Running head: Francis FINAL PAPER

The Incorporation of Learning Styles into Modern HRD Processes: A Review Taylor Francis EAC 582, North Carolina State University

EAC 582

Francis FINAL PAPER

In a large auditorium sit hundreds of young elementary school students in rapt attention to the guest that has allowed them leave the classroom for a few hours this afternoon. A speaker stands in front of them and stands up while issuing the command, Stand up! The multitude of students stands up in unison. Next the speaker sits down while saying, Sit down! The students respond accordingly. Finally, the speaker stays seated while exclaiming, Stand up! once again. This time some students stand while others stay seated. The speaker explains to the young children, Those of you that stood are aural learners; you learn by listening. The ones still sitting are visual learners; they learn by seeing. In this rudimentary example and explanation, the children are first introduced to the idea that different people learn in different manners. The idea that people learn in unique ways is not one that is new by any stretch of the imagination. It has been discussed and debated for hundreds of years, but has strongly risen to the forefront in the last century. The nature of human learning began initially in the field of psychology and has remained rooted there while further branching out to education, sociology, training, human resources development, and numerous other areas of study. John B. Watsons benchmark 1913 paper Psychology as the Behaviorist Views It is where the arena of human learning began to become a focal point of psychological research (Harzem, 2004). Over time, the ideas of Watson fell by the wayside and were not as regularly discussed. Then, in the 1930s and 1940s, B.F. Skinner took the ideas proposed by Watson and further developed them into a more radical form of behaviorism once again bringing it to prominence (Harzem, 2004). Behaviorism, as proposed by Skinner, focused primarily on operant conditioning the idea that learning occurred through a stimulus-response relationship. A positive response to a particular stimulus would encourage the subject to commit the same act again. Skinner suggested that only

EAC 582

Francis FINAL PAPER

directly observable behaviors could be truly studied and known scientifically and that the only evidence of learning was through a change in observed behaviors (Bruner, 2004). Behaviorism, however, was not accepted by the entire psychological community and during the same time period a competing point of view concerning learning, cognitivism, was also being pushed. Edward Tolman, one of the fathers of this school of thought, summarized the nature of cognitivism in 1947 when he claimed that trial and error is not so much acting out habits to discover which are effective, but rather a looking back and forth to get the lay of the land in order to construct a solution (Bruner, 2004, p. 18). At their cores, these two theories stood in direct opposition to one another. Behaviorism posited that people learn from the bottom up; that is, knowledge is gained over time through multiple, distinct stimulus-response events. Contrarily, cognitivism indicated that individuals learned from the top down. The cognitivists claimed that knowledge is created by attempting to understand conceptually what has happened and what will happen, forming a hypothesis, and then acting on that hypothesis to determine its results. Learning is not always observable through behavior and instead involves many unobservable mental processes involved in attempting to grasp the larger concept behind the factual information presented. These two theories dominated the framework of learning theory until the 1970s when a third theory of learning was evinced; a theory that has continued to gain favor in modern psychology and education circles. This third theory is constructivism and as its name indicates, it teaches that learning should be an active process in which learners construct new ideas or concepts based upon their current or past knowledge (Brandon & All, 2010, p. 90). Brandon and All (2010) indicate that there are four primary assumptions of constructivism:

EAC 582

Francis FINAL PAPER

Firststudents know the world through their existing mental framework, and new information is transformed and interpreted based upon previous learning. Second, assimilation and accommodation processes lead to new constructions. Thirdthe student's ability to hypothesize, predict, manipulate, and construct knowledge [is] more meaningful learning than the memorization of facts. Finally, constructivists assume that meaningful learning occurs through reflection and by linking new knowledge to an existing framework of knowledge. (p. 90-91) As opposed to behaviorism and cognitivism, constructivism doesnt consider knowledge creation as something that occurs in a vacuum. New information that one learns is based on a foundation of what he already knows and will inevitably be considered in that light. From those basic learning theories, numerous learning style models have been developed. Cassidy (2004) evaluates and discusses 23 separate learning style models that have been offered in the 40 years between 1962 and 2001. In a separate meta-analysis, Coffield, Moseley, Hall, and Ecclestone (2004) unearthed over 70 different learning style models, some more influential than others (as cited in Ivie, 2009). With so many different concepts of learning styles, one may think that there is at least a solid foundation of how a learning style is defined. In fact, Ivie (2009) points out that no one has accurately or consistently defined a learning style and further notes that the research is inconclusive on the impact of learning styles on improved performance. While the definition and effectiveness of learning styles may be debated, what is certain is that the concept of individuals learning in ways unique to them is a central theme of investigation in modern educational and training research. In this paper, I will examine whether or not performance consulting and employee development processes effectively incorporate

