Using questionnaire survey on accounting and engineering undergraduate students, this study examines whether course selection and course experience could influence their learning style preference. Four types of learning style identified in Kolb’s model: converger, diverger, assimilator, accommodator were examined. The results show that courses enrolled by students could influence their learning style, particularly, the accommodator students. The results also show that the length of experience in a course influence students’ learning style and the influence is significant on the converger students. The key findings in this study is the realisation that course selection and course experience may play an important role in influencing students’ learning style. Therefore, it could be implied that learning style could be cultivated and not inborn. The finding of this study provides some hindsight to academics and universities on the importance of understanding students’ learning style preference in enhancing their performance. Keywords: Learning style, LSI, course selection, course experience, undergraduate students.
1. Introduction
It is well acknowledged that education environment is an important element in determining students’ ability to reach to their fullest quality (Rutter et al., 1979; Bealing Jr et al., 2006).
Within the education environment, the establishment and identifying students’ learning style has often been recognised in the education system. The importance of learning style could help academics to understand students’ preference of learning that could assist in selecting appropriate instructional methods and educational options (Fox, 1984).
The Homework on Learning Styles 11
Learning Styles Persons learning style: Auditive = 29, visual = 33, kinesthetic = 35. The higher the score the better this person is in that learning style. As far as we can see, this person belongs to so-called mixed type. Three channels of modality are quite similar, so the teacher can use three of them during the learning process. Yet, his preferable channel of world perception is kinesthetic. ...
If students’ learning style is known, academics could anticipate their students’ preferences, take advantage of their strengths and avoid their weaknesses (Birkey and Rodman, 1995; Hartman, 1995).
Studies within the education literature have focused on examining and understanding learning style preference (such as Honey and Mumford, 1992; Jackson and Lawty-Jones, 1996; Hong, 2006; Mulalic et al., 2009).
One particular issue within the learning style preference that has been examined is the factors that influence learning style preference. These studies examined various factors such as personality (Jackson and Lawty-Jones, 1996), culture (Auyeung and Sands, 1996; Jaju et al., 2002), course context (Stout and Rubble, 1991) and demographic profile (Slater et al., 2007; Wehrwein et al., 2007) among others. These issues were examined using various theories and models such as MyersEuropean Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 1 (2009)
Briggs (Myers-Briggs, 1962), Felder-Silverman (Felder, 1996), Dunn and Dunn (Dunn and Dunn, 1978) and Herrmann Brain Dominance (Herrmann, 1999).
One theory that has received great attention is Kolb’s model.
Kolb’s model is particularly well-designed since it offers both a way to understand individual’s different learning styles and also an explanation of a cycle of experiential learning that applies to all individuals (Healey and Jenkins, 2000).
Kolb’s model of experiential learning model explains that different individual naturally prefer a certain single different learning style (Kolb, 1984).
Within this model, the learning style inventory (LSI) was introduced (Kolb, 1984).
Kolb developed LSI to measure learning style preferences. Studies in the accounting education literature have used Kolb’s model to examine various factors that could influence students’ preferred learning style. These studies have mainly focused on one of Kolb’s model, the experiential learning model (ELM) (such as Brown and Burke, 1987).
The Essay on Auditory Learning Style
Individual differences establish the well-acknowledged concept of the variety of learning styles exhibited by learners. This means that learners are likely to learn differently according to their fortes and preferences. The ability to learn by using one’s auditory capabilities is one learning styles. Students who are more likely to learn through auditory learning styles focus on the things that ...
The use of Kolb’s LSI in the disciplinary of accounting, however, is largely unexplored. This paper attempts to alleviate the gap in the accounting education literature by examining the effect of two factors: course selection and course experience on students’ learning style preference. The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 provides a literature review on the learning style and the link between course selection, course experience and learning style. Section 3 provides the research framework and hypotheses. Section 4 outlines the research method. The results are presented in section 5. Summary and conclusion are presented in the last section. 2. Literature Review
Learning style is a characteristic cognitive, affective and physiological behaviors that serve as a relatively stable indicator of how individuals perceive, interact with and respond to the learning environment (Keefe, 1979).
It is a predisposition to adopt a particular learning strategy involving a particular pattern of information processing activities (Schmeck, 1984).
According to Kolb (1984, p.41), “learning is the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience. Knowledge results from the combination of grasping experience and transforming it.” He further argued that there are four types of learning style, namely, converger, diverger, assimilator and accommodator.
