International Journal of Education, Learning and Training

Vol. 3 (No.2), November, 2018

ISSN: 2289-6694
DOI:10.24924/ijelt/2018.11/v3.iss2/1.21 www.ftms.edu.my/journals/index.php/journals/ijelt
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Research Paper

IMPACT OF LEARNING STYLE ON ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

MEDIATED BY KNOWLEDGE SHARING BEHAVIORS OF STUDENTS

Zubair Hassan
Senior Lecturer
School of Accounting and Business Management
FTMS College, Malaysia
Zubai7@gmail.com

Megha Vaenkatashyamappa
MBA graduate
FTMS Malaysia Campus
Anglia Ruskin University, UK
megha.v249@gmail.com

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to examine the impact of the learning style (LS) on knowledge
sharing behavior (KSB) and academic performance (AP) and also impact of LS and Op mediated by
knowledge sharing behavior of the students context. The independent variable LS consists of
constructions namely continuous learning, inquiry, and dialogue, team learning , embedded
system, people empowerment , system connectivity and strategic leadership. The dependent
variables used for this study are innovation and KSB and mediating factor used is innovation. The
research adopted the dimensions of LO (LSQ) proposed by Momford and honey (2002), to conduct
this research. The research is based on positivism philosophy as it relates to hypothesis testing.
Further, the study used primary data and performed a confirmatory factor analysis and structural
equation modelling for the constructs by using IBM SPSS 24 and AMOS 22 software.to perform a
casual analysis this research has adopted explanatory design. The quantitative research was used
for data analysis as it involves statistical computations. Convenience sampling method is used to
gather 450 respondents from the survey though questionnaire. This study has found that system
connectivity had a positive and significant impact on LS, whereas embedded system had a negative
but significant impact on LS. It was also found that LS did not significantly impact on innovation
but innovation has a positive impact on OP. Similarly, innovation as a mediator was tested and
found that innovation has a partial mediating effect on AP. This study attempts to validate the LS
theoretical framework proposed by will be assimilate how LS influences AP and the importance of
innovation in driving performance. Managers, could make decision on improving strategies to
foster innovation, system connectivity and embedded systems to improve OP. the study was limited
to 450 responses and focused on students. Therefore, future research could study with a large
population and sample size.

Key word: Learning style, knowledge sharing behavior, academic performance of students.

Introduction

Knowledge sharing is a key factor in the organization, the Basic advance in information securing
is knowledge sharing. As per (Brown 1988) students in learning communities are relied upon to
be capable of their instruction proactively by "Knwoldge sharing and academic performance

ISSN: 2289-6694 Page 1

both individual obligation and mutual for learning style" (Brown, 1988). This thought
recommends the significance and estimation of learning style on academic performance by
knowledge sharing among the students. knowledge sharing happens when data or knowledge
is shared by people inside a gathering and amid the procedure the data or information will
likewise be arranged and refined until the point that it ends up regular information to the
gathering (Yang, 2004). The contrast amongst data and knowledge is that data resembles a
"message" and can be "unidirectional and unrequested" while knowledge is deciphered data by
a man's encounters and bits of knowledge inside a unique situation and contains a "component
of correspondence" (Connelly & Kelloway, 2003, p. 294). They are many way of learning, key
test in both on the web and conventional knowledge is to energize information sharing through
social connection in different structures. Knowledge sharing is considered as a social wonder
identified with relational connections and social communications (Liu, Lin, Deng, Wu & Tsai,
2014). As a rule, networks give setting to investment and nearness in the exchange (Vonderwell
& Zachariah, 2005) where students share information and arrange what they mean (Dennen,
2005).

Conversation above shows how critical knowledge sharing is for development of learning style
and how impact for academic performance. In any case, knowledge sharing ought to be
unequivocally impacted by sharing eagerness to take part all the while and essentially
disclosing to them that sharing knowledge will improve you learn don't consequently prompt
knowledge sharing among individuals from the network. Thus, numerous ongoing
examinations have put impressive consideration into discovering determinants of information
sharing conduct (Chang and Chuang, 2011; Goh and Sandhu, 2013b; Hau, Kim, Lee, and Kim,
2012).

