A British company called Lumina Learning develops psychometric instruments which are used by coaches and trainers. Businesses use them for personal and organizational change and long-term improvement. The instruments are about realizing how we are and function as individuals and how we are different from other people and they from us. Their unique approach is to look at the opposite ends of each scale independently. Yes, many of us are both introverts and extroverts in varying degrees and it shows there.
They are working on improving their products and would like to get as many different people as possible to complete the development versions of two of their instruments. They simply want to collect a large reference data.
Anybody that completes the first questionnaire can get a short personality portrait emailed to them. Anybody that completes the second questionnaire can get a short emotional intelligence report. Both are free.
Each questionnaire takes 20-25 mins. If it takes you longer, you think too much There are no good or bad answers. Answering the way you feel and behave, not the way you are expected to be or behave, will produce more realistic results. I haven't seen reports from the second questionnaire but the portrait produced by the first one is different for each person, with your unique colorful mandala.
This is a short time only deal. I believe after 7-10 days these links will go away, depending how quickly they reach their goal.
Disclosure: although I work with a partner of that company and thus benefit from their research indirectly on the long term, I do not gain anything directly when you fill out these questionnaires.
this sounds most interesting in terms of personal evaluation and how that might impact in the workplace for example. I thought there was something of this nature in Moodle already, but I would need to do my footwork to check for sure. Anyway, I hope you do not mind but I wish to pick up on a couple points, which are causing me to be hesitant to get involved. In the same breath, I hope this is helpful feedback.
1. Human metrics tests appear to pervade the net at the moment, for example I completed a test just recently Briggs Myers, but that was designed with a long and short version, (took the short evaluation here-over in 5 minutes with instant feedback). My point is that the two surveys in your post have a total of 452 questions! Might a shorter version of each be better.
2. The Briggs Myers is informed by psychological theories and the rationale is explicitly set out in terms of links for the workplace, what type of personality type one might be and how this can be recognised for development etc.
3. Ethics: It does remain unclear about issues surrounding data storage, e.g. being in the stats pool sounds anonymous...yet both surveys have required fields before one is able to make progress through the questions. So, name (can be made up) age (can be made up) country (can be made up) but email is also required (also can be made up-this is a lot of work to create a zombie profile and then answer 400 odd questions...I mean who would!), but if respondents do not make up these details- then that is personal data that can present a trackable profile....where is that data to be stored/shared and so on.......
I do hope, as I say, that this helpful.
If I recall correctly, there was a Spanish group that implemented some personality measurement into Moodle, but I do not recall the details. I think it dealt only with learning styles, though. In Myers-Briggs terms, those are more or less the two middle scales only. There is also a Questionnaire Personality add-on; however, it is not an instrument but a tool.
There are quite a few different instruments on the market with varying scope and science behind them. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is definitely one of the major players if not the largest. It is based on the works of Jung (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator). The instruments from Lumina Learning are based on the Big Five Factor Model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Factor_Model) which is newer and has lots of science behind it. This is not a place to really discuss the merits of each. I mentioned the name of the company in case somebody wants to look them up.
This stuff is not hard science, of course. It does help to more clearly realize how we are and function as individuals and how we are different from other people and they from us. Just the conscious awareness of the differences is important in my mind. I have done Myers-Briggs myself long time ago. In the days when I was involved in teaching chemistry, yes, I am not a psychologist, we used it, and I must add successfully, to help us figure out and address serious teaching issues in a large course.
Regarding the number of questions: as I mentioned, the questionnaires that I provided links to are research versions. As such, they are longer than the normal instruments. Among others, alternative versions of questions are tested to see which ones correlate best with expected outcomes. This is why many people answering are needed. The portraits you get as a thank-you are normally sold for real money (full portrait is over 200 euro). Of course, you can do only one of the questionnaires if you don't want to invest that much time.
The reason for asking the personal data is that, as you imply yourself, the likelihood of somebody answering questions and not wanting the portraits is tiny small. That data is needed to produce your personal portraits. None of the personal data is going into that stats pool. It is useless there anyway. I agree, though, that the way these questionnaires are constructed is not optimal.
