CHAPTER 6
PERSONALITY AND LEARNING STYLES Adapting to Individual Differences
This framework provides guidelines for adapting the environment to make it more likely that individual differences will be capitalized on rather than being hindrances to learning. Conceptual system theory was developed by David Hunt and his associates (Harvey, Hunt, and Schroeder, 1961; Schroeder, Driver, and Streufert, 1967). The theory describes human development in terms of increasingly complex system for processing information about people, things, and events. Growth is an interactive function of the persons level of personality development (or stage) and the environmental conditions he encountered (Hunt, 1970b, p.4). As the individual become more complex, the environmental needs to change with him or her if growth is to continue at an optimal rate. The focus of conceptual systems theory is on the learners cognitive complexity (the complexity of his or her information processing system). Our first task is to examine the construct of conceptual level). Then we explore its implications for identification of optimal training environments. Finally, we discuss how to select and modify models of teaching according to the theory. Four Levels of Integrative Complexity Particular behavior patterns are characteristic of different levels of integrative complexity. Schroeder, Driver, and Streufert identify and describe four levels: Low Complexity The individual regards his or her environment as fixed, prefer hierarchical relationships, is evaluative, and becomes rigid under even moderate stress. Moderate Complexity Some of the consequences of moderately low structural properties include: a movement away from absolutism. Because of the availability of alternate schemata, right and wrong are not fixed as they were in structures with low integration index. A good deal of negativism is also present, because the individual is struggling against his or her old rules and, hence, against those who expose them. Moderately High Complexity Combining and using two alternate systems of interpretation greatly increase the number of alternative resolutions that can generate. The individual can observe the effects of his or her own behavior from several points of view; he or she can simultaneously weigh the effects of taking different views. High Complexity The individual can generate many alternative avenues for dealing with tress and opposition, accepts the responsibility for crating rules in new situations, and can easily build conceptual bridges between himself or herself and problem situations. Optimal Environments The following chart summarizes the four conceptual levels described earlier and indicates in general terms the matching training environment:
Characteristics of Stage I. The individual tends to see things evaluatively-that is, in terms of rights and wrongs--and she or he tends to categorize the world in terms of stereotypes. The individual also tends to reject information that does not fit in with his or her present belief system. II. In this stage, the individual breaks away from the rigid rules and beliefs that characterized his or her former stage. III. At this stage, the individual is beginning to reestablish easy ties with other people and to take on the point of view of the other.
Optimal Environment The optimal environment for this individual is supportive, structured, and fairly controlling, but with an emphasis on self-delineation and negotiation.
IV. The individual is able to maintain a balanced perspective with respect to task orientation and interpersonal relations.
The individual needs to begin to reestablish ties with others, to begin to take on the points of view of others, and to see how they operate in situations. The environment should strengthen the reestablish interpersonal relations, but an emphasis should also be placed on tasks in which the individual as a member of the group has to proceed toward a goal as well as maintain himself or herself with other individuals Although this individual is adaptable, he or she no doubt operates best in an interdependent, information-oriented, complex environment.
Conceptual Development and The Social Models of teaching The teacher has three important tasks in relation to the conceptual system of the child. First, the teacher should learn to differentiate among children according to levels of development. Second, inasmuch as individuals of varying levels of integrative complexity perform differently in different environments, the teacher must create an environment that is matched to the complexity of the student. Third, environmental prescriptions can be made to increase the integrative complexity of the individualthat is, the optimal environments for growth in personality can be identified. For students of low conceptual level, tasks or educational approaches of low complexity, with high sequence and clear establishment of rules, would be indicated. For students of high complexity, a very emergent structure, with higher task complexity and an interdependent social system, would be indicated. For students of low conceptual level, we need to provide structure, be clear in directions, and be supportive but fairly direct. When dealing with students of high conceptual level, we need to be much more interdependent and mutual, placing much more of the burden for learning on the students and helping them develop their own structure. Skill Training For Specific Models of Teaching A considerable portion of our energy when we are teaching is directed toward helping students learn how to learn so that they will become increasingly independent, versatile, and productive. We take the position that the ability to respond productively to any model of teaching Is more a matter of skills on the part of the learner than it is a matter of any kind of immutable characteristic. Our task as teachers is to identify the skills necessary to use the model productively, find out which ones our students posses, and teach them the others. Some of the instruction in model-relevant skills can take place in the course of using a given model. Inquiry training, for example, is built on the premise that students need to learn skills of inquiry. We do not expect a high level of performance the first time students attempt to engage in
the inquiry process. However, those early attempts provide us with the opportunity to learn through practice. Training sessions can be organized for students who have special skill needs. An experiment to verify a hypothesis may be easy for some students and not for others. We can provide time to work more closely with the students whose skill deficits are greatest and ease them through the early stages of training. Adapting The Model Nearly, all learners are unaccustomed to engaging in the problem-solving activities characteristic of group investigation. Thus, when student are first learning to engage in group investigation, we can provide more structure, taking a more active leadership role. As they become more familiar with the model, we simply loosen the structure, turning increasing amounts of control over to the learners. Throughout the process, we continuously adjust the activities to the ability levels of the students as they gradually learn the model. Levels of Structure The first time that students are exposed to partnerships, we make elaborate preparations to acquaint them with the process, its purpose, and its rules, and we lead them step by step through the activities. After several such experiences, students should take an active role in orienting themselves, identifying the goals and rules, and governing their own activities.
