Learning styles and Disciplinary Differences:
Testing the Predictive Value of Kolb’s Learning Style
Inventory in the Confucian Heritage Culture,
a Look at Taiwan
Student: Jacob ErlichAdvisor: Kevin P. Hwang
In Memory of: Cary Wang
TAIWAN’S SHIFTING INDUSTRY
1950-PRESENT
Labor intensive
Capital intensive
Knowledge intensive
2001
Knowledge Economy“an economy that creates,
acquires, adapts, and uses
knowledge effectively for its
economic and social
development”
- World Bank
Econ
omic
and
In
stitu
tiona
l Reg
ime
Info
rmati
on &
Co
mm
unic
ation
Te
chno
logy
(ICT
)
Inno
vatio
n Sy
stem
s
Educ
ation
& tr
aini
ng
Knowledge Economy
Knowledge Economy Index (KEI)- World Bank
Why is a KE important?
Relationship between GDP & Knowledge Economy Index
2008 Knowledge Assessment
Ranked above…
Innovation systems
Ranked above…
Information & Communication
30th Education
Room for Improvement
Apply
to
Learning how we learn
WarningLearning styles are points along a scale that help
us to discover the different forms of cognitive
processing known as learning styles.
Learning style instruments are used to allocate
a person on some point on a continuum.
The literature suggests learning styles as widely
accepted, however, there is disagreement on
how to best measure learning styles
(Coeffield, et al., 2004)
Universal Applicability
All people; 1. utilize some combination of the 4 dimensions
(concrete, reflective, abstract, active)2. may differ in their information-processing
strategies
BRIEF REVIEW
“learning is by its very nature a tension and conflict filled process”
(Kolb, 1984, p. 30)
Figure 2-1. The Experiential Learning Model Source: Kolb & Kolb (2005, p. 3)
Concrete Experience
Abstract Conceptualization
Active Experimentation
Reflective Observation
Figure 2-1. The Experiential Learning Model Source: Kolb & Kolb (2005, p. 3)
Concrete Experience
Abstract Conceptualization
Active Experimentation
Reflective Observation
Concrete Experience
Abstract Conceptualization
Active Experimentation
Reflective Observation
Figure 2-1. The Experiential Learning Model Source: Kolb & Kolb (2005, p. 3)
Learning Style Inventory (LSI)
Describing the way you learn, deal with ideas and day-to-day situations
12 sentence questionnaire• Filling in incomplete sentences
Ranking of: – “4” best describes you– “3” second best– “2” less– “1” least like you
1. When I learn:___ I like to deal with my feelings.___ I like to think about ideas.___ I like to be doing things.___ I like to watch and listen.
1. When I learn:___ I like to deal with my feelings.___ I like to think about ideas.___ I like to be doing things.___ I like to watch and listen.
1. When I learn:___ I like to deal with my feelings.___ I like to think about ideas.___ I like to be doing things.___ I like to watch and listen.
1. When I learn:___ I like to deal with my feelings.___ I like to think about ideas.___ I like to be doing things.___ I like to watch and listen.
1. When I learn:___ I like to deal with my feelings.___ I like to think about ideas.___ I like to be doing things.___ I like to watch and listen.
doing practicepractical work-hardResponsibleactive try-thingsresults
watching quietListening carefullyreserved
observingTake-time
careful
Reactions feelings experience Intuition relationships hunches accepting involved open-minded
ideas theory evaluate rational analyze break-down reason think logical
CONCEPTUAL MODEL
Abstract Learning
Style
ReflectiveLearning
Style
Diverging Learning Style
Assimilating Learning Style
Converging Learning Style
Accommodating Learning Style
Humanities and Social Sciences
Natural Sciences and Mathematics
Science-based Professions
Social Professions
H3
H4
H5
H6
Abstract Learning Ability
ReflectiveLearning Ability
H1
H2
Development of Hypothesis H1
H1 – Learners from a Confucian heritage culture, regardless of academic background, will favor a more abstract learning style.
CHCLearners
H1
Development of Hypothesis H2
H2 – Learners from a Confucian heritage culture, regardless of academic background, will favor a more reflective learning style.
