• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Learning Styles and Disciplinary Differences: Applying Kolb's model in Taiwan
 

Learning Styles and Disciplinary Differences: Applying Kolb's model in Taiwan

on

  • 10,662 views

You are currently viewing the visual presentation of my Masters thesis for my MBA degree at National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan. My research investigated the predictability of a Western ...

You are currently viewing the visual presentation of my Masters thesis for my MBA degree at National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan. My research investigated the predictability of a Western learning model (Kolb's Experiential model) when applied to a non-Western sample.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
10,662
Views on SlideShare
10,626
Embed Views
36

Actions

Likes
2
Downloads
210
Comments
0

1 Embed 36

http://www.slideshare.net 36

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Agricultural sector represented less than 2% of Taiwan’s GDP in 2002http://www.taiwan.com.au/Polieco/Industry/Agriculture/report01.html
  • KE – defined by the World Bank as …Taiwan government declared 2001 as the first year of Taiwan as a Knowledge Economy (KE) Knowledge Economy Promotion Committee formed 23 opinion leaders such as Morris Chang (TSM) and Stan Shih (Acer) Supported by Council for Economic Planning and Development
  • The World Bank measures a nations economy as a Knowledge Economy on the KEI a 0-10 scale representing the level of knowledge. This is measured on 4 pillars: Economic Incentive and Institutional RegimeInformation and Communication Technology (ICT) Innovation SystemsEducation and Human Resources
  • Regression Knowledge Economy Index 2002 and GDP per capita 2002
  • Knowledge Assessment Methodology (KAM) – World Bank’s assessment to develop Knowledge Economy Index
  • Image of Japan, Korea, and UK
  • Image of Japan, Korea, and US
  • A score of 30 in Education when compared to Taiwan’s other World Leading scores ranking as 8th and 10th for Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and Innovation Systems may represent the greatest potential for improvements
  • Purpose of this study is to investigate the usefulness of the Kolb learning style theory (known as experiential learning) and the associated learning tool (Learning Style Inventory) in the Confucian Heritage Culture Taiwan
  • “there is a growing realization that learning style awareness contributes to teaching and learning effectiveness” (Zualkernan et al., 2006, p. 443)

Learning Styles and Disciplinary Differences: Applying Kolb's model in Taiwan Learning Styles and Disciplinary Differences: Applying Kolb's model in Taiwan Presentation Transcript