EAC 582

Francis FINAL PAPER

learning style ideas and how these concepts enhance the overall results of performance consulting. Discussion Organizations today spend millions of dollars each year to train their employees in order to maximize job performance, company efficiency, and ultimately company profits. From the perspective of a training program leader, the goal of any program will be to change, in some way, the people attending. This change my manifest itself through new knowledge, improved performance techniques, better customer service, or a myriad of other possible ways. For an employee involved in the human resources or organizational development department of an organization, this desire to facilitate change in the company is the daily focus. This focus then gives rise to the question of how these goals are achieved. Whatever the final purpose of a training program may be, its success will be limited if there is no understanding of why it worked. Knowing why something works allows its success to be better understood and applied in new and creative methods. This has historically been a problem for those in the role of human resources development (HRD) in American companies. Mumford (2005) claims that historically HRD has suffered from individuals touting their new program as the one answer to all of the questions that have plagued the field for so long. Yet, these programs are rarely based in any sound learning theory according to Mumford; a fact that he calls intellectually lazy (2005, p. 17). He writes, How responsible is it to provide a method on the basis that you believe in it, and can quote evidence on how it has worked in the past, without really knowing how it works and why it works? (Mumford, 2005, p. 17). Other notable authors (Illeris, 2003; McLean, 2006) in the field of organizational and human resources development detail the same problematic issue. Illeris (2003) claims that what is missing from

EAC 582

Francis FINAL PAPER

the field of study is, a contemporary and comprehensive learning theory (p. 169) and McLean (2006) similarly discusses a flavor of the month problem with organizational development where the latest fad is offered to organizations as the solution to all of their problems (p. 3). Just a cursory look at the literature shows that the lack of a theoretical foundation appears to exist as a major obstacle in the field of organizational and human resources development. Seeing Systems In his work, Seeing Systems, Barry Oshry (2007) proposes to illuminate for his audience the hidden truths that prevent organizations from functioning at their highest level. However, he falls prey to the same traps that were previously mentioned as being the downfall of so many of his colleagues. In the prologue of his book, Oshry ostensibly lays the theoretical foundation for his entire work when he says, We humans are systems creatures. Our consciousness how we experience ourselves, others, our systems, and other systems is shaped by the structure and processes of the systems we are in (p. xiv). Unfortunately, Oshry never provides any information as to where this idea originated or on what it is based. Throughout the work, Oshry mentions the learning labs that his company organizes and has conducted for years at numerous organizations throughout the country. One may assume that the theoretical foundation on which Oshry bases his teachings is based on the concepts derived from findings in these learning labs over the years. This, then, begs the question of whether the learning labs were developed from the systems theory or vice versa. Regardless, it seems that Oshry is offering the solution to all of an organizations problems without attempting to consider all of the implications or if there is any scientific support for his program. According to Mumford (2005), approaches such as Oshrys are not even defensible in purely pragmatic terms, because simply stating that it works gives no real basis for comparison with alternative methods (p. 17). Although Oshry

EAC 582

Francis FINAL PAPER

does have significant data gathered from years of conducting his patented learning labs, this data alone is not enough to unquestioningly trust Oshrys work. One of the glaring deficiencies in Seeing Systems (2007) is that theres no foundation in any type of learning theory. Many of the terms and ideas used by Oshry (tops, middles, bottoms, Dance of the Blind Reflex, etc.) are ones that he has either created or re-defined in the context of his system. While learning inherently plays a critical role in Oshrys program its based in large part on what he calls learning labs there is never a mention of an historical, theoretical basis in the academic arenas of education, adult learning, or training and development. The work is focused broadly on the conceptual idea of systemic relationships. More narrowly, it focuses on specific instances within learning labs where individuals struggled with the challenge to their traditional way of thinking about problems, but were able to overcome those struggles by the end of the program. Oshry has written this work for individuals in the business world and, therefore, it is oriented towards results and outcomes as opposed to any academic, theoretical discussion of why the program is successful. The reader can certainly believe Oshry when he details individual cases of success or change due to his learning lab. However, many questions remain upon further investigation. Are these personal stories the norm or the exception? To what degree does the average worker change from these learning labs? If the average person does experience a noticeable change in knowledge or performance, why does this learning take place? By beginning to answer some of these questions one can better analyze the reasons for the success of Oshrys program and potentially discover methods to improve the learning labs or create new, unique training methods that may be successful for others. Oshrys program, rooted in the concept of humans as social beings deeply involved in both known and unknown systems, is innovative. But, Oshrys failure to establish his program in any type of learning theory hinders

