Annual Review of Education, Communication and Language Sciences, Volume 2, 2005

INTUITIVE-ANALYSIS STYLE AND EFL LISTENING STRATEGIES

CHENG-YI KELLY CHANG

Abstract

This paper investigates the relationship between learning styles and listening strategies using revised versions of the Cognitive

Style Index (Allinson and Hayes 1996) and the Strategy Inventory of Learning Strategies (Oxford 1990). The data were

collected from 98 EFL learners using self-report questionnaires. After the raw data were processed by factor analysis, two

learning style categories ‘Sense of Security’ and ‘Getting on with Tasks’ were developed and five listening strategies -

metacognition, memory, cognition, study skills and finding links - were categorised., A significant relationship was found between

‘sense of security’ and two listening strategy groups: metacognition and cognition, after the raw data were processed by One-

Way ANOVA. The results confirm the findings of Sadler-Smith’s (1999a; 1999b) research that the relationship between

cognitive styles and learning approaches were not significantly related, and suggest the need for further investigations of the

relationship between learning styles and listening strategies as well as in-depth top-down and bottom-up listening strategies.

Keywords

learning styles, cognitive styles, listening strategies, Cognitive Style Index (CSI), Strategy Inventory for Language Learning

(SILL)

Introduction

          Learning styles are general approaches that one tends to use for learning. Learning strategies, unlike learning styles, are

adopted/adapted by users and can be changed according to different tasks and learning contexts. However, it has been shown

that learning styles can change and develop over time as learners accumulate knowledge and experience through learning (Cohen

1998; Riding and Rayner 1998; Adey, Fairbrother et al. 1999). Research shows that if teachers can give students instruction in

a way which matches their learning styles, their learning usually improves (Dunn and Price 1979; O'Brien 1989; Oxford and

Ehrman 1993). Indeed, when learners’ learning styles are matched with the instructional styles, their motivation, performance,

and attainment will be enhanced (Brown 1994). Practically speaking, however, learners sometimes come across materials that

are not presented in a form which are suited to their learning styles, so they need to adopt strategies which can help them learn

better and/or overcome learning difficulties. Learners with different learning styles learn differently when they use the same

material and this can be because the embedded instruction is suitable for a certain kind of learners but not for others. It is

believed that learners can learn better from the same materials if they are able to adopt appropriate strategies. According to a

review which reports on the effectiveness of strategy training in improving proficiency in language learning by screening the

strategy training research carried out since 1960, strategy training is concluded to be effective in helping language learners raise

their language proficiency (Hassen, Macaro et al. 2005). Hence, researchers and curriculum developers still have a positive

attitude toward strategy training.

          In the TEFL research domain, learning style research and learning strategy research have been widely studied (see

O'Malley and Chamot 1990; Oxford 1990; Riding and Rayner 1998; Vandergrift 2003), but very few research projects attempt

to bridge the two and find the relationship between the two. In the psychology field, Sadler-Smith (1999a) conducted an

investigation to examine the relationship between learning styles and approaches to studying. He employed the Cognitive Style

Index (CSI) (Allinson & Hayes, 1996) to identify intuitive and analytical learners and a short form of the Approaches to

Studying Inventory (ASI) (Entwhistle, 1988) to look at various learning strategies such as deep (meaning) and surface

(reproducing) learning approaches. The results, however, did not show any strong relationships between the intuitive-analytical

styles and the ASI scales in the study.

          There is no research, however, investigated the relationship between learning styles and listening strategies by specifying

the research in the context of EFL. As a result the present study aims to investigate the relationship between EFL learners’

learning styles in terms of intuition and analysis and listening strategies. The data were elicited from self-report questionnaires; a

learning style questionnaire based on a revised version of the Cognitive Style Index (Allinson and Hayes 1996), which identifies

analytical and intuitive learning styles and a listening strategy questionnaire based on a revised version of the Strategy Inventory

for Language Learning (Oxford 1990). Finally the data collected from the learning style and listening strategy questionnaires

were analysed using factor analysis and One-Way ANOVA statistical tests.

