15698292 models of learning styles

8/11/2019 15698292 Models of Learning Styles

1/34

The Four Quadrant Model of the Brain

Ned Herrmann's Whole Brain Model

Diagram from Models of the Brain - Theories of Brain Organisation by Charles Cave

Ned Herrmann combined the Triune Brain model of Paul McLean ith the Left!"ight Brain

hemis#here theory of "oger $#erry to form a model of the human brain ith t o #aired

structures% the t o halves of the cerebral system and the t o halves of the limbic system& 'the

basal or "e#tilian brain being not included in this model% or else include along ith the Limbic(&

This adds to the celebral cognitive!intellectual #olarity of left-right a limbic visceral% structured

and emotional #olarity of left-right& The four-sided model of thin)ing styles are meta#horically

attributed to four regions of the brain& These four *uadrants '+% B% C% D( may be characteri,ed as

+-logical% B-organi,ed% C-inter#ersonal% and D-imaginative& Creativity% Ned discovered% is a

#rocess involving all four *uadrants& +lso incor#orated is the theory of dominance& .herever

there are t o of anything in the body% one is naturally dominant over the other& Hence right or left

handed% brained% etc
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~caveman/Creative/Brain/herrmann.htmhttp://www.ozemail.com.au/~caveman/Creative/Brain/herrmann.htmhttp://www.kheper.net/topics/intelligence/MacLean.htmhttp://www.kheper.net/topics/intelligence/MacLean.htmhttp://www.kheper.net/topics/intelligence/Sperry.htmlhttp://www.kheper.net/topics/intelligence/Sperry.htmlhttp://www.kheper.net/topics/intelligence/MacLean.htmhttp://www.kheper.net/topics/intelligence/Sperry.htmlhttp://www.kheper.net/topics/intelligence/Sperry.htmlhttp://www.ozemail.com.au/~caveman/Creative/Brain/herrmann.htm


2/34

Modes of Thinking

Ned Herrmann Carl /ung Christo#her Hills

com#ass #ersonality ty#e #ersonalityty#e #ersonality ty#eCha)ra in0motionalBody- aura

1##er 'cerebral(right D

2maginative% synthesising% artistic%holistic and conce#tual modes&

2ntuitiveThin)ing

3iolet Creativety#e $ahasrara

The lo er'limbic( right C

2nter#ersonal% emotional% musical%s#iritual and the 4tal)er4 modes&

2ntuitive5eeling

2ndigo 2ntuitionty#e +6na

Blue 5eelingty#e 3ishuddha

The lo er'limbic( left B

Controlled% conservative% #lanned%organised and administrative innature&

$ensation5eeling

7reen $elf-assertive ty#e +nahata

The u##er'cerebral( left +

+nalytical% mathematical% technicaland #roblem solving&

$ensationthin)ing

8ello 2ntellectty#e Mani#ura
http://www.kheper.net/topics/Jung/index.htmlhttp://www.kheper.net/topics/chakras/chakras-rainbow.htmhttp://www.kheper.net/topics/Jung/typology.htmlhttp://www.kheper.net/topics/Jung/typology.htmlhttp://www.kheper.net/topics/chakras/chakras.htmhttp://www.kheper.net/topics/subtlebody/BAB-emotional.htmhttp://www.kheper.net/topics/subtlebody/BAB-emotional.htmhttp://www.kheper.net/person/violet-type.htmhttp://www.kheper.net/person/violet-type.htmhttp://www.kheper.net/topics/chakras/chakra7.htmlhttp://www.kheper.net/person/indigo-type.htmhttp://www.kheper.net/person/indigo-type.htmhttp://www.kheper.net/topics/chakras/chakra6.htmlhttp://www.kheper.net/person/blue-type.htmhttp://www.kheper.net/person/blue-type.htmhttp://www.kheper.net/topics/chakras/chakra5.htmlhttp://www.kheper.net/person/green-type.htmhttp://www.kheper.net/person/green-type.htmhttp://www.kheper.net/topics/chakras/chakra4.htmlhttp://www.kheper.net/person/yellow-type.htmhttp://www.kheper.net/person/yellow-type.htmhttp://www.kheper.net/topics/chakras/chakra3.htmlhttp://www.kheper.net/topics/Jung/index.htmlhttp://www.kheper.net/topics/chakras/chakras-rainbow.htmhttp://www.kheper.net/topics/Jung/typology.htmlhttp://www.kheper.net/topics/Jung/typology.htmlhttp://www.kheper.net/topics/chakras/chakras.htmhttp://www.kheper.net/topics/subtlebody/BAB-emotional.htmhttp://www.kheper.net/topics/subtlebody/BAB-emotional.htmhttp://www.kheper.net/person/violet-type.htmhttp://www.kheper.net/person/violet-type.htmhttp://www.kheper.net/topics/chakras/chakra7.htmlhttp://www.kheper.net/person/indigo-type.htmhttp://www.kheper.net/person/indigo-type.htmhttp://www.kheper.net/topics/chakras/chakra6.htmlhttp://www.kheper.net/person/blue-type.htmhttp://www.kheper.net/person/blue-type.htmhttp://www.kheper.net/topics/chakras/chakra5.htmlhttp://www.kheper.net/person/green-type.htmhttp://www.kheper.net/person/green-type.htmhttp://www.kheper.net/topics/chakras/chakra4.htmlhttp://www.kheper.net/person/yellow-type.htmhttp://www.kheper.net/person/yellow-type.htmhttp://www.kheper.net/topics/chakras/chakra3.html


3/34

Neuro-linguistic programming, learning andeducation

The origins of Neuro-Linguistic Programming

Neuro-Linguistic Programming was developed by Richard Bandler and John

Grinder in the early 19 !"s# Bandler was studying at the $niversity o% &anta

'ru() where he met John Grinder) an assistant pro%essor o% linguistics *Bostic

&t#'lair + Grinder ,!!1 pp 1 ,-./# 0hey began to pursue a curiosity about

what di%%erentiated e cellent therapists %rom others# 0heir initial study o% the

wor2 o% 3rit( Perls) the %ounder o% Gestalt therapy) and 4irginia &atir) the

%amily therapist) resulted in a two volumes titled The Structure of Magic*Bandler + Grinder 19 5b6 Grinder + Bandler 19 7/) which describe language

patterns that the authors identi%ied as characteristic o% e cellent therapists#

0he development o% NLP was in%luenced in particular by conversations with

Gregory Bateson) who was Bandler and Grinder"s neighbour in &anta 'ru( in

the 19 !"s *Bostic &t#'lair + Grinder ,!!1p#118/# Bateson) an nglish

epistemologist who made important contributions to many %ields) including

anthropology and %amily therapy *Bateson ,!!!/) contributed a %oreword to

the %irst volume o% The Structure of Magic and introduced Bandler and Grinder

to :ilton ric2son) the hypnotherapist *Bostic &t#'lair + Grinder ,!!1pp# 1 5-

8/# 0hat contact resulted in two boo2s on ric2son"s approach) which analysed

his use o% language patterns *Bandler + Grinder 19 5a6 Grinder) ;eLo(ier) +

Bandler 19 /#

Neuro-Linguistic Programming, learning and educating

0he title)


