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

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

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.

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


H2 – Learners from a Confucian heritage culture, regardless of academic background, will favor a more reflective learning style.

CHCLearners

H2



Learners in a Confucian Heritage Culture(CHC)

H1

H2


H3 – Learners studying in humanities and social sciences will favor a concrete and reflective learning style known as the Diverging style



H3


H4 – Learners studying in natural sciences and mathematics will favor an abstract and reflective learning style known as the Assimilating style



H4



H5


H5 – Learners studying in science-based professions will favor an abstract and active learning style known as the Converging style


Social Professions

H6


H6 – Learners studying in social professions will favor a concrete and active learning style known as the Accommodating style








Social Professions

H3

H4

H5

H6

Abstract Learning

Style

ReflectiveLearning

Style








Social Professions

H3

H4

H5

H6



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


AC – CE32.73 – 28.18

4.55


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







Science-based

Professions

Social Professions

H3

H4

H5

H6



H1

H2



Learners in a Confucian Heritage Culture(CHC)

H1

H2

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







Science-based

Professions

Social Professions

H3

H4

H5

H6



H1

H2








Social Professions

H3

H4

H5

H6

Academic Specialization (mean scores) & Learning Style

X=4.55

(CE)

(AC)

(AE)

(RO)



H3



H4



H5


Social Professions

H6

Abstract Learning

Style

ReflectiveLearning

Style







Science-based

Professions

Social Professions

H3

H4

H5

H6



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)




Social 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)


)Concrete Experience (CE)


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%

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%

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%

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%

Humanities & Social Sciences

X=4.55

AE RO

CE

AC

Natural Sciences & Mathematics

X=4.55

AE RO

CE

AC


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


Female 25 30.8Male 56 69.2%


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%


Social Professions



Significance of Independent Variables – Reevaluated

1. Gender

2. Age

3. Year of Study

4. Level of Income

5. Academic Specialization

CONCLUSION








Social Professions

H3

H4

H5

H6


H2

Abstract Learning Ability H1

Abstract Learning

Style

ReflectiveLearning

Style







Science-based

Professions

Social Professions

H3

H4

H5

H6



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)


)Concrete Experience (CE)


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)




Social 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.

http://www.learningfromexperience.com/

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.

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

Education

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