Learning Styles Questionnaire

This questionnaire is designed to find out your preferred learning styles(s). Over the years you have probably
developed learning ‘habits’ that help you benefit more from some experiences than from others. Since you are
probably unaware of this, this questionnaire will help you pinpoint your learning preferences so that you are in a
better position to select learning experiences that suit your style.

There is no time limit to this questionnaire. It will probably take you 10-15 minutes. The accuracy of the results
depends on how honest you can be. There are no right or wrong answers. If you agree more than you disagree
with a statement put a tick by it ( ): If you disagree more than you agree put a cross by it (X). Be sure to mark
each item with either a tick or cross.

1. I have strong beliefs about what is right and wrong, good and bad.
2. I often ‘throw caution to the winds’.
3. I tend to solve problems using a step-by-step approach, avoiding any ‘flights-of-fancy’.
4. I believe that formal procedures and policies cramp people’s style.
5. I have a reputation for having a no-nonsense, ‘call a spade a spade’ style.
6. I often find that actions based on ‘gut feel’ are as sound as those based on careful thought and analysis.
7. I like to do the sort of work where I have time to ‘leave no stone unturned’.
8. I regularly question people about their basic assumptions.
9. What maters most is whether something works in practice
10. I actively seek out new experiences.
11. When I hear about a new idea or approach I immediately start working out how to apply it in practice.
12. I am keen on self discipline such as watching my diet, taking regular exercise, sticking to a fixed routine, etc.
13. I take pride in doing a thorough job.
14. I get on best with logical, analytical people and less well with spontaneous, ‘irrational’ people.
15. I take care over the interpretation of data available to me and avoid jumping to conclusions.
16. I like to reach a decision carefully after weighing up many alternatives.
17. I’m attracted more to novel, unusual ideas than to practical ones.
18. I don’t like ‘loose-ends’ and prefer to fit things into a coherent pattern.
19. I accept and stick to laid down procedures and policies so long as I regard them as an efficient way of getting
the job done.
20. I like to relate my actions to a general principle.
21. In discussions I like to get straight to the point.
22. I tend to have distant, rather formal relationships with people at work.
23. I thrive on the challenge of tackling something new and different.
24. I enjoy fun-loving, spontaneous people.
25. I pay meticulous attention to detail before coming to a conclusion.
26. I find it difficult to come up with wild, off-the-top-of-the-head ideas.
27. I don’t believe in wasting time by ‘beating around the bush’.
28. I am careful not to jump to conclusions too quickly.
29. I prefer to have as many sources of information as possible-the more data to mull over the better.
30. Flippant people who don’t take things seriously enough usually irritate me.
31. I listen to other people’s point of view before putting my own forward.
32. I tend to be open about how I’m feeling.
33. In discussions I enjoy watching the manoeuvrings of the other participants.
34. I prefer to respond to events on a spontaneous, flexible basis rather than plan things out in advance.
35. I tend to be attracted to techniques such as network analysis, flow charts, branching programmes, contingency
planning, etc.
36. It worries me if I have to rush out a piece of work to meet a tight deadline.
37. I tend to judge people’s ideas on their practical merits.
38. Quiet, thoughtful people tend to make me feel uneasy.
39. I often get irritated by people who want to rush headlong into things.
40. It is more important to enjoy the present moment than to think about the past or future.
41. I think that decisions based on a thorough analysis of all the information are sounder than those based on
intuition.
42. I tend to be a perfectionist.
43. In discussions I usually pitch in with lots of off-the-top-of-the-head ideas.
44. In meetings I put forward practical realistic ideas.
45. More often then not, rules are there to be broken.
46. I prefer to stand back from a situation and consider all the perspectives.
47. I can often see inconsistencies and weaknesses in other people’s arguments.
48. On balance I talk more than I listen.
49. I can often see better, more practical ways to get things done.
50. I think written reports should be sort, punchy and to the point.
51. I believe that rational, logical thinking should win the day.
52. I tend to discuss specific things with people rather than engaging in ‘small talk’.
53. I like people who have both feet firmly on the ground.
54. In discussions I get impatient with irrelevancies and ‘red herrings’.
55. If I have a report to write I tend to produce lots of drafts before settling on the final version.
56. I am keen to try things out to see if they work in practice.
57. I am keen to reach answers via a logical approach.
58. I enjoy being the one that talks a lot.
59. In discussions I often find I am the realist, keeping people to the point and avoiding ‘cloud nine’ speculations.
60. I like to ponder many alternatives before making up my mind.
61. In discussions I often find I am the most dispassionate and objective.
62. In discussions I’m more likely to adopt a ‘low profile’ than to take the lead and do most of the talking.
63. I like to be able to relate current actions to a longer-term bigger picture.
64. When things go wrong I am happy to shrug it off and ‘put it down to experience’.
65. I tend to reject wild, off-the-top-off-head ideas as being impractical.
66. It’s best to ‘look before you leap’.
67. On balance I do the listening rather than the talking.
68. I tend to be tough on people who find it difficult to adopt a logical approach.
69. Most times I believe the end justifies the means.
70. I don’t mind hurting people’s feelings so long as the job gets done.
71. I find the formality of having specific objectives and plans stifling.
72. I’m usually the ‘life and soul’ of the party.
73. I do whatever is expedient to get the job done.
74. I quickly get bored with methodical, detailed work.
75. I am keen on exploring the basic assumptions, principles and theories: underpinning things and events.
76. I’m always interested to find out what other people think.
77. I like meetings to be run on methodical lines, sticking to laid down agenda, etc.
78. I steer clear of subjective or ambiguous topics.
79. I enjoy the drama and excitement of a crisis situation.
80. People often find me insensitive to their feelings.

