1. Do they learn differently? An investigation of the pre-service teachers from US and China Presenter: Chi-Ying Betty Hu Date: March 30, 2009

7. Methodology Participants ‏

8. Methodology Instrument

9. Methodology Questionnaires ‏

10. Methodology Perceptual learning style questionnaire(PLSQ ) 2. Tactile 1 .Visual 3. Auditory 4. Kinaesthetic 5. Group 6. Individual

11. Methodology Study process questionnaire (SPQ) 2. Deep strategy 1 . Deep motivation 3. Surface motivation 4. Surface strategy

12. Methodology Procedure

13. Table 1-(SPQ) Result ＜ ＞ Deep motivation Surface strategy Finding of different Learning Approach Variable American Chinese p Mean SD Mean SD Deep motivation 14.86 3.39 16.04 3.54 .006 ＊ Deep strategy 14.26 3.53 15.26 3.53 .021 Surface motivation 12.81 3.71 13.63 3.59 .072 Surface strategy 15.56 3.51 14.40 3.63 .009 ＊

14. Result The Chinese teacher education students are more likely to be motivated due to their intrinsic interests than the American’s DM-Chinese ＞ DM-American

15. Result The American teacher education students were more likely to adopt surface strategies such as narrow target and rote learning to cope with . SS-American ＞ SS-Chinese

16. Table 2-(PLSQ) Result Kinesthetic Visual ＞ ＞ Note: Means of 13.5 and above = majo r learning style preference ; means of 11.50–13.49 = minor learning style preference; means of 11.49 or less = negative learning style preference Finding of different Learning Style Variable American Chinese P -Value Mean SD Mean SD Visual 12.41 3.09 11.26 2.07 .007 ＊ Tactile 12.80 3.65 13.43 2.55 .108 Auditory 13.02 2.77 13.14 2.69 .730 Kinesthetic 14.40 2.91 13.01 3.34 .000 ＊＊ Group 10.92 4.65 10.98 3.19 .909 Individual 12.09 4.46 12.89 3.20 .096

17. Result Both the Chinese ESL students and the American students were strong in kinesthetic learning style. (Reid,1987)

18. Result American students took visual learning style as a minor rather than a major preference . (Reid , 1987) Chinese students were strong visual learners. (Reid , 1987)