EAC 582

Francis FINAL PAPER

its overall effectiveness as any changes affected by the training cant be fully understood and replicated. Performance Consulting Robinson and Robinson succumb to many of the same mistakes as Oshry in their book, Performance Consulting (2008). The focus of their work is, as Oshry, on the processes they promote and have tested over multiple years that have proven successful in corporate training environments. The authors offer what they deem a mental model for performance consulting and provide a brief discussion of the various authors that have all written about performance consulting under numerous different titles (p. 1-2). Yet, after that the discussion again delves into performance and results (p. 3) instead of any theoretical background. Quite interestingly, Robinson and Robinson write that between 80 and 90 percent of the investment in learning is lost as people do not apply what they have learned to the job (p. 4) and they lump HR, Learning, and OD practitioners (p. 3) into one group of personnel with similar job requirements. Clearly, there is an understanding by the authors, albeit never explicitly stated, that learning is an essential portion of the performance consulting process. However, throughout the length of the work, Robinson and Robinson never explore this key piece of the puzzle. The authors expound on nearly all the aspects of the performance consulting process. They cover in-depth their GAPS! model that assists the HR professional in determining precisely what the ultimate business goals are, how an employee or business should be performing, how they are currently performing, and how to determine appropriate solutions to resolve the gap that exists between what is and should be. The GAPS! model remains the focus of the work, but Robinson and Robinson elaborate on multiple other facets of the consulting process including contracts of agreement between the consultant and client, confronting and resolving obstacles

EAC 582

Francis FINAL PAPER

and questions that may hinder the process, and determining how to find performance consulting opportunities. Through all of these topics, the topic of why or how their process is successful never arises. The authors mention a need for strategic, or big picture, solutions to the problems a company may be facing. On the other hand, they never investigate how their ideas are actually implemented in a real setting. Arriving at the proper solution to an issue that is consistently plaguing an organization is important, but it is worthless unless the employees understand how to implement it and can learn how to properly adjust their behaviors and work performance. By neglecting any idea of learning styles, Robinson and Robinson lessen the value of the teachings they provide. The concepts they espouse are highly valuable, but there is never a hint that the authors based their program on proven facts concerning adult learning, which would serve to give their process more success and greater return over time. Training in a Business Environment Perhaps the biggest obstacle to the incorporation of learning styles in training environments today is the notion that training programs must be business-oriented in their approach. That is, their attention is on bottom line results and how to achieve the optimum results in the most efficient manner. This leads to an environment in which distinct issues and their solutions are considered unique and continuity and connectedness between problems is lost. The research-oriented academic side of training and development takes a backstage to the outcome-oriented approach advocated by the business aspects of training. Van Adelsberg and Trolley (1999) explain that in the reality of todays corporate world, training must treat itself like a business. They propose that training must attempt to conduct itself after a business model in which effectiveness and efficiency are valued more highly than training content or processes. They write, Effectiveness begins with understanding what

EAC 582

Francis FINAL PAPER

training's customers hope to achieve and dedicating T&D to fulfillment of those goals (Van Adelsberg & Trolley, 1999, p. 21). Harrison and Kessels acknowledge the value of academic debate in the field of HRD, but also point out that it can be damaging and unproductive at a practical level (2004, p. 89). As companies continue to invest millions of dollars into their training programs, they expect to experience tangible results from their investments. In the current era of corporate training, training goals continue to be subordinate to business goals instead of working harmoniously with them and academic debate is viewed negatively because of its practical impact. Further progress down this path will lead to future programs ever more detached from a base of learning theory and learning styles and focused solely on the quickest way to get the most immediate results. Interestingly, while HRD and T&D programs are influenced more towards a practical approach, there is also a push from todays businesses for adaptability and flexibility. Senge, Flowers, Jaworski, and Schwarmer explain that making decisions based on the habits of past experience is no longer optimal (2004, p. 84) and note that businessmen such as Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are successful because they avoid imposing old frameworks on new realities (2004, p. 84). Harrison and Kessels emphasize that old frameworks of training will not be sufficient to achieve enhanced long-term flexibility, the ability to operate in dynamic environments, and raised levels of strategic awareness and creativity across a workforce (2004, p. 87). The authors further expound on the importance of developing a strategic view just as Robinson and Robinson did. They explain that a strategic focus allows for knowledge development that will lead to continuous improvement and radical innovation (Harrison & Kessels, 2004, p. 87). Unfortunately, one again notes that while adaptability, innovation are highly valued, there is no