Converger refers to an individual who wants to solve a problem and often focuses on specific problems. An individual is a diverger when the person solves problems by viewing situations from many perspectives and relies heavily on ideas generating and brainstorming. Assimilator refers to an individual who solves problems using inductive reasoning and has the ability to create theoretical models. Accommodator is classified as an individual who solves problems by carrying out plans and performing experiments and adapting to specific immediate circumstances (Kolb’s et al. 1979).
Studies have shown that students could match their learning style to an appropriate activity or environment (Claxton and Murell, 1985; Reid, 1987; Ellison, 1995; Felder, 1995).
These studies argued that the greater the attention paid to the congruence of learning activities within students’ learning style, the better the students will learned.
The Research paper on Case Study For Student Analysis
Case Study for Student Analysis This first thing, which Carl should do, is to contact Monica and tell her about the problems he is having at the moment. He should explain everything in detail, so the best way to do would be to send her email. At the end of the letter he should reassure her that despite all of these difficulties, he will do his best to change the situation, and have everything on ...
This is due to the fact that students’ learning capacity is partially determined by the students’ ability and capability of their learning style (Honey and Mumford, 1992).
Therefore, the failure in recognising the importance of difference learning styles among the academics would often lead to students’ poor performance (Mulalic et al., 2009).
A body of the literature has examined the link between course selection and students’ learning style (Baldwin and Reckers, 1984; Katz, 1988; Stout and Ruble, 1991; Gibbs, 1992).
Most of these studies found that course selection could influence students’ learning style.
For example: Baldwin and Reckers (1984) found that accounting students’ learning style differ significantly from other business majors and most of these students belong to the converger and accommodator type of study style. Other studies, however, provide contrasting results (Biberman and Buchanan, 1986).
Another group of studies have examined whether students’ learning style could be influenced by course experience (Liapis and Seybolt, 1975; Baldwin and Reckers, 1984; Baker et al., 1986).
These European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 1(2009) studies often compared two groups of students (such as junior and senior students) examining whether the length of time they had in the course that they enrolled in would change their learning style. These studies suggested that more junior students tend to become converger while senior students tend to become assimilator.
There are also studies that examined learning style using Kolb’s model in the accounting literature (Baker et al., 1987; Brown and Burke, 1987; Stout and Rubble, 1991).
The results of these studies are mixed. Some of the studies showed that most accounting majors are assimilator (Baker et al., 1987).
Other studies found that accounting students tend to become assimilators (Holley and Jenkins, 1993; Loo, 2002).
There are also studies that showed no significant difference in the learning style preferences (Brown and Burke, 1987).
Within the education literature, most studies were conducted in the linguistic disciplinary. Often, these studies examined students’ learning style in English courses (such as Abu, 2006; Hong, 2007; Mulalic et al., 2009).
The Coursework on Learning Styles Students Student Ranked
... determining one's own study plan; doing things for oneself) in their learning styles inventory. Finally, students with grades 59% ... Canfield's Learning Styles Inventory (C LSL: Hatcher, 2001). This is a 30-item inventory, which determines learning preferences. Each ... (hearing information; lectures, tapes speeches, etc); (n) reading (examining the written word; reading texts, pamphlets, etc. ); (o) ...
Other studies have focused on online courses (Vafa, 2004; Cooze and Barbour, 2005; Brown et al., 2006), mental and/or occupational health (Estes, 1975; French et al., 2007) and physiology (Slater et al., 2007).
These studies used country setting such as Hong Kong and Australia (Auyeung and Sands (1996); Katz (1988), Thailand (Sarawit, 1988), Tibet (Hong, 2007), Sri Lanka (Gunawardena, 1996) and USA (Cooze and Barbour, 2005).
Study on learning style in a Malaysian context, however, is sparse.
Although limited, there are studies that have examined learning style in Malaysia. These studies examined learning style preference in the disciplinary of linguistic (such as Abu, 2006; Mulalic et al., 2009).
Abu (2006) used Kolb’s model and found different learning style preferences within a course. However, as noted before, these studies were examined in a non-accounting disciplinary. Such limitation provides a gap in the accounting literature and therefore, provides motivation for this study to examine these issues.
3. Framework and Hypothesis
3.1. Framework
Figure 1 illustrates the framework that underpins this study. The framework shows that course selection and course experience could influence students’ learning style preferences. Particularly, four types of learning style are examined in this study.