4/34

NLP has been de%ined in various ways) and agreement on a singular de%inition

is li2ely to prove elusive# Ats promotional literature o%ten emphasises the

notion o% e cellence in communication# ? common alternative de%inition) as in

the subtitle to ;ilts et al * 198!/) is


5/34

hile NLP appears to comprise a plethora o% techniCues) it was originally

portrayed as a method) which the authors called


6/34

? Cuestion o%ten as2ed o% NLP is that o% whether it has a theory# ?s noted

above) authors in the %ield emphasise pragmatism) and have seldom shown

interest in articulating NLP as a theory# Because NLP has always aimed to

model is=# @or(ybs2i"s dictum)


7/34

3or e ample) in their original study Bandler and Grinder suggested that

e%%ective therapists appeared to match certain language patterns used by

their clients# 3or instance they matched a client"s use o% visual predicates

*e#g#


8/34

e perimental studies %rom the 198!"s and 199!"s that %ocused on two

particular NLP %ramewor2s# eap *1988/ concluded that those studies %ailed

to support the two %ramewor2s in Cuestion) though the status and validity o%

the studies that eap reviewed is disputed * inspruch + 3orman 1985/# 0here

is growing contemporary interest in research among NLP practitioners) and in

identi%ying the relevance o% recent wor2 in disciplines such as cognitive

linguistics *e#g# La2o%% + Johnson 1999/ and neuroscience *e#g# Ri((olatti)

3ogassi) + Gallese ,!!7/# An our view there is a need %or research through a

variety o% methodological approaches to help si%t the innovations and

e%%ective methods %rom claims that cannot be supported by evidence# Assues

o% ethics in the %ield are also important to address#

Summary

NLP has endured %or more than thirty years# At is a %ield o% practice and

innovation with a wide range o% tools and techniCues that learners and

pro%essional educators can apply within both %ormal and in%ormal educational

settings# 0he distinctive contribution o% NLP may lie in its applied

methodology) 2nown as modelling# hile NLP is eclectic) its world view is%undamentally systemic and constructivist# At is a contested %ield) and there is

a need %or contemporary research to evaluate its claims and practices#

Howard gardner, multiple intelligences and

educationHoward Gardner's work around multiple intelligences has had a profound impact on thinking

and practice in education - especially in the United States. Here we explore the theory of multiple

intelligences why it has found a ready audience amongst educationalists and some of the issues

around its conceptuali!ation and reali!ation.


9/34

I want my children to understand the world, but

not just because the world is fascinating and the human mind is curious. I want

them to understand it so that they will be positioned to make it a better place.Knowledge is not the same as morality, but we need to understand if we are to

avoid past mistakes and move in productive directions. n important part of that

understanding is knowing who we are and what we can do... !ltimately, we must

synthesi"e our understandings for ourselves. The performance of understanding

that try matters are the ones we carry out as human beings in an imperfect world

which we can affect for good or for ill. * oward Gardner 1999E 18!-181/

Howard Earl ardner's *19 .- / wor2 has been mar2ed by a desire not to

ust describe the world but to help to create the conditions to change it# 0he

scale o% oward Gardner=s contribution can be gauged %rom %ollowing

comments in his introduction to the tenth anniversary edition o% his classic

wor2 #rames of Mind. The theory of multiple intelligences E

An the heyday o% the psychometric and behaviorist eras) it was generally believed

that intelligence was a single entity that was inherited6 and that human beings -

initially a blan2 slate - could be trained to learn anything) provided that it was

presented in an appropriate way# Nowadays an increasing number o% researchers

believe precisely the opposite6 that there e ists a multitude o% intelligences) Cuite

independent o% each other6 that each intelligence has its own strengths and

constraints6 that the mind is %ar %rom unencumbered at birth6 and that it is

une pectedly di%%icult to teach things that go against early =naive= theories o% that


10/34

challenge the natural lines o% %orce within an intelligence and its matching

domains# *Gardner 199.E iii/

Dne o% the main impetuses %or this movement has been oward Gardner=s

wor2# e has been) in &mith and &mith=s *199 / terms) a paradigm shi%ter#

oward Gardner has Cuestioned the idea that intelligence is a single entity)

that it results %rom a single %actor) and that it can be measured simply via AM

tests# e has also challenged the cognitive development wor2 o% Piaget#

Bringing %orward evidence to show that at any one time a child may be at

very di%%erent stages %or e ample) in number development and spatial visual

maturation) oward Gardner has success%ully undermined the idea that

2nowledge at any one particular developmental stage hangs together in a

structured whole#

An this article we e plore oward Gardner=s contribution and the use to which

it has been put by educators#

Ho ard !ardner - a life

oward Gardner was born in &cranton) Pennsylvania in 19 .# is parents had%led %rom NOrnberg in Germany in 19.8 with their three-year old son) ric# Just

prior to oward Gardner=s birth ric was 2illed in a sleighing accident# 0hese

two events were not discussed during Gardner=s childhood) but were to have

a very signi%icant impact upon his thin2ing and development *Gardner 1989E

,,/# 0he opportunities %or ris2y physical activity were limited) and creative

and intellectual pursuits encouraged# ?s oward began to discover the

%amily=s =secret history= *and Jewish identity/ he started to recogni(e that hewas di%%erent both %rom his parents and %rom his peers#

is parents wanted to send oward to Phillips ?cademy in ?ndover

:assachusetts - but he re%used# Anstead he went to a nearby preparatory

school in @ingston) Pennsylvania * yoming &eminary/# oward Gardner

appears to have embraced the opportunities there - and to have elicited the

support and interest o% some very able teachers# 3rom there he went to

arvard $niversity to study history in readiness %or a career in the law#


11/34

owever) he was luc2y enough to have ric ri2son as a tutor# An oward

Gardner=s words ri2son probably =sealed= his ambition to be a scholar *1989E

,./# But there were othersE

:y mind was really opened when A went to arvard 'ollege and had the

opportunity to study under individuals such as psychoanalyst ri2 ri2son)

sociologist ;avid Riesman) and cognitive psychologist Jerome Bruner who were

creating 2nowledge about human beings# 0hat helped set me on the course o%

investigating human nature) particularly how human beings thin2# * oward

Gardner Cuoted by :arge &herer 1999/

oward Gardner=s interest in psychology and the social sciences grew *hissenior thesis was on a new 'ali%ornia retirement community/ and he

graduated summa cum laude in 1975#

oward Gardner then went to wor2 %or a brie% period with Jerome Bruner on

the %amous :?'D& Pro ect *=:anE ? course o% study=/# Bruner=s wor2)

especially in The $rocess of %ducation *197!/ was to ma2e a pro%ound impact)