Learning Styles Questionnaire – Scoring

You score one point for each item you ticked (V). There are no points for items you crossed (X). Simply indicate
on the lists below which items were ticked.

2 7 1 5
4 13 3 9
6 15 8 11
10 16 12 19
17 25 14 21
23 28 18 27
24 29 20 35
32 31 22 37
34 33 26 44
38 36 30 49
40 39 42 50
43 41 47 53
45 46 51 54
48 52 57 56
58 55 61 59
64 60 63 65
71 62 68 69
 72 66 75 70
74 67 77 73
79 76 78 80
Totals

Activist Reflector Theorist Pragmatist

Learning Styles Questionnaire

Plot the scores on the arms of the cross below.

Activist
20

15

10

Pragmatist 20 20 Reflector
15 10 5 5 10 15

10

15

20

Theorist

A Score for a style falling on or outside A score for a style falling on or inside the
the outer dotted line indicates high inner dotted line indicates low preference
preference for that learning style for that learning style
Understanding Your Learning Styles Questionnaire Result

We assume that you have already completed the questionnaire and scored it. You therefore have spur scores,
ranging from nought to twenty, for Activist, Reflector, Theorist and Pragmatist. The question is: what do these
four scores tell you?

Since the maximum score for each style is twenty, at first sight you might conclude that the highest of your four
scores indicates your predominant learning style. This, however, is not necessarily so. Before drawing a
conclusion, you need to view your scores in relation to those obtained by other people who have completed the
questionnaire. Norms, as they are called, have been calculated for various groups of people and you need to decide
with which group to compare your scores. If in doubt use the general norms below which are based on the scores
obtained by well over a thousand people.

The norms are calculated on the scores obtained by

A. The highest scoring 10% of people.
B. The next 20% of people.
C. The middle 40% of people.
D. The next 20% of people.
E. The lowest scoring 100% of people.
Middle
The general norms are as follows:- scoring
40%

Next 20%
Next 20%

Highest
Lowest
scoring
scoring
10%
10%

Very Strong Strong Moderate Low Very Low

Preference Preference Preference Preference Preference
Activist 13-20 11-12 7-10(mean 9.3) 4-6 0-3
Reflector 18-20 15-17 12-14(mean 13.6) 9-11 0-8
Theorist 16-20 14-15 11-13(mean 12.5) 8-10 0-7
Pragmatist 17-20 15-16 12-14(mean 13.7) 9-11 0-8