In the education literature, studies have examined the factors that deemed to be important in influencing learning style preference. These studies examined various factors such as demographic profile and personality using various theories and models such as the Myers-Briggs model (Myers- Briggs, 1962) and Dunn and Dunn model (Dunn and Dunn, 1978).
One eminent model that has been in used in researching learning style preferences is the Kolb’s model. However, studies that have used these models were conducted in a non Malaysian setting. This study aims to examine learning style preferences in a Malaysian setting.
Learning style becomes the dependent variable. Course selection is the first independent variable. Studies have researched on the existence of a predominant learning style among accounting students. Other studies have extended to examining the difference in learning style preference between accounting students and other comparison students groups (such as Baker et al., 1987; Stout and Rubble, 1991).
The Essay on Awareness Of Individual Learning Styles
My overall learning style calculated to be no surprise mildly kinesthetic! I have a hard time sitting still and study better with someone drilling me questions rather than listening to a lecture. My body needs to be actively doing something in order for me to retain the information being given. If Im just sitting there I tend to zone off really easily and my memory will not retain much that is ...
These studies showed that accounting students often have different learning style preferences compared to other non-accounting students. However, there is yet a study that examines whether the course selection could influence learning style preferences between accounting students and engineering students. The different nature of the course may provide different effect on learning style preferences.
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 1 (2009) 77
Figure 1: Framework of this study
Learning Style
• Converger
• Diverger
• Accommodator
• Assimilator
Course Selection
• Accounting
• Engineering
Course Experience
• First year
• Second year
One group of studies in the literature has examined the effect of course experience on learning style preferences. These studies compared the learning style score for junior and graduate students and found significant difference in the learning style preferences between the two groups (Baldwin and Reckers, 1984; Stout and Rubble, 1991).
Although a few of these studies were conducted in the accounting disciplinary, the numbers of similar study is limited. Such limitation warrants this study to revisit this issue. Therefore, course experience becomes the second independent variable. 3.2. Hypotheses
Learning style could be influenced by several factors. One factor that has been examined is course selection. The results of the studies examining the link between course selection and study style are mixed (Baldwin and Reckers, 1984; Katz, 1988; Stout and Ruble, 1991; Gibbs, 1992).
Few studies found that course selection influences study style. Other studies provided contrasting results. The mixed results motivate this study to further examine this issue. The following hypothesis is developed. H1: There is no significant difference in the learning style preferences caused by course selection. One of the factors that received least attention is the course experience. Few studies have suggested that students’ learning style would be different when students’ experience in the course they enrolled increase (Baldwin and Reckers, 1984; Baker et al., 1986).
The Review on Students’ Perception on Separating Class Based on Learning Style
... learning style. The same result was found when they were asked whether put all students with different learning styles will make the learning ... scope of the study This study focus on students’ perception on separating classes based on their learning style. This study was conducted ... To ease the interpretation of the data, the respondents’ answers were classified into five classifications. The formula ...
However, there is a limited study that examines this issue. This leads to the development of the following hypothesis. H2: There is no significant difference in the learning style preferences caused by course experience. 4. Research Design
This study examines whether course selection and experience could influence students’ learning style. Specifically, this study examines whether: 1. Course selection could influence learning style preferences. 2. Course experience could influence learning style preferences These objectives are examined by way of questionnaire survey. 4.1. Sample Selection
The sample is drawn from the students who were enrolled into the undergraduate courses, majoring in Accounting and Engineering in a public university in Malaysia. Such sample is chosen because the students would have encountered the same exposure in terms of management and environment despite the difference in major courses. Two types of courses: accounting and engineering were chosen to represent the nature of the disciplinary. Accounting students are selected as representative of the social science disciplinary and engineering students are selected as representative of the science and technology disciplinary.
Previous studies have found that learning style of students between similar nature of disciplinary would often be similar and that accounting and other non-engineering, science and technology disciplinary would also be similar (such as Biglan, 1973).
These studies, however, did not specifically focus on examining accounting versus engineering students’ learning style. The selected sample in this study would add contribution to the literature where sample represents a social science discipline and a science and technology discipline are examined. Three hundred questionnaires were distributed to the students in both courses over a period of one month through the university administrative office. Each student was given an envelope consisting of a questionnaire and a self-addressed envelope. The respondents were encouraged to return the questionnaire to the university administrative office within one month. Out of the 300 questionnaires distributed, 214 (71.3%) were completed and returned.
