GREGORC STYLE DELINEATOR GROUP 6 SHEREY MAE R. PALMA NINA GABRIELLE F. MABASA DONNA JANE C. CANILLO ARBIE GRACE A. SUMAGAYSAY RUSSELLE JANE A. SORIANO SHARLAND ROSH I. ALEDRON
LEARNING STYLES, THE GREGORC STYLES
The Gregorc Style Delineator is a self-scoring written instrument that elicits responses to a set of 40 specific words.
Scoring the responses will give values for a model with two axes: a "perceptual space duality," concrete vs. abstract , and an "ordering duality," sequential vs. random. The resulting quadrants are the "styles":
Four Learning Style Types: An Overview
Many educators recognize two types of learners:
1. holists (global learners) and
2. serialists (sequential or analytical learners) .
Holists (or random learners as Gregorc class them) are top-down (general to specific) learners who learn best by developing a conceptual framework into which they fit details and specific information.
Serialists (or sequential learners), on the other hand, are bottom-up learners who like to lean individual details and then use a series of steps to gain an overall understanding.
Gregorc adds another dimension to this concept: learners also have a preference for concrete (literal, actual, hands-on) or abstract (theoretical, conceptual, symbolic) , content. This leads to the four learning style combinations or types described below:
Concrete Sequential (BD): Prefer direct, hands-on experience, highly organized, sequential lessons, concrete materials, and step-by-step instructions and learning tasks
computer assisted instruction;
and concrete examples/illustrations. This learning style is very compatible with a behavioral teaching style.
Concrete Random (BC): Use an experimental, trial and error approach, have “flashes of insight” and make “intuitive leaps” and prefer learning tasks such as learning games, independent study projects, discovery learning/constructivist activities, and problem-solving activities. This learning style is most compatible with a cognitive discovery teaching style.
Abstract Sequential (AD): Like written and verbal symbols, often think in “conceptual pictures,” grasp ideas easily through reading and listening, and like learning activities such as reading assignments, lectures about theories and ideas, writing essays, concept maps. This learning style is most compatible with the cognitive expository teaching style.
Abstract Random (AC): Prefer to receive information in an unstructured manner, enjoy group discussion, cooperative learning, and multi-sensory experiences, often connect feelings with concepts and ideas and prefer to learn through simulations, discussion-based activities, confluent/holistic education, and cooperative/collaborative learning. This learning style is most compatible with a humanistic teaching style.
Gregorc, A. F. An Adult's Guide to Style . Maynard, MA: Gabriel Systems, 1982. Sauve, J. (2004). Styles Comparison. http://chat.carleton.ca/~jsauve/channels.html Seidel, L. E., England, E. M. (1999). Gregorc’s cognitive styles: College students’ preferences for teaching methods and testing techniques. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 83 (3) , 859-857.
Gregorc contends that strong correlations exist between the individual's disposition, the media, and teaching strategies
Individuals with clear-cut dispositions toward concrete and sequential reality chose approaches such as ditto sheets, workbooks, computer-assisted instruction, and kits. Individuals with strong abstract and random dispositions opted for television, movies, and group discussion. Individuals with dominant abstract and sequential leanings preferred lectures, audio tapes, and extensive reading assignments.
Those with concrete and random dispositions were drawn to independent study, games, and simulations. Individuals who demonstrated strength in multiple dispositions selected multiple forms of media and classroom approaches. It must be noted, however, that despite strong preferences, most individuals in the sample indicated a desire for a variety of approaches in order to avoid boredom.
With the variety of styles found in his research, Gregorc makes three inferences:
First, we must reassess our individual and collective viewpoints on the nature of learning. The “average child concept” is wrong!
Second, we must consider multiple approaches in our teaching presentations. There are indeed “different strokes for different folks.”
Thirdly, we need to talk with students and verify differences within ourselves.
Gregorc concludes that most successful students in a classroom happen to possess learning preferences that match the instructional method preferences of the teacher.
He also contends that many students who refuse to accommodate to different styles may sometimes be labeled learning disabled
Gregorc and Ward's research showed the following:
The instructional materials and techniques used by teachers have a direct effect on many students...If the approach fit the preferred learning mode, the learner usually reacted favorably.
If, on the other hand, the methods were mismatched, the student “worked hard to learn”, “learned some and missed some material”, or “tuned out.”
Gregorc also writes:
Learning styles emerge from inborn, natural predispositions or proclivities. An obvious implication of this finding is that individuals are capable of using their minor proclivities to varying extents and that development of these proclivities is necessary because of the multivariate demands from our environment.
All teachers should use various teaching methods in their classroom. A teaching style consists of the teacher's personal behaviors and the media used to transmit or receive data from the learner.
Although it is difficult to custom design lessons to benefit all students, it is important not to use only one teaching style in the classroom.
Instruments such as the Gregorc Style Delineator can enable classroom teachers to become more aware of the differences in their students.
Gregorc (1979b) contends that all teaching approaches appear to cause learners some degree of stress. However, students should be required to broaden their learning styles in all areas.
Individuals can use their specific learning style strengths to complement other learners who have different characteristics.
If this is clearly understood and is deemed acceptable, individuals should try to adapt to other learning styles whether they fully understand them or not.
Seidel, L. E., England, E. M. (1999). Gregorc’s cognitive styles: College students’ preferences for teaching methods and testing techniques. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 83 (3) , 859-857.
Seidel and England (1999) investigated the relation between college student's learning styles (as assessed by the Gregorc Style Delineator) and their preferences for common teaching methods and testing techniques..
They found that students who scored higher on the sequential end of the sequential-random continuum, had a stronger preference for structured teaching methods, assigned homework problems and organized lectures, compared to those students who scored on the random end of the continuum.
In contrast, those students who were classified as random learners preferred to learn by participating in group discussion and activities that allowed for independent thought.
This study has important implications for students' success and academic achievement. Lack of motivation may be related to a mismatch between teaching methods and students' learning styles rather than a lack of students' ability.
O’Brien, T. P. (1999). Relationships among selected characteristics of college students and cognitive style preferences. College Student Journal, 25(1) , 492-500.
This study revealed that distinct cognitive style differences exist between males and females. More males than females were found to be abstract sequential and concrete random, and more females than males were identified as abstract random.
Systematic differences in area of study were also demonstrated in the study. Students who were majoring in Rehabilitation and Special Education had higher scores on the abstract random channel compared to Business majors or other various majors in the Arts and Sciences.
This finding is not surprising considering that abstract random learners focus on relationships and emotional attachments to a larger extent than do the other learning style types.