positive score on logic items, law is another possibility. Logical-analytical learners can consider engineering, computer programming, science and technical specialties, or accountant and mathematics options. At Minuteman Regional High School, the Science-Technology Division provides special exploration opportunities for high-tech careers. 2. A high score in quadrant B. This right-brained quadrant is based on visual preference. High scores here can indicate talent for such careers as artists, architects, designers, landscapers, planners, graphic specialists, and system analysts. Minuteman High School offers exploration in several of these visual areas. 3. A high score in quadrant C. Both quadrant A and quadrant C represent left-brained or logical characteristics. However C adds the talent called intrapersonal intelligence. Persons with a high score in this quadrant are often potential organizers who can consider careers in administration or supervision. 4. A high score in quadrant D.

This right-brained quadrant is based on kinesthetic intelligence (items one, two, and three), musical intelligence (item four) and interpersonal intelligence (items five and six). Strong scores here can indicate the desirability of considering working with other people in careers like teachers, nurses, salespersons (the interpersonal dimension) or of considering movement and action careers like builders, athletes, repairers, dancers. Minuteman provides exploration for these areas through two divisions--the Commercial Services or people-focused Division and the Construction-Power or build-fix division. Most of us will exhibit a mixture of characteristics across quadrants. For example, a person might prefer the visual learning style (item #1, quadrant B) but not the visual talent or production preferences (other quadrant B items). However, dominance (a higher score) in one or two quadrants is common and has career selection significance. Also, those wishing to develop multiple talents for complex career opportunities should attempt to capitalize on their preferences and grow strength in their areas of nonpreference. Some persons who do that can score strongly in all quadrants and then adapt to the shifting demands of a job such as in this example: The CEO of a corporation shifting to quadrant B as he/she plans company strategy, to quadrant D in meeting with salespersons, to quadrant C in directing emergency action, or to quadrant A in reviewing fiscal reports. When a school guidance and career exploration program encourages such planning and matching and personal development, it produces "entrepreneurial" graduates. These are students who know where they are headed and why. They go to college with a focused purpose. They develop and use their talents but also work at eliminating weaknesses. They become persons who view a career path with enthusiasm and are ready to seize new opportunities. They become positive self-managers. Contact Minuteman to learn more about this important guidance and growth system now.

Visual
Learning & using mind mapping Using a computer graphic program Preparing visual stories or aids Preparing video tape or computer presentations Drawing or making models

Kinesthetic
Participating in movement exercises Dancing Building & fixing Acting Taking field trips

Interpersonal
Working in teams Teaching or helping others Hosting an even Persuading or "selling" to others Debating

Intrapersonal
Listing you goals Leading a team Analyzing your "styles" and/or intelligences Meditating Writing poetry

Auditory-Linguistic
Giving a speech Writing a story or repor Preparing jokes Playing word games Reading

Logical-Analytical
Interpreting patterns Debating Solving puzzles Calculating or computing Writing a computer program

Musical

Naturalistic

Singing Observing & recording Composing Collecting Playing an instrument Classifying or identifying Keeping time to a beat Experimenting Using music (like Baroque) for learning Forecasting Teachers can use these activities to help students use or develop different talents. Good state assessment systems would allow students to demonstrate learning in different ways.

THINKING STYLE

Mankind has been thinking about thinking since the time of the ancient Greeks. Since 1995, we, as the developers of Thinking Styles, have noticed an increase in the number of consultancies and training organisations specialising in elements of thinking. Could this mean that there is renewed interest in styles of thinking? If so, Thinking Styles offers you a very useful way of learning about different styles of thinking and understanding the implications and uses of each type. The original concept for the Thinking Styles psychometric was developed by Fiona Beddoes-Jones in 1995 as a means of adding value to personal and professional development programmes. Thinking Styles measures peoples' cognitive and linguistic preferences and levels of flexibility at work for twenty-six 'types' of thinking (dimensions). It does not measure your thinking ability, nor is it a measure of your 'intelligence'. Thinking Styles has a unique scoring system. Not only does it identify and measure the degree to which you like thinking in a particular way, it also measures the degree to which you dislike thinking in a particular way, i.e. there may be elements of certain styles of thinking that you positively dislike doing! Thinking Styles was developed in collaboration with WDP Consulting Limited www.consultingtools.com. Version 1 of Thinking Styles was launched in 1997 as a beta instrument. Thinking Styles Version 2, supported by reliability and validity data, was launched in April 2001. If you would like to view or download the questionnaire and complete it, please click here. If you would like to see a sample profile - click here. Thinking Styles in depth Much of the original work that was done regarding the concepts of linguistics and cognitive filters was generated by Lesley Cameron-Bandler and Richard Bandler in early 1970's America in the area of personal therapy. They did not talk about 'thinking'. Instead, they used the terms 'fundamental filters' and 'meta-programmes' to explain the ways in which people perceive and understand the world around them and how they then translate that perception of the external world into an internal representation within their own minds. The Bandlers' work is recognised as some of the first building blocks of Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP). Thinking Styles is at the forefront of research in the area of generative NLP. It is the first psychometric instrument specifically designed to identify and measure the cognitive and linguistic dynamics inherent within individuals, teams and organisations, at all levels.

Thinking Styles gives you very powerful techniques to help you understand yourself and others. By developing your communication skills you will be able to develop more effective working relationships. Thinking Styles is ideal for use in situations at work where strong relationships are critical for success. Click here to view some examples. In a team environment, an understanding of the cognitive, linguistic and behavioural dynamics that are operating (usually unconsciously) within the team can be very beneficial in helping you to work more effectively with your colleagues. Cognitive dynamics are the mental processing and thinking which takes place individually and within the team. Linguistic dynamics are the words and language patterns which people use. Behavioural dynamics of Thinking Styles are those behaviours which occur as a result of the way in which a person thinks. Thinking (even unconscious thought) always precedes action. Linking these different dynamics together will help you to understand the complex relationships between peoples' behaviours, how they use words and the way in which they think. Understanding the thinking processes of your teams will enable you to present information to them in a way and at a pace which allows them to think more effectively together, creating more successful teams. At all levels of the organisation, your meetings will be more focused, more effective and shorter. For more examples click here. Thinking Styles can also identify cultural cognitive preferences within teams and organisations. If, for example, an organisation is particularly proactive, competitive or options oriented, this is likely to be reflected in the individual and collective profiles of its people. This is particularly true of the senior team, as organisational culture is profoundly influenced by the thinking styles of its directors and senior managers.
DIMENSION THINKING STYLE
The Thinking Styles profile identifies 26 ways of thinking. These are called "dimensions" by psychologists. Each of these can be identified in the language we use and the behaviours we adopt. Each dimension has: Specific linguistics or associated language patterns Associated behaviours known as 'surface traits' which are visible to others Thinking Styles measures: Four Sensory Focused dimensions, exploring the ways you prefer to receive information via your senses Eight People Focused dimensions, exploring the ways you interact with people Fourteen Task Focused dimensions, exploring the ways you relate to tasks and activities at work Dimension Explanations Here are the behavioural examples which relate to each type of thinking.

Sensory Focused: Explores the ways you prefer to receive information via your senses. Visual thinking: Auditory thinking: the use of pictures, diagrams and visual imagery internally and externally. a focus on the use of words and language, listening and talking things through. Kinaesthetic thinking: the use of feelings, emotions, intuition and physical exercise. Digital thinking: involves a focus on the facts, and/or the use of data and statistics. People Focused: Explores the way you interact with people. Internal thinking: External thinking: relies on their own judgements & standards, believes oneself to be right, ignores feedback. relies on feedback from others, believes that others are right.

Self referenced thinking: puts their own needs first and ignores the needs of other people. Others referenced responsive to the needs of others and willing to help other people. thinking: Matching thinking: Mismatching thinking: Collaborative thinking: Competitive thinking: wants to fit in, dislikes confrontation and takes a non-challenging approach. dislikes being told what to do, will challenge and confront. involves others, shares information, prefers a team environment. wants to win and better either the competition or ones' own performance.

Task Focused: Explores the way you relate to tasks and activities at work and your approach to problem solving. Big Chunk thinking: focuses on general principles & summary information often in terms of key points. Detail Conscious thinking: believes details are important & attends to detailed information. Right Brain thinking: Left Brain thinking: Options thinking: Procedural thinking: creative, naturally multi-tasks, has an untidy workspace, works backwards. processes systematically in sequence, ordered, completes 1 task at a time. explores opportunity & possibility, seeks choice and alternatives, adds to work. procedures are important, follows instructions & the correct way of doing things.

Moving Towards thinking: focuses on goals & targets, says what they want and has a positive attitude. Moving Away From focuses on problems, makes contingency plans, may worry. thinking: Proactive thinking: Reactive thinking: Simplicity filter: Complexity filter: Sameness thinking: Differences thinking: initiates action, gets on with things, proactive approach. waits, analyses and plans, reviews all the relevant info and considers consequences. often simplifies complex issues and prefers things to be easy. enjoys the challenge of difficulty and of complex issues. seeks stability and the familiar; prefers gradual change, notices similarities. notices what is different; seeks variety, has a high capacity & tolerance for change.