Name you can made up but please do not make up gender, country, age. That will affect the data. I am not sure what to do about email since without it, they can't send you the portrait. A throw-away mailbox is, of course, an option. The participation is totally voluntary, so if you have concerns, just don't do it. I simply thought that some people in this community may be interested to invest some time to get their portrait without having to pay for it. Moodle is a tool to facilitate learning. Those portraits are tools for personal development, so to speak.
lovely to have this dialogue. Thanks for that.
Sure, I will try to fit this in and repsond.Hope others do too.
I realise the value of the work now that you have given me more information.
From what I understand of personality profile tools (which isn't much), the psychologists that I've read and spoken to claim that the surveys, interviews, etc. (mostly Likert-scale tests) are only as good as the person/psychologist/counsellor/researcher taking the profile. It's up to the interviewer to engage with the interviewee and interpret their responses to the questions, probing further wherever necessary (I'm not including Rorschach tests, interpreting ambiguous images and the like, which are another kettle of fish entirely).
I'm not sure how reliable or effective self-disclosure surveys would be. From what I understand, they have a chequered history, along with focus groups, in PR and marketing practice. The strength of interviews conducted by experienced professionals is that they can directly observe interviewees emotional as well as linguistic responses. On the other hand, they're very easy to administer and cheap to process and analyse.
Could you imagine being psychoanalysed by a computer?:
There are more criticisms of self-reporting and other kinds of personality tests here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_test#Criticism_and_controversy
Stephen Pinker, in his book "The Blank Slate" (2002), is highly critical of the vast majority (he claims about 90%) of research that involves psychological profiling. While it can be very helpful and useful and can tell us a great deal, there are a lot of caveats that experienced researchers frequently trip up on.
Thanks Robert! I got mine - fascinating. (I am actually a fan of personality type tests, so I enjoyed doing it) Apparently this is me:
I searched the web for forum posts, articles, and anything you've written and put it through a personality analysis algorithm. Your resulting profile is as follows:
You have a great need for other people to like and admire you. You have a tendency to be critical of yourself. You have a great deal of unused capacity which you have not turned to your advantage. While you have some personality weaknesses, you are generally able to compensate for them. Disciplined and self-controlled outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You pride yourself as an independent thinker and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof. You have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be pretty unrealistic. Security is one of your major goals in life.
How accurate would you say this is?
Forgive me, the teacher in me presents an overwhelming urge sometimes to indulge in playground games
A personality analysis algorithm-know it well.
I managed to do the exact same one for you and it sent me to this clip stating two words: Eagle Lord!
Eagle Vs Shark-Fightman Competition you tube
Hmmm...welll. Matt and Dawn truly have me scratching my head
Are there really such algorithms (bearing in mind I don't actually know what algorithms are) Or did you just make that paragraph up, Matt? (Not being facetious; this is all light-hearted) but curious. I'm wondering how easy it is to make up such things based on some bits of evidence and have people identify with it, like when you have horoscopes for your star sign and you see in them things which relate to you. I'd say the analysis is mostly pretty good although I don't have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. I don't think I have unused capacity (unless I am unaware of it!) and I'm not sure my aspirations are unrealistic -even when high they are achievable. But the bits about worrisome, insecure, introverted wary and reserved are totally me
Dawn - you play very interesting playground games but possibly on a different planet from mine (I mean - I don't understand...)
Always been a bit too imaginative............there is no algorithm......and my point was to get Matt to do a check on his Eagle Lord reign and to possibly rein it in! LOL.
Tis a very funny video clip....that kind of reveals gender-ego differences between males and females- if you believe in all that....I imagine a bit like horoscopes Mary, LOL
Hi Mary and Steve,
Steve got it right. It's more like a horoscope than anything else; I don't know of any algorithm that can analyse people's personalities from what they've written. It's simply a paragraph of "Barnum statements" (named after the great American circus entertainer, P. T. Barnum) copied and pasted to demonstrate the Forer effect. The statements are vague and general enough so that they can apply to everyone (they simply describe a few aspects of the "human condition") but seem to be so specific and personal that it's easy to convince most people that it's about them in particular.