and the Cuestions that the programme as2ed were to %ind an echo in

Gardner=s subseCuent interests# ;uring this time he began to read the wor2 o%

'laude Levi-&trauss and Jean Piaget in more detail# e entered arvard=s

doctoral programme in 1977) and in the %ollowing year became part o% the

Pro ect Qero research team on arts education *with which he has remained

involved to the present/# oward Gardner completed his Ph; in 19 1 *his

dissertation was on style sensitivity in children/# e remained at arvard#

?longside his wor2 with Pro ect Qero *he now co-directs it with ;avid Per2ins/

he was a lecturer *19 1-1987/ and then pro%essor in education *1987- /# is

%irst ma or boo2) The Shattered Mind appeared in 19 5 and some %i%teen have

%ollowed# oward Gardner is currently obbs Pro%essor o% 'ognition and

ducation at the arvard Graduate &chool o% ducation and ad unct pro%essor

o% neurology at the Boston $niversity &chool o% :edicine#

Pro ect Qero provided an environment in which oward Gardner could begin

to e plore his interest in human cognition# e proceeded in a very di%%erentdirection to the dominant discourses associated with Piaget and with
http://www.infed.org/thinkers/bruner.htmhttp://www.infed.org/thinkers/bruner.htm


12/34

psychometric testing# Pro ect Qero developed as a ma or research centre %or

education - and provided an intellectual home %or a signi%icant grouping o%

researchers# ? 2ey moment came with the establishment o% the Pro ect on

uman Potential in the late 19 !s *%unded by Bernard van Leer 3oundation/

to =assess the state o% scienti%ic 2nowledge concerning human potential and

its reali(ation=# 0he result was #rames of Mind *198./ oward Gardner=s %irst

%ull-length statement o% his theory o% multiple intelligences#

Ho ard !ardner on multi"le intelligences - the initial listing

oward Gardner viewed intelligence as =the capacity to solve problems or to

%ashion products that are valued in one or more cultural setting= *Gardner +

atch) 1989/# e reviewed the literature using eight criteria or =signs= o% an

intelligenceE

Potential isolation by brain damage#

0he e istence o% idiots savants) prodigies and other e ceptional individuals#

?n identi%iable core operation or set o% operations#

? distinctive development history) along with a de%inable set o% =end-state=

per%ormances#

?n evolutionary history and evolutionary plausibility#

&upport %rom e perimental psychological tas2s#

&upport %rom psychometric %indings#

&usceptibility to encoding in a symbol system# * oward Gardner 198.E 7,-79/

'andidates %or the title =an intelligence= had to satis%y a range o% these criteria

and must include) as a prereCuisite) the ability to resolve =genuine problems

or di%%iculties= *ibid #E 7!/ within certain cultural settings# :a2ing udgements

about this was) however) =reminiscent more o% an artistic udgement than o% a

scienti%ic assessment= * ibid. E 7,/#


13/34

Ho ard !ardner initially formulated a list of seven intelligences# is

listing was provisional# 0he %irst two have been typically valued in schools6 the

ne t three are usually associated with the arts6 and the %inal two are what

oward Gardner called =personal intelligences= *Gardner 1999E 1- ./#

!inguistic intelligence involves sensitivity to spo2en and written language)

the ability to learn languages) and the capacity to use language to

accomplish certain goals# 0his intelligence includes the ability to e%%ectively

use language to e press onesel% rhetorically or poetically6 and language as a

means to remember in%ormation# riters) poets) lawyers and spea2ers are

among those that oward Gardner sees as having high linguistic intelligence#

!ogical-mathematical intelligence consists o% the capacity to analy(e

problems logically) carry out mathematical operations) and investigate issues

scienti%ically# An oward Gardner=s words) it entails the ability to detect

patterns) reason deductively and thin2 logically# 0his intelligence is most o%ten

associated with scienti%ic and mathematical thin2ing#

Musical intelligence involves s2ill in the per%ormance) composition) and

appreciation o% musical patterns# At encompasses the capacity to recogni(e

and compose musical pitches) tones) and rhythms# ?ccording to oward

Gardner musical intelligence runs in an almost structural parallel to linguistic

intelligence#

Bodil"-#inesthetic intelligence entails the potential o% using one=s whole

body or parts o% the body to solve problems# At is the ability to use mental

abilities to coordinate bodily movements# oward Gardner sees mental andphysical activity as related#

$patial intelligence involves the potential to recogni(e and use the

patterns o% wide space and more con%ined areas#

%nterpersonal intelligence is concerned with the capacity to understand

the intentions) motivations and desires o% other people# At allows people to


14/34

wor2 e%%ectively with others# ducators) salespeople) religious and political

leaders and counsellors all need a well-developed interpersonal intelligence#

%ntrapersonal intelligence entails the capacity to understand onesel%) to

appreciate one=s %eelings) %ears and motivations# An oward Gardner=s view it

involves having an e%%ective wor2ing model o% ourselves) and to be able to

use such in%ormation to regulate our lives#

An #rames of Mind oward Gardner treated the personal intelligences =as a

piece=# Because o% their close association in most cultures) they are o%ten

lin2ed together# owever) he still argues that it ma2es sense to thin2 o% two

%orms o% personal intelligence# Gardner claimed that the seven intelligencesrarely operate independently# 0hey are used at the same time and tend to

complement each other as people develop s2ills or solve problems#

An essence oward Gardner argued that he was ma2ing two essential claims

about multiple intelligences# 0hatE

0he theory is an account o% human cognition in its %ullness# 0he intelligences

provided =a new de%inition o% human nature) cognitively spea2ing= *Gardner 1999E/# uman beings are organisms who possess a basic set o% intelligences#

People have a uniCue blend o% intelligences# oward Gardner argues that the

big challenge %acing the deployment o% human resources =is how to best ta2e

advantage o% the uniCueness con%erred on us as a species e hibiting several

intelligences= * ibid. E 5/#

0hese intelligences) according to oward Gardner) are amoral - they can be

put to constructive or destructive use#

The a""eal of multi"le intelligences to educators

oward Gardner=s theory o% multiple intelligences has not been readily

accepted within academic psychology# owever) it has met with a strongly

positive response %rom many educators# At has been embraced by a range o%

educational theorists and) signi%icantly) applied by teachers and policyma2ers


15/34

to the problems o% schooling# ? number o% schools in North ?merica have

loo2ed to structure curricula according to the intelligences) and to design

classrooms and even whole schools to re%lect the understandings that oward

Gardner develops# 0he theory can also be %ound in use within pre-school)

higher) vocational and adult education initiatives#

0his appeal was not) at %irst) obvious#

?t %irst blush) this diagnosis would appear to sound a death 2nell %or %ormal

education# At is hard to teach one intelligence6 what i% there are sevenK At is hard

to enough to teach even when anything can be taught6 what to do i% there are

distinct limits and strong constraints on human cognition and learningK * owardGardner 199.E iii/

oward Gardner responds to his Cuestions by %irst ma2ing the point that

psychology does not directly dictate education) =it merely helps one to

understand the conditions within which education ta2es place=# hat is moreE

&even 2inds o% intelligence would allow seven ways to teach) rather than one#

?nd power%ul constraints that e ist in the mind can be mobili(ed to introduce aparticular concept *or whole system o% thin2ing/ in a way that children are most

li2ely to learn it and least li2ely to distort it# Parado ically) constraints can be

suggestive and ultimately %reeing# * op. cit. /

:indy L# @ornhaber *,!!1E , 7/) a researcher involved with Pro ect Qero) has

identi%ied a number o% reasons why teachers and policyma2ers in North

?merica have responded positively to oward Gardner=s presentation o%multiple intelligences# ?mong these are thatE

