Are my True Colors those of a curmudgeonly crank?

[phyz]

My high school faculty underwent an exercise in Don Lowry's True Colors personality test. It was all good fun for the hour or so that it lasted. I was a Green--not surprising for a physics teacher. The counselors were Blues, the Principal was a Gold, and PE teachers Orange.

From http://www.truecolors.org/true_colors_story.html :
"True Colors lively and interactive programs have become the easiest and most convenient way of discovering one’s strengths, and understanding human behavior.

"The True Colors program asks participants to identify their “color spectrum” using four cards that represent key personality types: Blue, Gold, Green or Orange. Each color has particular strengths and each analyzes, conceptualizes, understands, interacts and learns differently. But these differences, if not acknowledged and understood, can become barriers to interpersonal communication, making understanding between people of different types difficult.

Now my colleagues in the science department want to try constructing classroom lab groups based on True Colors personality types.

They had decided this in my absence and when I learned of it I reacted... badly. I sarcastically suggested Zodiacal arrangements as an alternative, and they took a bit of umbrage. (Astrology is sooo unscientific!) I confess I was shocked that my science colleagues were so keen to give this program a go in the science classroom. To me it seemed like so much voodoo woowoo self-help hoo-ha to me.

So have my skeptical traits led me to out-of-hand rejection of sound, student-centered pedagogy? Should I be more open-minded about True Colors? Or is it all as I suspected? Is The Invasion on?

Dean in California

[Math Maniac]

Formerly, I was both forced and voluntarily participated in a True Colors assessment (I am a green as well). From the presentations I attended, True Colors' purpose is not so much of a pedagogical model as much as it is a personal assessment model for an individual. I believe it was more of a social interaction model whereas one could better assess how to interact and understand another individual based on his 'color.'

This is not to say that True Colors does not have impact on a particular student's pedagogical needs, but to move it into the area of curricular planning just might be an educational leap that the original model (True Colors) did not intend. As often the case, if it can be 'educationalized,' educators will find a way to do it, sometimes with success and sometimes without.

From my own perspective, Multiple Intelligences, while lacking total support from both cognitive scientists and educators (me included), has one of the best models for varying both the scope and approach of any particular educational activity.

I also tend to believe that many well-intentioned educators find the lowest common denominator of such theories and exploit them in ways that morph the original theory outside of it's intended realm, thereby creating a situation that reinforces one's perceived notions of educationally valid or valuable. I put forth Constructivism as an example of such manipulation.

[phyz]

I'm good-to-go with the idea that different students learn things in different ways. I do my best to hit multiple modalities in teaching any concept. Present, demonstrate, lab activity, classroom discussion, homework, video...

Knowing who among my students is kinesthetic, who is visual, etc., might be more than I need to know since each class will include students of all types. I actually don't want to group like types together and teach to their modality. That's a bit too comfy. It encourages an expectation that the world will bend to their needs.

Nor do I want groups arranged such that all True Colors are represented: Oranges in charge of getting apparatus and putting it away, Golds in charge of reading instructions and setting things up, Greens in charge of analysis, and Blues in charge of making sure everyone feels valued.

[Bethany]

I'm always wary of these types of tests that try to pigeon-hole people into a certain "type". I'd fight it, too. Besides, shouldn't students have to learn to work with all different sorts of people?

[Hindmost]

Hi Dean,

Even though I am not teaching anymore, my heart is still in the game.

Fortunately, my collegues would have giggled at the thought of something like this. It probably has no scientific validity...ask your coworkers to provide data on how it improves learning. I am betting all of it is annecdotal. I could never have dropped my students into four categories and say...that's it...your done with testing your abilities. True colors doesn't seem to ask students to expand their horizons.

glenn

[MWare]

Using what you've already taught you students about science and critical thinking, what do they think?

[digithead]

I had to sit through one of these seminars when I worked for state government. I was a "green" but upon further reflection, I saw traits of myself in all of the colors and realized that these self-selecting classifications are really about who we think we are, not what we are. Hence, they serve no useful purpose other than a parlor game...

I'd ask your colleagues if there is any peer-reviewed literature supporting improved learning from segregating a classroom based on this or a similar classification scheme...

[juniper_ann]

I have a hard time believing that everyone on earth can be divided into four categories in a meaningful way.

However, I went to the site, and I have to admire anybody who has the vision and chutzpa to use artistic pastiches of mimes as representations of each of the personality types. No matter what your personality, everyone has a little mime on the inside, struggling, struggling to get out of that darn invisible box!

[kellyb]

Sounds like some self-help woo-woo hoo-haa to me.