To illustrate how use norms to interpret your LSQ result let us suppose your scores are Activist 11, Reflector 11,
Theorist 11 and Pragmatist 11. (We have chosen these scores deliberately because they admirably demonstrate the
importance of using norms to reach an interpretation). The norms give the identical raw scores of 11 different
weighing as follows: -
A score of 11 for Activist falls in the B range indicating a strong preference for this style.
A score of 11 for Reflector falls in the D range indication a low preference for this style.
A score of 11 for Theorist falls in the C range indicating a moderate preference.
A score of 11 for Pragmatist falls in the D range indicating a low preference.
Learning Styles-General Descriptions

Activists
Activists involve themselves fully and without bias in new experiences. They enjoy the here and now and are
happy to be dominated by immediate experiences. They are open-minded, not sceptical, and this tends to make
them enthusiastic about anything new. Their philosophy is: ‘I’ll try anything once.’ They dash in where angels
fear to tread. They tend to throw caution to the wind. Their days are filled with activity. They revel in short term
crisis fir fighting. They tackle problems by brainstorming. As soon as the excitement from one activity has died
down they are busy looking for the next. They tend to thrive on the challenge of new experiences but are bored
with implementation and longer term consolidation. They are gregarious people constantly involving themselves
with others but, in doing so, they hog the limelight. They are the life and soul of the party and seek to centre all
activities around themselves.

Reflectors
Reflectors like to stand back to ponder experiences and observe them from many different perspectives. They
collect data, both first hand and from others, and prefer to chew it over thoroughly before coming to any
conclusion. The thorough collection and analysis of data about experiences and events is what counts so they tend
to postpone reaching definitive conclusions for as long as possible. Their philosophy is to be cautious, to leave no
stone unturned. ‘Look before you leap’; ‘Sleep on it’. They are thoughtful people who like to consider all possible
angles and implications before making a move. They prefer to take a back seat in meetings and discussions. They
enjoy observing other people in action. They listen to others and get the drift of the discussion before making their
own points. They tend to adopt a low profile and have a slightly distant, tolerant, unruffled air about them. When
they act it as part of a wide picture which includes the past as well as the present and others’ observations as well
as their own.

Theorists
Theorists adapt and integrate observations into complex but logically sound theories. They think problems through
in a vertical, step by step logical way. They assimilate disparate facts into coherent theories. They tend to be
perfectionists who won’t rest easy until things are tidy and fit into their rational scheme. They like to analyse and
synthesise. They are keen on basis assumptions, principles, theories models and systems thinking. Their
philosophy prizes rationality and logic. ‘If it’s logical it’s good’. Questions they frequently ask are: ‘Does it make
sense?’ ‘How does this fit with that?’ ‘What are the basic assumptions?’ They tend to be detached, analytical and
dedicated to rational objectivity rather than anything subjective or ambiguous. Their approach to problems is
consistently logical. This is their ‘mental set’ and they rigidly reject anything that doesn’t fit with it. They prefer
to maximise certainty and feel uncomfortable with subjective judgements, lateral thinking and anything flippant.

Pragmatists
Pragmatists are keen on trying out ideas, theories and techniques to see if they work in practice. They positively
search out new ideas and take the first opportunity to experiment with applications. They are the sort of people
who return from management courses brimming with new ideas that they want to try out in practice. They like to
get on with things and act quickly and confidently on ideas that attract them. They don’t like ‘beating around the
bush’ and tend to be impatient with ruminating and open-ended discussions. They are essentially practical, down
to earth people who like making practical decisions and solving problems. They respond to problems and
opportunities ‘as a challenge’. Their philosophy is: ‘There is always a better way’ and ‘If it works it’s good’.
Learning Styles - Relative strengths and Weaknesses

Activist
Strengths: Weaknesses:

 Flexible and open minded  Tendency to take the immediately obvious action without
 Happy to have a go thinking
 Happy to be exposed to new situations  Often take unnecessary risks
 Optimistic about anything new and therefore unlikely to  Tendency to do too much themselves and hog the
resist change limelight
 Rush into action without sufficient preparation
 Get bored with implementation/consolidation

Key Questions For Activists To Strengthen The ‘Activist’ Style

 Shall I learn something new. i.e. that I didn’t
know/couldn’t do before?
 Will there be a wide variety of different activities? (I
don’t want to sit and listen for more than an hour at a
stretch!)
 Will it be O.K. to have a go/let my hair down/make
mistakes/have fun?
 Shall I encounter some tough problems and challenges?
 Will there be other like-minded people to mix with?
 Do something new, something that you’ve never done
before, at least once each week.
 Force yourself into the limelight/situations of action.
 Practice thinking aloud and on your feet.
 Deliberately fragment your day by chopping and
changing activities each half hour. Make the switch as
diverse as possible.