### the theory validates educators= everyday e perienceE students thin2 and learn

in many di%%erent ways# At also provides educators with a conceptual %ramewor2

%or organi(ing and re%lecting on curriculum assessment and pedagogical

practices# An turn) this re%lection has led many educators to develop new

approaches that might better meet the needs o% the range o% learners in their

classrooms#


16/34

0he response to oward Gardner is paralleled by the adoption o% @olb=smodel

o% e periential learning by adult and in%ormal educators# hile signi%icant

criticism can be made o% the %ormulation *see below / it does provide a use%ul

set o% Cuestions and =rules o% thumb= to help educators to thin2 about their

practice# 0he way in which oward Gardner=s theory o% multiple intelligences

has been translated into policy and practice has been very varied# oward

Gardner did not) initially) spell out the implications o% his theory %or educators

in any detail# &ubseCuently) he has loo2ed more closely at what the theory

might mean %or schooling practice *e#g# in The !nschooled Mind ) Intelligence

&eframed ) and The 'isciplined Mind /# 3rom this wor2 three particular aspects

o% Gardner=s thin2ing need noting here as they allow %or hope) and an

alternative way o% thin2ing) %or those educators who %eel out o% step with the

current) dominant product orientation to curriculum and educational policy#

0he approach entailsE

& road (ision of education # ?ll seven intelligences are needed to live li%e

well# 0eachers) there%ore) need to attend to all intelligences) not ust the %irst

two that have been their tradition concern# ?s @ornhaber *,!!1E , 7/ has

noted it involves educators opting =%or depth over breadth=# $nderstandingentails ta2ing 2nowledge gained in one setting and using it in another#

=&tudents must have e tended opportunities to wor2 on a topic= * op. cit. /#

)e(eloping local and fle*i le programmes # oward Gardner=s interest in

=deep understanding=) per%ormance) e ploration and creativity are not easily

accommodated within an orientation to the =delivery= o% a detailed curriculum

planned outside o% the immediate educational conte t# =?n :A setting can beundone i% the curriculum is too rigid or i% there is but a single %orm o%

assessment= *Gardner 1999E 1 /# An this respect the educational implications

o% oward Gardner=s wor2 stands in a direct line %rom the wor2 o% John ;ewey #

!oo#ing to moralit" # = e must %igure out how intelligence and morality can

wor2 together=) oward Gardner argues) =to create a world in which a great

variety o% people will want to live= *Gardner 1999E /# hile there are
http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-explrn.htmhttp://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm#issueshttp://www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.htmhttp://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-dewey.htmhttp://www.infed.org/biblio/b-explrn.htmhttp://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm#issueshttp://www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.htmhttp://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-dewey.htm


17/34

considerable bene%its to developing understanding in relation to the

disciplines) something more is needed#

$re there additional intelligences%

&ince oward Gardner=s original listing o% the intelligences in #rames of Mind

*198./ there has been a great deal o% discussion as to other possible

candidates %or inclusion *or candidates %or e clusion/# &ubseCuent research

and re%lection by oward Gardner and his colleagues has loo2ed to three

particular possibilitiesE a naturalist intelligence) a spiritual intelligence and an

e istential intelligence# e has concluded that the %irst o% these =merits

addition to the list o% the original seven intelligences= *Gardner 1999E 5,/#

Naturalist intelligence enables human beings to recogni(e) categori(e and

draw upon certain %eatures o% the environment# At =combines a description o% the

core ability with a characteri(ation o% the role that many cultures value= * ibid. E

8/#

0he case %or inclusion o% naturalist intelligence appears pretty

straight%orward) the position with regard to spiritual intelligence is %ar morecomple # ?ccording to oward Gardner *1999E 59/ there are problems) %or

e ample) around the =content= o% spiritual intelligence) its privileged but

unsubstantiated claims with regard to truth value) =and the need %or it to be

partially identi%ied through its e%%ect on other people=# ?s a resultE

At seems more responsible to carve out that area o% spirituality closest =in spirit= to

the other intelligences and then) in the sympathetic manner applied to naturalistintelligence) ascertain how this candidate intelligence %ares# An doing so) A thin2 it

best to put aside the term spiritual ) with its mani%est and problematic

connotations) and to spea2 instead o% an intelligence that e plores the nature o%

e istence in its multi%arious guises# 0hus) an e plicit concern with spiritual or

religious matters would be one variety - o%ten the most important variety - o% an

e istential intelligence#


18/34

E*istential intelligence ) a concern with =ultimate issues=) is) thus) the ne t

possibility that oward Gardner considers - and he argues that it =scores

reasonably well on the criteria= * ibid #E 7 /# owever) empirical evidence is

sparse - and although a ninth intelligence might be attractive) oward

Gardner is not disposed to add it to the list# =A %ind the phenomenon

perple ing enough and the distance %rom the other intelligences vast enough

to dictate prudence - at least %or now= * ibid. E 77/#

0he %inal) and obvious) candidate %or inclusion in oward Gardner=s list is

moral intelligence # An his e ploration) he begins by as2ing whether it is

possible to delineate the =moral domain=# e suggests that it is di%%icult to

come to any consensual de%inition) but argues that it is possible to come to

an understanding that ta2es e ploration %orward# 'entral to a moral domain)

oward Gardner suggests) =is a concern with those rules) behaviours and

attitudes that govern the sanctity o% li%e - in particular) the sanctity o% human

li%e and) in many cases) the sanctity o% any other living creatures and the

world they inhabit= * ibid. E !/# A% we accept the e istence o% a moral realm is it

then possible to spea2 o% moral intelligenceK A% it =connotes the adoption o%

any speci%ic moral code= then oward Gardner does not %ind the term moralintelligence acceptable * ibid #E 5/# 3urthermore) he argues) researchers and

writers have not as yet =captured the essence o% the moral domain as an

instance o% human intelligence= * ibid #E 7/#

?s A construe it) the central component in the moral realm or domain is a sense o%

personal agency and personal sta2e) a reali(ation that one has an irreducible role

with respect to other people and that one=s behaviour towards others must re%lectthe results o% conte tuali(ed analysis and the e ercise o% one=s will#### 0he