  • Learning styles and Disciplinary Differences:Testing the Predictive Value of Kolb’s Learning StyleInventory in the Confucian Heritage Culture,a Look at Taiwan
    Student: Jacob Erlich
    Advisor: Kevin P. Hwang
    In Memory of: Cary Wang
  • Taiwan’s Shifting Industry1950-present
  • Labor intensive
  • Capital intensive
  • Knowledge intensive
  • Knowledge Economy
    “an economy that creates, acquires, adapts, and uses knowledge effectively for its economic and social development”
    - World Bank
    2001
  • Knowledge Economy
    Economic and Institutional Regime
    Information & Communication Technology (ICT)
    Innovation Systems
    Education & training
    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
    Roomfor Improvement
  • Apply
    to
  • Learning how we learn
  • Warning
    Learning 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;
    utilize some combination of the 4 dimensions (concrete, reflective, abstract, active)
    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)
  • Concrete
    Experience
    Active Experimentation
    Reflective Observation
    Abstract
    Conceptualization
    Figure 2-1. The Experiential Learning Model
    Source: Kolb & Kolb (2005, p. 3)
  • Concrete
    Experience
    Active Experimentation
    Reflective Observation
    Abstract
    Conceptualization
    Figure 2-1. The Experiential Learning Model
    Source: Kolb & Kolb (2005, p. 3)
  • Concrete
    Experience
    Active Experimentation
    Reflective Observation
    Abstract
    Conceptualization
    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.
  • Reactions feelings experience
    Intuition relationships hunches
    accepting involved open-minded
    doing
    practice
    practical
    work-hard
    Responsible
    active try-things
    results
    watching quiet
    Listening
    carefully
    reserved
    observing
    Take-time
    careful
    ideas theory evaluate
    rational analyze break-down
    reason think logical
  • Conceptual model
  • Diverging Learning Style
    Humanities and Social Sciences
    H3
    Abstract
    Learning Ability
    Abstract
    Learning
    Style
    Assimilating Learning Style
    Natural Sciences and Mathematics
    H1
    H4
    Converging Learning Style
    Science-based Professions
    Reflective
    Learning
    Ability
    Reflective
    Learning
    Style
    H5
    H2
    Social Professions
    Accommodating Learning Style
    H6
  • Development of Hypothesis H1
    H1 – Learners from a Confucian heritage culture, regardless of academic background, will favor a more abstract learning style.
    CHC
    Learners
    H1
  • Development of Hypothesis H2
    H2 – Learners from a Confucian heritage culture, regardless of academic background, will favor a more reflective learning style.
    CHC
    Learners
    H2
  • Abstract
    Learning Ability
    H1
    Learners in a Confucian Heritage Culture
    (CHC)
    Reflective
    Learning
    Ability
    H2
  • Development of Hypothesis H3
    Diverging Learning Style
    H3 – Learners studying in humanities and social sciences will favor a concrete and reflective learning style known as the Diverging 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
  • H5 – Learners studying in science-based professions will favor an abstract and active learning style known as the Converging style
    Converging Learning Style
    Science-based Professions
    H5
    Development of Hypothesis H5
  • H6 – Learners studying in social professions will favor a concrete and active learning style known as the Accommodating style
    Accommodating Learning Style
    Social Professions
    H6
    Development of Hypothesis H6
  • Diverging Learning Style
    Humanities and Social Sciences
    H3
    Assimilating Learning Style
    Natural Sciences and Mathematics
    H4
    Converging Learning Style
    Science-based Professions
    H5
    Social Professions
    Accommodating Learning Style
    H6
  • Diverging Learning Style
    Humanities and Social Sciences
    H3
    Abstract
    Learning Ability
    Abstract
    Learning
    Style
    Assimilating Learning Style
    Natural Sciences and Mathematics
    H1
    H4
    Converging Learning Style
    Science-based Professions
    Reflective
    Learning
    Ability
    Reflective
    Learning
    Style
    H5
    H2
    Social Professions
    Accommodating Learning Style
    H6
  • The study
  • Taiwanese students
    Chinese Lit.
    Statistics
    National Cheng Kung University
    Engineering
    Business Admin.
    Sampling Plan
  • Research results
  • Learning mode & combination scores
    Most preferred mode
    Abstract Conceptualization AC = 32.73
  • Learning mode & combination scores
  • Learning mode & combination scores
    AC – CE
    32.73 – 28.18
    4.55
  • Learning mode & combination scores
    AE – RO
    29.93 – 29.16
    0.77
  • Concrete Experience (CE)
    RO
    AE
    4.55
    X=4.55
    X=4.55
    Abstract Conceptualization (AC)
  • CE
    0.77
    Reflective Observation (RO)
    Active Experimentation (AE)
    RO
    AE
    AC
    X=4.55
  • (CE)
    (RO)
    (AE)
    X=4.55
    (AC)
  • Diverging Learning Style
    Humanities and Social Sciences
    H3
    Abstract
    Learning Ability
    Assimilating Learning Style
    Natural Sciences and Mathematics
    H1
    H4
    Converging Learning Style
    Science-based Professions
    Reflective
    Learning
    Ability
    Reflective
    Learning
    Style
    H5
    H2
    Social Professions
    Accommodating Learning Style
    H6
  • Abstract
    Learning Ability
    H1
    Learners in a Confucian Heritage Culture
    (CHC)