Reflector
Strengths: Weaknesses:

 Careful  Tendency to hold back from direct participation

 Thorough and methodical  Slow to make up their minds and reach a decision
 Thoughtful  Tendency to be too cautious and not take enough risks
 Good at listening to others and assimilating information  Not assertive-they aren’t particularly forthcoming and
 Rarely jump to conclusions have no ‘small talk’

Key Questions For Reflectors To Strengthen The ‘Reflector’ Style

 Shall I be given adequate time to consider, assimilate
and prepare?
 Will there be opportunities/facilities to assemble
relevant information?
 Will there be opportunities to listen to other people’s
points of view-preferably a wide cross section of people
with a variety of views?
 Shall I be under pressure to be slapdash or to
extemporise?
 Practice observing, especially at meetings where there
are agenda items hat do not directly involve you. Study
people’s behaviour. Who interrupts whom, what triggers
disagreements, etc.
 Keep a diary and each evening write an account of what
happened during the day.
 Practice reviewing after a meeting or event of some
kind.
Learning Styles - Relative strengths and Weaknesses
Theorist
Strengths:
 Logical ‘vertical’ thinkers
 Rational and objective
 Good at asking probing questions
 Disciplined approach
Key Questions For Theorists
 Will there be lots of opportunities to question?
 Do the objectives and programme of events indicate a
clear structure and purpose?
 Shall I encounter complex ideas and concepts that are
likely to stretch me?
 Are the approaches to be used and concepts to be
explored ‘respected’, i.e. sound and valid?
Pragmatist
Strengths:
 Keen to test things out in practice
 Practical, down to earth, realistic
 Businesslike-gets straight to the point
 Technique oriented
Key Questions For Pragmatists
 Will there be ample opportunities to practice and
experiment?
 Will there be lots of practical tips and techniques?
 Shall we be addressing real problems and will it result in
action plans to tackle some of my current problems?
 Shall we be exposed to experts who know how to/can do
it themselves?
Weaknesses:
 Restricted in lateral thinking
 Low tolerance for uncertainty, disorder and ambiguity
 Intolerant of anything, subjective or intuitive
 Full of ‘shoulds, oughts and musts’
To Strengthen The ‘Theorist’ Style
 Practice spotting inconsistencies/weaknesses in other
people’s arguments.
 Take a complex situation and analyse it to pinpoint why it
developed the way it did.
 Collect other people’s theories, explanations about events
–anything provided it is a topic with many different, and
preferably contradictory, theories. Try to understand the
underlying assumptions each theory is based upon and see
if you can group similar things together.
 Practice structuring situations so that they are orderly.
Weaknesses:
 Tendency to reject anything without an obvious
application
 Not very interested in theory or basic principles
 Tendency to seize on the first expedient solution to a
problem
 Impatient with waffle
 On balance, task oriented not people oriented
To Strengthen The ‘Pragmatist’ Style
 Collect techniques, i.e. practical ways of doing things.
The techniques can be about anything potentially useful
to you.
 In meetings and discussions of any kind, concentrate on
producing action plans. Make it a rule never to emerge
from a meeting or discussion without a list of actions
either for yourself, or for others, or both.
 Make opportunities to experiment with some of your
new found techniques. Try them out in practice.
 Study techniques that other people use and then model
yourself on them.
Learning Effectiveness though learning styles
From an article featured in Training and Development April 1983
By Alan Mumford- Executive Resources Adviser Chloride Group PLC
THE CONTENT
There are a number of factors which contribute to the effectiveness for a particular individual of a learning
experience. While in this article I will highlight the particular contribution of an individual’s learning style, I
emphasise immediately that this is one contribution. I do not want to add to previous attempts to justify a particular
approach as uniquely the cause of effective learning. Certainly learning depends on a variety of factors, which
include:
 Effective and accurate analysis of individual needs
 Commitment by the individual to those needs
 Valid design of learning methods.
However the thrust of this article is to argue that a major factor remains when all these have been satisfied, namely
the propensity of an individual to learn or not to learn from a particular approach. That aspect has been largely
unstudied and not acted upon; our intention is to provide an answer to the question:
“Given the same needs and the same learning experience, why does smith learn while Jones doesn’t”.
In the interests of brevity I will not cover here the origins of the approach I have developed in association with Peter
Honey, nor I spell out the differences from David Kolb’s approach. Those who want this background will find it ain
our most recent publication (1). My aim in this article is to outline the main features of our approach, and
particularly to show how it ach be used by training and development specialists. I have limited myself here to
suggestions about how such people can use it; in the Manual we demonstrate how the approach can be used directly
by a boss in developing subordinates, or by an individual for development himself.
THE NATURE OF LEARNING STYLES
We have found that for the purpose of analysis and discussion, the four basic styles which we defined five years
ago, and have experimented with since, produce a means of helping some people avoid unrewarding learning
experiences. They also help designers of learning experiences offer more relevant experiences.
The four basic styles, in summary, are:
ACTIVIST. Enjoy the here and now, dominated by immediate experiences, tend to revel in the short-term
crisis, fire-fighting. Tend to thrive on the challenge of new experiences, but are relatively bored with
implementation and longer-term consolidation. They are the life and soul of the managerial party.
REFLECTORS like to stand back and ponder on experiences and observe them form different perspectives.
They collect data and analyse it before coming to any conclusions. They like to consider all possible angles
and implications before making a move so they tend to be cautious. They actually enjoy observing other
people in action and often take a back seat at meetings.
THEORISTS Are keen on basic assumptions, principles, theories, models and systems thinking. They prize
rationality and logic. They tend to be detached, analytical, and are unhappy with subjective or ambiguous
experiences. They like to assemble disparate facts into coherent theories. They like to make things tidy and fit
them into rational schemes.
PRAGMATISTS Positively search out new ideas and take the first opportunity to experiment with
applications. The sort of people who return from management courses brimming with new ideas that they
want to try out in practice. They respond to problems and opportunities ‘as a challenge’ (the Activists
probably would not recognise them as problems and opportunities).