CHCLearners
H2
Abstract Learning Ability
ReflectiveLearning Ability
Learners in a Confucian Heritage Culture(CHC)
H1
H2
Development of Hypothesis H3
H3 – Learners studying in humanities and social sciences will favor a concrete and reflective learning style known as the Diverging style
Diverging Learning Style
Humanities and Social Sciences
H3
Development of Hypothesis H4
H4 – Learners studying in natural sciences and mathematics will favor an abstract and reflective learning style known as the Assimilating style
Assimilating Learning Style
Natural Sciences and Mathematics
H4
Converging Learning Style
Science-based Professions
H5
Development of Hypothesis H5
H5 – Learners studying in science-based professions will favor an abstract and active learning style known as the Converging style
Accommodating Learning Style
Social Professions
H6
Development of Hypothesis H6
H6 – Learners studying in social professions will favor a concrete and active learning style known as the Accommodating style
Diverging Learning Style
Assimilating Learning Style
Converging Learning Style
Accommodating Learning Style
Humanities and Social Sciences
Natural Sciences and Mathematics
Science-based Professions
Social Professions
H3
H4
H5
H6
Abstract Learning
Style
ReflectiveLearning
Style
Diverging Learning Style
Assimilating Learning Style
Converging Learning Style
Accommodating Learning Style
Humanities and Social Sciences
Natural Sciences and Mathematics
Science-based Professions
Social Professions
H3
H4
H5
H6
Abstract Learning Ability
ReflectiveLearning Ability
H1
H2
THE STUDY
Sampling Plan
Taiwanese students
National Cheng Kung University
Chinese Lit.
Business Admin.
Statistics
Engineering
RESEARCH RESULTS
Learning mode & combination scores
Most preferred modeAbstract Conceptualization AC = 32.73
Learning mode & combination scores
Learning mode & combination scores
AC – CE32.73 – 28.18
4.55
Learning mode & combination scores
AE – RO29.93 – 29.16
0.77
X=4.55
4.55
X=4.55
AE RO
Concrete Experience (CE)
Abstract Conceptualization (AC)
AE RO
X=4.55
0.77
CE
AC
Activ
e Ex
perim
enta
tion
(AE)
Reflective Observation (RO
)
X=4.55
(CE)
(AC)
(AE)
(RO)
ReflectiveLearning
Style
Diverging Learning Style
Assimilating Learning Style
Converging Learning Style
Accommodating Learning Style
Humanities and Social Sciences
Natural Sciences and Mathematics
Science-based
Professions
Social Professions
H3
H4
H5
H6
Abstract Learning Ability
ReflectiveLearning Ability
H1
H2
Abstract Learning Ability
ReflectiveLearning Ability
Learners in a Confucian Heritage Culture(CHC)
H1
H2
Learning mode & combination scores
y-axis x-axis
X=4.55
(CE)
(AC)
(AE)
(RO)
AC-CE 6.83AE-RO 5.96(Kolb, 2005)
X=4.55
(CE)
(AC)
(AE)
(RO)
AC-CE 8.57AE-RO 0.44
(Yuen & Lee, 1994)
X=4.55
(CE)
(AC)
(AE)
(RO)
AC-CE 4.22AE-RO 4.27(Katz, 1988)
X=4.55
(CE)
(AC)
(AE)
(RO)
AC-CE 4.3AE-RO 5.9(Kolb, 1985)
X=4.55
(CE)
(AC)
(AE)
(RO)
AC-CE 4.5AE-RO 2.9(Kolb, 1976)
H1Abstract
Learning Ability
H2ReflectiveLearning Ability
ReflectiveLearning
Style
Diverging Learning Style
Assimilating Learning Style
Converging Learning Style
Accommodating Learning Style
Humanities and Social Sciences
Natural Sciences and Mathematics
Science-based
Professions
Social Professions
H3
H4
H5
H6
Abstract Learning Ability
ReflectiveLearning Ability
H1
H2
Diverging Learning Style
Assimilating Learning Style
Converging Learning Style
Accommodating Learning Style
Humanities and Social Sciences
Natural Sciences and Mathematics
Science-based Professions
Social Professions
H3
H4
H5
H6
Academic Specialization (mean scores) & Learning Style
X=4.55
(CE)
(AC)
(AE)
(RO)
Diverging Learning Style
Humanities and Social Sciences
H3
Assimilating Learning Style
Natural Sciences and Mathematics
H4
Converging Learning Style
Science-based Professions
H5
Accommodating Learning Style
Social Professions
H6
Abstract Learning
Style
ReflectiveLearning
Style
Diverging Learning Style
Assimilating Learning Style
Converging Learning Style
Accommodating Learning Style
Humanities and Social Sciences
Natural Sciences and Mathematics
Science-based
Professions
Social Professions
H3
H4
H5
H6
Abstract Learning Ability
ReflectiveLearning Ability
H1
H2
LEARNING MODESANALYSIS OF VARIANCE (ANOVA)
Learning Scores F Sig. DuncanConcrete Experience (CE)
Between Groups 0.481 0.695 (3124)Within Groups Total
Reflective Observation(RO)
Between Groups 5.707 0.001 (23, 14)Within Groups Total
Abstract Conceptualization(AC)
Between Groups 10.076 0.000 (41, 32)Within Groups Total
Active Experimentation(AE)
Between Groups 0.643 0.588 (2341)Within Groups Total
Note: 1=Humanities & Natural Science, 2=Natural Science & Mathematics, 3=Science-based Professions, 4=Social Professions
Significant between group differences
F>1.96 P<0.05Abstract Conceptualization 10.1 0.000
Reflective Observation 5.7 0.001
Abstract Learning Ability Reflective
Learning Ability
Duncan groupings
Abstract Conceptualization ( 41, 32)
Reflective Observation (23, 14)
Humanities and Social Sciences
Natural Sciences and Mathematics
Science-based Professions
Social Professions
Humanities and Social Sciences
Natural Sciences and Mathematics
Science-based Professions
Social Professions
STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF RELATIONSHIPS
Significance of Independent Variables
1. Gender2. Age3. Year of Study4. Level of Income5. Academic Specialization
Gender Learning StylesTotalDiv. Acc. Conv. Assim.