%ul%ilment o% 2ey roles certainly reCuires a range o% human intelligences -

including personal) linguistic) logical and perhaps e istential - but it is

%undamentally a statement about the 2ind o% person that has developed to be# At

is not) in itsel%) an intelligence# =:orality= is then properly a statement about

personality) individuality) will) character - and) in the happiest cases) about the

highest reali(ation o% human nature# * ibid #E /


19/34

&o it is) that oward Gardner has added an eighth intelligence - naturalist

intelligence - to his list# e has also opened the door to another possibility -

especially that o% e istential intelligence - but the court is out on that one#

Ho ard !ardner&s multi"le intelligences - some issues and "ro'lems

0here are various criticisms o%) and problems around) oward Gardner=s

conceptuali(ation o% multiple intelligences# Andeed) Gardner himsel% has listed

some o% the main issues and his responses *199.E iii- vii6 1999E 9-11 /#

ere) A want to %ocus on three 2ey Cuestions that have been raised in

debates# *0here are plenty o% other Cuestions around - but these would seem

to be the most persistent/E

&re the criteria Howard ardner emplo"s ade+uate John hite *199 /

has argued that there are signi%icant issues around the criteria that oward

Gardner employs# 0here are Cuestions around the individual criteria) %or

e ample) do all intelligences involve symbol systems6 how the criteria to be

applied6 and why these particular criteria are relevant# An respect o% the last)

and %undamental Cuestion) hite states that he has not been able to %ind any

answer in Gardner=s writings * ibid #E 19/# Andeed) oward Gardner himsel% has

admitted that there is an element o% sub ective udgement involved#

)oes Howard ardner's conceptuali ation of intelligence hold

together 3or those researchers and scholars who have traditionally viewed

intelligence as) e%%ectively) what is measured by intelligence tests - oward

Gardner=s wor2 will always be problematic# 0hey can still point to a

substantial tradition o% research that demonstrates correlation betweendi%%erent abilities and argue %or the e istence o% a general intelligence %actor#

oward Gardner *199.E iv/ disputes much o% the evidence and argues that

it is not possible) as yet) to 2now how %ar intelligences actually correlate# :ore

recent developments in thin2ing around intelligence such as Robert

&ternberg=s *1985) 1997/ advancement o% a =triarchic model= have shared

Gardner=s disli2e o% such standard intelligence theory# owever) in contrast to

oward Gardner) Robert &ternberg does not loo2 strongly at the particularmaterial that the person is processing# Anstead he loo2s to what he calls the


20/34

componential) e periential and conte tual %acets o% intelligence# ? %urther set

o% criticisms centre around the speci%ic intelligences that oward Gardner

identi%ied# 3or e ample) it can be argued that musical intelligence and bodily-

2inesthetic intelligence are better approached as talents *they do not

normally need to adapt to li%e demands/#

%s there sufficient empirical e(idence to support Howard ardner's

conceptuali ation ? common criticism made o% oward Gardner=s wor2 is

that his theories derive rather more strongly %rom his own intuitions and

reasoning than %rom a comprehensive and %ull grounding in empirical

research# 3or the moment there is not a properly wor2ed-through set o% tests

to identi%y and measure the di%%erent intelligences#

A once thought it possible to create a set o% tests o% each intelligence - an

intelligence-%air version to be sure - and then simply to determine the correlation

between the scores on the several tests# A now believe that this can only be

accomplished i% someone developed several measures %or each intelligence and

then made sure that people were com%ortable in dealing with the materials and

methods used to measure each intelligence# *Gardner 1999E 98/

oward Gardner himsel% has not pursued this approach because o% a more

general worry with such testing - that it leads to labelling and stigmati(ation#

At can be argued that research around the %unctioning o% the brain generally

continues to support the notion o% multiple intelligence *although not

necessarily the speci%ics o% oward Gardner=s theory/#

0here are %urther Cuestions around the notion o% sel%hood that owardGardner employs - something that he himsel% has come to recogni(e# An the

early 199!s he began to loo2 to the notion o% distributed cognition as

providing a better way o% approaching the area than %ocusing on what goes

on in the mind o% a single individual * atch and Gardner 199./ *see the

discussion o% social situational orientations to learning /#
http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-self.htmhttp://www.infed.org/biblio/learning-social.htmhttp://www.infed.org/biblio/b-self.htmhttp://www.infed.org/biblio/learning-social.htm


21/34

Conclusion

hile there may be some signi%icant Cuestions and issues around oward

Gardner=s notion o% multiple intelligences) it still has had utility in education# At

has helped a signi%icant number o% educators to Cuestion their wor2 and to

encourage them to loo2 beyond the narrow con%ines o% the dominant

discourses o% s2illing) curriculum) and testing# 3or e ample) :indy @ornhaber

and her colleagues at the Pro ect &$:A0 *&chools $sing :ultiple Antelligences

0heory/ have e amined the per%ormance o% a number o% schools and

concluded that there have been signi%icant gains in respect o% &?0s scores)

parental participation) and discipline *with the schools themselves attributing

this to :A theory/# 0o the e tent that oward Gardner=s multiple intelligences

theory has helped educators to re%lect on their practice) and given them a

basis to broaden their %ocus and to attend to what might assist people to live

their lives well) then it has to be udged a use%ul addition#

Pro ect &$:A0 *,!!!/ uses the metaphor o% (ompass $oints -=routes that

educators using the theory have ta2en and which appear to bene%it students=#

0hey have identi%ied the %ollowing mar2ers that characteri(e schools withsome success in implementing practices that attend to multiple intelligences

theory#


22/34

.ol 's !earning $t"le Model

0his model classi%ies students as having a pre%erence %or 1/ concrete e)perience

or

abstract conceptuali"ation *how they ta2e in%ormation in/) and ,/ active

e)perimentation or

reflective observation *how they internali(e in%ormation/# 0he %our types o%

learners in this

classi%ication scheme are

Ty"e (concrete, reflective)# ? characteristic Cuestion o% this learning type

is *+hy * 0ype 1 learners respond well to e planations o% how course

material relates to their e perience) their interests) and their %uture careers#

To be effective with Type - students ) the instructor should %unction as a

motivator #

Ty"e * (a'stract, reflective)# ? characteristic Cuestion o% this learning type

is *+hat * 0ype , learners respond to in%ormation presented in an organi(ed)

logical %ashion and bene%it i% they have time %or re%lection#

To be effective, the instructor should %unction as an e)pert #

Ty"e + (a'stract, active)# ? characteristic Cuestion o% this learning type is

* ow *


23/34

0ype . learners respond to having opportunities to wor2 actively on wellde%ined

tas2s and to learn by trialanderror in an environment that allows them to %ail

sa%ely#

0o be e%%ective) the instructor should %unction as a coach ) providing guided

practice

and %eedbac2#

Ty"e (concrete, active)# ? characteristic Cuestion o% this learning type is

*+hat if *

0ype learners li2e applying course material in new situations to solve real

problems#

To be effective ) the instructor should stay out o% the way) ma imi(ing

opportunities %or the students to discover things %or themselves#

The Felder-$il(erman !earning $t"les Model

? learning style is a person"s Hcharacteristic strengths and pre%erences in the

ways they ta2e in

and process in%ormation# 0hese characteristics vary %rom person to person) and

Hmay be strong) moderate) or almost none istent) may change with time) and

may vary %rom one sub ect or learning environment to another %or a given

student# An their 1988 paper1,) 3elder and &ilverman proposed a model o%

learning styles that indicates a person"s predilections on %ive continuaE

&ensory Antuitive) 4isual 4erbal) Anductive ;eductive) ?ctive Re%lective) and

&eCuential Global#

&ensory Antuitive


24/34

Anductive ;eductive

?ctive Re%lective

&eCuential Global

4isual 4erbal

The / continua of the Felder-$il(erman model

? person"s placement on the %ive continua might help her gain insight about why

and when learning has been more pleasant and perhaps more e%%ective) what

blind spots she might have) and what techniCues she might be underutili(ing)