4.2. Questionnaire Design
This study used questionnaire survey to examine the effect of course selection and experience on students’ learning style preference. The questionnaire is adapted from the learning style questionnaire (LSI) developed by Kolb (1984) with some modifications to suit the context of this study. The questionnaire is divided into two sections. Section A requested the respondents to complete information related to demographic profile. The questions in this section are developed on categorical basis.
Section B of the questionnaire consists of questions related to the respondents’ learning style. In this section, 24 items related to learning style are asked. The items are based on four learning style preferences: converger, diverger, assimilator, accomodotar. Under converger, 6 items were developed. The respondents are requested to identify items related to converger such as getting involve when learning new things, need practical examples when learning new theory, learn best by solving problems with solutions, required specific examples to learn new things and having difficulty when unable to relate concepts to physical task.
Under diverger, 6 items were developed. The respondents are requested to respond to questions related to diverger such as tend to sit back when learning new things, tend to remain silent in group discussion, prefer to watch rather than taking the lead when working on a project, listen to other people’s opinion rather than giving opinions, take more time to prepare answer and hesitate to contribute ideas on problems with unclear solutions.
Under assimilator, 6 items were also developed. The respondents are requested to identify items related to assimilator such as learn best by formulating theories, evaluate ideas by logical thinking, better at learning theories than minutes details, act rationally in learning complicated materials, ability to abstract concepts without physical examples and solving problems by analysing logical relationships to the elements involved.
The last learning style is accommodator. Under accommodator, 6 questions were also developed. The respondents are requested to respond to questions related to active experimentation such as constantly looking for new problem to solve learning process, tend to come up with a lot of spontaneous ideas, active initiation in learning process, prefer to adopt new approach to solving problem, active participation in group discussion and tend to try out spontaneous ideas in the learning process. The respondents are requested to identify their learning style preference by completing section B on a 4-point scale of 1 being “rarely” to 4 being “almost always”.
4.3. Dependent Measure
Students’ learning style is determined by the respondents’ responses on the 24 items. All scores of the 24 items are added up to determine the total scores. This would results to a total of 24 for each learning style. For example; if a respondent provides a 4 (i.e almost always) for all items, the respondents would have obtain the highest score (i.e 24).
The total score for each learning style becomes the dependent measure.
5. Research Results
5.1. Demographic Profile
Table 1 presents the demographic profile of the respondents. The results indicate that 56.5% of the respondents are female while the remaining 43.5% of the respondents are male. The results also show that out of the 214 respondents, the percentage of the accounting is slightly more (53.7%) than the percentage of engineering students (46.3%).
Table 1: Demographic profile
Panel A: Gender
Gender N Percent
Male 93 43.5
Female 121 56.5
Total 214 100
Panel B: Type of Course
Course N Percent
Accounting 115 53.7
Engineering 99 46.3
Total 214 100
5.2. Descriptive Statistics
This section presents the results of the descriptive analyses on each of the learning style. The results are shown in Table 2. Referring to panel A, Table 2, the results show that 68.2% of the converger respondents opined that they would like to be involved in the process of learning new topics. The results also show that 87.4% of the respondents need to have practical examples when learning new theory. Most respondents prefer to learn solving problems that have solutions. Ninety four percent of the respondents prefer to have detailed information in order to learn new topics. Panel B, Table 2 provides the descriptive statistics for diverger learning style. In this table, the results show that more respondents tend to remain silent during group discussions (75.7%) than becoming an active information provider during group discussion (24.3%).
Sixty two percent of the respondents also prefer to watch than taking the lead when working on a project. More respondents also prefer to listen to other people’s opinions rather than giving opinions themselves (68.2%).
The results indicate that most students prefer to become an observer and listen to other people’s ideas rather than become a leader when having group discussions.
Panel C, Table 2 provides the descriptive statistics showing assimilator learning style. From the table, the results show that 70% of the respondents act rationally in learning complicated materials. However, when given a choice, they prefer to learn by formulating theories rather than minute details. Another interesting point is that 58.4% of the respondents agreed that they need practical examples in order to understand the concepts being taught.
Panel D, Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics showing accommodator learning style. The results show that more respondents prefer to take active initiative in learning process (60.8%) and would like to become active participants in group discussion (61.7%).