The Thinking Styles profile is used in all areas where skill in communication and the need to

understand how other people think and learn are critical to success. It is a stepping stone to understanding and learning how to use language effectively to influence and encourage your staff, your students or your colleagues. Learning another person's "language" and using it will make motivating and managing him or her rewarding and enjoyable. Thinking Styles is used: To develop more creative and dynamic teams In Customer Relationship Management programmes To gently influence others Thinking Styles plays a vital role in understanding and developing personal cognitive awareness, helping you to identify which thinking style to use to achieve your objectives and how to develop flexibility across the styles. The Thinking Styles consultancy service identifies and helps individuals and teams develop their cognitive skills and behavioural flexibility. Team Dynamics and Team Working By profiling each member, you will be able to identify and understand the cognitive dynamics within your team. This will: Help you understand the strengths and weaknesses of the individual team members and of the whole team Improve relationships through understanding colleagues' thinking styles Enable tasks to be divided and allocated to those people who are best suited to do them Energise your team Encourage respect for yourself and for others Two Way Profiling By mapping two peoples' thinking styles against each other, we can help you to: Identify overlaps and potential conflicts Gain a more complete understanding of someone else's styles directly compared to your own Resolve difficult relationships Identify gaps in thinking style flexibility and potential weaknesses within your profiles In smaller companies, getting the right relationship between the key senior managers is vital to the company's success. One of our case studies gives an example of the benefits of two-way mapping in a small consultancy. If you would like to read more - click here. Customer Relationship Management Our Associates have successfully used Thinking Styles in developing strategies for enhancing relationships with their customers. Teams have found using the Thinking Styles profile helps to: Enhance their ability to gain and maintain rapport with customers Be able to respond flexibly to customers in ways which fit their styles Probe the underlying needs of customers and explore ways of addressing these needs Learn to recognise easily the thinking styles of their customers through their language and behaviour One of our case studies shows how this helped staff in BP Amoco. If you would like to read more click here. Sales and Negotiation Techniques Understanding their own Thinking Styles profile and language preferences has helped sales staff identify the potential buying strategies of their clients. You can: Identify the critical styles of thinking in your clients' buying process Learn to listen to and observe your customers' thinking preferences Enhance your thinking style flexibility to match your clients' patterns Speak their language: develop and maintain effective client rapport Developing Advanced Training Skills Training others so that they are able to learn quickly and easily, and moreover, retain and recall what they have learned, requires a high degree of skill and understanding. Using your own Thinking Styles profile we can help you to: Develop your skills as a trainer to a significantly higher level of competence Develop your understanding of how people think and therefore how they learn Understand how people prefer to be 'taught' Make your training messages more memorable We hold regular two-day Workshops for skilled trainers, to enhance their training skills. For more details - click here.

Coaching Thinking Styles has proved itself to be highly effective in executive coaching, and is used regularly with senior managers in the City. We work with you on a one-to-one basis, using your Thinking Styles profile to: Help you to focus and think through the strengths and potential weaknesses of your profile and the implications for your preferred areas of work Give you support as you develop your cognitive flexibility Help you make connections and develop personal insights to help your career progress If you would like to know more about our personal coaching please click here to contact us. Presentation Techniques How often have you attended a presentation that didn't work for you? It could be that the presenter did not appreciate how his or her own thinking style preferences would be reflected in their presentation style. Develop flexibility in your own presentation style Develop rapport with your audience Understand those techniques which make the "best" presenters successful Learn to apply those techniques to your own presentations We hold regular one day Workshops on developing your presentation skills using Thinking Styles. Workshop details - click here. Time Management Why don't traditional time management courses always work? Could it be that they are trying to teach "Left Brain" methods to "Right Brained" preferenced people? Learn both left and right brain techniques for managing your time Learn to be both 'creative' and 'logical' Learn which technique to apply for every time management problem Develop more confidence in your time management skills If you would like to know more about our coaching in Time Management skills using Thinking Styles, contact us. Creating the Right Environment for Thinking How can you support the development of rapid and effective flexibility for different thinking styles? You can enhance your flexibility for the most appropriate kind of thinking when you need to by creating the right environments for your thinking. For example: Closed spaces can close down thinking, so give yourself some space To think strategically work in a room with a view to ensure that you get some 'perspective' To make mental connections and think more 'creatively', move around or take a walk To think logically and sequentially surround yourself with linear objects We can review your working and training environments to identify how they are affecting your thinking and learning and offer strategies for maximising their effectiveness. If you would like to know more - click here.

REPORT

The Thinking Styles Report gives a graphic and verbal representation of your own Personal Profile. There are no right or wrong profiles. This is a shortened example of an individual's profile from a report with a possible interpretation.

The above profile suggests that the person has a high preference for Visual and Kinaesthetic thinking, a moderate preference for Auditory processing and a low preference for Digital thinking. It also shows that there are some elements of both Auditory and Digital processing which they dislike doing. (To understand which of the surface traits they have expressed a dislike for, you will need to examine their responses to the relevant statements in the Thinking Styles Questionnaire).

The above profile suggests that this person has a very strong dislike of Self behaviours and a high preference for Others thinking. Potentially, if they never 'put themselves first' this could leave them permanently exhausted! Their profile also suggests that they have a high preference for Internally Referenced thinking and that there are some elements of External thinking which they dislike using. If this means that they tend to ignore feedback from others and always believe that they are 'right', potentially they could come across as being very arrogant, although their high Others preference may help to mediate this. Although they have a low preference for Matching thinking, there are elements of Matching behaviours which they dislike doing and they have a high preference for Mismatching processing. Potentially, this could lead to them being perceived as 'argumentative', particularly if they are prepared to challenge others (which is very likely, given their high Internal score). Although they haven't disagreed with any statements relating to either Collaborative or Competitive processing, their scores suggest a low preference for Collaborative thinking and a moderate preference for Competitive thinking. Behaviourally, I would probably expect to see both Competitive and Collaborative behaviours displayed in their working environment.

You will notice that there is no explanation for the Task Focus dimensions here. This is because we have used this as a competition for those of you who would like to "have a go". If you would like to enter our competition to win a copy of the book "Thinking Styles-Relationship Strategies that work", then click here. The Report In the first part of the report you will find your Personal Summaries and the dimension definitions. In the second part of your report you will find more detailed descriptions of each Thinking Style. These are written in a consistent format. We have included those behaviours, filters and language patterns identified through our questionnaires as being the most relevant to each style. We have also included some of those behaviours, language patterns and cognitive filters which are likely to be associated with each style. For each dimension, there is an explanation on how to manage and motivate people who score highly against the dimension, whether they are working with you, are working for you or are your manager. Finally we have designed some exercises to increase your flexibility for each Thinking Style. The exercises are designed for people who have a low preference or flexibility for the dimension should they choose to increase their flexibility. Those people who already score quite highly may want to do the exercises just for fun! Click here. Competition Have a go at our free competition to win a copy of the book "Thinking Styles Relationship Strategies that work". Read the questions and e-mail us with your ideas: How would you describe the above Task Focus profile? Using the dimension definitions, what behavioural characteristics might you expect the

individual to display? What would you suggest that their cognitive strengths and potential weaknesses might be at work relating to these Task Focus dimensions? This is an exercise we use on our Licensing Programme. Every week we will be selecting a winner who will receive a copy of the book, dedicated to them and signed by the author, Fiona Beddoes-Jones. The
THINKING STYLE HDBI

Ned Hermann developed the Hermann Brain Dominance Instrument, HBDI , while he was head of training and management development at General Electric. The HBDI reports individual preferences in thinking styles. The instrument is the product of years of brain research by Ned Hermann. The result of this research is a model of thinking that uses the analogy of brain function. The model has four quadrants that characterize the way we think, that is, perceive and make judgments . Thinking styles are represented as a left-right bias for the left and right hemispheres of the brain and upper and lower bias for the cerebral and limbic functions of the brain. The presentation of these quadrants is in color. A Quadrant: Cerebral left hemisphere corresponds to analytic thinking. Thinking in this style prefers:

Logic Analysis Facts Measurement B Quadrant: Limbic left hemisphere corresponds to implementation thinking. Thinking in this style prefers: Organization Sequence Planning Detail C Quadrant: Limbic right hemisphere corresponds to social thinking. Thinking in this style prefers: Interpersonal Social Kinesthetic Emotion D Quadrant: Cerebral right hemisphere correspond to future thinking. Thinking in this style prefers: Holistic

Intuition Integration Synthesis

Every healthy individual has the capability to choose any of these four thinking styles. As individuals our preferences give different weight to each thinking style. We have a baseline thinking style profile and situation and stress profiles. These can be interpreted from the HBDI report. The HBDI report is not a measure of performance. While I may prefer to analyze situations, it does not mean that I am any good at it. Although the instrument does not provide for performance analysis or prediction, it does have a useful application in the pursuit of happiness. Jobs, hobbies, problems can be organized into the four quadrants according to the primary skills required to perform them. Reflection and discussion can take place around preference profile and activity profile. The HBDI also has group and team applications. The individual thinking styles of a senior management team, for example, can be overlaid and averaged to present a composite thinking style for that group. The business processes or problems can be mapped against this profile just as it was done for the individual. Knowing your thinking style is the groundwork for improving your decisions.