Literature Review

Learning Styles

          There are to date no consistent categorisations of learning styles; for example, there is the ‘impulsivity-reflectivity’

dimension (Kagen, Rosman et al. 1964), the ‘holist-serialist’ dimension (Pask and Scott 1972), the ‘intuition-analysis’ dimension

(Allinson and Hayes 1996), the ‘wholist-analytical/verbaliser-imager’ dimension (Riding and Cheema 1991), the field-

dependence/field-independence dimension (Witkin and Goodenough 1981) and the field-sensitivity/field-insensitivity dimension

(Ehrman 1996; Ehrman 1997). In addition, the terms, learning styles and cognitive styles as well as other learning style terms are

sometimes used interchangeably.

          Intuition and analysis are terms used to describe right-brain and left-brain thinking which are expressions favoured by a

number of investigators (Allinson & Hayes, 1996). Intuition is a characteristic of the right brain orientation, which refers to

immediate judgements based on feelings and the adoption of a global perspective. Analysis is a characteristic of the left brain

orientation, which refers to judgements based on mental reasoning and a focus on detail. Intuitivists prefer open-ended

approaches to solving problems and such people rely on random methods of exploration, remembering spatial images most

easily, and working best with ideas which require overall assessment. Analysts prefer a structured approach to solving problems

and tend to use systematic methods of investigation, recall verbal material most readily and are especially comfortable with ideas

requiring step by step analysis (Allinson and Hayes 1996).

Learning Styles and Learning Strategies

          Learners find learning easier if the learning material matches their learning styles-which are sometimes called cognitive

styles (Ehrman and Leaver 2003). Learners, on the one hand, do find that they learn more efficiently if the materials are suitable

for their learning styles; and, on the other hand, if learners are provided with materials that are not compatible with their learning

styles, they usually find the materials more difficult to learn. In the case of a learning style mismatch between learners and learning

materials, individuals may be helped by developing learning strategies for dealing with material which is not initially compatible.

Such strategies involve a set of one or more procedures that an individual acquires to facilitate the performance of learning task

and will vary depending on the nature of the task (Riding and Rayner 1998). There is, however, little evidence to demonstrate

that there is a relationship between learning styles and learning strategies, although it seems obvious that there is some

relationship as learners with particular learning styles have their own preferred ways of learning (Sadler-Smith 1999a; Sadler-

Smith 1999b).

Learning Styles, Language Learning and Listening Strategies

          Since learning styles are considered to be innate to individuals, they certainly affect their learning processes, including

learning a second language. For example, Ehrman and Leaver (2003) claimed that learners who are field-independent and field-

sensitive can learn a language better because they do not reject learning in isolated contexts and they are sensitive enough to pick

up a new language within contexts. There may also be a significant difference in the strategies used by effective and ineffective

EFL learners (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990). Effective EFL learners, generally speaking, use more listening strategies than do

ineffective EFL learners. Flowerdew and Miller (2005) also claimed that effective learners use both top-down (using

background knowledge to develop expectations of text meaning) and bottom-up (analysing each word for its meaning)

approaches, whereas ineffective learners use only bottom-up approaches. However, Tsui and Fullilove (1998) found that the

subjects performed better in listening tests when they used more bottom-up approaches. In terms of learning styles and listening

strategies, analytical learners favour bottom-up processes as they tend to focus on detailed information and intuitive learners

favour top-down processes as they tend to obtain global information first. This may also apply to listening strategies used by

EFL learners with different learning styles as analytical learners prefer listening strategies that focus on detailed and basic

information and intuitive learners prefer to use listening strategies which can help them grasp information as a whole (Messick

1984).

Aims of the Study

          Because of the theoretical support in literature discussed above, it is believed that analytical and intuitive EFL learners

may favour using different listening strategies according to their different learning styles. The purpose of the study is to investigate

the relationship between EFL learners’ learning styles and their listening strategies by focusing on the perspective of language

learning and on a particular language skill-listening and the associated strategies. The aims are to develop research tools that

could gather data from EFL learners in order to investigate this relationship. Hence the aims are to:

1. construct a reliable and valid learning style instrument;

2. construct a reliable and valid listening strategy questionnaire; and

3. seek the relationship, if any, between EFL learners’ learning styles and their listening strategies.