It is certainly our belief that a recognition of the existence of different learning styles, and a willingness to help
identify the weighting of these by individuals is in itself a useful step. Both selection for learning experience and
design would be assisted by this recognition. However, we have gone beyond this to the design of a Learning Styles
Questionnaire which can be used to create a more objective and factual basis for action than can be produced
simply by discussing the styles.
The technical issues on the construction and validity of LQS are not covered here, nor will I go far into the
fascinating area of norms. So far, our published norms are based on over 1300 managers, and we are able to give
insights into issues such as the extent to which not only individual results differ, as they do in quite dramatic ways,
but also to the extent to which results for sales people differ from finance and trainers differ from research people. I
will offer the perhaps tantalising comment that the results for trainers were a surprise to us.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCES IN LEARNING STYLES

If learning styles are indeed different, and if we accept that a changing of learning styles would not be a high
priority management activity in most organisations, some important considerations emerge.
It is likely that many managers are placed in learning situations from which they are currently incapable of learning.
It might be right to send people who come from the Theorist or Reflector categories on significant post-experience
management courses. It is possible too that a Pragmatist would benefit; it seems unlikely that an Activist would.
Perhaps less obviously, we can learn something about the kind of manager who could benefit from the new sacred
cow of management Development, Acting Learning. If we look at a statement made by Reg Revans (2) about the
processes involved in Action Learning, we see that he says “ to help each manager observe more keenly his present
condition, by obliging him to explain it to his colleagues, to evaluate his proposed course of action more
realistically, by obliging him to list for them his goals, the obstructions that bar those goals, the means by which he
intends to remove those obstruction” Admirable as these activities may be, are they not likely to match the style of
the Pragmatist and the Reflector rather than the Activist or Theorist? If you are running a role play, how would you
use an Activist, and a Reflector?
If we do not accept the proposition that learning style has to be accepted as a given phenomenon, incapable of
change, we have to say something about how far we think basic style is subject to change and what the processes of
change might be.

