the value of the herrmann brain dominance instrument (hbdi

Acta Criminologica Vol 14(1) 2001

1 The authors would like to thank and express their gratitude to: Ned Herrmann and Ann Hermann-Nehdi ofHerrmann International for their valuable contribution to the development of students’ full potential; TheUniversity of Pretoria for a research grant; Helene Coetzee for research assistance; The Criminology Class of2000 who participated in the project; The Criminological Society of Southern Africa for allowing the authors tomake use of information obtained from the Council reports.

119

THE VALUE OF THE HERRMANN BRAIN DOMINANCE INSTRUMENT (HBDI) INFACILITATING EFFECTIVE TEACHING AND LEARNING OF CRIMINOLOGY

Ann-Louis de Boer1

Centre for Academic DevelopmentUniversity of Pretoria

Dorette van den Berg Department of Criminology

University of Pretoria

INTRODUCTION

For many decades, educational systems worldwide

have focused mainly on left brain teaching and

evaluation strategies. From a Curriculum 2005

perspective the historically separate worlds of “work”

and “learn” are no longer acceptable and it is therefore

important to look at the context of subjects as well as

the changes that are being demanded by the future

employers. In analysing the needs of potential

employers it seems as if there is a demand for

students who can think holistically, be innovative, work

in teams, synthesize information, integrate

environmental and societal values and ethics into their

work, communicate effectively and solve problems in

creative ways. These ways of thinking have been

neglected in most curricula. With the emergence of a

multicultural political and educational dispensation in

the new South Africa a new approach which can

accommodate a diversity of cultural perspectives and

contexts, should be followed. The aim of multicultural

education focuses in part on an approach that

embraces the complex and very difficult task of helping

to create a unified democratic society in which people

can maintain their cultural and personal identities.

Such a culture of tolerance and respect should focus

on creative ways of teaching students with competing

interests that their differences can form the foundation

of a critical and creative civil society.

PARADIGM SHIFT

According to Goodlad (1994:4) a critical part of

multicultural education is the continuing education of

educators. One important factor that emerges is that a

paradigm shift requires a change in teachers’

traditional perspectives of teaching and learning.

Therefore a cognitive, social and moral change with

regard to themselves, their teaching practices and

their students’ behaviour should be brought about

(Heard 1999:462).

EFFECTIVE TEACHING AND EFFECTIVE LEARNING

It has been documented that effective learning takes

place if all four thinking quadrants, as identified by

Herrmann (1995: 418-419,425), are involved in

learning. Lumsdaine and Lumsdaine (1995:97)

describe these four different modes of how students

learn as:

• external learning from an authority through

lectures and text books – (quadrant A

learning);

• internal learning through visualisation,

insight, understanding of concepts,

holistically and intuitively – (quadrant D

learning);


120

• interactive learning by means of discussions

and hands-on sensory-based experiments

where the learners try and fail and try again

through encouragement and verbal feedback

– (quadrant C learning); and

• procedural learning through methodical

step-by-step testing of what is being taught,

as well as through practise and repetition to

improve skills – (quadrant B learning).

It is imperative for all educators to develop their

students’ full potential by providing key learning

opportunities “as whole brain activities to whole brain

learners for a whole brain world”.

THINKING STYLE PREFERENCES AND LEARNING

STYLE MODELS

Students arrive at tertiary institutions with thinking style

preferences that have been established through

schooling and life experiences. According to Herrmann

(1996:34-35) mental preferences are not solely

predetermined genetically, but result from a

combination of nature (genetic inheritance) and nurture

(parenting, teaching, life experiences and cultural

influences). These existing preferences are influential

with regard to all the cognitive activities in which

students are engaged. A thinking style preference

leads to a learning style preference and in turn

determines a student’s dominant cognitive mode in

which he/she communicates and receives information.

The notion of learning style and learning style models

are well documented in research (Felder 1996). The

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) classifies students

according to their preferences on scales derived from

the psychologist Carl Jung's theory of psychological

types. Students may be extroverts or introverts;

sensors or intuitors; thinkers or feelers; and judges or

perceivers. Kolb’s Learning Style Model classifies

students as having a preference for concrete

experience, abstract conceptualisation, active

experimentation, or reflective observation. The

Herrmann Four Quadrant Whole Brain Model, however,

quantifies a person's relative preference for thinking in

four different modes that are based on the task-

specialised functioning of the physical brain

(Herrmann 1995: 72, 350).