Method

          In order to investigate the relationship between learning styles and listening strategies, the reliability and validity of the

questionnaires used in study have to be taken into account as the necessary data were all collected using the self-report

instruments. Therefore, pilot studies are important as they help the researcher to eliminate and/or revise question items which are

irrelevant to the aims of the study. Both of the learning style questionnaire and the listening strategy questionnaire were revised to

suit the level of the EFL learners as the language used in the questionnaires were considered to be too difficult for the target

subjects. The steps for revising the questionnaires will be explained in the following sections.

Respondents

          The respondents were students enrolled in the Listening and Speaking Class in the Language Centre of the University of

Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, in September 2004. The participants were all selected from Level 2 classes whose proficiency level

was equivalent to about IELTS 5.5 to 6.0.

Instruments

          Two questionnaires were used as research tools for eliciting data for the purpose of this investigation. A learning style

questionnaire was employed to elicit data regarding EFL learners’ learning styles in terms of intuition and analysis. A listening

strategy questionnaire was used to discover EFL learners’ strategy use while practising listening. These two instruments were

initially adapted from inventories developed by other researchers for similar research purposes, and then revised for the sake of

this particular investigation after the pilot studies. The procedures applied in the development of both questionnaires as well as

the relevant methods and technique use concerns will be discussed.

Learning style questionnaire

          The Cognitive Style Index (CSI) (Allinson & Hayes, 1996) was chosen (Coffield, Moleley et al. 2004) for the experiment

mainly because a large-scale study of learning style inventories indicates that it is one of the more reliable and valid learning style

instruments among 71 inventories used in research conducted from 1970 to 2000. Also the CSI only contains 38 trichotomously

scored items (true; uncertain; false) in the questionnaire which is a manageable number for learners to complete in their classes.

The scoring system of the CSI is also quite simple. 21 questions are analysis-oriented, and the other 17 questions are intuition-

oriented-and therefore, are scored in reverse fashion. Taking one analysis-oriented question as an example; ‘to solve a problem,

I have to study each part of it in detail’; learners get 2 points if they choose ‘yes’, 1 point for choosing ‘uncertain’, and 0 points

for selecting ‘false’. Or, taking one intuition-oriented question as an example; ‘I am always prepared to take a gamble’; learners

get 2 points for the answer ‘no’, 1 point for the answer ‘uncertain’ and 0 points for choosing ‘yes’. The highest score would be

76 and the lowest score would be 0, and the higher the score the more analytical the learner is, whereas the lower the score the

more intuitive the learner is.

Listening strategy questionnaire

          Oxford’s (1990) Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL, version 7.0) was adapted for the study. The SILL

contains six categories with 50 statements, which learners score using a Likert scale of 1-5, 1 being ‘Never or almost never true

of me’ and 5 being ‘Always or almost always true of me’. The statements were all revised in order to ask about EFL learners’

listening strategy use, rather than the questions in the original SILL which asks about learners’ general learning strategies.

          Validity and reliability

          It was felt that the language level used in the CSI would be too high to be understood by the EFL learners in this study,

because there are some colloquial expressions and metaphors that they would not easily understand. For example, the question

‘I am the kind of person who casts caution to the wind’ is not easily comprehensible if learners cannot interpret the meaning of

the question according to the words’ surface meanings. According to Babbie & Halley (1994), an item is said to be valid if it

really measures what it is intended to measure. In this case, if the original version of CSI was applied for the research without

adaptation, the validity would be reduced because of the subjects’ difficulty in comprehending the questions. Therefore, it was

decided to lower the language level of the questions by changing the wording. In the pilot study, the researcher asked 5 learners

to read aloud the questions in the original CSI and underline the words or expressions that they did not understand immediately.

By comparing the results from the 5 learners, the researcher changed difficult words or expressions they identified. After the

revision, the 5 participants were invited to read aloud the revised learning style questionnaire again and check if they could

understand all of the questions immediately.