Thinking styles and accessing information on the world wide web

Jean Lumb Department of Psychology University College of North Wales, Bangor

Abstract
This article describes a project which investigates how thinking styles affect student use of hypertext using concept mapping as an approach to learning on the world wide web. The project is to be carried out at the University College of North Wales, Bangor, in the Psychology Department. Past research relevant to this project is described below.

Learning and hypertext

Current debate about the role of hypertext and hypermedia for learning centres mainly around the use of hypertext as a cognitive tool for purposeful learning of complex material. The ergonomic advantages of hypertext for information retrieval seem to be widely accepted. Some of the claims made about the advantages of learning from hypertext are more controversial. Hutchings et al (1992) claim that advantages for users of hypermedia include greater learner control; improved access to multimedia learning materials; and a variety of new modalities of interaction for use with learning material. Jonassen (1993) states that some hypertext researchers and designers believe that hypertext information structures should reflect the structures of human memory as proposed by Bartlett's (1932) schema theory model of human memory. Schema theory is a non linear model for representation of knowledge within the human brain. If the structure in the hypertext interface resembles the way in which the brain encodes information, this will enable greater changes in knowledge structures of the learner. By explicitly mapping the semantic network of an expert onto the hypertext, learners may come to think like an expert more readily. McKendree and Reader (1994) challenge the assumption that hypertext and hypermedia resemble the knowledge structures in the brain in some way. They maintain that knowledge of how the brain encodes information is poorly understood. Simply having access to information or knowledge does not presuppose that learning takes place. What is needed is knowledge of the complex ways in which people learn. Learners need to actively process information in a meaningful way, to reflect upon and use the information in order for it to be truly learned. What is needed is knowledge of how people learn complex material. Jonassen (1993) accepts that merely illustrating content structures in the interface is not sufficient for helping learners acquire those structures. He maintains that it is the nature of the processing task and goals for learning while interacting with a hypertext that determines the effects of its use on learners' knowledge. Barker (1993) states that if hypermedia material is to be educationally effective, considerable thought should be given to firstly the learning goals and activities that it must support; how the nature of the underlying knowledge corpus relates to these requirements; and how learners differ from each other. Eklund (1995) is positive about

the potential of hypermedia systems for incorporating these principles into hypertext software. He recommends the incorporation of advanced navigational devices such as concept maps into the software to inform users of their place in the process of knowledge acquisition and past and possible new trails to follow. A semantic (or concept) map is a graphical representation of an individual's knowledge of a particular subject area or subject domain. He also recommends the use of an adaptive interface based on several stereotypical user classes to modify the environment to suit the individual user with the user making informed decisions about where next to proceed based on his/her interpretation of the meaning of materials and at each learners own pace. Peter Whalley (1993) questions the validity of the assumption made sometimes about linear text - that, unlike hypertext, it is unstructured. He also questions whether it is desirable to deliberately fragment educational materials in order to make them more accessible. Whalley states that Grimes (1975) and DeBeaugrade (1980) have shown how under a superficially linear form, authors may create complex relational structures. Whalley states that linear texts contain turn taking cues which promote reflective critical reading. Fragmentation in hypertext makes it more difficult to perceive the author's intended argument structure. This makes it more difficult to organise hypertext materials to support higher level learning. Kommers (1990) describes the failure of hypertext as a medium to improve learning especially for less able pupils as they cannot see the wood for the trees. Jonassen (1993) carried out three studies of the use of concept mapping embedded in hypertext for learning. One of these studies resulted in improvement in student learning. The results of these are discussed below. Jonassen (1990) accepts the premise that learning is the reorganisation of knowledge structures and has used two tools for depicting those representations, utilising these tools for learning. The first is Preeces (1976) method of free association of word lists to create a semantic map of knowledge and Buzans (1974) technique of notetaking in the form of pattern mapping of knowledge structures. These techniques have been incorporated into computer environments such as Learning Tool (Kozma, 1987), Semnet (Fisher et al, 1988) and Pathfinder Nets (McDonald, Paap & McDonald, 1990) for production of semantic nets. In a set of three studies, Jonassen (1990) wanted to investigate the extent to which a semantically structured hypertext affects the acquisition of structural knowledge, knowledge structures being the organisation of an individual's ideas. In the first two studies, individuals took part in a learning task where material was presented either with or without the experts semantic map of the material. In these studies, there was no difference in knowledge acquisition and structural knowledge gained between subjects presented with semantic maps compared with subjects who were not presented with these maps. However, in the third study, experimental subjects were required to create their own semantic maps of the subject field. There were still no differences in recall scores. However, in this study, subjects performed significantly better on the relationship task than the two groups instructed only to study the materials. These results support findings of Bower et al (1969) that imposing your own organisation on material as well as active involvement in processing the material meaningfully enhances learning. Craik and Lockharts (1972) studies on levels of processing also

support these results. The more deeply a learner processes information, the more likely it is that the person will remember material to be learned.

Thinking styles
One possible way in which to determine the complex ways in which people learn is to study the way in which they think. Robert Sternberg (1995) proposes that thinking involves the representation and processing of information in the mind. One way to view thought is to consider critical thinking, in which individuals consciously direct mental processes to find a thoughtful solution to a problem as opposed to noncritical thinking, in which individuals routinely follow customary thought patterns, without consciously directing how they think. These two different types of thinking will be appropriate for different tasks. Sternberg in 1988, proposed the theory of mental self government. In a further article discussing this theory, he examines the nature of thinking styles and impact of current forms of educational assessment on individual students with differing thinking style profiles (Sternberg, 1992). Mental self government relates to the task of managing or governing everyday activities. The flexible use of the mind for mental self government accounts for a variety of thinking styles. Sternberg (1992) defines a thinking style as a preferred way of thinking. It is not an ability, but a preferred way of expressing or using one or more abilities. Two or more people at the same level of ability may nevertheless have very different styles. Sternberg maintains that styles, like abilities are in large part of a function of the environment and they can be developed. They are also fluid in the sense that different styles may be used in different situations as styles seem to be partly a function of tasks and situations. Preferred styles may also change over the lifespan. However, the fact that some people retain less rewarded styles despite environmental pressure suggests that socialisation does not account fully for the origins of styles, and that there may be preprogrammed dispositions that are difficult to change. Sternberg & Lubart (1991a) proposes that there is a link between intellectual (or thinking style) and creativity. Truly striking levels of creativity are associated with global and legislative thinking styles compared with local executive thinking styles. Individuals with a global legislative thinking style prefer relatively large abstract issues, ignoring details. They prefer the task of creating, formulating , imagining and planning. Individuals with local styles prefer concrete problems requiring detailed work and tend to be pragmatically oriented. They prefer implementing and applying ideas or plans of others. Sternberg (1992) maintains that there are consistent biases in measurements of ability which benefit some thinking styles at the expense of others. He uses the multiple choice/short answer format as an example of a type of conventional test commonly used which favours test takers with an executive,

local style and somewhat those with internal conservative styles as well. He also suggests that the type of student who gets good grades as assessed by conventional tests are unlikely to be the students who are most creative when it comes to generating new ideas in their research regardless of discipline (see Sternberg & Lubart, 1991a; 1991b, p. 179.) Creative students are more likely to show profiles of styles that are legislative and global. More recent tests emphasise critical thinking and analysis, indicating there may be a shift away from benefiting executive styles. The aim of this project is to test whether there is an interaction between thinking styles and learning utilising concept mapping as a learning tool for managing material presented in either hypertext format or linear format. It is predicted that one type of learning style will be more effective with one type of presentation of material. It is predicted that there will be a significant interaction between preferred thinking styles and presentation of material in either linear or hypertext formats. Subjects with an executive, local profile will master factual knowledge more effectively through a linear approach but not see links between areas of knowledge as clearly as subjects who have a legislative, global style profile. Subjects with this second type of profile will perform well on understanding links between knowledge but will have lower scores on factual knowledge. It could be the case that the major role of hypertext and concept mapping is firstly in the management of learning. Whalley (1993) expresses concern of writers distance learning materials about the `over organised text which promotes passive learning which could be a problem for educationalists designing learning packages using hypertext. Eklund (1995) has outlined the usefulness of concept mapping embedded in hypertext for the management of learning, assisting the user in establishing current knowledge states and planning where to go next. The use of concept mapping may also have a major role to play in developing creativity, particularly the truly distinctive creativity described by Sternberg.

Dimensions of Thinking
A Framework for Curriculum and Instruction
by Robert J. Marzano, Ronald S. Brandt, Carolyn Sue Hughes, Beau Fly Jones, Barbara Z. Presseisen, Stuart C. Rankin, and Charles Suhor

Copyright 1988 by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from ASCD.