For the purpose of this project the Herrmann Brain

Dominance Instrument (HBDI), based on the

Herrmann Four Quadrant Model, was used to

determine the thinking style preferences of the

students.

THE HERRMANN FOUR QUADRANT WHOLE BRAIN

MODEL AND THE HBDI

Based on his extensive research on brain dominance,

which spans 20 years, Herrmann (1995 &1996)

developed an assessment tool that quantifies the

degree of a person’s preference for a specific thinking

style – the Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument

(HBDI). It takes the form of a survey consisting of 120

questions to be completed by an individual. Although

Herrmann discusses his model as a metaphor, the

brain-based quadrant model is aligned with, and

supported by, various research projects and is used

as a measuring tool. It also points out that brain

dominance is natural and normal for all humans

beings. This means that brain dominance influences

all four specialised thinking structures of the brain and

not just the two hemispheres. The different modes

(quadrants) are indicated in Figure 1.

According to Herrmann (1995:79-85), preference for

the A-quadrant (left cerebral mode) means that a

person favours activities that involve logical, analytical

and factual information combined with an ability to

perceive, verbalise and express information precisely.

A preference for the B-quadrant (left limbic mode)

implies similarities to an A-quadrant thinking

preference. In both cases a linear approach to

activities is taken and ambiguity is rejected. Individuals

with a B-quadrant preference favour organised,

sequential, planned and detailed information. They are


121

conservative in their actions and like to keep things as

they are. A preference for the C-quadrant (right limbic

mode) indicates a preference for information that is

interpersonal, involves emotion (based on feelings)

and which is kinaesthetic. A preference for the D-

quadrant (right cerebral mode) is mainly characterised

by a holistic approach.

GENERAL REMARKS ON THE INTERPRETATION OF

THE HBDI

Through co-workers and independent researchers, as

well as the Institute of Educational Testing Survey in

the United States of America, Bunderson in Herrmann

(1995:72; 337-379) documented the Bundersons’

validity study of the HBDI (in Herrmann 1995:337-379).

He concluded that the instrument provides a valid,

reliable measure of human mental preferences when

applied in a professional way, interpreted in conformity

with the four quadrant model and scored by means of

the approved scoring method.

For South African users, the scoring is done at

Herrmann International in the USA. The data of over

one million individual surveys form the database of the

Herrmann International headquarters in North Carolina

(Lumsdaine, Lumsdaine & Shellnutt, 1999:52).

In addition to the whole brain model illustrated in

Figure 1, Herrmann (1995:220) developed a whole

brain teaching and learning model based on his

research. This model is illustrated in Figure 2.

In this model the learning process is divided according

to the four brain quadrants, and then further

summarised into two categories: structured (left) and

unstructured (right). In the structured (left mode)

category we have what Herrmann refers to as hard

processing dealing with logical, rational, critical and

quantitative issues and activities. The procedural,

planned, sequential, and organized elements of the

learning process are also found in this mode

(associated with the A- and B-quadrant thinking

modes). All these stand in direct contrast to the

unstructured (right mode) non-linear and non-verbal

modalities of the right brain. The unstructured right

mode represents visual, conceptual, and

simultaneous processing, and soft processing

involves emotional, expressive, and interpersonal

activities (associated with the C- and D-quadrant

thinking modes). Together, these comprise the full

range of preferences for teaching and learning

(Herrmann 1995:221). The model serves as a

teaching and learning tool enabling educators to

design and deliver content to students in ways that not

only reach each learner by accommodating their

learning preferences, but also address learning

avoidance. Students should be made aware of the fact

that in order to realize their full potential, they need to

develop skills in all four thinking modes. In this

manner students’ potential can be fully developed

(Herrmann 1996:152).

Educators should be aware of the fact that students

with the same preferred thinking style will find it easier

to communicate and understand each other,

compared to students who have opposite preferences

of thinking. It is also important to note that even though

two people can have almost identical profiles, they will

be different thinkers with differing abilities and

competencies because of clustering that takes place

within each dominant quadrant.