BTW, I sometimes teach my classes how to use the Forer effect to do "cold reading" (mind reading games) for fun. I think it's a wonderful illustration of the limitations of analytical psychology and our own cognitive limitations. I've noticed that people who I think are more analytical and critical thinkers (AKA skeptics) are less susceptible to things like the Forer effect (actually, they're just as susceptible but know how to compensate for it). We (analytical thinking humans) have spent hundreds of years coming up with strategies, methods, and techniques to overcome our own biases and the limitations of our own cognition. Lev Vygotsky distinguished them as spontaneous concepts vs. scientific concepts (Vygotsky, L. S., "Mind in Society" and "Thought and Language", 1934), e.g. the sun rises every morning (spontaneous concept) vs. the earth rotates on its axis (scientific concept).
All in the spirit of fun
'I sometimes teach my class how to use the Forer effect to do 'cold reading' (mind reading games) for fun'
Matt....I am flabbergasted...utterly overcome with laughter here! Really Matt, this is fascinating stuff....how about you share that lesson plan with us....I am curious, I must say
Oh and as an aside, when referencing something by Vygotsky...can you let us have those page numbers please.....otherwise we have to wade through two texts, for the one piece of info you claim is there........just a thought....because I am also a little puzzled by your example there.....the sun rises every morning...spontaneous concept...eh.....very interesting Matt ............page numbers from those seminal texts might help me get your logic....or not of course...understand if the post was meant as just a wandering monologue-then do ignore me-as per
(p.s. sorry Matt-am giggling here...I really do want to get it though)
This has nothing to do with horoscopes or psychoanalysis or analysis of writing or mind reading. If you truthfully answer a series of questions about how you prefer to act or behave, which is what those questionnaires are, it is possible to produce a "portrait" of you. This is about PREFERENCES and not more. And each portrait is really different, just as we are. Do not take my word for it. The questionnaires are still online. Invest 20 mins and get your own portrait, and then we can talk.
There is actually a possibility of verifying your "portrait" by using so-called 360-degree approach. Basically, one gets a group of people to answer the same questionnaire except that they answer how they see and experience you. Combining those responses produces another "portrait" which can be compared to yours to see whether your perceptions about yourself match how others see you. No magic here. No mind games.
Sounds a bit like a Horoscope, did you apply the program a second time? Same results?
Is there anyone that this does not fit? (-:
What you show above is your tag cloud, I am guessing your inner spark tag cloud. There is another tag cloud which shows your eight aspects of the mandala. For people working with this instrument, the mandala is the most compact view of "you" although you may need some assistance to understand it fully. Feel free to contact me through email if you want to explore this more.
The aspect that I like is the three perspectives on who you are, the three personas as they call them. Those are basically three versions of you, which can be very much the same for some people and quite different for other people. The bar graphs of the qualities provide the details. I find those with 24 qualities to be optimal for viewing, others being too compacted or too detailed.
To address what Matt and other were writing, of course, the portrait is based on the answers provided. As such, it may or may not be the "true" you. Some of us learned to function differently than what our innate preferences are and not always realize that. Some may answer as what they feel is expected of them rather than their actual preferences. One can also answer the same questions somewhat differently when relaxed after a nice weekend than after a stressful day at work. Some people over-think the answers and thus distort the results.
Normally, once a portrait is produced and read by a person, it is then reviewed and discussed with someone who knows this instrument and helps to follow up and clarify things, including deviations from own perceptions of oneself. The "portrait" won't tell your future and obviously has its limitations, but it may help one evolve and understand better people behavior, your own in particular.
totally respect your research-I must apologise for not participating, but the 400-odd questions, well I really do not have the time-that is both a personal and colleague-observation in one ;0)
I can only commendate your application of ethical considerations, assuming you have a range of participants outside Moodle, then, providing an oppt for participants here to email you-with questions is, a member- check oppt to est shared understanding.
Given, the internet was once a conception for research, then an actuality, with the next stage ensuring a sense of morality/ethics and a maintenance of subjectivity-you appear to have hit the 'next stage'.
Thanks Robert - and by the way I am not "dissing" this at all; I found it fascinating. Here's another screenshot of mine (As I understand it, "underlying" is the private you; "everyday" is your normal behaviour that others tend to see and "overextended" is how you act under pressure)
awwww Mary, you are a great research respondent!