The respondents were somewhat European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 1(2009) 80
indifference in their opinion on trying out spontaneous ideas in the learning process (56.5%) and coming up with lots of spontaneous ideas (52.9%).
The results indicate that respondents with active experimentation learning style would like to find new problems to solve in the learning process although they prefer to use the same approach when solving problems. Table 2:
Panel A: Converger learning style
Rarely Less often More often Almost always
1. Getting involved in learning new things 4.7 27.1 54.2 14.0 2. Need practical examples when learning new theory 0.9 11.7 31.8 55.6 3. Learn best by solving problems that have solutions 3.3 19.6 47.2 29.9 4. Need specific examples to learn new things 3.7 32.7 42.5 21.1 5. Need valuable information to learn new things 0.1 5.6 49.1 45.2 6. Having difficulty if cannot relates concepts to physical things 3.7 32.7 42.5 21.1 Panel B: Diverger learning style
Rarely Less often More often Almost always
1. Tend to sit back when learning new things 11.7 46.3 28.5 10.7 2. Tend to remain silent in group discussion 28.0 47.7 19.2 5.1 3. Prefer to watch rather than taking the lead when working on a project 24.3 37.9 29.0 8.8
4. Listen to other people’s opinions rather than giving opinions 7.5 24.3 60.3 7.9 5. Take more time to prepare answer compared to other people 8.9 38.3 38.8 14.0 6. Reluctance in giving ideas on problems with unclear
solutions 8.9 33.6 43.0 14.5
Panel C: Assimilator learning style
Rarely Less often More often Almost
always
1. Learn best by formulating theories 6.1 25.7 55.1 13.1
2. Evaluate ideas by logical thinking 1.9 15.9 48.1 34.1
3. Better at learning theories than minutes details 6.9 26.2 56.2 10.7 4. Act rationally in learning complicated materials 2.0 28.0 57.9 12.1 5. Can relate to abstract concepts without physical examples 13.1 45.3 37.4 4.2 6. Solving problems by analyzing logical relationships to
elements involved 8.4 17.8 52.3 21.5
Panel D: Accommodator learning style
Rarely Less often More often Almost always
1. Constantly looking for new problems to problem solving 12.6 27.6 47.7 12.1 2. Tend to come up with a lot of spontaneous ideas 12.1 35.0 38.8 14.1 3. Active initiation in the learning process 9.3 29.9 40.7 20.1 4. Prefer new approaches in problem solving 15.9 48.1 28.0 7.9 5. Active participation in group discussion 9.3 29.0 43.9 17.8 6. Tend to try spontaneous ideas in learning process 7.1 36.4 48.1 8.4 5.3. Course Selection and Learning Style
This section presents the results of testing hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 1 states that there is no significant difference in learning style caused by course selection. Hypothesis 1 was analysed using independent sample T-Test.
Table 3 provides the results of testing hypothesis 1. The results show that out of the four learning styles, accommodator learning style preference between accounting and engineering respondents are marginally significantly different (p=0.060).
The results, however, show that course selection does not affect the diverger, assimilator and converger learning style respondents. The results European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 1 (2009) 81
indicate that accounting students tend to have higher ability when becoming this type of learning style compared to the engineering students.
Table 3: Course selection and learning style
p-value
Converger 0.515
Assimilator 0.712
Diverger 0.713
Accommodator 0.060
5.4. Course Experience and Learning Style
This section presents the results of testing hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 2 states that there is no significant difference in learning style caused by course experience. Hypothesis 2 was analysed using independent sample T-Test.
Table 4 provides the results of testing hypothesis 2. The results show that out of the four learning styles, converger learning style preference between first and second year respondents are significantly different (p=0.0036).
The results, however, show that course experience does not affect the assimilator, diverger and accommodator learning style respondents. The results indicate that there is a significant difference on converger learning style students as their experience in the course increased.
Table 4: Course experience and learning style
p-value
Converger 0.036
Assimilator 0.746
Diverger 0.830
Accommodator 0.808
6. Summary and Conclusion
This study examines whether the course selected by undergraduate students in a public university is influenced by their learning style. This study also examines whether the length enrolled in a course could also be affected by the students’ learning style. A questionnaire survey to the undergraduate students enrolled in the accounting and engineering course were selected as the respondents. The results in this study shows that course selected by the respondents influence their learning style. The results indicate that respondents who are in the engineering course seemed to be accommodator compared to the respondents in the accounting course. Such results is understood since engineering disciplinary involves many activities related to disciplinary work and therefore, would likely to require students to become experimental learners (Kolb, 1984).
