learning-styles

Recommendations

Info

6.4 Allinson and Hayes’ Cognitive Style Index (CSI) Introduction Christopher Allinson and John Hayes (working in the Leeds University Business School) developed the CSI after identifying two factors (‘action’ and ‘analysis’) in Honey and Mumford’s LSQ. Finding problems with many existing ways of measuring cognitive style, they decided to produce an easy-to-use instrument with a three-point rating scale, in order to measure a single dimension with intuition at one extreme and analysis at the other. The CSI was designed for use in adult organisational contexts and as a research tool on a national and international basis. It has been translated into Finnish (Löfström 2002) and several other languages. Cross-cultural studies have been carried out by its authors (Allinson and Hayes 2000), by Hill et al. (2000) and by Sadler-Smith, Spicer and Tsang (2000). Definitions and theoretical basis Allinson and Hayes see intuition-analysis as the most fundamental dimension of cognitive style. The 38 items of the CSI were chosen to reflect their belief (1996, 122) that: Intuition, characteristic of right-brain orientation, refers to immediate judgment based on feeling and the adoption of a global perspective. Analysis, characteristic of left-brain orientation, refers to judgment based on mental reasoning and a focus on detail. They follow Mintzberg (1976) in linking right-brained intuition with the need of managers to make quick decisions on the basis of ‘soft’ information, while left-brained analysis is seen as the kind of rational information processing that makes for good planning (Hayes and Allinson 1997). They regard ‘brainedness’ as ‘a useful metaphor’ and claim that a left-brain oriented person ‘tends to be compliant, prefers structure and is most effective when handling problems that require a step-by-step solution’, while a right-brain oriented person ‘tends to be non-conformist, prefers open-ended tasks and works best on problems favouring a holistic approach’ (Allinson and Hayes 2000, 161). Although they accept Tennant’s (1988, page 89) definition of cognitive style as ‘an individual’s characteristic and consistent approach to organizing and processing information’, Allinson and Hayes readily admit that cognitive style can be shaped by culture, altered by experience and overridden for particular purposes. Nevertheless, their starting position seems to be that the cognitive style concept may prove useful in work settings, not so much because <strong>styles</strong> can be modified, but rather through fitting people to jobs and, where economically feasible, adjusting job demands to what best suits the individual. Description There are 38 items in the CSI, ordered in such a way that nine of the first 10 items are about analytic qualities and nine of the last 10 are about intuitive qualities. Respondents have to respond to each item by choosing between ‘true’, ‘uncertain’ and ‘false’. It is possible to derive from the high-loading items in Table 30 (taken from a factor analysis by Löfström 2002) a basic understanding of the multifaceted constructs analysis and intuition. Close study of the CSI items reveals that many items relate to behaviour with and without time pressure; some emphasise decisive action rather than organised inaction; some focus on spontaneity rather than obeying rules; some are about valuing or ignoring detail; and others are about risk taking or risk avoidance. Measurement by authors Reliability To establish test reliability and validity, Allinson and Hayes (1996) analysed data collected from 945 adults, 45% of whom were students and 55% of whom were employed adults (most of them managers). Item analysis yielded excellent internal consistency, with alphas in the range 0.84 to 0.92 across seven sub-samples. In a later cross-cultural study (Allinson and Hayes 2000), similar results were obtained, with the single exception of a sample of 39 Nepalese managers. In their 1996 study, they report excellent test–retest reliability over a 4-week period (r tt=0.90) 11 for a subgroup of 30 management students. Validity On the basis of factor analyses using six ‘parcels’ of intercorrelated items, Allinson and Hayes (1996) claim that the CSI measures a single dimension. They do not say whether they considered and rejected other factor structures. Although they expected the CSI to measure something different from reasoning ability, Allinson and Hayes report that intuitive students performed significantly better than analytic students on the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (r=–0.25). They acknowledge that more research is needed to understand the relationships between cognitive style, intellectual ability and educational achievement. The best evidence the authors provide of construct validity is a high negative correlation (–0.81) between the CSI and an ‘action’ factor score derived from Honey and Mumford’s LSQ. They also report moderate correlations with the following measures from the MBTI: 0.57 with introversion; 0.57 with thinking as opposed to feeling; 0.47 with sensing as opposed to intuition; and 0.41 with judging as opposed to perceiving. 11 The symbol rtt indicates a test–retest correlation coefficient.