Female Count 46 60 34 47 187 % within Gender 24.60 32.09 18.18 25.13 100%Male Count 42 44 52 69 207 % within Gender 20.29 21.26 25.12 33.33 100%Total Count 88 104 86 116 394 % within Gender 22.34 26.40 21.83 29.44 100.00
Item Value df Sig. (2-sided)Pearson Chi-Square 9.59 3 0.022Likelihood Ratio 9.63 3 0.022Linear-by-Linear Association 5.86 1 0.015N of Valid Cases 394.00
X=4.55
AE RO
CE
AC
Activ
e Ex
perim
enta
tion
(AE)
Reflective Observation (RO
)Concrete Experience (CE)
Abstract Conceptualization (AC)
Age Learning StylesTotalDiv. Acc. Conv. Assim.
18 - 25 Count 86 102 84 112 384 % within Age 22.40 26.56 21.88 29.17 100%26 - 30 Count 2 2 0 4 8 % within Age 25.00 25.00 0.00 50.00 100%31 - 35 Count 0 0 2 0 2 % within Age 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100% Total Count 88 104 86 116 394 % within Age 22.34 26.40 21.83 29.44 100%
Item Value df Sig. (2-sided)Pearson Chi-Square 10.10 6 0.120Likelihood Ratio 10.57 6 0.102Linear-by-Linear Association 0.45 1 0.503N of Valid Cases 394.00
Year of study (yos) Learning StylesTotalDiv. Acc. Conv. Assim.
1 Count 0 1 0 0 1 % within yoS 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100%2 Count 18 15 12 8 53 % within yos 33.96 28.30 22.64 15.09 100%3 Count 47 55 50 76 228 % within yos 20.61 24.12 21.93 33.33 100%4 Count 23 33 24 32 112 % within yos 20.54 29.46 21.43 28.57 100%Total Count 88 104 86 116 394 % within yos 22.34 26.40 21.83 29.44 100%
Item Value df Sig. (2-sided)Pearson Chi-Square 12.31 9 0.196Likelihood Ratio 12.52 9 0.186Linear-by-Linear Association 2.29 1 0.130N of Valid Cases 394.00
Level of Income (LoI) Learning StylesTotalDiv. Acc. Conv. Assim.
< $20K NTD Count 16 16 7 15 54 % within LoI 29.63 29.63 12.96 27.78 100%$20 - 30K NTD Count 11 15 14 16 56 % within LoI 19.64 26.79 25.00 28.57 100%$30 – 40K NTD Count 18 29 16 26 89 % within LoI 20.22 32.58 17.98 29.21 100%$40 – 50K NTD Count 13 14 15 17 59 % within LoI 22.03 23.73 25.42 28.81 100%$50 – 60K NTD Count 10 5 11 18 44 % within LoI 22.73 11.36 25.00 40.91 100% > $60K NTD Count 14 19 16 19 68 % within LoI 20.59 27.94 23.53 27.94 100%No Answer Count 6 6 7 5 24 % within LoI 25.00 25.00 29.17 20.83 100%Total Count 88 104 86 116 394 % within LoI 22.34 26.40 21.83 29.44 100%
Item Value df Sig. (2-sided)Pearson Chi-Square 14.07 18 0.724Likelihood Ratio 15.04 18 0.659Linear-by-Linear Association 0.61 1 0.436N of Valid Cases 394.00
Academic category (Ac) Learning Styles TotalDiv. Acc. Conv. Assim.Humanities & Social Science
Count 31 31 20 35 117% within Ac 26.50 26.50 17.09 29.91 100%
Natural Science & Mathematics
Count 8 21 24 28 81% within Ac 9.88 25.93 29.63 34.57 100%
Science-based Profession
Count 19 19 29 26 93% within Ac 20.43 20.43 31.18 27.96 100%
Social Profession Count 30 33 13 27 103% within Ac 29.13 32.04 12.62 26.21 100%
Total Count 88 104 86 116 394 % within Ac 22.34 26.40 21.83 29.44 100%
Item Value df Sig. (2-sided)Pearson Chi-Square 23.67 9 0.005Likelihood Ratio 25.09 9 0.003Linear-by-Linear Association 1.24 1 0.265N of Valid Cases 394.00
Humanities & Social Sciences
X=4.55
AE RO
CE
AC
Natural Sciences & Mathematics
X=4.55
AE RO
CE
AC
Science-based Professions
X=4.55
AE RO
CE
AC
Social Professions
X=4.55
AE RO
CE
AC
X=4.55
AE RO
CE
AC
Significance of Independent Variables
1. Gender
2. Age
3. Year of Study
4. Level of Income
5. Academic Specialization
Academic Category Gender N Percentage %Humanities & Social Sciences
Female 89 76.1%Male 28 23.9
Natural Science & Mathematics
Female 25 30.8Male 56 69.2%
Science-based Professions
Female 10 10.7Male 83 89.3%
Social Professions Female 63 61%Male 40 39
Humanities & Social Sciences
Gender Learning styles TotalDiv. Acc. Conv. Assim.Female Count 25 24 15 25 89 % within Gender 28.09 26.97 16.85 28.09 100%Male Count 6 7 5 10 28 % within Gender 21.43 25.00 17.86 35.71 100%Total Count 31 31 20 35 117 % within Gender 26.50 26.50 17.09 29.91 100%
Item Value df Sig. (2-sided)Pearson Chi-Square 0.81 3 0.846Likelihood Ratio 0.82 3 0.846Linear-by-Linear Association 0.80 1 0.370N of Valid Cases 117.00