The findings of this study are consistent to previous studies such as by Baldwin and Reckers (1984) and Biberman and Buchanan (1986) but contrast to much earlier study by Liapis and Seybolt (1975).
The results in this study also show that course experience may influence the students’ learning style. Particularly, the influence is significant for converger learning style learners. The results show that respondents in their first year tend to become converger learners compared to the respondents in the second year. Similar results appear in Stout and Rubble (1991).
The key findings in this study is the realisation that course selection and course experience may play an important role in influencing students’ learning style. Therefore, it could be implied that learning style could be cultivated according to the needs of the learners and not inborn. This study has few limitations. The sample used in this study is limited to the students in a public university in Malaysia.
References
[1] Abu, A.G, 2006. “Learning Style Preferences in the Comprehension of Literacy Task”, PhD thesis, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia.
http://psasir.upm.edu.my/view/people/Haji_Abu=3AAbdul_Ghani=3A=3A.html [2] Auyeung, P and J., Sands, 1996. “A Cross Cultural Study of the Learning Style of Accounting Students” Accounting and Finance 36(2).
pp 261-274
[3] Baker, R.E, J.R., Simon, and F.P., Bazeli, 1987. “Selecting Instructional Design for Introductory Accounting based on the Experiential Learning
Model”, Journal of Accounting Education 5(2), pp. 207-226
[4] Baldwin, B. A. and P.M.J., Reckers, 1984. “Exploring the Role of Learning Style Research in Accounting Education Policy”, Journal of Accounting Education 2(2), pp. 63-76 [5] Bealing Jr, W.E., R.L., Baker, and C.J., Russo, 2006. “Personality: What it Takes to be an Accountant”, The Accounting Educators’ Journal 17, pp. 119-128 [6] Biglan, A. (1973).
“The Characteristics of Subject Matter in Different Academic Areas”, Journal of Applied Psychology 57, pp 195-203
[7] Birkey, R.C. and J.J., Rodman, 1995. “Adult Learning Styles and Preference for Technology Programs”, National University Research Institute,
http://www2.nu.edu/nuri/llconf/conf1995/birkey.html
[8] Biberman, G and J. Buchanan, 1986. “Learning Style and Study Skills Differences across Business and Other Academic Majors”, Journal of Education for Business April, pp. 303-307 [9] Brown, H.D. and R.C. Burke, 1987. “Accounting Education: A Learning Style Study of Professional-Technical and Future Adaptation Issues,” Journal of Accounting Education 3, pp. 187-206
[10] Brown, E., T., Brailsford, T., Fisher, A., Moore and H., Ashman, 2006. “Reappraising cognitive styles in adaptive web applications”, Proceedings of the International World Wide Web Conference, ACM Press, pp. 327-335
[11] Claxton C. S. and P. H. Murrell., 1987. “Learning Styles: Implications for Improving Educational Practice”, ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4. Washington D.C.: The George Washington University
[12] Cooze, M. and M., Barbour, 2005. “Learning Style: A Focus upon E-Learning Practices and Pedagogy and their Implications for Designing E-Learning for Secondary School Students in Newfoundland and Labrador”, Malaysian Online Journal of Instructional Technology 2(1), April
[13] Dunn, R. and K., Dunn, 1978. “Teaching Students through their Individual Learning Styles: A Practical Approach” Reston Publishing, Reston, VA:
[14] Estes, R., 1975. “Learning Style Preferences of Community Mental Health
Professionals”, Community Mental Health Journal 11(4), pp. 450-461
[15] Felder, R., 1995. “Learning and Teaching Styles in Foreign and Second language Education”, Foreign Learning Annuals 28(1), pp. 21-31
[16] Fox, R.D., 1984. “Learning Styles and Instructional Preferences in Continuing Education for Health Professionals: A Validity Study of the LSI”, Adult Education Quarterly 35 (2), pp.72-85 [17] French, G., T. Cosgriff, and T. Brown, 2007. “Learning Style Preferences of Australian Occupational Therapy Students’, Australian Occupational Therapy Journal 54(1), pp. 58-65 European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 1 (2009) 83
[18] Gibbs, G., 1992. “The Teaching More Students Projects”, Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council and Oxford Polytechnic, Oxford
[19] Gunawardena, C.N., G., Jayatilleke and G.D., Lekamge, 1996. “Learning Styles of the Open University Students of Sri Lanka”, Educational Technology Research and Development 44(1), pp. 115-120
[20] Hartman, V.F., 1995. “Teaching and Learning Style Preferences: Transitions through technology”, VCCA Journal 9(2), pp. 18-20, http:www.cybercorp.net/`tammy/lo/oned2.html [21] Healey, M. and A., Jenkins, 2000. “Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory and Its Application in Geography in Higher Education”, Journal of Geography 99, pp. 185-195 [22] Herrmann, N., 1989, “The Creative Brain”, Brain Books, Lake Lure, NC [23] Holley, J.H. and E.K. Jenkins, 1993. “The Relationship between Student Learning Style and Performance on Various Test Question Formats”, Journal of Education for Business 68, pp. 301-308.