RESEARCH PROJECT

Aim of the project

The aim of the research project was:

• to determine the preferred thinking styles of a

group of first-year students studying a first

course in Criminology;

• to determine the distribution of thinking style

preferences of this group; and

• to introduce a practical whole brain teaching

and learning model for lecturers of


122

Criminology.

Methodology

Qualitative research was undertaken and the study

involved 68 students at the University of Pretoria who

were all registered for a first course in Criminology.

The students were introduced to the whole brain

concept and emphasis was placed on the fact that the

instrument was not a test that measured cognitive

abilities. Students received their profiles as well as a

document enabling them to interpret their own thinking

preference. The data were entered into the HBDI

scoring program and were transmitted by modem to

the Herrmann International Group in North Carolina for

scoring. The numerical results were returned by

computer via the Internet and were manually entered

on the profile data sheet by the researchers.

For the purpose of this article the group is briefly

discussed with regard to gender, language, and race.

The main focus, however, is on the diversity pertaining

to the students’ thinking style preferences.

Diversity in gender, language and race

In Table 1 the diversity with regard to gender, language

and race is indicated for all the students.

With regard to the gender of the 68 students in this

study, 63,2 percent are females and 36,8 percent

males. According to Table 1 - 54 percent use

Afrikaans as mother tongue, 9 percent use English

and 37 percent use an African/Ethnic language. The

data clearly illustrate the existence of diversity with

regard to gender, language and race amongst

students enrolled for a first course in Criminology.

DIVERSITY IN THINKING PREFERENCES OF STUDENTS

WHO ENROLLED FOR A FIRST COURSE IN

CRIMINOLOGY

The thinking preferences of first-year students enrolled

for a first course in Criminology at the University of

Pretoria were assessed using the Hermann Brain

Dominance Instrument (HBDI). The scores and

profiles reveal thinking preferences for four different

ways of thinking and "knowing".

Examples of individual student profiles

The examples of the profiles displayed in Figure 3 are

indicative of the diversity in the thinking style

preferences of the students enrolled for a first course

in Criminology.

Individual profile showing an A-quadrant thinking

preference

The profile in Figure 3A displays a strong preference

for the thinking modes of the A-quadrant as well as an

overall tilt towards the thinking preferences associated

with cerebral functions. This profile indicates a strong

preference for the analytical, rational and logical

processes of the upper left A-quadrant, and in contrast

also shows a preference for the integrated,

synthesizing, creative and holistic aspects of the upper

right D-quadrant. The profile indicates a lower

preference for the controlled, structured and organised

thinking modes associated with the lower left B-

quadrant but a non-preference for the kinesthetic

thinking modes associated with the lower right C-

quadrant.

Individual profile showing a B-quadrant thinking

preference

The profile in Figure 3B displays a strong preference

for the thinking modes associated with the B-quadrant

as well as the C-quadrant indicating an overall tilt

towards the thinking preferences in the limbic mode.

This implies a strong preference for the controlled,

structured, and organised thinking modes associated

with the lower left B-quadrant as well as for the

interpersonal, feeling-based thinking modes of the


123

lower right C-quadrant. The profile also shows a non-

preference for the analytical, rational and logical

processes of the upper left A-quadrant and a non-

preference for the upper right D-quadrant which is

associated with holistic thinking modes.

Individual profile showing a C-quadrant thinking

preference

The profile in Figure 3C displays a strong preference

for the thinking modes associated with the C-quadrant

and the D-quadrant indicating an overall tilt towards the

thinking styles in the right mode. This implies a strong

preference for the interpersonal, feeling-based,

emotional and spiritual thinking modes of the lower

right C-quadrant, and also a strong preference for the

holistic, imaginative, and conceptual thinking styles

associated with the upper right, D-quadrant. This

profile, however, reveals that there is almost an

avoidance of the upper left A-quadrant thinking

processes associated with logical, rational thought.

The overall interpretation is that this individual shows

a low preference for the left brain hemisphere thinking

processes.