Natural Science & Mathematics
Gender Learning styles TotalDiv. Acc. Conv. Assim.Female Count 2 11 7 5 25 % within Gender 8.00 44.00 28.00 20.00 100%Male Count 6 10 17 23 56 % within Gender 10.71 17.86 30.36 41.07 100%Total Count 8 21 24 28 81 % within Gender 9.88 25.93 29.63 34.57 100%
Item Value df Sig. (2-sided)Pearson Chi-Square 6.94 3 0.074Likelihood Ratio 6.80 3 0.078Linear-by-Linear Association 3.02 1 0.082N of Valid Cases 81.00
Science-based Professions
Gender Learning styles TotalDiv. Acc. Conv. Assim.Female Count 1 5 2 2 10 % within Gender 10.00 50.00 20.00 20.00 100%Male Count 18 14 27 24 83 % within Gender 21.69 16.87 32.53 28.92 100%Total Count 19 19 29 26 93 % within Gender 20.43 20.43 31.18 27.96 100%
Item Value df Sig. (2-sided)Pearson Chi-Square 6.10 3 0.107Likelihood Ratio 5.09 3 0.165Linear-by-Linear Association 0.26 1 0.611N of Valid Cases 93.00
Social Professions
Gender Learning styles TotalDiv. Acc. Conv. Assim.Female Count 18 20 10 15 63 % within Gender 28.57 31.75 15.87 23.81 100%Male Count 12 13 3 12 40 % within Gender 30.00 32.50 7.50 30.00 100%Total Count 30 33 13 27 103 % within Gender 29.13 32.04 12.62 26.21 100%
Item Value df Sig. (2-sided)Pearson Chi-Square 1.74 3 0.628Likelihood Ratio 1.84 3 0.607Linear-by-Linear Association 0.01 1 0.913N of Valid Cases 103.00
Significance of Independent Variables – Reevaluated
1. Gender
2. Age
3. Year of Study
4. Level of Income
5. Academic Specialization
CONCLUSION
Diverging Learning Style
Assimilating Learning Style
Converging Learning Style
Accommodating Learning Style
Humanities and Social Sciences
Natural Sciences and Mathematics
Science-based Professions
Social Professions
H3
H4
H5
H6
ReflectiveLearning Ability
H2
Abstract Learning Ability H1
Abstract Learning
Style
ReflectiveLearning
Style
Diverging Learning Style
Assimilating Learning Style
Converging Learning Style
Accommodating Learning Style
Humanities and Social Sciences
Natural Sciences and Mathematics
Science-based
Professions
Social Professions
H3
H4
H5
H6
Abstract Learning Ability
ReflectiveLearning Ability
H1
H2
X=4.55
Humanities and Social
Sciences
Natural Sciences
and Mathemati
cs
Science-based
Professions
Social Profession
s
Activ
e Ex
perim
enta
tion
(AE)
Reflective Observation (RO
)Concrete Experience (CE)
Abstract Conceptualization (AC)
Learning styles by academic backgrounds appear to split along the Concrete-Abstract dimension
Significant between group differences
F>1.96 P<0.05Abstract Conceptualization 10.1 0.000
Reflective Observation 5.7 0.001
Abstract Learning Ability Reflective
Learning Ability
ANOVA analysis shows preferred learning modes by academic background in fact split at the
Abstract and Reflective dimensions
Duncan groupings
Abstract Conceptualization ( 41, 32)
Reflective Observation (23, 14)
Humanities and Social Sciences
Natural Sciences and Mathematics
Science-based Professions
Social Professions
Humanities and Social Sciences
Natural Sciences and Mathematics
Science-based Professions
Social Professions
Duncan analysis supports that academic backgrounds group together in their preferences for the
Abstract and Reflective dimensions
IMPLICATIONS
1. Knowledge of own learning style
“Self-awareness” resulting in a repertoire of learning techniques – Sadler-Smith (2001)
Insight into “diverse approaches to creating, manipulating, and communicating knowledge” - Kolb (1984)
Future career path
2. Offers a lexicon of learning
“Intellectual catalog of words” – (Coffield, 2006)
“Teaching and learning effectiveness” (Zualkernan et al., 2006)
“Tool box of strategies” – (Adey, et al. 1999)
3. Life-long learning
A step towards a society of learner
More effective in communicating, team worker and resolving conflict – Kolb, 1999
LIMITATIONS
Limitations
1. Limited sample size2. Uncontrolled variables3. Convenient sample4. Translation issues
FUTURE RESEARCH
Future Research
1. Furthering Taiwanese normative sample2. Academic major level study3. Effect of learning environment4. Matching hypothesis
Learning Styles Disciplinary Differences
Culture
Thank you!