that could help her learn more in situations that don"t match her pre%erred

environments#

Please note that a person"s placement on the various continua is descriptive) not

normative#

0here is no best pattern o% results) no best learning style) no inherent superiority

o% any placement# ;o not %eel that you have to HbeI a particular learning style# ?

person who pre%ers visual descriptions to verbal ones might still learn *i% less

enthusiastically/ how to wor2 through a strictly verbal speci%ication# ?s 3elder

points out in his H:atters o% &tyleI article1 ) the model Hprovides clues) not

in%allible labelsI#

3elder presents a list o% %ive Cuestions that can be used to de%ine *in part/ a

student"s learning styleE

1# H hat type o% in%ormation does the student pre%erentially perceiveE sensory

sights) sounds) physical sensations) or intuitive memories) ideas) insightsK

,# 0hrough which modality is sensory in%ormation most e%%ectively perceivedE

visual pictures) diagrams) graphs) demonstrations) or verbal sounds) written

and spo2en words and %ormulasK

.# ith which organi(ation o% in%ormation is the student most com%ortableE

inductive %acts and observations are given) underlying principles are in%erred) or

deductive principles are given) conseCuences and applications are deducedK

# ow does the student pre%er to process in%ormationE actively through

engagement in physical activity or discussion) or reflectively through

introspectionK


25/34

5# ow does the student progress toward understandingE se/uentially in a

logical progression o% small incremental steps) or globally in large umps)

holisticallyKI

$ensor"0%ntuiti(e

3elder de%ines a person who pre%erentially perceives sensory in%ormation as one

who relies more on the in%ormation he receives through his e ternal senses) while

a person with a pre%erence %or intuitive in%ormation relies on his internal

in%ormation *generated %rom memory) con ecture) and interpretation/ and

intuition# ?ccording to 3elder) strongly sensory learners are generally attentive to

details# 0hey are usually observant) and tend to %avor %acts and observable

phenomena# 0hey are apt to pre%er problems with well-de%ined standard solutions

and disli2e surprises and complications that ma2e them deviate %rom these

solutions# &ensory learners can be patient with detail and are normally good at

memori(ing# 0hey are generally good e perimentalists#

&trongly intuitive learners) on the other hand) may be bored by details# 0hey can

easily handle abstraction) and are good at grasping new concepts# D%ten) intuitors

strongly disli2e repetition and they may be careless when per%orming repetitive

tas2s# Anstead) they li2e innovation and are o%ten imaginative and insight%ul# 0hey

respond best to thought problems) and li2e to emphasi(e %undamental principles

and mathematical models# Antuitive learners o%ten ma2e good theoreticians)

designers and inventors#

1isual01er al

4isual and verbal learners di%%er in how they best receive in%ormation# 4isual

learners retain more in%ormation they get %rom visual images such as pictures)

movies) diagrams or demonstrations) and may have problems remembering

in%ormation they simply hear# 4erbal learners retain more in%ormation they hear

*or read/ such as lectures) written words) and mathematical %ormulas# H:ost

people *at least in western cultures/ are visual learners#

%nducti(e0)educti(e


26/34

0he inductive deductive dimension deals with how a learner organi(es

in%ormation# ?n inductive learner pre%ers to wor2 %rom speci%ics and derive the

generalities) while a deductive learner starts with the generalities and applies

them to the speci%ic situations they encounter# Anduction is described by 3elder

and &ilverman as Hthe natural human learning style# Babies don"t come into li%e

with a set o% general principles but rather observe the world around them and

draw in%erences :ost o% what we learn on our own *as opposed to in class/

originates in a real situation or problem that needs to be addressed or solved) not

in a general principle I

Anductive learners will o%ten need to see the motivation %or learning a piece o%

in%ormation be%ore they can learn it and they need to see an event be%ore they

can understand the underlying theory about it# ?t the other end o% the continuum)

3elder and &ilverman describe deduction as Hthe natural human teaching style) at

least %or technical sub ects at the college level# &tating the governing principles

and wor2ing down to the applications is an e%%icient and elegant way to organi(e

and present material that is already understood #I ;eductive learners learn best

by starting at the %undamental principles and then learning the applications o%

these principles to real li%e and the problems they encounter#

&cti(e02eflecti(e

People di%%er in how they process in%ormation once they have received it# &ome

people need to use the in%ormation right away %or it to stic2 in their memories)

while others need to thin2 about the in%ormation and %igure out how it %its into

their mental %ramewor2 be%ore they can use it# 0he

?ctive Re%lective dimension in the 3elder-&ilverman model covers this di%%erence#

?ctive learners want to do something with in%ormation as soon as they get it#

0hey might discuss it with others) either as peers or by e plaining it to someone

else) or they might e periment with the in%ormation they have received# 0hey

tend to li2e to wor2 in groups and li2e to %ind solutions that wor2 and in general

are the people who design and carry out the e periments# A% active learners had a

trademar2 phrase) it could well be HLet"s try it out and see what happens#I

Re%lective learners pre%er to thin2 about in%ormation be%ore they use it# 0hey

pre%er to wor2 alone or with at most one other person who they trust# 0hey need


27/34

time to mentally manipulate the in%ormation to see what they can get %rom it# An

general) re%lective learners are the people who de%ine the problems that need to

be solved# 0he trademar2 phrase %or re%lective learners could be HLet"s thin2 it

through %irstI#

$e+uential0 lo al

0he %inal dimension in the 3elder-&ilverman model is that o% seCuential versus

global learning#

0his dimension deals with how learners HgetI the in%ormation they are learning#

&eCuential learners learn material in a logically ordered progression) learning little

bits as they go) and incrementally building on the 2nowledge they have already

learned# Global learners) however) tend to learn in chun2s# 0hey will spend some

time being lost) then suddenly everything will come together and they will

understand the concept# 3or seCuential learners) each piece o% in%ormation builds

logically on the previous ones# &eCuential learners are strong in convergent

thin2ing and analysis) bringing ideas in together# 0hey %ollow Hlinear reasoning

processesI when they solve problems) and their solutions are o%ten the sort that

ma2e sense to other people# &eCuential learners o%ten have little trouble in

school) as they learn best when material is presented with increasing comple ity

and di%%iculty and they can wor2 with material that they only partially or

super%icially understand# Global learners instead tend to see the big picture# 0hey

spend a period o% time not understanding the material) but then a critical piece o%

in%ormation arrives and everything %alls together %or them# Global learners tend to

be more apt to see connections beyond those presented *o%ten to completely

di%%erent disciplines than the one they are learning in at the moment/# hen a

global learner is solving a problem) she may seem to leap directly to the solution