The purpose of this research is to analysis of key elements Impact of learning style on academic
performance mediated by knowledge sharing behavior of students, the success of the students
is depending on the good learning style and knowledge sharing (Hussein, Omar, Noordin,&
Ishak, 2016). This examination, how knowledge sharing conduct among understudies. To begin
with, we survey and coordinate the learning style on academic performance thinking about the
part of knowledge sharing conduct either in on the web or customary learning conditions
researching how natural, group, furthermore, singular qualities impact singular level knowledge
sharing. This survey tents to get it factors that impact knowledge sharing between students of a
learning network. Understanding these variables also, the basis behind them would empower
educational programs engineers, educators, and instructional originators to think of fitting
procedures to make a more helpful learning condition to encourage the knowledge sharing
conduct. Second, this audit finishes up with future research needs.
This study is aims for to determine the learning style how create impact on the academies
performance and the knowledge sharing among the students, First, we review and integrate the
understand factors that influence that learning style how effectively impact on the Knowledge
sharing behavior among the students (Al-Rahmi, Alias, Othman, Marin & Tur, 2018). Second of
this review does this factor understand the learning environment to facilitate the academic
performance among the students? Concludes with future research needs. (Dunbar, Dingel,Dame,
Winchip & Petzold, 2018). Third review shows that how knowledge sharing with the technology
is strategically helps on academic performance of behavior of students. To come up with
advisable strategies to create a more conducive in the learning style environment to facilitate
the academic performance and knowledge sharing behavior among the students in the future
research needs (Dunbar, Dingel,Dame, Winchip & Petzold, 2018)

This study with help of adopting learning style, it aims to significant contribute to the behavior
of the students, Knowledge sharing will not only a better result of the good academic
performance. The researcher who carrying out the study will go in-depth prospective about the
learning style and personally this study helps to improve his problem – solving skills and
enhance the changes, which is a part of attribute of the learning style.

Research objectives:

ISSN: 2289-6694 Page 2

  Examine the impact of learning style on academic performance of students
 Examine the impact of learning style on knowledge sharing behavior among students
 Examine the impact of knowledge sharing behavior on academic performance.

Literature Review

Learning styles relate to the way in which different individuals learn (Cueva, Calderón, Salazar
& Grijalva, 2018, March; Hassan & Basit, 2018 ). As researchers have focused on different
aspects of this, a wide range of interpretations and definitions have been produced.
(Zimmerman, 2013). A personally preferred way of dealing with information and experiences
for learning that crosses content area thereby putting emphasis on information processing.
Learning style as the student’s consistent way of responding and using stimuli in the context of
learning (Baker, D'Mello, Rodrigo, & Graesser, 2010). David Kolb defines Learning Style as a
results of hereditary equipment, past experience, and the demand of the present environment
combining to produce individual orientations that give differential emphasis to the four basic
learning modes postulated in experiential learning theory (Kolb, 2005).

Academic performance is measured by final grade earned in the course. A current and
comprehensive review concerning the prediction of students, illustrating self-efficiency to be
strongest correlate of tertiary grade point average. Cognitive contracts as well further
motivational factor (Svanum & Bigatti, 2009). Academic performance is a factor which indicate
a student’s success, while some may completed educational level top of their class in the
standardized tests (Cunningham-Williams, Wideman, Fields, & Jones, 2018). Knowledge
sharing portrays it as a “process where individuals mutually exchange their implicit and explicit
knowledge to create new knowledge”. (Van Den Hooff & De Ridder’s, 2004, p.119).

Hendriks (1999) has defined knowledge sharing behavior as the process involving knowledge
exchange between individuals and groups of people. While Connelly and Kelloway (2003)
defined knowledge sharing behavior as behavior‟s set which involve exchanging of information
or assistance with others.

Related Theories:

One of the popular theory among the scholar in assessing the learning style of indviduals is
Kolb’s learning style theory (Kolb, 2005). This theory focus on learner’s internal cognitive
process, is a terminology for the learning style. Assimilating, Diverging. Converging,
Accommodating are the components and Kolb’s main identifications are Concrete, Reflective,
Abstract, Active (Kolb, 2007). Kolb (2007) learning style consiste of the following :

 Concrete – learning style depending upon the experience of situations arises and
reinterpretation of existing experience.