THE MOTIVATION TO CHANGE

Peter Honey and I started down this route as part of our attempt to give more effective help to the people we were
trying to develop. After we had used and refined the approach we decided to make the risk of sharing our
discoveries with others. I say take the risk, not because we were tempted to hug the innovation to ourselves, but
because we might be disappointed in the reaction to it. We recognised that we were suggesting a change in routines
about training decisions and perhaps most hurtfully, we are saying that some training programmes fail through
ignorance of the real needs of the customer. It is convenient to provide the same product for everyone- it is cheaper
and consumes relatively less resources. It is really the best we can offer?

REFERENCES
1. Peter Honey and Alan Mumford. The Manual of Learning Styles 1982 (available from 10 Linden
Avenue, Maidenhead, Berks SL6 6(HB). ISBN 0 950 8444 03. 83 pages
2. R W Revans in Management Self Development, edited by T Boydell and M Pedler. Gower 1981.
3. A Mumford Management Development – with or without the boss. Personnel Management June
1975.
Activists:
Activists like to be involved in new experiences. They are open minded and enthusiastic about
new ideas but get bored with implementation. They enjoy doing things and tend to act first and
consider the implications afterwards. They like working with others but tend to hog the
limelight.

Activists learn best when:

 involved in new experiences, problems and opportunities

 working with others in business games, team tasks, role-playing
 being thrown in the deep end with a difficult task
 chairing meetings, leading discussions

Activists learn less when:

 listening to lectures or long explanations
 reading, writing or thinking on their own
 absorbing and understanding data
 following precise instruction to the letter

top

Reflectors
Reflectors like to stand back and look at a situation from different perspectives. They like to
collect data and think about it carefully before coming to any conclusions. They enjoy observing
others and will listen to their views before offering their own.

Reflectors learn best when:

 observing individuals or groups at work

 they have the opportunity to review what has happened and think about what they have
learned
 producing analyses and reports doing tasks without tight deadlines

Reflectors learn less when:

 acting as leader or role-playing in front of others
 doing things with no time to prepare
 being thrown in at the deep end
 being rushed or worried by deadlines

top

Theorists:
Theorists adapt and integrate observations into complex and logically sound theories. They think
problems through in a step by step way. They tend to be perfectionists who like to fit things into
a rational scheme. They tend to be detached and analytical rather than subjective or emotive in
their thinking.

Theorists learn best when:

 they are put in complex situations where they have to use their skills and knowledge
 they are in structured situations with clear purpose
  they are offered interesting ideas or concepts even though they are not immediately
relevant
 they have the chance to question and probe ideas behind things

Theorists learn less when:

 they have to participate in situations which emphasise emotion and feelings
 the activity is unstructured or briefing is poor
 they have to do things without knowing the principles or concepts involved
 they feel they're out of tune with the other participants e.g. with people of very different
learning styles

top

Pragmatists
Pragmatists are keen to try things out. They want concepts that can be applied to their job. They
tend to be impatient with lengthy discussions and are practical and down to earth.

Pragmatists learn best when:

 there is an obvious link between the topic and job

 they have the chance to try out techniques with feedback e.g. role-playing
 they are shown techniques with obvious advantages e.g. saving time
 they are shown a model they can copy e.g. a film or a respected boss

Pragmatists learn less when:

 there is no obvious or immediate benefit that they can recognise
 there is no practice or guidelines on how to do it
 there is no apparent pay back to the learning e.g. shorter meetings
 the event or learning is 'all theory'

Most of us has elements of more than one learning style.Think about your strongest style and
your weakest style to identify how you learn.

This excerpt has been taken from the Honey and Mumford Learning Styles Questionnaire. A full
online version of this questionnaire is available from www.peterhoney.com on a pay-as-you-go
basis for £10. Your results include a full report with suggestions about how to become a more
effective learner.

http://www.campaign-for-learning.org.uk/aboutyourlearning/whatlearning.htm#ref