[phyz]

For what it's worth, the True Colors "training" was led by a member of our science department. She's a kind and wonderful person. But I don't see her enjoying the company of JREFers. And I would speculate she's much more "blue" than "green."

Many in the science department were not "green." We had at least one "gold" (my very Christian colleague who teaches the physics sections that I don't) and one "orange."

Though I'm not planning to implement the True Colors "technology" in my classroom, I *am* using it as an excuse for any behavior I might engage in that others find offensive. "What do you expect, I'm a green!" And I'll use it to unfairly criticize colleague's actions. "Typical @#$% 'blue.'"

[tkingdoll]

Look at the list of types and choose the one that best represents you without going through all the crap first. If that is at least theoretically possible (they might not actually give you access to the info up front), then it's hoo-hah.

Also known as Barnum statements - and like other people who employ Barnum statements, they've tapped into a smart way of making money.

The idea that there are only four types of people is amusing.

[phyz]

I'm always wary of these types of tests that try to pigeon-hole people into a certain "type". I'd fight it, too. Besides, shouldn't students have to learn to work with all different sorts of people?

Absolutely. I think my colleagues imagine making lab groups out of one student of each color. I just don't see the point. I actually create lab groups so that each group includes a person from each quartile of the class, based on performance in class. One high, one low, and two in the middle. I'm happy with how that works out.

Using what you've already taught you students about science and critical thinking, what do they think?

I could ask them that at the end of the year; but I just got my new crop. I haven't had a chance to suit them up with their armor yet.

[SynapticDancer]

First for clarity, are they suggesting putting students into groups who are the same color on this test?

If the test is designed to categorize people according to personality, is it advisable to seperate children in this way? Isn't it beneficial to have children work alongside kids with diverse personalities, interests and so forth?

I don't know the validity of this true colors assessment, and I have not taken it, but anything that tries to quantify personality characteristics and group people based on the findings raises red flags for me. I am also, as a general rule, worried about seperating children based on such things. Part of learning is the social element of being around people that are different from you, in intellect, personality, culture, etc.

[Kopji]

My high school faculty underwent an exercise in Don Lowry's True Colors personality test. It was all good fun for the hour or so that it lasted. I was a Green--not surprising for a physics teacher. The counselors were Blues, the Principal was a Gold, and PE teachers Orange.

From http://www.truecolors.org/true_colors_story.html :
"True Colors lively and interactive programs have become the easiest and most convenient way of discovering one’s strengths, and understanding human behavior.

"The True Colors program asks participants to identify their “color spectrum” using four cards that represent key personality types: Blue, Gold, Green or Orange. Each color has particular strengths and each analyzes, conceptualizes, understands, interacts and learns differently. But these differences, if not acknowledged and understood, can become barriers to interpersonal communication, making understanding between people of different types difficult.

Now my colleagues in the science department want to try constructing classroom lab groups based on True Colors personality types.

They had decided this in my absence and when I learned of it I reacted... badly. I sarcastically suggested Zodiacal arrangements as an alternative, and they took a bit of umbrage. (Astrology is sooo unscientific!) I confess I was shocked that my science colleagues were so keen to give this program a go in the science classroom. To me it seemed like so much voodoo woowoo self-help hoo-ha to me.

So have my skeptical traits led me to out-of-hand rejection of sound, student-centered pedagogy? Should I be more open-minded about True Colors? Or is it all as I suspected? Is The Invasion on?

Dean in California

As a concerned parent I would be meeting with the administrative staff over this potentially dangerous quackery, and begin a more concerted effort to closely monitor the teachers and what my children were being taught. :D

[phyz]

You bring up a point that nagged me about this exercise and one we did sometime back. They require participants to reveal personal information that is really no one's business. Certainly not the school's or any teacher's. If I'm a green, isn't that my business? And who has the right to know? And why do they need to know?

Mind you, we handed out peppermints (http://phyzblog.blogspot.com/2007/05/peppermint-party.html) last year during state-mandated testing on the basis that someone heard it would help students perform better. When I called shenanigans (and I did call it), I was the jerk for not rolling with the innocent, good-natured gesture that it was. "If nothing else, " I was assured, "it's good for some placebo effect."

Oh yeah, and our test scores went down. No doubt a result of the negative energy I cast over the proceedings with my skepticism.

[thull]

The underlying theme behind "true colors" is a decent concept (well from my translation and experience with it).

1. people can respond/interpret differently to the same events/stimulus
2. people have different ways of reaching the same/similar conclusion
3. people interact differently with each other even when trying to convey the same level of interest.