Profile looks interesting.....am laughing here...because you know when you can just predict stuff...well I could easily predict my social scores to be zero across the board on that questionnaire ! :0)
Now then, Mary have you posted this to share...nice by the way (glad you did) or are you asking Robert for some feedback...if the latter-then Robert you now have my undivided attention at this juncture ;0)
I'm just posting to share really; I think it's fairly self-explanatory and actually also I'd say pretty accurate.
Robert "There is also a Questionnaire Personality add-on; however, it is not an instrument but a tool."
Could you please expand on that?
a tool= has function/functionality
this context might be about how one functions as opposed to any measured outcomes.
To be fair, I'm a strong critic of the majority of social sciences research methods because I think they rely too heavily on self-disclosure, e.g. questionnaires, surveys, interviews, etc., and, from what I understand of other researchers' meta-analyses, only a small minority use experimental methods and direct observation (Steven Pinker claims only around 10% of research papers published have used "sound" research methods). Daniel Kahneman is one of the leading researchers and a Nobel Prize-winner for his work on examining the discrepancies between how we make decisions and judgements in the moment and how we rationalise them afterwards, e.g. in questionnaires, surveys, and interviews, which he claims are actually 2 different systems of thought that happen in different parts of the brain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman
He appears extensively in the BBC Horizon documentary, "How You Really Make Decisions" http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03wyr3c
Here's a recent article on the subject of the Briggs-Meyers personality test: http://www.vox.com/2014/7/15/5881947/myers-briggs-personality-test-meaningless
If you prefer some hard science to refute the claims made for the MBTI test and similar type tests, here's an example: http://rer.sagepub.com/content/63/4/467.abstract
I think that if you want to get an accurate idea of people's personality under specific conditions, i.e. how they react and respond to events and relate to others, a more reliable method is to simulate those conditions, as closely as possible, and observe. If you're a Star Trek fan, you'll be familiar with an extreme version of this method: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobayashi_Maru
Just to add...
Surveys like the built-in Moodle tools can serve a legitimate function in the context of social constructivist approaches to learning and teaching. By asking certain questions before, during, and after learning activities, we can "prime" learners to think in certain ways while they think and reflect on their learning experiences, beliefs, and attitudes. A kind of meta-cognitive, awareness raising strategy.
OK Matt-I shall bite, cuppa first and then a well-built argument to follow....
Back in a mo.
Matt, greetings.Right, let's have a closer look at things here. I have some initial questions in order to understand your stance.
'To be fair, I'm a strong critic of the majority of social sciences research methods because I think they rely too heavily on self-disclosure, e.g. questionnaires, surveys, interviews'...You mention research methods: which ones?
As for the research 'tools' you mention: questionnaires, surveys, interviews- they do not all aid/support inthe same way for collecting/gauging info/data...Do they?
What do you mean by self-disclosure, and why is this problematic?
Next we have concept-overload/confusion: 'and, from what I understand of other researchers' *meta-analyses, only a small minority use *experimental methods and *direct observation'
....meta-analyses (this can be an analysis of a previous analysis -like ANOVA for example/or any second-step procedure for qual/quant)....experimental methods (two conditions)....direct obs (again, data collection tool)
'Steven Pinker claims only around 10% of research papers published have used "sound" research methods' WHERE? -Ref Matt-we spoke about this before-it helps your reader to get your point-otherwise tis general and armchair-ish, you know-sounds like hear-say.
RE: Daniel Kahneman, yes I get your point here, analysts will always have a certain subjectivity and influence over the data-analysis outcomes.....but should aim to be open about such involvement (e.g. memos when doing qual analysis-to reveal decision making action-linked tightly to the data)
RE: Brigg's Meyers test-I shall leave Robert to defend/accept your claims/arguments-tis his research that is the focus of this thread.
RE: Star Trek ref....LOL!
When you say 'Surveys like the built-in Moodle tools can serve a legitimate function in the context of social constructivist approaches to learning and teaching.'
What for you- is the difference between survey and questionnaire in Moodle Matt? I am unclear about the affordances for data collection?