*possibly s2ipping intermediate steps/ and be unable to e plain how she got there

to other people# Global learners tend to need to be able to %ully understand the

material be%ore they can wor2 with it) however) and this can lead to problems in

school# Dnce they have this understanding) they can very Cuic2ly assimilate

additional related in%ormation and o%ten are strong in divergent analysis and

synthesis#

&ince the publication o% their original paper in 1988) 3elder has made two

changes to the model#


28/34

0he %irst change was the dropping o% the HAnductive ;eductiveI continuum# e

believe that this continuum provides insight %or e ploratory testers and so will

treat the model as i% it still contained this continuum %or our purposes# 0he second

change 3elder made to the model was a word change %or the 4isual 4erbal

dimension# Driginally) this continuum was called 4isual ?uditory# e will use the

current terminology *4isual 4erbal/ throughout the rest o% this paper#

&pplications to E*plorator" Testing

Now that we have reviewed the 3elder-&ilverman model) we can apply this to

e ploratory testing) loo2ing at the potential e ploratory styles o% someone who

has a strong pre%erence %or a given aspect *and ignoring) %or now) the interaction

o% aspects %rom di%%erent continua/# ?gain) it should be stressed that there is no

superiority or in%eriority implied in a speci%ic aspect or the lac2 thereo%# ach

aspect brings strengths and wea2nesses to e ploratory testing) and the

wellbalanced test team will have members whose learning styles complement

each other#

$ensor"0%ntuiti(e

&o) how would a person who was strongly sensory-based or strongly intuitive-

based approach e ploratory testingK 0he sensory-based person *who you will

remember li2es details and wellde%ined solutions to problems) while pre%erring

in%ormation gained %rom his senses/ might %ocus on his actual observations o% the

so%tware# 0he intuitor learners learn material in a logically ordered progression)

learning little bits as they go) and incrementally building on the 2nowledge they

have already learned# Global learners) however) tend to learn in chun2s# 0hey will

spend some time being lost) then suddenly everything will come together and

they will understand the concept# 3or seCuential learners) each piece o%

in%ormation builds logically on the previous ones# &eCuential learners are strong

in convergent thin2ing and analysis) bringing ideas in together# 0hey %ollow

Hlinear reasoning processesI when they solve problems) and their solutions are


29/34

o%ten the sort that ma2e sense to other people# &eCuential learners o%ten have

little trouble in school) as they learn best when material is presented with

increasing comple ity and di%%iculty and they can wor2 with material that they

only partially or super%icially understand# Global learners instead tend to see the

big picture# 0hey spend a period o% time not understanding the material) but then

a critical piece o% in%ormation arrives and everything %alls together %or them#

Global learners tend to be more apt to see connections beyond those presented

*o%ten to completely di%%erent disciplines than the one they are learning in at the

moment/# hen a global learner is solving a problem) she may seem to leap

directly to the solution *possibly s2ipping intermediate steps/ and be unable to

e plain how she got there to other people# Global learners tend to need to be able

to %ully understand the material be%ore they can wor2 with it) however) and this

can lead to problems in school# Dnce they have this understanding) they can very

Cuic2ly assimilate additional related in%ormation and o%ten are strong in divergent

analysis and synthesis#

&ince the publication o% their original paper in 1988) 3elder has made two

changes to the model#

0he %irst change was the dropping o% the HAnductive ;eductiveI continuum# e

believe that this continuum provides insight %or e ploratory testers and so will

treat the model as i% it still contained this continuum %or our purposes# 0he second

change 3elder made to the model was a word change %or the 4isual 4erbal

dimension# Driginally) this continuum was called 4isual ?uditory# e will use the

current terminology *4isual 4erbal/ throughout the rest o% this paper#

&pplications to E*plorator" Testing

Now that we have reviewed the 3elder-&ilverman model) we can apply this to

e ploratory testing) loo2ing at the potential e ploratory styles o% someone who

has a strong pre%erence %or a given aspect *and ignoring) %or now) the interaction

o% aspects %rom di%%erent continua/# ?gain) it should be stressed that there is no

superiority or in%eriority implied in a speci%ic aspect or the lac2 thereo%# ach

aspect brings strengths and wea2nesses to e ploratory testing) and the

wellbalanced test team will have members whose learning styles complement

each other#


30/34

$ensor"0%ntuiti(e

&o) how would a person who was strongly sensory-based or strongly intuitive-

based approach e ploratory testingK 0he sensory-based person *who you will

remember li2es details and wellde%ined solutions to problems) while pre%erring

in%ormation gained %rom his senses/ might %ocus on his actual observations o% the

so%tware# 0he intuitor might then %ocus instead on her internal model o% the

so%tware she is testing# 0he two testers will probably also vary in their approach

to per%orming their testing# 0he stereotypic sensor will generally apply Hrules and

toolsI S solutions that have wor2ed in the past %or speci%ic bugs that he can apply

in his current testing to determine whether a particular bug e ists# is testing

would ta2e the %orm o% a series o% e periments on the application# 0hese

e periments will tend to be o% the %orm H;oes this speci%ic bug e istI# ? strongly

sensing tester may also be more li2ely to begin testing the product be%ore he

creates any models o% the so%tware *mentally or otherwise/# e is more li2ely to

consult the speci%ication and other re%erence material) and to e periment with the

con%ormance o% the documentation and the product# 0he learning done by a

strong sensor is apt to be more based on e periencing the product# Given the

sensor"s pre%erence %or well-de%ined standard solutions) he is probably going to be

more inclined to develop a standard pattern %or approaching e ploratory testing#

0his pattern can develop into a mental script) shi%ting the tester"s %ocus %rom

e ploratory testing to scripted testing# 0he stereotypic intuitor is more li2ely to

approach the problem instead by applying di%%erent theories o% error to the

so%tware# &he will ta2e a ris2-based approach to her testing) thin2ing o% ways in

which the so%tware can %ail and then thin2ing o% tests which will show whether the

so%tware actually does %ail in that manner# 0his is di%%erent %rom the sensor"s

testing %or speci%ic bugs in that the intuitor is not %ocusing on bugs she has seen

in the past# Anstead) she is using her e perience and understanding o% the

application she is testing to thin2 about all the di%%erent %ailure modes o% the

application# At is a subtle di%%erence between the two a di%%erence primarily o%

level o% thought# 0he sensor is ta2ing speci%ic e amples o% bugs and chec2ing %or

them# 0he intuitor is loo2ing %or more general possibilities o% %ailure *each o%

which may have multiple bugs associated with it/ and then deriving tests that

could trigger a particular %ailure mode# &he will usually li2e it when her mental