EAC 582

10

Francis FINAL PAPER

emphasis on cementing training programs in the sound learning theory that would encourage the development of these capabilities. Effectiveness of Incorporating Learning Styles Perhaps one of the primary inhibitors to the incorporation of learning styles into todays T&D environment is the lack of strong support in favor of using learning styles. There are various studies (Costa, Rensburg, & Rushton, 2007; Lister, 2005) indicating that utilizing learning styles tailored to individual students has a statistically significant impact on retention and performance. Equally, there are studies that indicate learning styles have no apparent influence on learning outcomes (Cook, Gelula, Dupras, & Schwartz, 2007, p.897). Even when research does suggest a particular outcome, it is not necessarily without opposition. Ivie (2009) reviewed two separate meta-analyses that provided strong support for the validity of incorporating learning styles in instructional scenarios. In both analyses, Ivie found major inconsistencies in methodology and analysis leading him to call into question the findings of those studies. The idea that people learn in different manners is not generally questioned. Ivie says, Of course individuals differ. That fact is obvious to everyone (2009, p. 189). What is not obvious is whether these differences have a profound impact on the results and long-term effects of training programs. Conclusion Human Resources Development is a field that is growing in importance in the present corporate culture. Maximizing training and optimizing employee performance are critically important to business owners and executives. This has led to a culture within the training field where quick fixes and immediate results are more highly valued than theoretically based programs focused on long-term impacts. As one looks over various programs such as those

EAC 582

11

Francis FINAL PAPER

proposed by Oshry and Robinson and Robinson, it is evident that widely variant approaches may be used to achieve ultimately similar goals. One constant in these different methods, though, is that there is no attention given to learning styles or learning theories as a foundation for these processes. Its not certain what is leading to this omission. It may be the drive to make training run more like a business or it may simply be the lack of definitive research either supporting or undermining the use of learning styles in educational programs. It is an indisputable fact that individuals learn in different ways, which would imply that accommodating various learning styles would improve the retention and long-term performance change that training programs seek. However, logical conclusions are not always supported in reality and more research is needed to validate if incorporating learning styles and theories into HRD processes would indeed produce more desirable results.

EAC 582

12

Francis FINAL PAPER

Reference List Brandon, A. F., & All, A. C. (2010). Constructivism theory analysis and application to curricula. Nursing Education Perspectives, 31(2), 89-92. Bruner, J. (2004). A short history of psychological theories of learning. Daedalus, 133(1), 13-20. Cassidy, S. (2004). Learning styles: An overview of theories, models, and measures. Educational Psychology, 24(4), 419-444. doi: 10.1080/0144341042000228861 Cook, D. A., Gelula, M. H., Dupras, D. M., & Schwartz, A. (2007). Instructional methods and cognitive and learning styles in web-based learning: Report of two randomized trials. Medical Education, 41(9), 897-905. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02822.x Costa, M. L., Van Rensburg, L., Rushton, N. (2007). Does teaching style matter? A randomized trial of group discussion versus lectures in orthopaedic undergraduate teaching. Medical Education, 41(2), 214-217. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02677.x Harrison, R., & Kessels, J. HRD: Emerging challenges. In Human resource development in a knowledge economy: An organisational view (pp. 83-103). Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Harzem, P. (2004). Behaviorism for new psychology: What was wrong with behaviorism and what is wrong with it now. Behavior and Philosophy, 32(1), 5-12. Illeris, K. (2003). Workplace learning and learning theory. Journal of Workplace Learning, 15(4), 167-178. doi: 10.1108/13665620310474615 Ivie, S. D. (2009). Learning styles: Humpty Dumpty revisited. McGill Journal of Education, 44(2), 177-192. Lister, D. O. (2005). Effects of traditional versus tactual and kinesthetic learning-style responsive instructional strategies on Bermudian learning-support sixth-grade students social

EAC 582

13

Francis FINAL PAPER

studies achievement and attitude-test scores. Research for Educational Reform, 10(2), 2440. McLean, G. N. (2006). What is organization development? In Organization development: Principles, processes, performance (pp. 1-32). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Mumford, A. (2005). The case method does learning theory matter? Development and Learning in Organizations, 19(4), 17-19. doi: 10.1108/14777280510700344 Oshry, B. (2007). Seeing systems: Unlocking the mysteries of organizational life. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Robinson, D. G., & Robinson, J. C. (2008). Performance consulting: A practical guide for HR and learning professionals (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Senge, P. M., Flowers, B. S., Jaworski, J., & Scharmer, C. O. (2004). An emerging understanding: The theory of the U. In Presence: Human purpose and the field of the future (pp. 83-92). Cambridge, MA: Society for Organizational Learning. Van Adelsberg, D., & Trolley, E. A. (1999). Running training like a business. In Running training like a business: Delivering unmistakable value (pp. 20-45). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

EAC 582

14