Foreword
Who would not want what is taught in school to include an emphasis on student thinking? Yet we know that the activities and interaction patterns in many classrooms do not contribute to growth in thinking. Numerous attempts have been made to change the situation, with varying degrees of success and frustration. The authors of this book offer a fresh approach. Because of the bewildering army of strategies offered by various advocates, many educators are confused about just what it means to "teach thinking" and how, other than buying a packaged program, schools can provide for it. As a partial answer, the authors of Dimensions of Thinking have developed a framework intended to be the basis for curriculum and staff development programs. They have organized and clarified research and theory from several sources, including philosophy and cognitive psychology, in a form intended to be useful to practitioners. As you read Dimensions of Thinking, you may be challenged to rethink conventional views on such matters as student motivation and reward systems and the relationship between thinking skills and content knowledge. You will doubtless begin to wonder about the possible impact of teaching thinking on the perennial problems of student failure, disillusionment, and unmet potential. And you will probably be excited by the possibility of gains in student achievement that we usually only dream about. Because this publication challenges traditional notions about purposes and methods of instruction, it has implications for preservice and inservice teacher education and for refocusing the efforts of supervisors, principals, superintendents, and boards of education. A powerful yet flexible model, Dimensions of Thinking promises to influence education far into the future. Marcia Knoll, ASCD President, 1987-88
Copyright 1988 by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. All rights reserved.

Preface
When the seven of us got together to begin work on this book, we knew it could not be done perfectly, and a few of us doubted it could be done at all. The idea of a new "taxonomy" of thinking skills was first suggested at an invitational conference hosted by the Johnson Foundation at the Wingspread Conference Center in Racine, Wisconsin, in May 1984. ASCD had called the meeting to ask interested educators how we might best contribute to the

burgeoning interest in teaching thinking. The conferees suggested numerous possibilities, including preparing a resource book, producing a series of videotapes, starting a network, and cooperating with other education organizations to promote interest in teaching thinking. In February 1985 Carolyn Hughes, then ASCD president-elect, met with representatives of other organizations to form the Association Collaborative for Teaching Thinking. The Collaborative identified five projects that member organizations thought would be useful, including one that ASCD offered to support financially: development of a framework of thinking skills. Educators wanted a framework because they were hearing more and more about published programs designed specifically for teaching thinking. Each of these programs had its own definition of thinking and its own array of skills. If schools were to integrate the teaching of thinking with regular academic instruction, they needed to know what aspects of thinking to teach. We decided to try to answer that question as well as we could. We began knowing that several detailed lists of thinking skills were already available, but it did not seem useful simply to rearrange them. Besides, the literature on thinking dealt not only with skills but with several other aspects of thinking, such as "dispositions" of critical thinkers, creativity, decision making, and the role of knowledge in thinking. We wanted to recognize each of these aspects of thinking in our framework if we could. We chose to call the major elements of our framework "dimensions" because, if we could draw a diagram of our model, it would have at least five dimensions. 1 The framework presented in this book has been reviewed by numerous researchers, experts, and practitioners and revised several times in an effort to make it as accurate and helpful as possible. Some 60 people, including both researchers and practitioners, met in November 1986 for a second invitational conference at Wingspread to criticize the third draft of the manuscript, which was subsequently rewritten again in response to the conferees' recommendations. We appreciate the many helpful comments we received, and we feel the framework is stronger because of them. Additional research information on each of the dimensions may be found in a companion volume, Dimensions of Thinking and Cognitive Instruction .2 We knew when we began that our final product would not be fully satisfactory, and for good reason. Thinking is such a complex activity that it is extremely difficult to portray with accuracy and clarity. Some aspects of thinking are better understood than others, and many are the subject of considerable controversy. Some of the better published programs for teaching thinking skills are grounded in particular conceptions of thinking. They are based on a particular body of research or on a well-conceived rationale. They are coherentbut also somewhat idiosyncratic. Our aim was to assemble a cohesive framework drawn from many diverse sources. For example, we wanted to include the perspectives of both psychology and philosophy. Unfortunately, the two traditions are very different, so in a sense we were trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. Nevertheless, despite these concerns, we think practicing educators will find this framework useful.

The framework is intended for use in designing staff development programs for teachers and other educators and as the basis for curriculum planning at all levels. In the years ahead, we hope to see each of the dimensions more fully reflected in school programs and practices. Some researchers and educators are concerned about publication of a framework such as this because they oppose the teaching of skills apart from meaningful context. They see that schools frequently fall into the trap of seeming to teach skills for their own sake rather than providing for their useful application in goaldirected activities. We believe that occasional explicit instruction in core skills and processeswhen related to a useful purposecan be beneficial to students, but in general we, too, question the value of teaching skills apart from content. We recogize that this framework can be misinterpreted and misused, but it is not intended as a scope and sequence chart for a separate thinking skills curriculum. To the contrary, we believe that whether or not schools decide to offer special thinking skills programs, thinking should pervade the entire curriculum. Accordingly, we have tried to identify aspects of thinking so fundamental that students should use these skills and processes repeatedly in the course of learning academic content. Endnotes
1

It would, of course, be difficult to represent more than three dimensions graphically, so we have not attempted that. We acknowledge also that, as Ray Nickerson has pointed out, our use of the term is somewhat inappropriate because we are not actually referring to measurable extensions in space. 2 Jones, B.F., and L. Idol, Dimensions of Thinking and Cognitive Instruction (Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, in preparation). Copyright 1988 by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. All rights reserved.

1. Thinking as the Foundation of Schooling

In recent years, many Americans have come to recognize that students in our schools do not think as skillfully and critically as we might wish. A barrage of books, articles, and reports has appeared in support of teaching thinking. For example, such prominent organizations as the Education Commission of the States (1982) and the College Board (1983) have highlighted the teaching of thinking. High-impact reports such as A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) have pointed to deficiencies in higher-level thinking as a major weakness in American education. Widely read journals such as Educational Leadership have devoted entire issues to the topic. Many of these publications cite students' inability to answer higher level questions on tests or to perform well on complex academic tasks. For example, Silver's (1986) analysis of the results of nationwide testing by the

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) includes convincing examples of how students approach academic tasks in a mechanical fashion without much apparent thought about what they are doing. A classic illustration is the following NAEP problem. Estimate the answer to 3.04 x 5.3 a. 1.6 b. 16 c. 160 d. 1,600 e. don't know Only 20 percent of the 13-year-olds and 40 percent of the 17-year-olds got the right answer. Yet when asked to compute the answer to a similar problem, 60 percent of the 13-year-olds and 80 percent of the 17-year-olds answered correctly (Burns, 1986). Other evidence suggests that students of all ages have many misconceptions that are not being effectively addressed by existing instructional methods. Anderson and Smith (1984), for instance, have noted that elementary students can pass chapter quizzes on photosynthesis and still not understand that plants make their own food. These and countless other examples in the reform literature suggest that America's students often lack rigorous thought and perhaps even that thinking is not valued in our schools. Indeed, the main message often communicated to students is that they should provide "the right answer." According to Doyle's (1983) study of academic work in American schools, accountability and testing drive schooling. Students learn early in the game that all classroom activities are not equal; some things are tested, and others are not. By the time students have reached high school, they know the rule well: "Learn what will be tested." The result, despite teachers' good intentions, is devaluation of independent thought. The Goal of Education Such philosophers as Robert Ennis, Matthew Lipman, and Richard Paul hold that the development of rational thinkers should be the primary goal of education. Paul (1986b) envisions the end product of education as the inquiring mind:
A passionate drive for clarity, accuracy, and fair-mindedness, a fervor for getting to the bottom of things, to the deepest root issues, for listening sympathetically to opposite points of view, a compelling drive to seek out evidence, and intense aversion to contradiction, sloppy thinking, inconsistent application of standards, a devotion to truth as against self-interestthese are essential components of the rational person (p. 1).