It feels like a kindergarten lesson ("everyone is different and that's okay") combined with social mixing games and fluff lecture.

Anyway, they tell us we will be splitting up into four groups after we choose 4 cards from the tables. They were all the same white color, only the words were different; however, figuring out how to divide adjectives into 4 different groups wasn't tough. So i choose 16 cards instead of four and had some fun that afternoon.

[Garrette]

Nearly two years ago I began a correspondence with the True Colors organization. It is my impression that the people at that organization, are sincere believers and are not attempting to scam anyone.

In response to my request for any testing of their claims (they equate True Colors to MMPI, iirc), they sent me at no cost a rather thick packet of materials.

Unfortunately, the materials were mostly unsubstantiated claims referencing unnamed papers. The one exception was a paper by a Dr. Stevie Honaker, but the paper itself was not included.

Then it turned out that it wasn't an article; it was her dissertation. From the excerpts I had I formulated some questions and emailed Dr. Honaker.

It took a while, but I eventually received a response.

Her response (edited to remove some personal information) is in the quote box, with my initial email at the bottom):


Dear ----,

Please forgive my very late reply to your email. [Edited out personal reasons for the delay in her reply]

There are many distribution groups of True Colors materials, so I'm not sure which line you referred to in your first paragraph. I know that Carolyn Kahill has a copy of a 1-page brief overview of my research which I used to give a short presentation at a career development conference several years ago on her website. I wonder if that is the same document?

You're absolutely right--it was not meant to be a complete presentation of my research--I only had about 30 minutes for the presentation. I always intended to publish an article about my research, but I got much more occupied into further my career as a career center administrator. Now that I have more time, it might be a good use of my time to rethink my research and its implications and write about it.

In the meantime, let me attempt to address your questions! Are you thinking of doing some research yourself? It looks like you are **** (from your email address). Are you thinking of going to college once your stint in the army is through or are you a guidance counselor in **** [My note: I have a degree already; I suppose I wasn't very impressive in my initial communique]. I'd really appreciate knowing what has prompted your interest in my research.

As to getting a more detailed copy of my dissertation, you can do so at a library by requesting an interlibrary loan. I hope your not **** making this an impossible suggestion! If so, let me know and we'll see how I might be of further help on that front.

For the loan though, the official title of my diss. is: Convergent Validity of True Colors Character Cards' Activity and Word Cluster Instrument with the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Strong Interest Inventory, and Campbell Interest and Skill Survey (2001) by Stevie L. Honaker, PhD. That should be enough information to get an ISBN number for the volume. I'm sorry I don't have it.

You're correct. The alpha was .5 as that is the standard. Data analysis included one-way ANOVAs, t-test for independent samples, Levene's test for equality of variances and Spearman Rank Order and Pearsons Product Moment correlations.

The research subjects were graduate students in a human resource program. Neither split-half study or test-retest is applicable. I had access through my Chair to the results of 56 students scores on a myriad of career development assessments. I chose the four listed above in the title. It was a validity test only.

I did not and do not have any connection with True Colors, except that I am certified as a Level I Trainer and conducted numerous trainings to groups from various organizations. I was interested in doing the research for two reasons.

First, I was in graduate school and training as a career counselor. In that capacity, I heard more experienced counselors refer to associations between True Colors and the Myers-Briggs dimensions. For example, TC Green was the same as the MBTI Thinking dimension. Further, True Colors advertised their product as being related to the MBTI without any research to back that claim up. I wanted to know the exact relationship between the two typing systems. The Campbell and Strong were thrown in because I used them everyday counseling students. I was trying to figure out how to use them in tandem with the MBTI.

Secondly, I was a non-traditional student and I needed to finish up my education. I had been going to college full-time for 8 eight years when I began my phd. Using data already gathered saved a good 6 months to a year on graduating.

I hope this has been helpful to you and answered your questions. I'm always glad to help someone interested in True Colors. It's a great tool.

Best,

Stevie L. Honaker, PhD

---



Garrette's initial email:Doctor Honaker,I received from the people at True Colors a copy of your paper "True Colors: New Implications From Convergent Validity Research With the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator." It is the same version that is available online.The paper is incomplete, though, and I was hoping you could help me by answering a few questions.First, the paper presents none of the actual data; is anything with more detail available.What alpha did you use in determining reliability? The standard of .05 or something smaller or larger?I cannot tell by reading the paper--is this a split-half study or test-retest?Did this study include any testing of validity, or was it reliability only?Did the paper eventually get published? If so, in what issue of what journal?Finally, would you mind telling me what prompted you to conduct this study? Did you have an affiliation with True Colors at the time, or was your institution using True Colors? Or was it something entirely different?I will greatly appreciate any answers or help you can provide. Thank you in advance.Sincerely,*****