 Reflective – The learning style in the way observation, new experinace of perticuler
inconsistencies between experience and understanding.

 Abstract – The learning style Conceptualization, the considerations helps to get new idea
or it can modification of an existing abstract concept.

 Active – The learning style experimentation, The learner applies experiments with the
world to finalise the result.

The Mumford and honey learning style were developed by Peter Honey and Alan Mumford in
1986. He inspired and built upon the Kolb’s learning style model (Kolb, 2005) Learning style
questionnaire produced by fallowing the Mumford and Honey learning style and identified
distinct learning preferences Activist, Theorist, Pragmatist, and Reflector. The fallowing figure
is model of Mumford and honey learning style. This theory was conceptualized by the Gregorc
and Butler (1984)the model is based on the perceptual and thinking or processing preferred
learning style . His learning style based on the concept that individual learn. And he focusing on

ISSN: 2289-6694 Page 3

sequential processing information. Grerorc learning style is carefully attributed through four
activies it can grouped as 1.Abstract- Random, 2. Concrete- Random, 3.Abstract- sequential, 4.
Concrete- sequential, These activities and groups in combination related to contemplation,
creation, interpret information learning regardless of varying point of views, (Ghaffari, et al,
2013).

Review of past empirical research:

Activist learning style is practical test and bit theory where people can learn with experience
(Honey & Mumford, 2000). There are 6 variables which are influencing the activist learning and
it may impact on the academic performance and knowledge sharing behavior. Learning from
experience gives for student a chance to learn and restart with the knowledge and this
knowledge can leads to academic performance, (Wan Raihan wan shaaidi, 2012). When
students can identify the solutions for the problem it is learning skill for future experiments,
they impulsively rise their Knowledge sharing behavior to integrate future activities, where
they improve academic performance with confidentially (Hossein Zadeh 2014). Students will
get help from the teachers, from their creative ideas helps for leading academic performance in
knowledge sharing behavior, ( Shaheen majid, 2013). Additionally students will get rewords for
learning and it will motivate to learn and share the knowledge impetuously, by sharing more
knowledge with their experience will leads to Academic performance through batter learning
and knowledge (Yuen Chee keong 1995). Students will advise in examination environment, later
when the time is sufficient they should be more creative with learning new things as a result it
will help with academic performance with good experience and knowledge base (Edy hartono
2017). Similarly learning from experience, will view the problem as an opportunity, it leads to
more innovative in learning it leads to academic performance (Esin erguh, 2015). Now activist is
an integral part of learning style its found when students faces the academic in academic year,
Therefore learning style hase a positive and significant impact on the academic performance
(Shaheen majid, 2013) and also on Knowledge sharing behavior (Wan Raihan wan shaaidi,
2012) therefore, This study hypotheses the following:

H1: Activist has a positive impact and significant impact on Knowledge sharing

H2: Activist has a positive and significant impact on Academic performance

This dimension of learning style model by Honey, P. and Mumford (2000). In Theorists concept
students can learn from models and theory it explains the explore the interrelationship amongst
elements. Which improve the investigation skills (Edy hartono, 2017). Students can study the
theories and models according to their goals and responsibilities. Teachers will recognize the to
the students and they will allocate initiatives according to their skills set. And it further it
motivate and create the result in over academic performance (Yuen Chee keong, 2005).
Similarly it is make students to fallow the theories and models this elements attributes on
knowledge sharing. Next having theoretical knowledge will help the students to put when
situations arises, it helps students diverse the ideas in effective path in accordance with their
mission an vision hence it improves the academic performance (Esin erguh, 2015), further
when students will have control over the resources, but it was not help constructing and
implementing the own, but they fallow the theories and models which they learned. Students
can control and calculate the risk, by fallowing the common standard it impact on learning of
the students, The importance of Theorists learning is reflecting that theorists has a positive
and significantly influence on Knowledge sharing (Ang siew ling(2017) and Academic
performance. Therefor the hypotheses is as fallow:

H3: Theorists has a positive impact and significant impact on Knowledge sharing

H4: Theorists has a positive and significant impact on Academic performance

The third dimension of the learning style model by Honey, P. and Mumford (2000). Is reflector,
which means learn from the “learn from the breaks to of” teachers are responsible for the
maintain the academic part, out of that they, must create the environment where students can