Individual profile showing a D-quadrant thinking

preference

The profile in Figure 3D displays a very strong

preference for the thinking modes associated with the

D-quadrant as well as an overall tilt towards the

thinking preferences of the right brain hemisphere. The

thinking styles in this case are characterised by

creative, holistic, and synthesising modes in

combination with interpersonal, emotional, and

spiritual processes. This profile also indicates a non-

preference for the thinking modes associated with the

left brain hemisphere and that there is almost an

avoidance of the A-quadrant thinking preferences

associated with logical and rational thoughts.

The composite profile for this group is displayed in

Figure 4A while Figure 4B displays the dominance

preference of the group in a single map.

If the profiles of the group are superimposed, their

composite profile indicates preferred modes of

thinking in all four quadrants. This confirms the

research findings of Knowles (1990:245) claiming that

people are equally distributed throughout the teaching

and learning model in terms of their mental

preferences. In addition, the research findings of

Herrmann (1996:47), namely that individual profiles

represent a highly diverse, but well balanced,

distribution of thinking style preferences with regard to

the four quadrants of the Whole Brain Model are

confirmed.

Figure 5 the dominance map of the group is analysed.

This map indicates the dominant preferences of the

participants. The map reveals that the dominant

characteristics of the group show a tilt towards the C-

quadrant thinking modes, with a preference for the

interpersonal, emotional and spiritual processes.

From the dominance map it is further concluded that

the group has a non-preference for the A- and the D-

quadrant thinking modes. Thinking processes are

associated with the logical, analytical, mathematical

and problem solving modes of the A-quadrant as well

as with the imaginative, artistic, holistic

conceptualising and synthesising thinking modes of

the D-quadrant. All these thinking skills are needed by

employers in South Africa and should be addressed by

tertiary education institutions if they want to be globally

competitive and nationally relevant (Vice-Chancellor

Prof J van Zyl UP Academic Opening 1-2-2000).

HERRMANN’S WHOLE BRAIN TEACHING AND

LEARNING MODEL

Based on his Whole Brain Teaching and Learning

Model illustrated in Figure 2, Herrmann (1995:419)

identified preferred learning activities within the

quadrant model. These activities should be taken into

account if educators want to teach effectively. Figure 2

gives a summary of these activities.

FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS OF FOUR QUADRANT

WHOLE BRAIN TEACHING AND LEARNING

Results from this project reveal that a wide range of

thinking preferences exists amongst students


124

following a first course in Criminology.

The following aspects are of importance to educators

of Criminology:

• The statement that every classroom

represents a complete spectrum of thinking

preferences is proven to be correct

(Herrmann, 1996:151). This implies that

curriculum designers and lecturers must be

careful not to make unfounded assumptions

about learners in the classroom. The project

reveals that there is a distribution of learning

preferences in all quadrants and that all

modes are equally represented (Figure 4).

• Just as there is a distribution of thinking

preferences across the spectrum of all four

quadrants in the classroom, there is also a

distribution of learning avoidance across the

four quadrants (Figure 5). Learning avoidance

is even more significant to facilitators of

learning because according to Herrmann

(1996:152) “they turn people off ” and ”a

turned off learner is a waste of educational

time and effort ”. The greater the alignment

between the thinking preference (teaching

style) of the educator and the thinking

preference (learning style) of the learner, the

more competencies will be acquired by the

learner. The greater the misalignment

between the thinking preference of the

educator and the thinking preference of the

learner, the fewer competencies will be

acquired by the learner.

• Data collected from several educational

institutions show that there is no learning

institution in South Africa with either a

composite whole brain faculty or a whole

brain curriculum. It is necessary to shift the

focus away from traditional teaching methods

since such methods are outdated within the

context of whole brain teaching and learning

(Lumsdaine & Lumsdaine 1995:96.).

• In order to develop the full potential of

learners, whole brain learning should form

the basis of teaching practices. This

approach will assist all students to acquire

skills over a wide spectrum and to develop

and grow in areas of lesser preference by

practising applicable mental processes in

those modes.