To which I responded (with more personal information edited out):


Dear Stevie,Thank you for your reply. I completely understand the delay and am glad to hear ****. My schedule is a bit tight right now, so I will look at the substance of your reply and ask some further questions later, if you don't mind, but I will take this opportunity to answer your general questions about my background.[More personal info]My knowledge of statistics is very good for a layman but very poor compared to a true statistician or researcher. I suspect some of my questions to you will strike you as very sophomoric. If so, just tell me. I have an ego, but it doesn't bruise easily; I learned long ago to admit both my limitations and my errors early and often.My interest in True Colors came up when **** invited some representatives to give a presentation. Nearly everyone enjoyed it and bought into it. I did not.A bit more about my background may help: I am an amateur magician and an amateur debunker. I grew up as a strong believer in many things paranormal and superstititous. As I grew older and began to question more, I realized that none of my beliefs held up to scrutiny. I began researching more and more popular beliefs and found very few with substance.The True Colors presentation struck me as pseudo-pop-psychology, and I said so. In particular, the presentation struck me as a version of the Forer Effect as applied to astrology. To their credit, the presenters listened with interest and told me how to begin finding out more information. I struck up an email correspondence with True Colors (and, also to their credit, they have been remarkably forthcoming, though perhaps a bit willfuly blind). That is how I came across your paper.I need to run now, but I will try to email more tonight or tomorrow.Thanks again for your response, and my best to both you and ****.


I received no response to this email. I sent a short email some time later with some follow on questions but received no response to it, either. It is entirely possible that the personal issues have come back up, so I do not in any way take the lack of response as meaning anything.

[Fnord]

I thought that it was illegal to associate and segregate people by color in an educational institution.

[phyz]

Nearly two years ago I began a correspondence with the True Colors organization. ...

Wow, Garrette, you did some serious due diligence!

I'm left with the impression that True Colors isn't necessarily intentionally evil, but it does encourage soft-thinking and some suspension of disbelief.

And when colleagues think I'm a jerk for not playing along with the good-natured fun, I don't have much to fall back on.

Oh well...

[SynapticDancer]

So you think school administrators would give credulence to the idea of seperating children by their astrological sign?

[Fnord]

So you think school administrators would give credulence to the idea of seperating children by their astrological sign?

Not only that, but by ascendant/descendant planets; cusp or node; whether or not their signs are Earth, Air, Fire, or Water; and of the signs are triune, quartic, or ...

Gach, I can't do this. Just segregate the kids by gender and force them all to listen to Enya music during lunch and between classes. That should be enough.

[phyz]

My colleagues who "tested" their students using Lowry's True Colors assessment found nearly all of them to be "orange." Carefree, spontaneous, no use for rules, etc.

Well knock me over with a feather. Teenagers, orange? Who'da thunkit?

No OCD "golds"? No Deep Thinker "greens"? No Care-for-others "blues"?

I am shocked. Shocked, I say!

[genesplicer]

We did the whole True Colors thing at the same time we were doing the Multiple Intelligences. MI has a much more rigorous scientific standing than TC, that's for sure. I also found MI much more useful in planning lessons than TC.

[Ysidro]

This sounds like a Livejournal quiz, not a pedagogical method. What are your colleagues smoking!?

[phyz]

I think they're dropping it now that they've found out that to be a teenager is to be an "orange." But they may decide to organize lab groups based on the second highest-scoring color: each group will have an orange-green, orange-blue, orange-gold, and, erm, a super-orange?

I don't pretend to know.

[Boo]

So you think school administrators would give credulence to the idea of seperating children by their astrological sign?

I had teachers in high school that did exactly that in their classrooms. They had astrological signs next to the students names and we were placed in study/work groups based on our astrological signs. It would not surprise me at all that there are teachers that are still doing this.




Boo

[phyz]

I had teachers in high school that did exactly that in their classrooms. They had astrological signs next to the students names and we were placed in study/work groups based on our astrological signs. It would not surprise me at all that there are teachers that are still doing this.

Boo

Please tell me they weren't in the science department.

That's what knocked me out--it was my colleagues in the (otherwise) science department who were keen to give this "personality color" thinga go. When I suggested we arrange students per Zodiac, they dismissed it as unscientific. It's like they knew astrology was unscientific because they learned it somewhere, but when something else equally unscientific came along, they couldn't recognize it as such. *And* were eager to embrace it! Scary.

I don't *think* any of them have read "The Secret" and taken it to heart. But I don't know.