          Although it is claimed that the SILL, which contains six comprehensive strategy groups, has been extensively examined in

terms of its reliability and validity (Oxford & Burry-Stock 1995), the revised version still needed to be tested in order to develop

a suitable listening strategy questionnaire for use in this particular study in order to establish the validity. The preliminary version

included 58 Likert-scaled items describing various listening strategy uses in six categories: memory, cognition, compensation,

metacognition, affective and social groups. In the context of survey research, reliability refers to the question of whether we can

trust the answers that people give us - even when their misstatements are honest ones (Babbie and Halley 1994). So, in order to

determine the reliability of this research, a test-retest technique was employed. The original (test) version of the inventory was

presented the first time, and the second (retest) version was presented one week later. After the test-retest reliability test,

irrelevant items in the listening strategy questionnaire were eliminated and the revised version contained 48 questions.

Procedure

          There were two stages of data collection: the pilot stage and the main study stage. In the pilot stage, both the learning style

questionnaire and the listening strategy questionnaire were piloted using different methods to ensure the validity and reliability. In

the pilot stage, 5 EFL learners were randomly chosen to help revise the learning style and the listening strategy questionnaires.

The rest-retest technique was employed to reassure the reliability of the listening strategy questionnaire where the question items

were fully specified in listening strategies instead of general learning strategies. In the first week, 62 students had filled in the

listening strategy questionnaire, but in the following week, only 21 students filled in the same questionnaire again. After the

revision of the learning style questionnaire and listening strategy questionnaire, these questionnaires were used for the main study.

In the main study phase, data were collected from 118 participants who were required to fill in both learning style and listening

strategy questionnaires in the same session; however, some missing data were discovered later and only 98 copies of the

learning style and the listening strategy questionnaires were analysed.

Results and Discussion

          Although it is claimed that both the original versions of CSI and SILL are valid and reliable (Oxford 1990; Allinson and

Hayes 1996), it is necessary to modify and revise the original versions as this research focused on EFL contexts, not in general

psychological field. By using factor analysis and One-Way ANOVA to test the raw data, questionnaire modification and revision

were made easier. By using factor analysis, it was possible to eliminate irrelevant items and form new categories which are more

suitable for describing EFL learners’ learning styles and listening strategies. By using One-Way ANOVA, the relationship

between learning styles and listening strategies can be tested.

Cognitive Style Index

          The raw data were investigated by means of a principal components analysis of items. Two principal components

(factors) including 12 items were taken into account, neglecting other factors which did not produce a readily interpretable

structure (see Table 1). The scale reliabilities (Cronbach’s ?) are moderate, (component 1=0.71; component 2=0.67).

Table 1 Factor analysis of revised CSI and scale reliabilities

          According to the data analysis, the learning styles seem to fall into two groups. Based on the the features of the questions

in each component, I have chosen to name component 1 (Q36, Q21, Q19, Q28, Q5, Q11, and Q13) Group 1 ‘Sense of

Security’ as the majority of the questions in component 1 ask for information relating to carefulness and are therefore related to

feelings of security, and I have chosen to name component 2 (Q22, Q16, Q38, Q34, and Q8) Group 2 ‘Getting on with Tasks’

as most of the questions are asking time specification for decision making and are therefore related to decisions about how to

tackle tasks. Unlike the results found from studies conducted with the original CSI, the revised CSI produced two groups, which

indicates that in terms of looking at EFL learners’ learning styles there are at least two aspects which deserve separate attention.

The same argument was also raised by Hodgkinson and Sadler-Smith (2003) that learning styles/cognitive styles are best

conceived of within complex and multidimensional frameworks. According to the data in this study, it seems that EFL learners’

learning styles can be looked at in two different ways. The category of ‘Sense of Security’ can be explained as a combination of

field-dependent/field independent and field-sensitive/field-insensitive dimensions (Ehrman and Leaver 2003). The category of

‘Getting on with Tasks’ can be related to the impulsive/reflective dimension where impulsive means reacting quickly in action or

speaking with little or no ‘conscious’ thought whilst reflective means the opposite (Salkind and Wright 1977).

Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)

          The same data analysis technique mentioned in the previous section was applied to the SILL raw data, and five factors

were structured here. According to the features of the questions in each group (see Table 2), the newly-formed categories are

‘metacognitive’ (Q16, Q18, Q24, Q5 and Q10), ‘memory’ (Q17, Q6, Q27, Q41, and Q32), ‘cognitive’ (Q27, Q31, Q22,

and Q37), ‘study skills’ (Q19, Q47, Q30, Q21 and Q19) and ‘finding links’ (Q41, Q7, Q42 and Q43). The scale reliabilities

(Cronbach’s ?) are high, 0.71, 0.71, 0.73, 0.65, and 0.70 respectively. In the metacognitive category, questions focus on how

individuals control their listening such as through goal planning and evaluation; in the memory category, the questions focus on

memorisation; in the cognitive category, the mental cognitive processes are elicited; in the study skill category, questions are

asked about a number of study skills for reinforcing the listening ability; and the finding links category asks for information about

how learners link unknown information to what they already know.

Table 2 Factor analysis of revised SILL and scale reliabilities

The relationship between learning styles and listening strategies

          The One-Way ANOVA test was used to examine the relationship between the revised learning style results and listening

strategy groups. The informants’ learning styles are compared with the five categories of listening strategies, for the five factors;

however, no significance (Sig.<0.05) is shown on Table 3, Learning Style and Listening Strategies below. The results found here

support the findings from Sadler-Smith’s (1999a, 1999b) studies, where he failed to find a relationship between the intuition-

analysis styles and approaches to study.

Table 3 Learning Style and Listening Strategies

          Because the results showed no significant relationship between learning styles and listening strategies, the learning styles

sub-categories, ‘Sense of Security’ and ‘Getting on with Tasks’, were tested separately with the five factors of listening

strategies. After a One-Way ANOVA test was used to examine the relationship between the two learning style groups and the

five listening strategy factors, Factor 1 ‘metacognitive’ and factor 3 ‘cognitive’ were found to have significant relationships

(Sig.<0.05) with the ‘Sense of Security’ group, as can be seen in Table 4. However, there was no significant relationship

(Sig.>0.05) with regard to the ‘Getting on with Tasks’ group (see Table 5). These findings could be explained by the findings of

the study conducted by Ehrman and Oxford (1990), where thinkers (high sense of security people) prefer to use metacognitive

strategies as well as cognitive strategies. At this level of exploration, the learning style category, ‘Getting on with Tasks’, shows

no significant relationship with the listening strategy categories.

Table 4 'Sense of security and 5 listening strategy factors'

Table 5 'Getting on with tasks' and 5 listening strategy factors

Conclusion

          This study was designed in a narrow and specific manner in order to investigate the relationship between a bipolar learning

style (intuition-analysis) and five listening strategy categories. Two specific learning style categories - ‘Sense of Security’ and

‘Getting on with Tasks’ - were developed from the revised version of the CSI learning style instrument and five categories -

metacognitive, memory, cognitive, study skills, and finding links - were developed from the revised SILL learning strategy

questionnaire. No significant surface relationship was found between the intuition-analysis dimension and the five listening

strategies, and neither was there a relationship between ‘getting on with tasks’ and the five listening strategies. Nevertheless,

‘Sense of Security’ and ‘metacognitive’ and ‘cognitive’ listening strategies were found to be significantly related as indicated by

the results of the One-Way ANOVA test.

          In the study, it is discovered that EFL learning styles are actually more complicated than the simplification of the

analytical-intuitive dimension instead field-dependent/field-independent and field-sensitive/field-insensitive dimensions as well as

impulsive/reflective dimension are identified in this context. Therefore, further research should take into account other learning

style measurements and dimensions along with various listening strategies such as top-down and bottom-up listening strategies

which are considered to be vital in listening comprehension.

References

ADEY, P., FAIRBROTHER, R. et al., 1999. Learning styles and strategies: a review of research, The Centre for the Advancement of Thinking.

ALLINSON, C. W. AND HAYES, J., 1996. The Cognitive Style Index: a measure of intuition-analysis for organisational research, Journal of Management Studies, 33(1), 119-135.

BABBIE, E. AND HALLEY, F., 1994. Adventures in Social Research: Data analysis using SPSS. London: Pine Forge Press.

BROWN, H., 1994. Principles of language learning and teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice Hall Regents.

COFFIELD, F., D. MOSELEY, et al., 2004. Learning Styles for Post 16 Learners: What Do We Know? Learning and Skills Research Centre from the School of Education, Communication and Langauge Sciences, University of Newcastle.