[24] Honey, P. and A., Mumford, 1992. “The Manual of Learning Styles”, Honey, Ardingly House, Berkshire
[25] Hong, Y.R., 2007. “A Survey of the Learning Style Preference of Tibetan EFL Learners in China”, US-China Foreign Language 5(4), pp. 39-43
[26] Jackson, C. J., and M., Lawty-Jones, 1996. “Overlap between Personality and learning style”, Personality and Individual Differences 20, pp. 293-300
[27] Jaju, A., K., Hyokjin and M., Zinkhan, 2002. “Learning Styles of Undergraduates Business Students: A Cross Cultural Comparison between US, India and Korea”, Marketing Education Review 12(2), pp. 49-60
[28] Katz, N., 1988. “Individual Learning Style, Israeli Norms and Cross-Cultural Equivalence of Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 19, pp. 361-379 [29] Keefe, J.W., 1979. “Developing a Defensible Learning Style Paradigm”, Educational Leadership 48(2), pp. 57-61
[30] Kolb, D.A., I.M., Rubin and J.M., McIntryre, 1979. “Organizational Psychology- A Book of Readings”, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall Inc, New Jersey. [31] Kolb, D.A., 1984. “Experiential learning”, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey [32] Liapis, G.H and J.W., Seybolt, 1975. “Problem Solving: Methods Characteristics of the Successful Electrical Engineer”, Proceedings of the 1975 IEEE Region Six Conference, pp 169- 171
[33] Loo, R., 2002. “The Distribution of Learning Styles and Types for Hard and Soft Business Majors”, Educational Psychology 22(3), pp. 349-360
[34] Myers-Briggs, I., 1962. “The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator manual”, Princeton: Educational Testing Service. New Jersey
[35] Reid, J., 1987. “The Learning Style Preferences of ESL Students”, TESOL Quarterly 21/1, pp. 87-111.
[36] Rutter, M., B., Maughan, P., Mortimore, J., y Ouston and A., Smith, 1979. “Fifteen Thousand Hours: Secondary Schools and Their Effect on Children”, Open Books, London [37] Sarawit, M., 1988. “Learning Style Preferences of English Major Students at Srinakharinwirot University”, Phitsanulok, http://sealang.net/sala/archives/pdf4/sarawit1988learning.pdf [38] Schmeck, R. R., 1983. “Learning styles of college students”, In R. Dillon & R. Schmeck (Eds.), Individual differences in cognition (pp. 233-279), Academic Press: New York [39] Slater, J.A., H.L., Lujan and S.E., DiCarlo, 2007. “Does Gender Influence Learning Style Preferences of First-Year Medical Students”, Advance Physiology Education 31, pp. 336-342 [40] Stout, D.E. and T.L., Ruble, 1991. “The Learning Style Inventory and Accounting Education Research: A Cautionary View and Suggestions for Future Research. Issues in Accounting Education 6(1), pp. 41-52.
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10, Number 1(2009) 84
[41] Vafa, S., 2004. “Learning Style Preferences among Online University
Students”. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2004 (pp. 736-739).
Chesapeake, AACE., VA [42] Wehrwein, E.A., Lujan, H.L. and DiCarlo, S.E., 2007. “Gender Differences in Learning Style Preferences among Undergraduate Physiology Students”, Advance Physiology Education 31, pp. 153-157