Others would say that the goal is to develop mature thinkers who are able to acquire and use knowledge. For example, Anderson (1977) and Rumelhart (1980) stress the fundamental role of "searching for meaning" in cognition. Toward this end, model learners work actively to integrate new information with what they already know, to select what is important, to make inferences beyond the information given, and to think strategically about their own learning. For many philosophers, psychologists, and educators, the development of rational thought and the search for meaning need no justification; their

centrality to education is self-evident (Kirkpatrick, 1936). More pragmatic reasons, though, are not hard to find. Certainly the success of any democratic system depends on individuals' ability to analyze problems and make thoughtful decisions. A democracy thrives on the productivity of its diverse constituencya productivity fostered by free, critical, and creative thought on issues of common interest. Seiger-Ehrenberg (1985), who in her lifetime developed several thinkingskills programs, expresses the rationale for teaching thinking in terms of individual and social needs and benefits. "By the time students graduate from high school, they should be able to consistently and effectively take intelligent ethical action to accomplish the tasks society legitimately expects of all its members and to establish and pursue worthwhile goals of their own choosing" (p. 7). She defines "intelligent ethical action" as "using rational thought processes to arrive at a decision . . . taking into account . . . the wellbeing of those affected" (pp. 8-9). She proposes that these outcomeswhich can be achieved only by teaching students to thinkshould be the basis for planning the entire curriculum. The Need for a Framework for Teaching Thinking Many programs designed specifically for teaching thinking are now available. Costa's (1985a) Developing Minds: A Resource Book for Teaching Thinking includes descriptions of more than 30 such programs or approaches. Although these resources are useful and show great progress in our awareness of the need to foster thinking, the different definitions of thinking and the number of available options can be confusing. In fact, it would be a mistake to assume that thinking instruction is somehow contained in this abundance of programs and that offering one or more of them is sufficient. Such an assumption is dangerous because it ignores the need to conceptualize basic skills such as reading and writing as thinking and because it ignores the need to infuse teaching thinking in all curriculum areas. What has been missing in current theory, and practice is an organizing framework for teaching thinkinga latticework to systematically examine themes common to the different approaches and relationships among them. An appropriate framework would allow practitioners in different subject areas and grade levels to develop a common knowledge base and a common language for teaching thinking. In this book we seek to develop such a framework. Dimensions of Thinking At the outset, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of our effort. The framework presented here is meant to be a useful tool for practitioners. It is not offered as a model of how the mind works or as an explanatory theory. Rather, we are guided by Anderson's (1983, p. 12) definition: a framework is

a "general pool of constructs for understanding a domain, but is not tightly enough organized to constitute a predictive theory." Such noted scholars and researchers as Perkins (1981), Sternberg (1980), Gardner (1983), Anderson (1983), and Johnson-Laird (1983) have developed highly sophisticated theories and models of cognition and intelligence. No duplication of their work is intended here. Rather, we have tried to draw from many scholarly works to identify the "dimensions" that appear to be threads running through both research and theory perspectives that can be used to analyze various approaches to teaching thinking and to provide direction for planning curriculum and instruction. Accordingly, we have identified five dimensions of thinking: Metacognition Critical and creative thinking Thinking processes Core thinking skills The relationship of content-area knowledge to thinking These dimensions do not form a taxonomy. They are neither discrete nor comparable categories. They overlap in some cases, and they relate to each other in different ways. Therefore, they do not form a hierarchy. Nor are they intended as ends in themselves. We chose them because they reflect the various domains of thinking as they are understood in terms of current research. Educators can use this framework as a resource to match the demands of the curriculum with the needs of students, knowing that this is a working document that will change as research provides new information. The first dimension, metacognition, refers to our awareness and control of our own thinking. For example, students' beliefs about themselves and about such things as the value of persistence and the nature of work will heavily influence their motivation, attention, and effort for any given task. Critical and creative thinking are dominant themes in the literature on thinking. We consider this dimension to include these two different but related ways of characterizing thinking. Regardless of the particular processes or skills involved, an individual's thinking can be described as more or less creative or critical. We conceive of thinking processes, such as concept formation, comprehension, decision making, and problem solving, as another dimension of thinking. Whereas skills, such as ordering data or verifying the accuracy of statements, can be accessed randomly as the situation arises, the cognitive processes are goal oriented. To comprehend a passage, solve a problem, or engage in scientific inquiry are important academic activities in their own right. We view them as being more or less macro-level operations that take place over time in variable but somewhat predictable sequences of generic skills. We refer to these more micro-level operations as core thinking skills. They are best described as basic cognitive operations used in metacognitive reflection and in the thinking processes. The skills of comparing and

classifying, for example, are used frequently in decision making and problem solving. These first four dimensions do not exist in isolation. Individuals must think about something, and the content of our thinking greatly influences how we think. For example, our ability to classify and order data probably depends more on our knowledge of the topic than on our knowledge of the skills of classifying and ordering. Knowledge is related to the other dimensions in complex and subtle ways. A key characteristic of the dimensions is that they occur simultaneously. An individual may be thinking metacognitively ("Do I understand this word? Is it important to what follows?") while using skills and processes ("How can I represent this problem? What would I need to do to produce a good essay?") in critical and creative ways. When writing a paper, for example, a student might be monitoring attitudes, such as the desire to go out and play ball rather than study, while using a specific thinking skill such as summarizing. Our framework does not distinguish as separate dimensions several aspects of thinking that need to be addressed in any organized effort to foster student thinking and therefore might have been included as additional dimensions. One of these is cognitive development: the growth in students' capacities for thinking as they mature and gain experience. Another is cognitive style. Research and everyday experience confirm that individuals think differently, so schools must not expect a single style of thinking to fit all students equally well. We also considered having a separate chapter on attitudes and dispositions but decided to discuss this important aspect of thinking in the context of the other dimensions. The Razor's Edge Before discussing the dimensions in depth, we want to warn against teaching them as ends in themselves. We do not recommend that a district or school use this or any other framework as the basis for a scope and sequence chart calling for isolated instruction in thinking. Rather, students should use the skills, processes, and metacognitive strategies in connection with learning regular classroom content. They should view the skills as means to comprehending a theory, solving a problem, or drafting an essay. We do not mean to suggest, however, that students do not need practice in a given skill or that they should never be taught specific skills in adjunct courses. Clearly, some students need more practice than others, and trying to learn skills and content at the same time may overwhelm some of them. Nevertheless, even when cognitive and metacognitive skills are taught directly, the goal should be to learn valuable information. To be effective, drill and practice must have functional meaning (Sticht & Hickey, in press). Meaningless drill and practice will not produce thinking students. Teachers in every subject area, then, have a dual agenda. They need to develop in all students a rich knowledge base, and they need to provide

students with a repertoire of cognitive and metacognitive skills and strategies that will enable them to use the knowledge efficiently in meaningful contexts. Thinking in Historical Context Any conception of thinking is always from the perspective of a particular time frame. Thinking was perceived differently in the 10th century than it was during the Enlightenment. Different times have their own unique thought processes, and current thought patterns reflect the present era. Our effort is but one of a long list of similar attempts to map what is known about thinking onto curriculum and instruction. More than 70 years ago, Dewey (1916) wrote, "The sole direct path to enduring improvement in the methods of instruction and learning consists in centering upon the conditions which exact, promote, and test thinking." Similarly, in 1961 the National Education Association identified the improvement of thinking as central to American education:
Thus in the general area of the development of the ability to think, there is a field for new research of the greatest importance. It is essential that those who have responsibility for management and policy determination in education commit themselves to expansion of such research and to the application of the fruits of this research. This is the context in which the significant answers to such issues as educational technology, length of the school year and content of teacher education must be sought and given (Educational Policies Commission, 1961, pp. 14-15).

Just as educators' interest in thinking can be traced back several decades, interest in thinking and its relationship to human behavior is as old as civilization itself. The study of thinking has at least two strong traditionsthe philosophical and the psychological. A Great Tradition: Philosophy The roots to the philosophical interest in thinking reach back to the classical past. Greene (1984) notes that in the Western world, philosophy preceded by at least 2,000 years the growth of what we now call science. Indeed, philosophy was seen as the queen of sciences. To think or reason, according to early philosophers, was to take the stance of the objective and contemplative spectator and, in doing so, to discover truth. Plato described the philosopher-king as one who could discern through introspection the forms or ideas behind appearances. Aristotle discribed this process of discerning truth through rational thought as grasping the design or telos of reality. In The Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle also saw reason as a guide to correct behavior: "To know what excellence is is not enough; we must endeavor to acquire it and to act accordingly." Inquiry is one of the philosopher's primary tools. According to Socrates, the philosopher continually uses discussion and argument to try to "attain to each thing itself that is; he doesn't give up before he grasps by intellection itself that which is good itself" (in Goldman, 1984).

The spirit of inquiry runs through the entire history of philosophy. It shaped many of the modern notions of science. For example, in the 17th century, Descartes wrote that the philosopher's primary responsibility was to develop an accurate method of investigation. As a mathematician, Descartes gravitated toward developing a system closely related to analytic geometry. Dewey observed that, because inquiry leads to change, a democratic society should nurture the spirit of inquiry, lest society stagnate and the energies of its citizens turn inward, destructively. Philosophy, then, has been inexorably tied to the study of thinking. Such great scholars as Hegel, James, Spinoza, and Bacon, along with those mentioned above and many others, have greatly influenced how we think today and how we view thinking. The current interest in teaching thinking, then, is fundamentally a philosophical issuebut it is also a psychological issue. The Second Great Tradition: Psychology Not until about the mid-19th century did scholars view the human mind as a "working mechanism" with underlying operations that could be scientifically studied (Rowe, 1985). The biologists Darwin (1809-1882) and Spencer (1820-1903) observed correlations between the evolutionary increase in the flexibility of animal behavior and the increasing size of animals' brains. In short order, the attention to identifying the operations that constitute thinking increased. The first psychological laboratory was founded in Leipzig by Wundt and his students to investigate the basic building blocks of all cognition, which they thought to be sensations and perceptions. Since those early days of psychology, the study of thinking has taken many forms, among them Gestalt psychology, behaviorism, psychometrics, and information-processing theory. Primarily concerned with perception, Gestalt psychology assumes that all organisms have an innate tendency to organize information taken from the environment. But the organization cannot be explained as a simple matter of small, independent parts combined in some cumulative fashion. Instead, human beings organize information in a gestalt (a structure, form, or configuration) different from the sum of its parts. Such scholars as Wertheimer, Necker, Koehler, Luchins, Dunker, and Taylor used the notion of a gestalt to explain many aspects of thinking. Although Gestalt psychology focuses strongly on perception, behavioral psychology is primarily concerned with learning. In behavioral or stimulusresponse psychology, the probability of a given response in an organism is directly related to how the response is associated with the stimulus; more frequently practiced responses will be more likely to endure. Much of the current emphasis on skill practice in the classroom stems from this principle. Theorists commonly associated with behaviorism include Thorndike, Hull, Osgood, and Skinner.