31/34

model o% the so%tware is proven to be incorrect) o%ten viewing the act o% bringing

her model bac2 in line with reality as a challenge to be tac2led with great relish#

0he intuitor is also more li2ely to begin testing by building a model o% the

so%tware# 0his model could be a state-chart) a mapping o% the so%tware to its

mar2et) or some other representation o% some portion o% the system# hile the

sensor is perhaps doing research designed to predict the behavior o% the system)

the intuitor might instead be doing research to de%ine and then re%ine her models)

with the intention o% then evaluating the model against the product# 3inally) the

two testers will most li2ely %ind di%%erent e ploration styles# 0he sensor could %ind

the various attac2s described by ?lan Jorgensen and James hitta2er appealing)

while the intuitor might be more drawn to the modeling techniCues described by

lisabeth endric2son#

1isual01er al

0he ma or di%%erence between e ploratory testers with a strong pre%erence %or

visual learning and those with a pre%erence %or verbal learning might re%lect the

internal mental model that the testers use# 4isual learners will tend to wor2 o%% an

internal model that is picture-based# 0his model could be a set o% diagrams)

%lowcharts) or even mental screenshots# 0hey will also tend to wor2 o%% visual

portrayals o% the steps in the tests they are e ecuting# 0hese portrayals may run

li2e a movie in the visual learner"s head# ?lternatively) visual learners may ma2e

diagrams and pictures %or their notes as they e plore# 4erbal learners would

instead use a te tual model %or their testing# 0hese models might ta2e the %orm o%

a te tual description o% the system *perhaps a te tual use case %ormat/ or they

may ta2e the %orm o% a remembered conversation# 0he model will be based

around words S the tester will use words to describe the system to themselves

and words to describe each step in the process# An addition to their internal

models) these testers may also di%%er in the types o% speci%ication documents they

try to get %rom their analysts and developers# 4isual testers probably will be more

com%ortable wor2ing with visual models o% the system S the state charts)

diagrams) %lowcharts and other representations the people designing and building

the so%tware use to help clari%y things %or themselves# 4erbal learners) on the


32/34

other hand) are li2ely to be happier ta2ing the te tual speci%ication %or the system

and wading through it) learning as they go#

%nducti(e0)educti(e

?n inductive learner may adopt an approach to testing where she gathers as

many speci%ics *such as techniCues) potential de%ects) changes made to the

application) and application history/ as possible and generali(e them to the

application# ? deductive learner might instead approach testing by 2eeping a

collection o% general principles and heuristics and %ind ways to speci%ically apply

these generalities# 0he inductive learner will li2ely ta2e advantage o% historical

data S loo2ing at the available de%ect reports) the technical support database)

published articles about the so%tware being tested and about similar programs)

and any other historical documents that she can get a hold o%# 3rom these

documents) the inductor will derive a set o% speci%ic guidelines that she then can

use to guide their testing# 3or e ample) the application being tested may have a

history o% de%ects in one particular area# ?n inductor would ta2e the speci%ic %act

o% the large number o% de%ect reports and generali(e it to show that there could

still be a large number o% de%ects remaining in that application area) and thus

%ocus more attention on that area than on another area which has had no de%ects

reported historically# hile an inductive learner is using heuristics %or this

approach) it is less apt to be a deliberate usage than we believe the deductive

learner will have# 0he deductive learner starts with a collection o% general

heuristics and guidelines and then consciously applies them to the application#

:any o% the traditional techniCues o% so%tware testing are deductive S the tester

learns the basic s2ill *such as eCuivalence partitioning/ and then determines how

to apply it in the speci%ic situation o% her testing# e e pect there will also be

di%%erences in how deductive and inductive testers use bug

ta onomies,5 and ris2 lists# e e pect the deductive tester to gain %amiliarity

with the categories and then be able to come up with new e amples within those

categories# 0he inductive tester) on the other hand) is e pected to gain an

understanding o% the various list elements and then be able to see new ways o%

categori(ing them#

&cti(e02eflecti(e


33/34

?ctive and re%lective testers di%%er most in how they e ecute tests# ?n active

tester will usually

do very hands-on testing# &he o%ten will per%orm many test cases rapidly and will

view each test case as an e periment) as2ing) H hat happens i% A do thisKI each

time# ?n active tester will also tend to be more visibly a part o% a testing group)

o%ten bouncing ideas and results o%% other members o% the group to solicit their

%eedbac2# ? re%lective tester) on the other hand) is apt to do %ar %ewer tests# ?

thought process will precede each test case where the tester is thin2ing through

the test# Re%lective testers ma2e up %or their lac2 o% speed in test e ecution by

e ecuting the HgoodI tests that are most li2ely to %ind bugs) however# :ost

re%lective testers will probably tend to pre%er to wor2 alone or with at most one

other person) and so may seem anti-social or outside the group# 0his isolation and

thin2ing should give them the time to develop more comple tests and scenarios

to apply to the application) and thus they should be encouraged to ta2e the time

they need#

$e+uential0 lo al

0he last pair o% aspects we have to consider is the seCuential and global aspects#

? seCuentiallearner builds in%ormation and 2nowledge in a logical progression)

while a globallearner needs critical pieces o% in%ormation in order to get the

understanding o% the sub ect# 0he seCuential tester will seem to get o%% to a %aster

start# e will build test plans as he goes) step by step# Not having a piece o%

in%ormation will not normally prove to be a problem %or a seCuential tester) as he

will wor2 with the in%ormation that he does have# e also will be able to e plain

his tests clearly to people a%ter he has per%ormed them# An general) a seCuential

tester"s test cases will grow in comple ity over time as he builds a deeper

understanding o% the system# ? global tester will get o%% to a slower start# e may

have problems understanding the point o% the application *or their area within it/

and need to be shown how to use the application in order to have any idea how

to test it# Dnce he gets the piece o% in%ormation that brings it all together %or him)

however) he Cuic2ly becomes able to create detailed) comple tests that o%ten

draw on connections that other people on the testing team have not seen#

Wrap-up


34/34

e are interested in the 3elder-&ilverman model o% learning styles because it

gives us hints about why di%%erent testers adopt di%%erent e ploratory strategies# A%

those hints are validated) we will be better able to create e%%ective sets o% lesson

plans and e ercises to train e plorers# 0esters with e ploratory testing e perience

might be more able to discover their blind spots or identi%y techniCues that would

not otherwise occur to them# 0est managers will be more able to determine where

there may be gaps in their testing teams and what 2inds o% s2ills they need to

bring in to balance the team# :uch wor2 remains to be done be%ore the impact o%

learning styles on e ploratory testing is completely understood# ach individual

aspect needs to be e plored in more detail %or connections# 0he aspects must be

loo2ed at in combination *%or e ample) how is someone who is strongly intuitive

?N; strongly verbal going to di%%er %rom someone who is ust strong in one o%

those two aspectsK/# perimentation must be per%ormed to validate the claims#

15698292 models of learning styles

Documents