Questions
ReferencesAdey, P., Fairbrother, R., & William, D. (1999). Learning styles and strategies: a review of
research. London: King's College of London, School of Education.Alatas, S. F. (2000). Academic dependency in the social sciences: Reflections on India and
Malaysia. . American Studies International, 38(2), 80-96.Ali, A. (1988). A cross-national perspective of managerial work value systems. In R. N. Farmer, N.
Richard & E. G. McGoun (Eds.), Advances in International Comparative Management (Vol. 3, pp. 151-170). Greenwich CT: JAI Press.
Allert, J. (2004). Learning Style and Factors Contributing to Success in an Introductory Computer Science Course. Paper presented at the 4th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT2004).
Allinson, C., & Hayes, J. (1996). The Cognitive Style Index. Journal of Management Studies, 33, 119-135.
Altmeyer, R. (1966). Education in the arts and sciences: Divergent paths. Carnegie Institute of Technology.
Apter, M. (2001). Motivational styles in everyday life: a guide to reversal theory. Paper presented at the American Psychology Association.
Auyeung, P., & Sands, J. (1996). A cross cultural study of the learning style of accounting students. Accounting and Finance, 36, 261-274.
Bandler, R., & Grinder, J. (1979). Frogs into Pricnces: neuro linguistic programming. Utah: Real People Press.
Barker, M. (1997). The purpose of study, attitudes to study and staff-student relationships. In D. MacNamara & R. Harris (Eds.), Overseas students in higer education (pp. 92-108). London: Routledge.
Barmeyer, C. I. (2004). Learning styles and their impact on cross-cultural training: An international comparison in France, Germany and Quebec. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28(6), 577.
Barron, H. (1996). Strengths and limitations of ipsative measurement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69, 49-56.
Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology(57), 195-203.
Bokoros, M., Goldstein, M., & Sweeney, M. (1992). Common factors in five measures of cognitive style. Current Psychology: Research & Reviews, 11(2), 99-109.
Bond, M. H. (1996). Chinese values. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 208-226). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
Brand, D. (1987, August 31). The new whiz kids: Why Asian Americans are doing well, and what it costs them. Time, 9, 42-50.
Brennan, L., & Durovic, J. (2005). "Plagiarism" and the Confucian Heritage culture (CHC) student. Paper presented at the Asia-Pacific Educational Integrity Conference (APEIC) 2005
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward Theory of Instruction. New York: John Wiley.Bruner, J. S., & others, a. (1966). Studies in Cognitive Growth. New York: Wiley.Bush, T., & Qiang, H. (2000). Leadership and culture in Chinese education. Asia Pacific Journal
of Education, 20(2), 58-67.
Carson, J., & Nelson, G. (1996). Chinese students' perception of ESL peer response group interaction. JOurnal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 1-19.
Carver, C., R., H., & Lane, W. (1999). Enhancing Student Learning Through Hypermedia Courseware and Incorporation of Student Learning Styles. IEEE Transactions on Education, 42(2), 33-38.
Chan, S. (1999). The Chinese learner - a question of style. Education + Training, 41(6/7), 294-304.
Cheng, K., & Wong, K. (1996). School effectiveness in East Asia. Journal of Educational Administration, 34(5), 32-49.
Claxton, C., & Ralston, Y. (1978). Learning styles. In C. C. a. Y. Ralston (Ed.), Learning styles: their impact on teaching and administration. Washington: American Association for Higher Education.
Cocroft, B. A. K., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1994). Face-work in Japan and in the United States. Intercultural Journal of Intercultural Relation, 18, 469-506.
Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004a). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre.
Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004b). Should we be using learning styles?: What research has to say to practice. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre.