ISSN: 2289-6694 Page 4

develop their skills and train for learning. When teachers create an opportunity for learning, the
students must utilize the breaks and absorb and consider the trying where they can expert like
subject or other actives thus can improve the academic performance (Ahamad Fauzi ayub,
2013), recent decades lots of competition in the education system between the students,
students vision set and more hard work on their skills resulting in batter academic performance
( Danies Mendes da silva, 2005). Additionaal learning from tuitions, tutorial centers, mentors
etc they can cascade Knowledge, these are motivating and encourage centers where they
motivate to learn effectively. These leads to achieve academic performance (Shuaibu Hassan
Usman, 2015). When the learners find an opportunity to learn they should not only improve
their knowledge, should also chance learn how expand the learning for academic performance
(Chang Zhu, 2012). When the students have their continues consistency between learning and
academic they are strategic objectives in the learning style, they can definitely achieve the
academic performance (San jose, 2011), consequently it can be concluded that Reflectors
learning has a positive and significant impact influence on knowledge sharing behavior and
academic performance (Karina de bruin, 2012) The hypotheses is as fallow:

H5: Reflectors has a positive impact and significant impact on Knowledge sharing behavior

H6: Reflectors has a positive and significant impact on academic performance.

The for the dimension of the learning style by Honey, P. and Mumford (2000) is the pragmatist
learning style, it refers to learn best from activities or by practice, which empowers the students
to utilize their creativity for adopt the goal and learn from the activity (Ruzanna Topchyan,
2015) therefor knowledge sharing cohesiveness directly effects on academic performance,
every member in the school are students they are equally preferred by the teachers, only the
rank holder can get differ, this directly relates to learning style and academic performance
because they drives have similar opinions therefor the exploited results will tactful in
knowledge sharing behavior (Hsin-huan-wu, 2010) these both focuses on activities are batter
on academic performance. Learn through the activates are closely related to knowledge sharing
behavior of the student, in order to focused on activities improved on academic performance
through batter knowledge base (Esin erguh, 2015). Acheviments form activity motivate the
student to be more innovator the result of it they improved the learning style by using the
knowledge sharing behavior, reflecting the importance of pragmatists for learning style and
academic performance, the hypotheses for study.

H7: Pragmatist has a positive impact and significant impact on Knowledge sharing behavior

H8: pragmatist has a positive and significant impact on academic performance.

There is one study by Anglia Ruskin university, UK have used the Knowledge sharing and are a
dependable variable, (Ang siew ling, 2017), The hypothesized in knowledge sharing behavior as
a mediating factor between learning style and Academic performance. The study found four
learning style of students dimensions are positively mediated by learning style, academic
performance towards, The research found four learning style factors they are positively
mediated by students’ academic performance too. The hypotheses study for this model as
follows:

H9: Knowledge sharing behavior has a mediating effect on Academic performancec

ISSN: 2289-6694 Page 5

 Figure 1: Conceptual framework

Methodology

This study was a correction research due to nature of the study to see the relationship that
exists among variable investigated. Data were obtained from primary and secondary(Hassan &
Diallo, 2013). The information obtained from individual, experts and onther people and source
of ther hand , refer to information gathered from the sources that already existed such as
internet , journals, magazines and newspaper cutting. The primary data for this study was the
information from the respondents, gathered from the questionnaires. (Zywno, 2003).
The research design engaged in this research is explanatory research because this research is to
find out does learning styles influences on student academic performance among the MBA
students. In this research, deductive approach is adopted because the researcher will examine
the established theory and quantitative data will be collected for this research (Zywno (2003). .
Quantitative research descriptive, explanatory will be used in this research because this
researcher will gather numeric or measurable data. Researcher will test the relationship
between variables using measurable data (Williams, 2007). This research will collect primary
data because it is more accurate and relevant to the studied context compared to secondary
data. Koh and Kim, (2004). Research method refers to the ay behavior and instruments used for
data collections based on the current or a past information, which includes of two methods
called Quantitative and Qualitative (Haba, Hassan, & Dastane, 2017; Haba & Dastane, 2018)
Quantitative data collection method used for analyzing the numerical data and measurable in
method and examine of phenomenon and the relationship between the variables which is
framed in the questions to clarify and control phenomena (Lillis & Mundy, 2005).

