RECOGNIZING CONATIVE TALENTS TO ENHANCE LEARNING
ELIZABETH BERRY, PH.D. PROFESSOR, EMERITUS,
CALIFORNIASTATEUNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE
PAPER PRESENTED
AT
THE 14TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON LEARNING
UNIVERSITY OF WITWATERSRAND, JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA
JUNE 26TH - 29TH, 2007
INTRODUCTION
As educators, we understand the importance of developing curriculum and learning experiences that maximize students’ability to achieve success. In designing curriculum, we take into account the cognitive abilities of the learners and well asaffective factors. Although the cognitive and affective dimensions of the mind are essential to creative problem solving and learning and have been the primary focusof research,a third significant dimension, the conative dimension, has been more or less ignored. According to researchers,Reitan and Wolfson, “Conation, which has been a neglected dimension of behavior in neuropsychological assessment, may be the missing link between cognitive ability and prediction of performance capabilities in everyday life. (Reitan, Ralph M. and Debora Wolfson, Conation a Neglected Aspect of Neuropsychological Functioning; Archives of ClinicalNeuropsychological, Volume 15, Issue 5, July, 2000, pages 443-453) An understanding of conation, can enhance and enrich students’ educational experiences by helpingan instructor design lessons and assignments which capitalize on students’ natural talents and promote success. This paper will explain conation and discuss how the use of the Kolbe A Index™ which measures conation can be used in creating effective learning environments
WHAT IS CONATION?
Shurlists conation as one of the 1000 most obscure words in the English language. The word, conation, is derived from the Latin verb, “conari,” to try. It has to do with purposeful mode of striving. Abraham Maslow recognized the importance of understandingconation, i.e. inborn human volition, and contended that every person should be helped to discover one’s own natural bent, one’s own innate individuality. (Maslow, A. 1954, Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper) Conation has to do with our volition, the way we strive, the effort we put into tasks, our natural tendency to do things. The conative is your will – how you act, your talents; it is what you will or will not do naturally. It involves your striving instincts.
Long ago Plato and Aristotle identified the three distinct parts of the mind; they spoke of the three faculties through which we think, feel and act.Psychologists have developed elaborate studies of the cognitive (how we come to know and understand) and the affective (the emotional interpretation of perceptions, information, and knowledge), but little has been done to examine the conative (the personal, intentional, deliberate, goal oriented aspect of behavior). Rietan and Wolfson suggest“One reason that the study of conation has lagged behind the study of cognition, emotion, and behavior, is that it is intertwined with the study of these other domains and often difficult to separate” (Snow, 1989). Quoting from Gollwitzer, 1990and Snow and Swanson, 1992), Rietan and Wolfsonstate, “conation has cognitive, and affective, as well as volitional components.” Since early twentieth century there has been some confusion about the definition of conation. “But from the earliest discussion of conation, most thoughtful scholars have maintained that conation is not a description of wanting, but a label for the characteristic way in which people go about fulfilling their desires. (Karen Gerdes, “Conation: The Missing Link in the Strengths Perspective” to be published in Social Work Journal).
THE KOLBE SYSTEM: IDENTIFYING CONATIVE TALENTS
Several educational psychologists have studied affective and conative aspects of learning but have never designed an instrumentthat can be used to identify the conative aspect of the mind (Snow and Jackson, Kanfer). Fora number of decades, theorist, author and published, Kathy Kolbe has designed and evaluated tools that help a business leaders maximize performance. She has developed a system that identifies an individual’s natural way of doing things. Theway to determine one’s conative talents is by the use of the Kolbe system.