Cortazzi, M. (1990). Cultural and educational expectations in the language classroom. In Cultural and the Language Classroom, 132, 54-65.
Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1997). Communication for learning across cultures. In D. MacNamara & D. Harris (Eds.), Overseas students in higher education (pp. 79-90). London: Routledge.
Curry, L. (1983). An organization of learning styles theory and constructs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
De Bello, T. (1990). Comparison of eleven major learning styles models: variables, appropriate populations, validity of instrumentation, and research behind them. Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities, 6, 203-222.
De Vita, G. (2001). Learning styles, culture and inclusive instruction in the multicultural classroom: A business and managment perspective. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 38(2), 165-174.
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic, the theory of inquiry. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Dixon, N. (1982). Incorporating learning style into training design. Training Development
Journal(36), 62-64.Donald, J. (2007). Approaches to learning accounting: a cross-cultural study. Asian Review of
Accounting, 15(2), 100-121.Economist, T. (2003, 25 January ). Roll over, Confucius. The Economist.Ford, N. (1985). Learning styles and strategies of postgraduate students. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 16, 65-79.Ford, N. (1995). Levels and types of mediation in instructional systems: an individual differences
approach. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 43, 241-259.Ford, N., & Chen, S. (2001). Matching/mismatching revisitied: an empirical study of learning and
teaching styles. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(1), 5-22.Freire, P. (1974). Education for critical consciousness (M. B. Ramos, L. Bigwood & M. Marshall,
Trans.). London: Sheed-Ward.Fridland, G. H. (2002). Adult learning styles and cultural background: A comparison of the
learning style preferences of American teachers of English as a second language and Chinese teachers of English as a foreign language. . University of Memphis, TN.
Friedman, T. L. (2006). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. N.Y. : Farrar Straus and Giroux.
Gao, L., & Watkins, D. A. (2002). Conceptions of teaching held by school science teachers in P. R. China: Identification and cross-cultural comparisons. International Journal of Science Education, 24(1), 61-79.
Gardner, H. (1989). To open minds. New York: Basic Books.Grochow, J. (1973). Cognitive syle as a factor in the design of interactive decision-support
systems. Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Hayes, J., & Allinson, C. (1988). Cultural differences in the learning styles of managers.
Management International Review, 28, 75-80.Hickcox, L. K. (1990). An historical review of Kolb's formulation of experiential learning theory.
University of Oregon, Corvallis.Ho, D. Y. F. (1991). Cognitive socialization in Confucian heritage cultures. Paper presented at the
Workshop on Continuities and Discontinuities in the Cognitive Socialisation of Minority Children.
Ho, I., Salili, F., Biggs, J., & Hau, K. (1999). The relationship among casual attributions, learning strategies and level of achievement: A Hong Kong case study Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 19(1), 44-58.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences. International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills.
Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural differences in teaching and learning International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 301-320.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. Maindenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organizations: software of the mind. London: Mc Graw Hill.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd Ed.). London: Sage.
Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, J. (2005). Cultures and organisation-software of the minds. London: Profile Books LTD.
Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (2000). The learning styles helper's guide.Hoppe, M. H. (1990). A comparative study of country elites: International differences in work
related values and learning and their implications for managerial training and development. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
House, R., Hanges, P., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, seadership and 0rganizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies: Sage Publications, Inc. .
Hsu, F. L. K. (1985). The self in cross-cultural perspective. In A. J. Marsella, G. DeVos & F. L. K. Hsu (Eds.), Culture and self: Asian and western perspectives. New York: Tavistock Publications.
Hudson, L. (1966). Contrary Imaginations. Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.
Iliff, C. H. (1994). Kolb's Learning Style Inventory: A meta-analysis. Boston University.Jin, L., & Cortazzi, M. (1998). Dimensions of dialogue: large classes in China. International Journal
of Educational Research(29), 739-761.Joy, S., & Kolb, D. (2007). Are there cultural differences in learning style? Case Western Reserve
University.Katz, N. (1988). Individual learning style: Israeli norms and cross-cultural equvalence of Kolb's
learning style inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology(19), 361.Keefe, J. (1989). Learning Style: an overview NASSP's Student Learning Styles: Diagnosing and
Prescribing Programs. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary Principals.
Kember, D. (1996). The intention to both memorise and understand: Another approach to learning? . Higher Education, 31, 341-354.
Kennedy, P. (2002). Learning cultures and learning styles: myth-understandings about adult Hong Kong - Chinese learners. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 21(5), 430-445.