Data Collection Method: As explained above there are two fundamental methods of data
collection called primary method and secondary method (Johnston, 2017) The primary data
collection refers to collect the data directly with the help of questionnaires, interview etc. and
secondary data refers to collect the data from the past researches and available for research
(Bakon, & Hassan, 2013).). The primary data collection method is preferred for research,
because the material provides firsthand information instead of collecting the information which
is already used for analysis (Levitt, Bamberg, Creswell, Frost, Josselson & Suárez-Orozco,
2018), these data are ensure they UP-to –date and not secondary, the data is gathered directly
from the targeted population (students). The questionnaires are prepared distinctive to primary
data collection method which appropriated for my survey strategies, which is quantitative
methods (Yadav, Sharma & Tarhini, 2016)

Sampling method: The population for survey was targeted primarily on students in Malaysia,
the students consists from degree to all the professional studies fields members the survey date
is varied (Tunkarimu & Hassan, 2017). The survey is focused on only students who studying in
the different universities across the global by using the Google link. total number of response

ISSN: 2289-6694 Page 6

received is 462. The samples are collected from students with unambiguous manner to select
participants hence the non-probability samplings method that is fit for the research criterion
was used. Convenience sampling is method of non-probability sampling is selected for this
research, flexibility in selecting the samples, less cost and willing suggest the answers (Steven ,
1992). As mentioned in the data collection method, questionnaire survey in hard copy online
from (Google form) is used to it is a convenient way for survey so I preferred Google form to do
survey because it will automatically present the data in excel spreadsheet, in fact overall the
data into SPSS and AMOS for analysis. The survey method combination of the methods and
research ability to encourage the participants as result of it there are 526 response from that
450 is considered for a research.

Sampling size: According to previous researches mention in (Table 1) learning style related to
empirical research carried out past on similar variables suggested sampling size 600-700 where
coincides within the recommends range of 400-500 which avoids equitable response and
errors in the data. According Nareeman and Hassan (2013) a samppe size of more than 150 will
be sufficient enough. However some argued that smaple size depdnens on number of items
construction (Hinkin, Tracey & Enz, 1997. Therefore a sample of 470-500 (450) was chosen in
this the survey based on the questionnaires distributed via online Google from and the link
sent copy to all the students through social networks (watsapp mass anger, linked in)

Data Analysis Techniques: The research implemented the Structural Equation Modeling (SME)
which includes the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Path Analysis, which has been
commonly used in similar studies. The date are analyzed using the SPSS 24 and AMOS 22
software. Among the model fit assessment methods were used are the Comparative Fix Index
(CFI), X²/df and Normed chi-square and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) (Hu
& Bentler, 1999). The table below shows the values suggested as Model Fitness (Ideal):

CFA Greater than 0.70 (Hair, et al., 2012)

CFI Greater than 0.9 (Hair, et al., 2012)

chi-square Lower than 3.0 (Kline, 1998)

RMSEA Lower than 0.08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999).

Table 1: Model Fitness

Results and Discussion

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

The two analysis was performed to evaluate the measurment model, where the first analysis is
that Confirmmatory factore Analysis (CFA) by using the AMOS 22, which is done to confirm the
veiled variable are really reflect the purported measures in the components, and analysis if each
of it measures a construct the squared correlation was analyzed (Hassan, 2017). The CFA
analysis is more than o.4 for all the items in the components it shows that the model is reliable
or fit. This model is suitable as reflected in the squared multiple correlation (discriminate
validity).