The Kolbe System encompasses several assessment instruments (i.e. indexes) used to determine a person’s unique combination of creative instincts which can determine how a person will perform successfully. The foundation of the Kolbe systems is the Kolbe A Index™, a paper and pencil instrument that measures a person’s instinctive method of operation(MO). It identifies one’s natural way of striving and how one will be most successful. It quantifies a person’s inherent talent or natural way of doing things and predicts what a person will or will not do, given the freedom to act. “The Kolbe A ™ has undergone extensive statistical analysisof more than 24,000 individual results. The analysis has shown that the index is highly reliable in terms of repeated testing. That is, there was no significant difference inindividual scores when the test was repeated over both shortand long periods of time. Furthermore, the Kolbe instrument was shown to be unbiased with regard to age, gender, race or national origin. (Note – Kolbe Statistical Handbook, Kolbe Corp Phoenix, 2003; Lingard, Timmerman, and Berry, 2005; Gerdes unpublished paper)
With the Kolbe A™, individuals are asked to choose one of four answers reflecting how they would be most and least likely to respond to 36 problem solving scenarios. For each mode, scores are given in a ten-interval scale which reveals the person’s natural tendencies to initiate action, respond to needs, or prevent problems in that mode. Four modes or striving instincts – Fact Finder, Follow Thru, Quick Start, and Implementor are identified. For example, the Fact Finder probes, asks questions, weighs pros and cons, and uses experience. This person collects data and established priories before making a decision. TheFollow Thru seeks structure, makes schedules and time lines. This person needs a sense of order and plans ahead. The person who initiates inQuick Start innovates, takes risks, improvises and plays hunches. When asked to give a presentation, the Quick Start comfortably ad libs. The Implementor uses space and materials, builds, constructs, and uses hands–on equipment with ease. This person creates handcrafted models and insists on quality materials. When we are required to do so, we all operate in each of the four modes. However, when we are able to use our own natural instincts and choose to act in our dominant mode, we are the most productive and we thrive when we are working “with our grain.” (Berry, Journal of Management Inquiry)
The four striving instincts are expressed through three possible operating zones, indicating how we will make use of our striving instincts. The initiation zone (7-10), is how you will act; the response/accommodating zone (4-6) is how you are willing to act; and the prevention/resistance zone (1-3) is how you won’t act. These zones form a spectrum of behaviors for each instinct that can be noted in four digits. (See appendix from Kolbe, Pure Instinct, p. 15) In Kolbe’s formulation, it is the combination of the striving instinct, reason, and targeted goals that result in different levels of commitment and action.
HOW CAN UNDERSTANADING CONATIVE TALENTS ENHANCE LEARNING?
Bagozzi(1992), quoted in Reitan and Wolfson, proposes that conation is necessary to explain how knowledge and emotion are translated intobehavior in human beings. He suggests one reason researchers in the areas of cognition and attitudes have not demonstrated a strong ability to predict behavior is because the construct of conation has been omitted. “Pedagogical theories discuss the importance of understanding students’ cognitive abilities, andstress the significance of motivation in students’ achievement. A‘missing link,’ so to speak is the conative dimension in the learning process.”The Kolbe A Index™ provides a means to identify students’ natural ways of approaching tasks and creative problem solving and provides the“missing link.” Using the results of the Kolbe A Index™, a teacher can design lessons and assignments which capitalize on students’ natural talents and promote success.
Several studies at California State University, Northridge have focused on effective pedagogy for Software Engineering Studentsincorporating the Kolbe A Index™ (Lingard and Berry; Berry and Lingard; Lingard, Timmerman and Berry). These studies have examined various approaches to teaching communication and teamwork skills and demonstrated the relevance of conation. In one study, (Lingard and Berry, 2002), Students were given the Kolbe A Index™ and based on their results were assigned to teams. These teams’ synergy differed. “Team synergy was calculated based on the “conative” assessments of all team members using the Kolbe A Index™ and project success was compared to team synergy. . . . According to Kolbe, ideal group synergy results when the sum of members’ instinctive energy is distributed so that25percent is initiating, 50 percent is respondingand 25 percent is preventing. . . . [The results suggest] that there may be a significant correlation between group synergy and project performance.” Additionally, the study showed that overall satisfaction with group projects was higher by those who workedin more synergistic groups.
There is ample anecdotal evidence of the value for students and instructors in taking the Kolbe A Index™. For a number of years,hundreds ofstudent orientation leaders from across the CalStateUniversity, NorthridgeCampus have taken the Kolbe A Index™. Students have completed a questionnaire regarding their experience as leaders and team members, indicating the value of knowing their ownparticular way of achieving as well as understanding stress factors when asked to work against their grain. Overwhelmingly positive responses have been recorded. Students report increased ability to communicate effectively in groups and to recognize the value of their own and others’ ways of doing things.
Following are examples gleanedfrom Communication Instructors who have taken the Kolbe A Index™ and have reflected on how it could enhance their teaching and their students’ learning:
My results of the Kolbe Index™ were not surprising to me at all. They indicated that I was a Follow Thru and the more I read and hear about Follow Thrus, the more I feel secure that my conative style of problem solving is exactly that. By knowing about conation, including my own conation, I think that my teaching methods will consist of ways to involve learning in a variety of ways. I know that I am very organized and this is helpful in planning my lectures and assignments. I require a written outline for speeches and perhaps that is not the best way for students to prepare for public speaking. I should allow studentswho may excel in Quick Start mode to achieve in impromptu speaking, while those who are Fact Finder will be rewarded for research projects. Implementors should be encouraged to construct visual aids and demonstrate processes in their speeches. By allowing students to excel using their natural instincts, I am confident this will also reduce speech anxiety.