Another strong trend in the psychological tradition is the psychometric approach. Psychometrists tend to focus on the products of behavior rather than on performance itself; thus, test scores are analyzed with sophisticated statistical techniques. In this approach, the tasks presented to students in aptitude and intelligence tests are considered valid indicators of intelligence. Early analysis of such tests indicated that a general factor or aptitude appeared central to all forms of intelligence. Recently, other factors have been identified, such as crystallized intelligence (information we learn from our culture) and fluid intelligence (genetically determined abilities such as the capacity of one's short-term memory). Psychologists commomly associated with the psychometric approach include Guilford, Thurstone, Cattell, Carroll, and Horn. The psychometric approach to psychology has included a focus on children's developing intelligence. Binet and Simon's early research sought to identify schoolchildren unlikely to succeed in normal classrooms. Piaget and Inhelder's studies of child logic and reasoning paralleled Montessori's examination of children's learning and pedagogy, while Gesell sought to understand the social psychological and parenting influences on youthful development. Bruner, Berlyne, and Kagan have conducted many studies that seek to understand the developing mind of the child as part of a larger explanation of human development and psychology. The most recent psychological approach to the study of thinking is information processing. This approach focuses on how we acquire, transmit, store, and transform information. Many successful analyses of thinkingfor example, most of what we know about the limitations of human memory have been made using this approach. Information-processing theory has made possible the development of powerful computer models (commonly called artificial intelligence) that simulate human thought. Among many others, Newell, Simon, Greeno, Schank, Abelson, Rumelhart, Minsky, and Papert are pioneers of this approach. Dual Perspectives Philosophy and psychology, the two traditions contributing most to the study of thinking, each provide a perspective essential to fostering thinking in the classroom. The philosophical tradition deals broadly with the nature and quality of thinking and its role in human behavior. The psychological tradition explains the workings of specific cognitive operations. Both perspectives must be considered in the development of a framework for teaching thinking. In the following chapters, we draw from both traditions to discuss the five dimensions of thinking and their implications for educational practice. We see the potential impact of this framework as both powerful and broad powerful because it could drastically restructure the conceptualization and implementation of schooling; broad because it could affect, among other elements, curriculum design, assessment techniques, and pedagogy. At the

same time, we recognize that educators will need to continually modify the framework to account for new insights into the nature of thinking. We recognize as well that because, like most educators, we are more deeply steeped in the traditions of cognitive and educational psychology than in philosophy, our resulting framework is necessarily "biased" in that direction. We hope in time to see the insights of philosophy incorporated more fully into the practice of education, further illuminating the dimensions of thinking.
Copyright 1988 by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. All rights reserved.

About the Authors

Robert J. Marzano is Director of Research at the Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratory in Aurora, Colorado. He is senior author of Tactics for Thinking, a teacher training program published by ASCD. He has authored articles, books, and training materials in the areas of language arts, effective schooling, and thinking skills. Ronald S. Brandt is Executive Editor of ASCD and staff liaison for ASCD's Teaching Thinking project. Carolyn Sue Hughes is Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Program Development with the Oklahoma City Public Schools. She was director of QUEST, a thinking skills program developed in the 1970s by the Parma, Ohio, Public Schools. As ASCD President in 1985-86, she organized and chaired the Association Collaborative for Teaching Thinking, a group of 28 organizations working together to promote student thinking in elementary and secondary schools. She also chaired the Wingspread II: Dimensions of Thinking Conference in 1986. Beau Fly Jones is Program Director of the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory in Elmhurst, Illinois. Active in the development of research-based materials for inservice and preservice education, she helped produce the ASCD videotape, Teaching Reading as Thinking, and is senior editor of Strategic Teaching and Learning: Cognitive Instruction in the Content Areas, published by ASCD in 1987. Barbara Z. Presseisen is Director of National Networking at Research for Better Schools, the Mid-Atlantic Educational Laboratory in Philadelphia. She is Chair of the Cross Laboratory Committee on Higher-Order Thinking Skills, a founder of the Jean Piaget Society, and serves on the editorial advisory boards of Educational Horizons and the Teaching Thinking and ProblemSolving Newsletter. Stuart C. Rankin is Deputy Superintendent of the Detroit Public Schools. He has been a member of the ASCD Executive Council and Board of Directors, and he chaired the 1984 Wingspread Conference that led to preparation of this book. Charles Suhor is Deputy Executive Director of the National Council of Teachers of English and Director of the ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills. A former English teacher and K-12 Supervisor of

English for the New Orleans Public Schools, his publications include over 150 articles in education journals.

ARE YOU A NATURAL SYSTEMS THINKER?

1999 Hal Williamson, all rights reserved.

The Thinking Part Of Systems Thinking

Systems thinking is about systems. Much has been written about systems: the interdependence of the parts, the fact that the whole is more than a sum of its parts, the constantly changing nature of dynamic systems, etc. But systems thinking is just as profoundly about thinking. A full appreciation of systems thinking requires a thoughtful examination of thinking. Thinking is about mental processes that take place in the brain/body system. There are a number of well recognized mental processes, including three with particular relevance for systems thinking: analysis, synthesis, and holism. Analysis is a three step mental process which leads to an awareness of the constituent parts of anything intellectual or substantial. The steps are:
1. take the thing apart, 2. determine what the parts are and do, and 3. reassemble the parts to reestablish the whole.

Knowledge is a direct by-product of analysis. Analysis treats any conceptual whole as the same as the sum of its parts. The mental process synthesis involves the combining of separate parts or elements to form a coherent whole. Holistic thinking involves perceiving a coherent whole as primary, the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. The holistic approach argues that the nature and purpose of the whole can best be understood when it is viewed as a whole, rather than taken apart. Accordingly the purpose of a system is its role or function in a larger system that contains it. The larger system therefore provides an environment for the system under study. Systems thinking entails a three step mental process: 1. studying the parts of a system,

2. perceiving the system as a whole, and 3. developing an awareness of the role or function of the

system in a larger containing system. This three step process yields understanding and explains a systems relationship to an environment that contains it.

Brain Physiology and Thought Processes

In 1982 Dr. Roger Sperry won the Nobel Prize for his work in brain physiology and the processes involved in thinking. His findings evolved from work with epileptic patients. These patients had the right and left hemispheres of their brains surgically separated to provide relief from epileptic seizures. In 1976 Sperry, in collaboration with Robert Ornstein, had published clinical evidence that certain thought processes originated in either the right or left hemisphere of the brain. A summary of this evidence is shown below:

Sperry concluded that analysis is a dominant mental process of the left hemisphere, whereas holistic and synthetic thought processes are right hemisphere mental activities. These mental activities represent varying thinking

style approaches to perceiving and assimilating data. We call these approaches preferences. They operate in the same way that a right handed person spontaneously uses her right hand to catch a ball, open a door, write a note. A person may develop competency in using any thought process, but the naturally preferred styles will be automatic and most comfortable. While he was a manager at General Electric in the 1980's, physicist Ned Herrmann developed a validated instrument to determine thinking style preferences. (A good description of this tool is available in the July/August 1997 Harvard Business Review, in the article titled, "Putting Your Company's Whole Brain To Work"). The Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI) divides the brain into a metaphorical model. The upper, or cerebral, hemisphere is the place of logic and analysis as well as holistic and synthetic thought processes. The lower, or limbic, hemisphere is associated with organization, need for control, emotions and interpersonal relations. Herrmann created a model of the relationships between cerebral (upper) and limbic (lower) thought processes illustrated below:

The relationships have been simplified by Herrmann into the four quadrant model shown next.

Used with Permission, Copyright 2001, The Ned Herrmann Group

One's thinking style profile is derived from first answering a 120 question survey. The questions relate to one's thinking style preferences and are distributed over the four quadrants. Scores for each quadrant are plotted on diagonal lines that intersect at a zero point in the middle. A high score plotted in a quadrant indicates a high preference for the thinking style of that quadrant. The following brain dominance profiles illustrate some typical thinking styles.

The Thinking Requirements of Systems Thinking

In the fall of 1993 Dr. Russell Ackoff, speaking at the Systems Thinking in Action Conference, shared the following idea: "Systems thinking is the fusion of analysis, synthesis, and holism and reveals both knowledge and understanding." Why did he say this? Knowledge involves knowing what something is about. Knowledge is about content. Understanding includes looking at the component parts of a whole and studying the whole in relation to its environment or context. When it is recalled that knowledge is derived from analytical thought processes and understanding from synthesis, and holistic thinking, then Ackoff's definition of "systems thinking" takes on fresh meaning in the context of the Herrmann four quadrant model. The Natural Systems Thinker The mental preferences of the natural systems thinker are upper left and upper right, including both analysis, synthesis and holism. Individuals with this profile find systems thinking easy. They move freely and naturally from an awareness of the constituent parts of the world to the emergent patterns of behavior arising from the dynamic wholeness of it all.