    Reflective
    Learning
    Ability
    H2
  • Learning mode & combination scores
  • y-axis
    x-axis
  • (CE)
    AC-CE 6.83
    AE-RO 5.96
    (Kolb, 2005)
    (RO)
    (AE)
    X=4.55
    (AC)
  • (CE)
    AC-CE 8.57
    AE-RO 0.44
    (Yuen & Lee, 1994)
    (RO)
    (AE)
    X=4.55
    (AC)
  • (CE)
    AC-CE 4.22
    AE-RO 4.27
    (Katz, 1988)
    (RO)
    (AE)
    X=4.55
    (AC)
  • (CE)
    AC-CE 4.3
    AE-RO 5.9
    (Kolb, 1985)
    (RO)
    (AE)
    X=4.55
    (AC)
  • (CE)
    AC-CE 4.5
    AE-RO 2.9
    (Kolb, 1976)
    (RO)
    (AE)
    X=4.55
    (AC)
  • Abstract
    Learning Ability
    H1
  • Reflective
    Learning
    Ability
    H2
  • Diverging Learning Style
    Humanities and Social Sciences
    H3
    Abstract
    Learning Ability
    Assimilating Learning Style
    Natural Sciences and Mathematics
    H1
    H4
    Converging Learning Style
    Science-based Professions
    Reflective
    Learning
    Ability
    Reflective
    Learning
    Style
    H5
    H2
    Social Professions
    Accommodating Learning Style
    H6
  • Diverging Learning Style
    Humanities and Social Sciences
    H3
    Assimilating Learning Style
    Natural Sciences and Mathematics
    H4
    Converging Learning Style
    Science-based Professions
    H5
    Social Professions
    Accommodating Learning Style
    H6
  • Academic Specialization (mean scores) & Learning Style
  • (CE)
    (RO)
    (AE)
    (AC)
    X=4.55
  • 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
  • Diverging Learning Style
    Humanities and Social Sciences
    H3
    Abstract
    Learning Ability
    Abstract
    Learning
    Style
    Assimilating Learning Style
    Natural Sciences and Mathematics
    H1
    H4
    Converging Learning Style
    Science-based Professions
    Reflective
    Learning
    Style
    H5
    Reflective
    Learning
    Ability
    H2
    Social Professions
    Accommodating Learning Style
    H6
  • Learning modesAnalysis of variance (anova)
  • Note: 1=Humanities & Natural Science, 2=Natural Science & Mathematics, 3=Science-based Professions, 4=Social Professions
  • Significant between group differences
    F>1.96P<0.05
    Abstract Conceptualization 10.1 0.000
    Reflective Observation 5.7 0.001
    Reflective
    Learning
    Ability
    Abstract
    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
    Gender
    Age
    Year of Study
    Level of Income
    Academic Specialization
  • Concrete Experience (CE)
    CE
    Reflective Observation (RO)
    Active Experimentation (AE)
    RO
    AE
    AC
    X=4.55
    Abstract Conceptualization (AC)
  • Humanities & Social Sciences
    CE
    RO
    AE
    AC
    X=4.55
  • Natural Sciences & Mathematics
    CE
    RO
    AE
    AC
    X=4.55
  • Science-based Professions
    CE
    RO
    AE
    AC
    X=4.55
  • Social Professions
    CE
    RO
    AE
    AC
    X=4.55
  • CE
    RO
    AE
    AC
    X=4.55
  • Significance of Independent Variables
    Gender
    Age
    Year of Study
    Level of Income
    Academic Specialization
  • Humanities & Social Sciences
  • Natural Science & Mathematics
  • Science-based Professions
  • Social Professions
  • Significance of Independent Variables – Reevaluated
    Gender
    Age
    Year of Study
    Level of Income
    Academic Specialization
  • conclusion
  • Diverging Learning Style
    Humanities and Social Sciences
    H3
    Abstract
    Learning Ability
    Assimilating Learning Style
    Natural Sciences and Mathematics
    H1
    H4
    Converging Learning Style
    Science-based Professions
    Reflective
    Learning
    Ability
    H5
    H2
    Social Professions
    Accommodating Learning Style
    H6
  • Diverging Learning Style
    Humanities and Social Sciences
    H3
    Abstract
    Learning Ability
    Abstract
    Learning
    Style
    Assimilating Learning Style
    Natural Sciences and Mathematics
    H1
    H4
    Converging Learning Style
    Science-based Professions
    Reflective
    Learning
    Style
    H5
    Reflective
    Learning
    Ability
    H2
    Social Professions
    Accommodating Learning Style
    H6
  • Concrete Experience (CE)
    Learning styles byacademic backgrounds appear to split along the Concrete-Abstract dimension
    Humanities and Social Sciences
    Social Professions
    Reflective Observation (RO)
    Active Experimentation (AE)
    Natural Sciences and Mathematics
    Science-based Professions
    X=4.55
    Abstract Conceptualization (AC)
  • Significant between group differences
    F>1.96P<0.05
    Abstract Conceptualization 10.1 0.000
    Reflective Observation 5.7 0.001
    ANOVA analysis shows preferred learning modes by academic background in factsplit at the
    Abstractand Reflectivedimensions
    Reflective
    Learning
    Ability
    Abstract
    Learning Ability
  • Duncan groupings
    Abstract Conceptualization ( 41, 32)
    Reflective Observation (23, 14)
    Duncan analysis supports that academic backgrounds group together in their preferences for the
    Abstractand Reflectivedimensions
    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
  • implications
  • 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
    Limited sample size
    Uncontrolled variables
    Convenient sample
    Translation issues
  • Future research
  • Future Research
    Furthering Taiwanese normative sample
    Academic major level study
    Effect of learning environment
    Matching hypothesis
  • Learning Styles
    Disciplinary
    Differences
    Culture
    Thank you!
  • Questions
  • References
    Adey, 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.