COHEN, A., 1998. Strategies in learning and using a second language. London: Longman.

DUNN, R. K. AND PRICE G., 1979. Student learning styles : Diagnosing and prescribing programs. Reston,VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

FLOWERDEW, J. AND MILLER, L. 2005. Second Language Listening: Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

EHRMAN, M. AND B. L. LEAVER, 2003. Cognitive styles in the service of language learning. System 31: 393-451.

EHRMAN, M. And R. OXFORD, 1990. Adult language learning styles and strategies in an intensive training setting. Modern Language Journal 74: 311-327.

EHRMAN, M. E., 1996. Understaning Second Language Learning Difficulties. Thousand Oaks: CA, Sage Publications.

EHRMAN, M. E., 1997. Field independence, field dependence, and field sensitivity. Inderstanding Learning Styles in the Second Language Classroom. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Regent Prentice Hall.

HASSEN, X., E. MACARO, et al., 2005. Strategy training in language learning - a systematic review of available research. Research Evidence in Education Library. London, EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institution of Education, University of London.

Hodgkinson, G. P. AND E. Sadler-Smith, 2003. Complex or unitary? A critique and empirical re-assessment of the Allinson-Hayes Cognitive Style Index. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 76: 243-268.

KAGEN, J., B. ROSMAN, et al., 1964. Information processing and the child: significance of analytic and reflective attitudes, Psychological Monographs, 78, 578.

MESSICK, S., 1984. The Nature of Cognitive Styles: Problems and Promise in Educational Practice, Educational Psychologis, 19(2), 59-74.

O'BRIEN, L., 1989. Learning styles: Make the student aware. National Association of Secondary School Pricipals' Bulletin, 73, 85-89.

O'MALLEY, J. M. AND CHAMOT, A. U., 1990. Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

OXFORD, R. L., 1990. Language Learning Strategies: What every teacher should know. Bosten: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

OXFORD, R., 1993. Research update on L2 listening. System 21: 205-211.

OXFORD, R. L. AND BURRY-STOCK, J. A., 1995. Assessing the use of language learning strategues worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the strategy inventory for language learning, System, 23(2), 153-175.

OXFORD, R. AND EHRMAN M., 1993. Second language research on individual differences. Annual Review of Applied Linguistic,. 13, 188-205.

PASK, G. AND SCOTT, B. C. E. 1972. Learning strategies and individual competence. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 4, 217-253.

RIDING, R. J. AND CHEEMA, I., 1991. Cognitive styles - an overview and integration. Educational Psychology 11(3&4), 193-215.

RIDING, R. AND RAYNER, S., 1998. Cognitive Styles and Learning Strategies: understanding style differences in learning and behaviour. London: David Fulton Publishers Ltd.

SADLER-SMITH, E., 1999a. Intuitiion-Analysis Style and Approaches to Studying. Educational Studies, 25(2), 159-173.

SADLER-SMITH, E., 1999b. Intuition-analysis cognitive style and learning preferences of business & management students: a UK exploratory study. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14(1&2), 26-38.

SALKIND, N. AND J. WWIGHT, 1977. The development of reflection-impulsivity and cognitive efficiency. Human Development 20: 377-387.

TSUI, A. B. M. AND J. FULLILOVE, 1998. Bottom-up or top-down processing as a discriminator of L2 listening performance. Applied Linguistics 19(4): 432-451.

WITKIN, H. A. AND D. R. GOODENOUGH, 1981. Cognitive Style: Essence and Origins: Field Dependent and Field Independent. New York, International University

VANDERGRIFT, L., 1997. The comprehension strategies of second language (French) listeners: A descriptive study. Foreign Language Annals, 30(3), 387-409.

VANDERGRIFT, L., 2003. Orchestrating Strategy Use: Toward a Model of the Skilled Second Language Listener. Language Learning, 53(3, September), 463-496.

About the author

Cheng-Yi Kelly Chang is a 2nd Year full-time PhD student at the School of Education, Communication and Language Science,

University of Newcastle upon Tyne. Her research interest is focused on learning styles and listening strategies, especially in

computer assisted language learning. Comments on this paper can reach her by emailing at cheng-yi.chang@ncl.ac.uk