It follows that if you have a preference for analysis but not for synthesis, you can be sure that the quality of the analysis is superb, but may not find the "big picture" synthesis easy. If you have a preference for synthesis and holism but not analysis, you will need to depend on natural

analyzers, but can play an important role in pulling the whole together. If your preference is in the lower hemisphere, you may find systems thinking fascinating, but something like a foreign language. Many of the problems individuals and organizations face today are systems problems that do not yield solutions no matter how intensely the problems are analyzed. An appreciation of the fact that there are natural systems thinkers acknowledges what many who have worked in this field already know. Anyone can be interested in and contribute meaningfully to a systems thinking approach, but including the natural systems thinkers who do this easily helps organizations move surely toward high leverage solutions to tough systems problems.

I. Definition of Training Piece A. Purpose for Instructor If you and nine of your colleagues were asked to find the best way to travel to Chicago for a conference beginning on Friday, would all of you choose the same route? What if 10 of your students were given the same task? In this instance, an individual's interpretation of "best" will influence how he/she chooses to get to Chicago. Does best mean fastest? Cheapest? Would driving be the best method if you were able to bring your family on the trip? Would taking the train be the best means if you had never taken a train before or were afraid of flying? Even when directions or explanations are given clearly, individuals interpret them differently. The way we communicate with one another and interpret the communication depends on the way our brains translate the given task. And the way our brains translate depends on our brain dominance and preferred thinking styles. Our bodies provide examples of dominance between paired structures. We each have a favored hand, foot, and eye. We also have parts of our brains that we favor in given circumstances. These "favorites" make up our preferred thinking styles. These styles influence the way we teach and the way our students learn. By the end of this module, you will be able to identify the 8 key characteristics of the brain and understand the four quadrants that make up the whole brain model. You will also be able to identify what thinking styles you prefer and develop a plan to assist your students to identify their preferred and less preferred styles and to use this information to be better learners. B. Material Covered

This content module will introduce you to the basics of the brain dominance/thinking styles theory put forth by Ned Herrmann. It is a physiological approach to the way we think, learn and communicate. The module will review the basic characteristics of the four quadrants of Herrmann's thinking and learning styles as well as offer practical application exercises, relevant research and helpful resources for those seeking more information. II. Foundation A. Definition of Concept & Theory People learn in many different ways. The brain is the source of who we are and how we learn. Ned Herrmann combined research on right brain/ left brain differences with research on the Triune brain to create a metaphorical model that illustrates that each person basically has four brains when it comes to the process of thinking and learning. Depending on which quadrants we engage, our learning processes can be very different. Brain dominance leads to thinking style preferences, which impact what we pay attention to and how and what we learn best. Each of these four "brains" or quadrants is listed below with words that typically characterize a person who uses that thinking style. The four thinking styles are: A: B: C: D: The Rational Self (Upper or Cerebral Left Brain) The Safekeeping Self (Lower or Limbic Left Brain) The Feeling Self (Lower or Limbic Right Brain) The Experimental Self (Upper or Cerebral Right Brain) D Experimental Self infers imagines is curious/plays likes surprises breaks rules speculates is impetuous takes risks

A Rational Self knows how things work knows about money likes numbers is realistic is critical is logical quantifies analyzes B Safekeeping Self plans timely is neat organizes is reliable gets things done establishes procedures

C Feeling Self feels talks a lot is emotional is expressive is supportive touches a lot likes to teach

takes preventative action

is sensitive to others

You may see yourself in more than one quadrant. The research indicates that people may use more than one style primarily. In fact, a majority of people has at least two primary quadrants. Each person can have primary preferences (areas of the brain he/she goes too easily and enjoys), secondary preferences (areas of the brain that can be and are accessed when necessary) and tertiary preferences (areas a person may have difficulty accessing or may even avoid). You also don't need to identify with everything in the quadrant to have some strength there. People have varying degrees of dominance in the quadrants. [There is an instrument available called the Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument or HBDI that provides a full profile of an individual. A student thinking styles instrument is also in production. For more information, see section V] Teaching and Learning Theory: This model allows students to see the full potential of the brain and their abilities and to take an honest look at where their preferences and avoidance's are without confining themselves to simply one style or label as a thinker and learner. The model also proclaims that preferences are wonderful and knowing our preferences can give us powerful information about who we are and what type of work we might enjoy. But having a certain thinking or learning style does not excuse us from interacting with a world of varying styles. We need to understand how to communicate and learn from and teach others with different styles. Each quadrant has preferred learning activities. The A quadrant thinkers prefer quantifying, analyzing, theorizing and processing logically. The B quadrant thinkers prefer organizing, sequencing, evaluating and practicing. The C quadrant thinkers prefer sharing, internalizing, moving and being involved. The D quadrant thinkers prefer exploring, discovering, conceptualizing and synthesizing. B. Summary of Relevant Research This module explores the whole brain model established by Ned Herrmann. Research indicates that there are eight key brain-thinking characteristics that impact the way we think and learn. Our brains are unique, specialized, situational, interconnected, iterative, dominant, malleable, and whole. Our brains are unique just like our fingerprints. No two people have the same brain pattern. Our brains are also specialized. Different areas of the brain are responsible for different functions including writing, seeing, naming, and hearing. Our brains are iterative because they have billions of neurons with millions of interconnections. Iteration means that we are able to move back and forth within our brains using different parts of our brains to complete complex tasks. We also use our brain situationally. We have the ability to "turn on" the part of the brain that we need in a given situation. Parts of our individual brains take dominance over other parts. Our brains are malleable

and whole. The brain is so malleable that there are virtually no inherent constraints. All of these characteristics emphasize a whole brain that we each have access to, but certain parts of our brains become dominant determining our thinking and learning preferences. There is a great body of research on the left brain/ right brain division and how it affects a person's thought processes. Roger Sperry's early work with schizophrenic patients is particularly intriguing. By now, most of us recognize left brain thinking to include analytic, fact-based and logical approaches and right brain thinking to include insightful creative approaches. Another researcher, Dr. Paul MacLean, proposed the Triune brain theory. His research indicates that we really have three brains each superimposed over the earlier brain: the reptilian brain, the limbic system and the neo-cortex. Both the limbic and the neocortex have two halves, a right and left side. Ned Herrmann combined Sperry's work and MacLean's research to create his whole brain model, which emphasizes the fact that there are really four parts of the brain where dominance's exist: Cerebral left, Limbic Left, Limbic Right and Cerebral Right. These four styles were discussed in "Definition of Concept & Theory" as quadrants A, B, C, & D. This metaphorical model allows for variation among individuals who are "right brained" or "left brained" and along with the measurement of an individual's level of mental preference for each of the quadrants creates a model that is more inclusive and more accurate for students who are interested in exploring their thinking and learning styles. III. Benefits A. Instructor By learning about our own preferences and understanding the diversity of thinking styles our students possess, we are able to insure that students understand what we are teaching even if they have very different styles from our own. We can do this by incorporating elements and activities that reach all learning styles. For instance, an English teacher who assigns a paper and tells students the paper should be "as long as it takes to effectively make your argument" will be well received by students with primary preferences in D. But a student with a B preference is likely to be immobilized by the lack of specific direction. The instructor could alleviate much of the B student's fear by simply giving a range of pages for the assignment and an outline of what makes an effective argument. An instructor who incorporates all learning styles into his teaching will find more receptive students experiencing less difficulty in his courses. B. Student It's a diverse world, and probably the greatest diversity our students will ever encounter is the diversity of thinking styles because there are literally as many ways of thinking as there are people in the world. Collaboration and the ability to work effectively in a team environment is continually reported as

one of the top attributes employers are looking for in college graduates. It is often ranked above professional content knowledge. The key to collaboration is effective communication, and the key to effective communication is to understand both yourself and your colleague. By helping students recognize their preferred and less preferred styles, we are also assisting them with college. Not all instructors will embrace the idea of adapting their teaching to all styles, and certain elements of life and learning will always favor certain styles. Students will be better prepared to negotiate these courses if they can understand the thinking style in use and adapt their studying and note-taking to their own more preferred styles. A student who learns to understand and appreciate all styles will more easily adapt to new challenges in college, at work and in his/her personal relationships. IV. Implementation A. Exploration Exercises for Instructor Exploration 1: To begin to determine your own preferred thinking and teaching styles, complete the exercise below by circling the 8 work elements that you enjoy the most. Which quadrants best represent your preferences as a teacher? Now, underline up to 4 work elements that you enjoy the least. Which quadrants are you least likely to explore in your teaching? Thinking Styles Assessment for Educators

Exploration 2:

Choose a topic that you will be teaching in the next few weeks and integrate elements and activities that represent all 4 learning styles. Use the information below to assist you. EXPECTATIONS OF THE LEARNER "A" Learner Expects

Precise, to the point, information Theory & logical rationales Proof of validity Research references Textbook reading Quantifiable numbers, data sets, problems Opportunity to ask challenging questions Subject matter expertise

"D" Learner Expects Fun and spontaneity Playful, surprising approaches Pictures, metaphors, overviews Discovery of the content Freedom to explore Quick pace and variety in format Opportunity to experiment New ideas & concepts Struggles with Time management and deadlines Administration and details

Struggles with Expressing emotions Lack of logic

Lack of flexibility

Vague, imprecise concepts or ideas "C" Learner Expects Group discussion & involvement To share & express feelings/ideas Kinesthetic, moving around Hands-on learning Personal connection with teacher/group Emotional involvement A user-friendly learning experience Use of all the senses Struggles with Too much data and analysis Lack of personal feedback

"B" Learner Expects An organized consistent approach Staying on track, on time Complete subject chunks A beginning, middle, and end Opportunity to practice & evaluate Practical applications Examples Clear instructions/expectations Struggles with Risk Ambiguity

Unclear expectations/directions

Pure lecture, lack of participation

Used by permission from the Ned Herrmann Group, 2075 Buffalo Creek Road, Lake Lure NC 28746

B. Student Exercises Print out a copy of "Your Four Selves" from the "Definition of Concepts & Theory" section for each of your students. Have students put a "1" next to descriptors most like them, a "2" next to descriptors somewhat like them and a "3" next to descriptors least like them. Then have them tally each quadrant. Have students find the quadrant with the lowest score. This is likely to be the quadrant they prefer the most. Group students by preferred quadrants and have them discuss the following: 1. Explain how these characteristics describe you. 2. What courses or subjects do you like the most and why? Now have the students find the quadrant with the highest score. This is likely to be the quadrant they least prefer. Group them again, this time with other students who share their least preferred quadrant and have them discuss the following questions: 1. What would a course look like if the teacher taught entirely in this mode? 2. What one characteristic from this quadrant's list could you choose to try for a week? How would you begin? C. Skill Connection 1. New Technologies: Technology has added an array of possibilities for teaching and has made it easier than ever to create assignments that encourage all four thinking styles. The "A" learner has access to current research information on the web. The "B" learner appreciates the practical application that computer software and simulations provide. The "C" learner is able to communicate with both classmates and teachers through email and chat rooms. And the "D" learner can create his/her own learning with software presentation tools like Power Point and Inspiration. For more information about technology resources, view the New Technologies Module. 2. Paired Courses: Another interesting way to meet the needs of all learners is to link or "pair" two courses. Students have the opportunity to see the relationship of the two subjects and explore the subjects with the assistance of two instructors. Instructors also have the advantage of working with a partner to help create environments that honor all learning styles. To further explore the concept of ways to integrate all four styles into teaching, visit the Paired Courses Module. V. Frequently Asked Questions Q: If I know all my students are primarily C quadrant learners, should I direct all my teaching methods to that quadrant? A: No. Even if all of your students were entirely C quadrant learners (with tertiary preferences in the other three quadrants) and you had the same profile, this wouldn't be the most effective method of teaching. You would probably have a very happy and harmonious classroom, but your students

would be missing out on some important lessons. Research suggests that students learn best when they have moments in class where they are working in their preferred learning styles. This gives them the opportunity to feel comfortable and connect with the material. But research also suggests that it's equally important for students to experience other styles, so they can expand their repertoire and be prepared when they encounter teachers, bosses and even spouses with different preferred styles. Q: Is the brain dominance theory and the whole brain concept valid? What proof exists? A: The brain dominance concept has been strongly validated in a number of different ways; First, through the research and experimentation of leaders in the field including Roger Sperry, Robert Ornstein, Henry Mintzberg, and Michael Gazzanniga. Secondly, it has been validated by the hundreds of EEG experiments carried out personally by Ned Herrmann. Third, it has been further validated by the public demonstrations conducted by Ned Herrmann over the past 15 years. Fourth, it has been validated by specific validation studies carried out by C. Victor Bunderson and James Olsen of Wicat and later by C. Victor Bunderson and Kevin Ho, and in parallel with those studies by validation experiments carried out by Schadty and Potvin at the University of Texas. Additional validation comes from the more than 60 doctoral dissertations based on both the HBDI and the whole brain concept. VI. Helpful Resources Learn more about the Herrmann Whole Brain Model or the Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI): http://www.hbdi.com/. This web site provides detailed information on the HBDI and validity of the model. It also provides information about books and articles written by Ned Herrmann including The Creative Brain. Learn more about left brain/right brain theory and learning styles: http://ase.tufts.edu/cte/occasional_papers/l-style.htm. This web site, created by the Center for Teaching Excellence, provides a variety of learning style application exercises. http://www2.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Papers/LSPrism.htm. This web site examines four learning style models that have been used effectively in education: The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) Kolb's Learning Style Model Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI) Felder-Silverman Learning Style Model http://www.2learn.ca/Profgrowth/lngstylesup1.html. This web site designed by Because We Care Education Society of Alberta provides a wealth of links to various learning style inventories. Workshop Information http://www.facultytraining.com/ to attend a workshop on this topic or bring one to your campus, visit this site or call Faculty Training at (800) 856-5727.

The Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI)

... is designed to help you understand what people mean when they say, "I like the way you think!" The HBDI is the worlds leading thinking styles assessment tool that identifies your instinctive approach to thought: Emotional, Analytical, Structural, or, Strategic. WHAT DO YOU GAIN? Your personal thinking preferences influence your communication, decision-making, problem solving, and management styles. Understanding the implications of your thinking preference is like an awakening where the obstacles to your goals are dismantled and the ladders to your growth are infinite. NOT JUST ANOTHER ASSESSMENT TOOL Twenty years of research and innovation stand behind the validity of the HBDI . It has been the subject of independent validations, dissertations, and scientific papers. A summary of HBDI discussions can be found in The Creative Brain, by Ned Herrmann, founder of The HBDI and Herrmann International. The HBDI picks up where other assessment tools leave off. Identifying your thinking style is just phase one. Where most assessments end with a single findings report, the HBDI offers a valuable range of applications.

HOW DOES IT WORK? The HBDI is a 120-question diagnostic survey. Your answers indicate your thinking style preference. Scoring results are free of value judgment and cultural bias. Because it is a self-analysis, most people immediately recognize their results as accurate. You will receive a full color profile, an accompanying interpretation booklet that explains the profile and scores in detail, and a discussion of the implications your results have for business and personal life. APPLY THE HBDI UNDERSTANDING OF: TO YOUR

HBDI MAJOR ADVANTAGES The adaptable HBDI allows for your growth and change. Its flexibility offers more than personal profiles. Additional HBDI reports depict the composition of groups and can reveal what is fueling or debilitating that group. You and your organization can access an even broader range of effective tools:

The HBDI Certification Workshop Certification & licensing Benchmarking & group data reports Tools for understanding the thinking styles of your group, team or organization Workshop series in the areas of: Creative Problem Solving; Strategic Thinking, The Business of Thinking, and the HBDI Users' Conference.

Self Mental diversity turn differences into advantages Learning & teaching styles in yourself and in others Management styles & how they effect others Communication to improve interaction with others; individually, in teams, and in large groups Relationships & developing effective teams Colleagues, associates, superiors, and subordinates Creativity as a natural mental resource & how to build an environment in which it thrives Enhanced creativity & innovation

ADDITIONAL APPLICATIONS: Personal growth Team formation & group process Management & selling styles Communication Creative Problem Solving Conflict management & counseling Occupational choices Choosing areas of study Teaching & learning

We appreciate your interest in The HBDI and encourage you to complete your survey today. Our policy ensures your complete confidentiality in the disclosure of your profile results. To protect you and Herrmann International from misinterpretation and misrepresentation only Certified HBDI practitioners are qualified to explain and interpret your profile results. Please call us with questions about The HBDI or your profile. The HBDI Assessment $65 (S/H per Profile: USA $8 UPS 3-day; International $15 US Air Mail) Please allow two weeks after receipt of completed Survey and payment for your results.

This in-depth team profile and analysis provides powerful input to team members and their leaders while maintaining confidentiality. Each team member completes the HBDI Thinking Styles Assessment and receives their personal profile package. For more information on the HBDI click here.

The HBDI Team Profile Includes:

Visual and informational displays of how a team thinks, processes information and prefers to work. Instantly impactful, the result of this package is a powerful catalyst for discussion and in-depth understanding of team effectiveness as well as the basis for improving communication and performance..

Team Members Get:

8 color data displays. In depth data analysis of your team Views of members similarities Ways to remove barriers

Features:
Communication: Break down the barriers, listen better, talk straighter, create a common language Conflicts: Find the sources, get to the resolution Management: Understanding the implication of your styles Productivity: Maximize the brain power of your team Creativity: Ignite breakthrough thinking and innovation 1. I base decisions on objective facts rather than feelings.