LSRC reference Section 6 page 86/87 Table 30 Items which best characterise analysis and intuition Source: Löfström (2002) Analysis type Intuition I find detailed, methodological work satisfying. I am careful to follow rules and regulations at work. When making a decision, I take my time and thoroughly consider all relevant factors. My philosophy is that it is better to be safe than risk being sorry. I make decisions and get on with things rather than analyse every last detail. I find that ‘too much analysis results in paralysis’. My ‘gut feeling’ is just as good a basis for decision making as careful analysis. I make many of my decisions on the basis of intuition. Suggestive evidence of predictive validity was also reported. Analytic-style junior managers working in a bureaucratic structure reported higher job satisfaction than intuitives (r=0.29), and analytic-style basic grade primary school teachers were more positive about job climate than intuitives. Allinson and Hayes (1996) predicted that intuition rather than analysis would be more strongly associated with seniority in business organisations. They found that within two companies (construction and brewing), senior managers and directors came out as significantly more intuitive than lower-level managers and supervisors. The effect sizes were 0.43 and 0.41 respectively. Similarly, Allinson, Chell and Hayes (2000) found that 156 successful entrepreneurs were rather more intuitive than: an opportunity sample of 257 managers and the senior construction and brewery managers previously studied. In these comparisons, the effect sizes were small to moderate (0.27, 0.09 and 0.41 respectively). However, in a later study of mentors and protégés in police, medical and engineering contexts, Armstrong, Allinson and Hayes (2002) found that mentors (who generally worked at much higher levels of responsibility than protégés) came out as more analytic than protégés (effect size 0.31). This raises two important questions: how far success in different types of organisation depends on different qualities and how far people respond differently to questionnaires such as the CSI depending on their understanding of the focus of the enquiry. External evaluation Reliability Using a Canadian sample of 89 business undergraduates, Murphy et al. (1998) found that the CSI had good internal consistency (alpha=0.83). Further confirmation of good internal consistency was provided by Sadler-Smith, Spicer and Tsang (2000) in a large-scale study which included sub-samples of management and staff in the UK and in Hong Kong. The highest level of internal consistency found was 0.89 for 201 personnel practitioners, and the lowest was 0.79 for 98 owner-managers in Hong Kong. Overall, only two items failed to correlate well with the total score. Test–retest stability over 3 weeks for 79 individuals in Murphy’s study was extremely high at 0.89. Validity The idea that the CSI measures a single dimension has received much less support than empirically based criticism. Sadler-Smith, Spicer and Tsang (2000) followed the ‘parcelling’ procedure recommended by Allinson and Hayes and were able to support a single-factor model. However, Spicer (2002) pointed out that the ‘analytic’ and ‘intuitive’ item sets identified by Allinson and Hayes (1996) were far from being polar opposites and Löfström (2002) found that a two-factor model provided a good fit to the data she obtained from 228 working adults. Hodgkinson and Sadler-Smith (2003) drew attention to bias in the item-parcelling procedure used in earlier studies and, after exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis with large samples (total n=939), reported unequivocal support for a model with analysis and intuition as two moderately correlated factors. Although Sadler-Smith, Spicer and Tsang (2000) failed in their attempt to validate the CSI against Riding’s computerised Cognitive Styles Analysis (CSA), the near-zero correlation reported should not be taken as a criticism of the CSI, as Riding’s instrument has since been shown to be seriously flawed (Peterson, Deary and Austin 2003a). In another study with undergraduates, Sadler-Smith (1999a, 1999b) obtained low, but statistically significant, correlations between the CSI and the meaning and achieving sub-scales of a short form of Entwistle’s ASSIST (1998).
Page 1 and 2:
LSRC reference Learning styles and
Page 3 and 4:
LSRC reference Learning styles and
Page 5 and 6:
LSRC reference Contents 1 9 13 37 4
Page 7 and 8:
LSRC reference Figures and tables L
Page 9 and 10:
LSRC reference Acknowledgements The
Page 11 and 12:
Section 1 A systematic review of le
Page 13 and 14:
LSRC reference Section 1 page 2/3 E
Page 15 and 16:
LSRC reference Section 1 page 4/5 T
Page 17 and 18:
LSRC reference Section 1 page 6/7 T
Page 19 and 20:
Figure 3 Vermunt’s model of learn
Page 21 and 22:
We devised this classificatory syst
Page 23 and 24:
The popular appeal of the notion th
Page 25 and 26:
Figure 5 Gregorc’s four-channel l
Page 27 and 28:
From the evidence available, we con
Page 29 and 30:
Table 1 Gregorc’s Mind Styles Mod
Page 31 and 32:
Table 2 Variables and factors in th
Page 33 and 34:
The measures Over 25 years, Dunn an
Page 35 and 36:
Table 4 Percentages of respondents
Page 37 and 38:
The BES instrument has elements for
Page 39 and 40:
Shwery (1994) also questioned aspec
Page 41 and 42:
However, the notion of ‘gifted’
Page 43 and 44: Second, the model encourages teache
Page 45 and 46: Table 6 Dunn and Dunn’s model and
Page 47 and 48: The most influential member of the
Page 49 and 50: Table 9 Studies of the interaction
Page 51 and 52: Riding and Rayner (1998) do not def
Page 53 and 54: Implications for pedagogy Riding (2
Page 55 and 56: Section 5 Stable personality type L
Page 57 and 58: LSRC reference Section 5 page 48/49
Page 69 and 70: Section 6 Flexibly stable learning
Page 93: LSRC reference Section 6 page 84/85
Page 99 and 100: Section 7 Learning approaches and s
Page 127 and 128: Section 8 Implications for pedagogy
Page 141 and 142: Our recommendation in favour of inc
Page 143 and 144: As for the research evidence in fav
Page 145 and 146:
Learning styles in practice: labell
Page 147 and 148:
Table 44 13 learning-styles models
Page 149 and 150:
It may be argued that it is importa
Page 151 and 152:
The comparative neglect of knowledg
Page 153 and 154:
LSRC reference page 146/147 Referen
Page 155 and 156:
LSRC reference References page 148/
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
LSRC reference page 166/167 Author(
Page 175 and 176:
LSRC reference Appendix 1 page 168/
Page 177 and 178:
Appendix 3 Glossary of terms LSRC r
Page 179 and 180:
LSRC reference Appendix 3 page 172/
show all

learning-styles

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?