Kolb, D. (1976a). Learning Style Inventory Boston, MA: Hay Group , Hay Resources Direct.Kolb, D. (1976b). Management and Learning Processes. California Management Review, 18(3), 21-
31.Kolb, D. (1981). Learning styles and disciplinary differences: Diverse pathways. In A. W. Chickering
(Ed.), The Modern American College: Responding to the New Realities of Diverse Students and a Changing Society (pp. 232-255). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kolb, D. (1984). The experiential learning: Experience as a source of learning and development. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Kolb, D. (1985). Learning Style Inventory. Boston, MA: Hay Group, Hay Resources Direct.Kolb, D. (1999). Learning Style Inventory. Boston, MA: Hay Group, Hay Resources Direct.Kolb, D. (2000). Facilitator's guide to learning. Boston: Hay/McBer.Kolb, D., & Fry, R. (1975). Towards an applied theory of experiential learning. In C. L. C. (Ed.) (Ed.),
Theories of group process. London: Wiley.Kolb, D., & Goldman, M. (1973). Toward a typology of learning styles and learning environments:
An investigation of the impact of learning styles and discipline demands on the academic performance, social adaptation, and career choices of M.I.T. seniors. M.I.T. Sloan School of Management.
Kolb, D., & Kolb, A. (2005). The Kolb learning style inventory-version 3.1 2005 technical specifications Available from www.learningfromexperience.com
Kolb, D., Rubin, I., & McIntyre, J. (1971). Organizational psychology: An experiential approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Larkin-Hein, T., & Buddy, D. (2001). Research on Learning Style: Applications in the Physics and Engineering Classrooms. IEEE Transactions on Education, 44(3), 276-281.
Lashley, C., & Barron, P. (2006). The learning style preferences of hospitality and tourism students: Observations from an international and cross-cultural study Hospitality Management, 25, 552-569.
Lee, W. O. (1996). The cultural context for Chinese learners: Conceptions of learning in the Confucian tradition. In D. W. J. Biggs (Ed.), The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological and contextual influences (pp. pp. 25-41). Hong Kong/ Australia.
Lessor, J. (1976). Cultural differences in learning and thinking. In S. M. a. Associates (Ed.), Individuality in learning: Implications of cognitive styles and creativity for human development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Sciences. New York: Harper & Row.Lewis, A. (Ed.) (2008) WordWeb 5.52. Princeton University.Mainemelis, C., Boyatzis, R., & Kolb, D. (2002). Learning styles and adaptive flexibility: Testing
experiential learning theory. Management Learning, 33(1), 5-33.Malfroy, J., & Daruwalla, P. (2000). Culture and communication in a postgraduate hospitality
program. . Australian Journal of Hospitality Management, 7(1), 27-34.
Marton, F., Dall'alba, G., & Tse, L. K. (1996). Memorizing and understanding: The keys to the paradox? In D. A. Watkins & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological and contextual influences (pp. 69-83). Hong Kong/Australia: Comparative Education Research Centre/Australian Council for Educational Research.
McCarthy, B. (1990). Using the 4MAT System to bring learning to schools. Educational Leadership, 48(2), 31-37.
Munro-Smith, N. (2003). A culturally aware course design. Paper presented at the Interact, integrate, impact: Proceedings of the 20th Annual conference of the Australian Society for Computer in learning in Tertiary Education.
Murphy, D. (1987). Offshore education: a Hong Kong perspective. Australian Universities Review, 30(2), 43-44.
Nguyen, P.-M. (2008). Culture and cooperation: Cooperative learning in Asian Confucian heritage cultures - The case of Viet Nam. IVLOS-series,
Nguyen, P.-M., Terlouw, C., & Pilot, A. (2006). Culturally appropriate pedagogy: the case of group learning in a Confucian Heritage Culture context. Intercultural Education, 17(1), 1-19.
Nicholson, J. D. (1991). The relationships between cultural values, work beleifs and attitudes toward socioeconomic issues: a cross-cultural study. UMI.
On, L. W. (1996). The cultural context for Chinese learners: conceptions of learning in the Confucian tradition. In D. A. Watkins & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese Learner: Cultural, Psychological and Contextual Influences (pp. 25-41). Hong Kong/Melbourne: University of Hong Kong, Comparative Education Research Centre/Australian Council for Educational Research.
Piaget, J. (1978). The Development of Thought: Equilibration of Congnitive Structures: Blackwell.Plovnick, M. (1974). Individual learning styles and the process of career choice in medical
students. M.I.T. Sloan School of Management.Pratt, D. D. (1991). Conceptions of self within China and the United States. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations(15), 285-310.Pratt, D. D., Kelly, M., & Wong, W. S. S. (1999). Chinese conceptions of 'effective teaching' in Hong
Kong: Towards culturally sensitive evaluation of teaching. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 18(4), 241-258.
Reiff, J. (1992). Learning styles. Washington, DC: National Education Association.Reynolds, M. (1997). Learning styles: a critique. Management Learning, 28(2), 115-133.Riding, R., & Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive styles - an overview and integration. Educational
Psychology, 11, 193-216.Romero, J., Tepper, B., & Tertrault, L. (1992). Development and validation of new scales to
measure Kolb's (1985) learning style dimensions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 171-180.