CHALLENGES FOR THE TEACHING OF CRIMINOLOGY

In order to adapt existing teaching practices to the new

paradigm it is necessary for lecturers to realise that

they not only have to cope with and face the challenges

posed by transformation but they also have to remain

actively involved in the process. Rozenholtz (1989:24)

suggests that this process for lecturers who seek to

make changes in their teaching may involve various

phases of thinking and behavioural experiences that

could vary from confusion, doubt, stress, lost of control,

redefinition of intent or purpose of teaching.

Criminology lecturers may go through phases of trail

and error but the process could also lead to clarity,

enthusiasm and success. It should, however, be kept

in mind these changes and the development of a new

understanding of teaching and learning could not be

achieved without sacrifices from individuals and/or

cultures. Therefore lecturers should adopt a new

attitude and perspective that could facilitate the

process of change. Opportunities for development

should be created not only for the Criminology

students but also for the lecturers. Criminology

lecturers should create and expand a coherent, critical

approach to knowledge. The main focus should be to

modify their beliefs regarding teaching and learning

and to objectively evaluate the purpose of teaching in

order to effect democratic student learning and social

outcomes through education and institutional change.

CONCLUSION

The HBDI Metaphoric Model proved to be a valid and

useful diagnostic assessment tool to determine the

thinking preferences (learning styles) of students. The

results obtained in this project correspond with the

universal results of Herrmann’s study (1996:151) that


129

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barnett, R. 1994: The limits of competence. Ballmoor,SRHE and Open University press.

Bellis, I. 1997. Competence: ideals, images andapplications – issues of definition, deprivation andimplementation. Paper 1-70.

Bellis, I. 1998. The process of change in vocationaleducation and training: the South African experience.Paper presented at the Technicon Pretoria. p 1-70.

Bunderson, C V. 1995. Appendix A 337-379. Thevalidity of the Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument:In Herrmann. N. 1995. The creative brain. 2 ed. U.S.A:Quebecor Printing Book group.

De Boer, A & Steyn, T. 1999. Thinking style preferencesof underprepared first-year students in the NaturalScience. South African Journal of Ethnology. 22 (3), 97-102.

Felder, R. 1996. Matters of style. ASEE Prism ,December:18-23.

Gravett, S. 1996. The Assessment of learning in highereducation: guiding principles. South African Journal ofHigher Education. 10 (1), 76 – 81.

Goodlad, J. 1994. Educational renewal: betterteachers, better schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Grundy, S. 1987. Curriculum: product or praxis?London: Falmer press.

Heard, D. 1999. A developing model of teacherseducating themselves for multicultural pedagogy.Higher Education, 38, 461-487.

Herrmann, N. 1995. The creative brain. 2 ed. U.S.A.:Quebecor Printing Book group.

Hermann, N. 1998. Twenty years of thinking about thethinking brain. A special summary of learningoutcomes. Herrmann International Unpublished data.

Herrmann, N. 1996. The whole brain business book.New York: Mc Graw Hill .

Herrmann, N & Herrmann N A., 1999. Whole braintools for today’s training challenges. Unpublisheddocument Herrmann International. Lake Lure. NorthCarolina.

Kelly, A V. 1989. Curriculum theory and practice.

London: Harper & Row.

Kotzé, G S. 1999. Assessment for an outcomes based-approach. South African Journal of Education. 19 (1),31- 36.

Lumsdaine, M & Lumsdaine, E. 1995. ThinkingPreferences of Engineering Students: Implications forCurriculum Restructuring. Journal of EngineeringEducation. 84 (2) April:193-204.

National Commission of Higher Education. (NCHE)1996. A framework of Transformation.

Olivier, C. 1998. How to educate and train outcomesbased. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

Rosenholtz, S. 1989. Teachers’ Workplace: the socialorganisation of schools. New York: Longman.

Sutherland, L & Peckham, G. 1998. A re-appraisal ofassessment practices in the light of the South AfricanQualifications Authority. (SAQA) Act. South AfricanJournal of Higher Education. 12 (2), 98 -103.

Van Zyl, J. 2000. Opening of the academic year : 1February 2000. The University of Pretoria in a GlobalContext. http://www.up.ac.za/intranet/principal/20000201.html.

Venter, E. 1997. Philosophy of education in a newSouth Africa. The South African Journal of HigherEducation. 11 (1), 57 – 64.

the value of the herrmann brain dominance instrument (hbdi

Documents