According to my Kolbe A Index™results, I am a Quick Start. My first thought? “No, I’m not!” Then as I thought about it more, I realized that I really am a Quick Start. I just never thought of myself as someone who just dives right in, collecting information needed as I went along. I am not a big data collector. In fact, I despise having to get information, making sure I have enough resources cited in my paper. I’m the person who tends to write the paper and then add the quotes and citations where I think they belong. In my previous job, my boss was frequently saying to me, “I’m not done yet” whenever she was giving me an assignment because I was on my way out the door ready to jump into the project. However, just as quickly as I get excited about projects, I just as quickly get bored with them. As a teacher, I must work to structure lessons and assignments that recognize the needs of the students who achieve best through the Fact Finder, Follow Thru and Implementor modes. I would probably work with colleagues in the same field to get a research team together or work with complementary types of MO’s in order to make sure my lessons include a variety of methods. Giving myself short deadlines will help me accomplish my goals.
One example of a lesson I use that could employall the different levels of conation is my visual aid lecture and activity. I begin the class period before by asking students to read the chapter on visual aids and look at the local billboards in their school, work or home community to discern if the billboards are good visual aids. This gives the Fact Finders the background for understanding the information and those that have Follow Thru tendencies to systematically organize the billboards they have seen into the “good, decent or unintelligible” category. I open class with discussion of what they observed that defied or supported the concepts of the reading. As we organize ourobservations, we write on the board the pros and cons of the billboards. They we distill down the concepts of the chapter by taking students generated summaries. Then I place students into groups and assign them a topic, How to . . . ; History of Friday the 13th, etc. Together the group devises the main points of the speech. This is particularly good for Quick Starts who thrive when brainstorming. Next I hand out a single poster board to each group and a set of markers and I have the groups make a visual aid for their speech following the recommendations for a good visual aid from the book and class generated guidelines. This appeals to both the Quick Start and Implementor MO’s. Then as a class we watch as each group presents their visuals and debrief about what we learned and invariably the Fact Finders and Follow Thru people end up deciding they learned the details of preparing and organizing a visual aid.
(From a student) The Kolbe A Index™ was very helpful in identifying my conative skills. After taking the index, I started thinking about different aspects of my life that apply to the talents that were identified. I came up asinsistent in both Fact Finder and Quick Start. I started noticing how this played out in my daily assignments. For example, most of my papers are done at the last minute, but not without being well researched. I have identified the best search engines, in order to go straight to those sites and find the research I need for a quick paper. I am not insistent Follow Thru but I do accommodate in that mode. I notice this aspect of my talents when I rarely proofread my papers. I do a stellar job at research and preparation, but unless it is for a graduate application or something of the like, I don’t follow through with perfecting my assignments.
HOW ARE CONATIVE TALENTS DIFFERENT FROM LEARNING STYLES?
“A learning style is the way an individual perceives, organizes, processes and remembers information. Some people are flexible in how they learn. Others remain more limited and have a preferred learning style or a preferred mode of processing information” (Training and Development; Steven Beebe, Timothy Mottet, K. David Roach. Pearson, 2004). Felder and Brent (“Understanding Student Differences,” Richard M. Felder and Rebecca Brent, Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 57-72, 2005) provide an excellent summary of various learning style indexes. These indexes are based on a number of factors, but primarily report learning style preferences. No mention is made of the conative part of the mind. The Kolbe A Index™ suggests that human beings have a conative style of putting thought into action or interacting with the environment. Other tests identify general approaches to thinking, (e.g. I.Q. tests) feeling or values (e.g. personality tests). “In Kolbe’s formulation it is the combination of the striving instinct, reason, and targeted goals the results in different levels of commitment and action.” (Reitan and Deborah Wolfson)
Conative talents are different from but similar to learning style preferences. One might prefer(learning style) to learn math a certain way based on one’s natural instinct, i.e. conation. For example, if a student is learning a theory he or she might want, i.e. prefer to learn through concreteexperiences and have difficulty with abstractions. A teacher might gear a lesson to that learning style but also would be well advised to understand the student’s conative makeup. Thus, is isn’t that understanding conation is better than understanding learning styles,but both are important to help students learn and until recently, the concept of conation has been neglected.
CONCLUSION
Although it may not be possible for a teacher to know students’ MO, it can be assumed that in any class, each of the students will achieve most effectively if they are allowed to operate using their conative talents. It is also important for teachers to be aware of their own tendencies to solve problems. In other words, teachers who thrive in a particular mode should be aware that students may approach assignments in an entirely different way. Therefore, in designing curriculum and assignments, teachers should consider how to incorporate lessons that include Fact Finder, Follow Thru, Quick Start and Implementor activities.
With our ever increasingly diverse student populations, it is incumbent on us as educators to explore any facet of learning that will help students succeed. Traditional methods often lack attention to those natural approaches to problem solvingthat enhance creativity and success. Teaching and learning are both creative processes that can gain from understanding the conative part of the mind.