Sadler-Smith, E. (2001). The relationship between learning style and cognitive style. Personality and Individual Differences, 30(609-616).
Säljö, R. (1979). Learning in the learner's perspective I: Some common-sense conceptions: University of Goteborg.
Simon, L. (2000). Examination orientation and the opportunity structure in chinese education: Case studies of Kunming high schools. The Australian National University.
Snow, C. (1963). The Two Cultures: On a Second Look. England: Cambridge University Press.Stabel, C. (1973). The impact of a conversational computer system on human problem solving
behavior. Sloan School of Managment, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Sternberg, R., & Grigorenko, E. (2001). A capsule history of theory and research on styles. In R. S.
a. L.-F. Zhang (Ed.), Perspectives on thinking, learning and cognitive styles. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Stewart, K., & Felicetti, L. (1992). Learning styles of marketing majors. Educational Research Quarterly, 15(2), 15-23.
Strasmore, M. (1973). The strategic function re-evaluated from the organization development perspective. Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Su, Z., & Su, J. (1994). Teaching and learning science in American and Chinese high schools: A comparative study. Comparative Education, 30(3), 255-270.
Sugarman, L. (1985). Kolb's model of experiential learning: touchstone for trainers, students, counselors and clients. Journal of Counseling and Development(64), 264-268.
Svinicki, M., & Dixon, N. (1987). The Kolb Model modified for classroom activities. College Teaching(35), 141-146.
Thomas, E. (1997). Developing a culture-sensitive pedagogy: tackling a problem of melding 'global culture' within existing cultural context. International Journal of Educational Development, 17(1), 13-26.
Tikly, L. (2004). Education and the new imperialism. Comparative Education, 40(2), 173-198.Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles: A face-negotiation theory. In Y. Y. K. W.
Gudykunst (Ed.), Theories of intercultural communication (pp. 213-235). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ting-Toomey, S., & Kurogi, A. (1998). Facework competence in intercultural conflict: an updated face-negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22(2), 187-225.
Torrealba, D. (1972). Convergent and divergent learning styles. Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Triandis, H. (1989). The self and social behaviour in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506-520.
Tsui, A. (1996). Reticence and anxiety in second language teaching. In K. B. D. Nunan (Ed.), Voices from the language classroom (pp. 145-167). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Veres, J. G., Sims, R. R., & Locklear, T. S. (1991). Improving the reliability of Kolb's revised learning style inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 143-150.
Vermunt, J. (1998). The regulation of constructive learning processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 149-171.
Vermunt, J. (1998). The regulation of constructive learning processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 149-171.
Walker, A., & Dimmock, C. (2000). One size fits all? Teacher Appraisal in a Chinese Culture. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 14(2), 155-178.
Wang, J., & Mao, S. (1996). Culture and the kindergarten curriculum in the People's Republic of China. Early Child Development and Care(123), 143-156.
Watkins, D. A. (2000). Learning and teaching: A cross-cultural perspective School Leadership & Management, 20(2), 161-173.
Watkins, D. A., & Biggs, J. B. (2001). The paradox of the Chinese learner and beyond. In D. A. W. J. B. Biggs (Ed.), Teaching the Chinese learner: Psychological and pedagogical perspectives. Hong Kong/ Melbourne: Comparative Education Research Centre/Australian Council for Educational Research.
Weirstra, R., & DeJong, J. (2002). A scaling theoretical evaluation of Kolb's learning style inventory-2. Paper presented at the European learning styles information network, Ghent, Belgium: University of Ghent.
Willcoxson, L., & Prosser, M. T. (1996). Kolb's Learning Style Inventory (1985): Review and further study of validity and reliability. . The British Journal of Educational Psychology(66), 247-257.
Witkin, H. (1967). A cognitive style approach to cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychology(2), 233-250.
Witty, G., Power, S., & Halpin, D. (1998). Devolution and choice in education. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Wong, K.-C. (2001). Culture and educational leadership. In K.-C. W. C. W. Evers (Ed.), Leadership for quality schooling: International perspectives. London and New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Xiao, Z., & Dyson, J. (1999). Chinese students' perceptions of good accounting teaching. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 8(4), 341-36.
Yamazaki, Y. (2005). Learning styles and typologies of cultural differences: A theoretical and empirical comparison. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 521-548.
Yeung, I., & Tung, R. (1996). Achieving business success in Confucian societies: the importance of guanxi. Organisational Dynamics, Autumn, 54-65.
Yuen, C.-C., & Lee, S. N. (1994). Applicability of the learning style inventory in an Asian context and its predictive value. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 541.
Zhou, N. (1988). Historical context of educational reforms in present-day China. Interchange, 19(3/4), 8-18.
Zualkernan, I. A., Allert, J., & Qadah, G. Z. (2006). Learning styles of computer programming students: A Middle Eastern and American comparison. IEEE Transactions on Education, 49(4), 443-450.