Oh and finally,
'By asking certain questions before, during, and after learning activities, we can "prime" learners to think in certain ways while they think and reflect on their learning experiences, beliefs, and attitudes. A kind of meta-cognitive, awareness raising strategy'
What do you mean by meta-cognitive in this context? Prime learners-this sounds absolutely fascinating!
awwwwwwwwwww.....crumbs! Robert-when you say:
'I do not want to get into a discussion of social research and validity of methodologies. I am not qualified and Moodle is not a place for that'.....
please rethink this.......I am nagging Martin to sort this out....why not have a forum for research-moodle related stuff? Qualified? eh?....we are all researchers of life-long learning and its intricacies- I think a specialist forum-is much needed for 'all'-and this thread is testament to that!
Come on Robert...agree eh ;)
Re: "Gee, you trow in together so many different things" -- I like the idea of viewing ideas/concepts from multiple perspectives, in a similar way that the early 20th century artistic Cubist movement tried to capture the "chairness of the chair" by painting it from multiple perspectives simultaneously, or that people like Lev Vygotsky and Albert Einstein read very widely and well beyond the topics of their careers/professions.
BTW, the MBTI has been categorically shown that it doesn't do what it claims to do. It's clearly a falsifiable hypothesis, i.e. a "good" hypothesis, but nonetheless false. Like the Multiple Intelligences hypothesis (learning styles), polygraph (lie detector) tests, multi-billion dollar industries have been built up on them and people have based their careers and livelihoods on them being true, accurate, and reliable. You can see how difficult it would be for so many people with so much to lose (not just money but their personal reputations and sometimes their raison d'être) to accept what the science says.
In matters of physical and mental health and well-being, we require higher standards. Doctors don't just ask you how you feel, they also physically examine you and, if appropriate, take samples, run tests, and/or put you through a scanner before giving their diagnoses and prognoses. If they're unsure they may ask for a second opinion or look into other methods of investigation. Similarly, a psychiatrist or psychoanalyst will likely spend many hours examining a patients' responses, reactions, and/or behaviour. In both cases, they follow lines of inquiry that they consciously adapt according to what unfolds during the examinations in order to build reliable and accurate diagnoses and prognoses. How would you feel if you went to your dentist and she asked you to fill in a form and then decided what treatments to give you based on that? (Bear in mind that the nerves in your mouth are so tightly packed together that it's usually difficult for patients to pinpoint what's actually hurting, e.g. which tooth). I hope these analogies make sense.
you certainly make sense to me, ta.
How about some answers to my questions? Understand if you are busy ;)
Matt "Like the Multiple Intelligences hypothesis (learning styles), polygraph (lie detector) tests, multi-billion dollar industries have been built up on them and people have based their careers and livelihoods on them being true, accurate, and reliable."
I would rephrase that as "[...] people have based their careers and livelihoods on making gullible people believe that they are true, accurate, and reliable".
Thanks for your undefatigable contribution to this discussion!
As regards your doctor/dentist analogy, it is important to remember that the medical profession (like the teaching profession), have an obligation of means and but no obligation of result.
I found the idea of an obligation of means and but no obligation of result intriguing and so I found this:
"Several important decisions were made in 2000 concerning the proof of malpractice and the fundamental principles of medical responsibility. In order to guarantee indemnities for victims of medical accidents, the French courts have facilitated the implication of medical responsibility for medical accidents. The notion of a "virtual fault" was developed allowing the courts to retain the responsibility of the surgeon for instance for injury to the sublingual nerve during extraction of a wisdom tooth or for injury to the popliteal artery (March 23, 2000). These decisions not only facilitate the demonstration of malpractice but also modify the definition of responsibility, all physicians being required to use all available means. Likewise, although jurisprudence asserts that a safe result is mandatory in certain areas, the essential obligation is the absence of "fault" and not the result despite the disquieting arguments put forward by the Paris appeals court in its January 15, 1999 decree. The patient's right to a result was sustained only in well defined areas."
Makes me think... I like people who make me think
Yes, Matt, I also found that source! Looks like the concept of "means and results" is a French one. I could not find references based in other countries, but I did not conduct a thorough search.
By the way, in my post, the sentence should read "obligation of means but no obligation of result" (no extraneous "and").
need to remain off the grid for now
Interesting thought Joseph and Matt...I shall field your papers when I have time...looking forward to it.
This all reminds me of a root-canal procedure I had once-twas painful-but made me think!
Think, thinking....thought-ful stuff. You know in China....VPN....free after 20 minutes then sounds like a new dial-up after that......we should count our lucky stars!