ISSN: 2289-6694 Page 7

 Figure 2: Measurement model of latent variable

The analysis determined the reliability of learning style and its impact on knowledge sharing
behavior and academic performance , the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was formulated using the
SPSS 24 and as per the convergent validity measurable model table, most of the values are
above 0.8 and 0.9. this is shows the minimum requirements beyond 0.7 and components are
favorable and internal consistency among the variables (Nareeman & Hassan, 2015) to
determine the validity of learning style dimensions estimated of slandered factor loading was
used, as a result of it in the range of 0.685 to 0.820 here the majority fits the requirement level
of more than 0.7. As per the statists, the chi-square ratio was below the recommended value of
3.0 (Kline,1998). The RMSEA vales was 0.66, which again scored under the suggested level of
0.8 . The CFI scored o.91 which is higher than 0.9 so it is considered as its perfectly fit, to ensure
the model is fit the factors loading value has to be more then 0.5 to be considered as convergent
validity, which has been already proved and justified as per the convergent validity measurable
model table. Therefore cronbachs alpha value that are above the 0.7 shows the model reliability
and the moderately is 5.83 overall constructed the higher acceptability of the learning style of
students. further the AVE values are more than 0.5 indicates that the model as a good fit
(Radhakrishnan, Basit, & Hassan, 2015) which has been proven that AVE vales as per the
convergent validity measurable table are more than 0.05 therefore all the 30 items are
measured learning style, Knowledge sharing behavior and academic performance are
considered adequate. Convergent validity of measurement model

ACT REF PRA THE KSB AP

A5 .717
A4 .745
A3 .751
A2 .809
A1 .685
R5 .801

ISSN: 2289-6694 Page 8

R4 .725
R3 .795
R2 .797
R1 .741
P5 .755
P4 .820
P3 .814
P2 .705
P1 .708
T1 .692
T2 .749
T3 .799
T4 .754
T5 .755
KSB1 .777
KSB2 .779
KSB3 .793
KSB4 .796
KSB5 .784
AP1 .771
AP2 .715
AP3 .818
AP4 .795
AP5 .786
Reliability 0.852 0.879 0.872 0.865 0.889 0.884
Mean 3.2993 3.352 3.315 3.338 3.404 3.358
Table 2: Convergent validity of measurement model

SEM For Learning Style (LO) and Knowledge sharing behavior (KSB) direct effects on Academic
Performance (AP)

This is a casual structured model as per the below figure, it was formulated to test the
hypothesis if learning style impacted Knowledge sharing behavior and academic performance
among the students. The validity of the structural model can be calculated in various ways. As
per the below figure normal chi-square is significant with P=0.00 (chi-square is 1183.141,
df=349). The CFI scored 0.919 and the recommended it should above 0.9 so it is acceptable,
(Hassan, 2017) as a result of it model is fit The RMSEA should be less than 0.08 in ideal and the
model is scored RMSEA=0.066 which is considered it is fit (Peng, Hassan & Basit, 2018; Hassan,
2017)

The SME other validity measurement is based on the factor generated from the calculated
model (Harney, O., Hogan & Broome, 2012) the below table shows that loading from
measurements model and structural models are compared and the are close to each one on
other, therefore this model is also validated as a good fit. The structural model can be valeted by
using the path analysis, as per the below table the relationship of measurement and structural
model are significant and close to each other, again it is indicates that this is a good model fir
considering the significance of path analysis. The findings are suggested that the Learning style
standard structural model related to a students, it is determinant of Academic performance and
Knowledge sharing behavior. The model is demonstrated and it shows that the most of
dimensions of learning style is positive relationship with Knowledge sharing behavioue and
academic performance, The few reflects negative value such as REF and PRA in relation to a
academic performance. It means the learning dimensions of PRA and REF is and adequate and
beneficial instrument to measure KSB and AP, the positive correlation may be dynamic for
students in appropriating the learning style.

ISSN: 2289-6694 Page 9

 Figure 3: SEM for Hypotheses testing

Indicator Construct CFA Model SEM

A5 ACT .717 .717
A4 ACT .745 .745
A3 ACT .751 .751
A2 ACT .809 .809
A1 ACT .685 .685
R5 REF .801 .801
R4 REF .725 .725
R3 REF .795 .795
R2 REF .797 .797
R1 REF .741 .741
P5 PRA .755 .755
P4 PRA .820 .820
P3 PRA .814 .814
P2 PRA .705 .705
P1 PRA .708 .708
T1 THE .692 .692
T2 THE .749 .749
T3 THE .799 .799
T4 THE .754 .754
T5 THE .755 .755
KSB1 KSB .777 .777
KSB2 KSB .779 .779
KSB3 KSB .793 .793
KSB4 KSB .796 .796
KSB5 KSB .784 .784
AP1 AP .771 .771

ISSN: 2289-6694 Page 10

AP2 AP .715 .715
AP3 AP .818 .818
AP4 AP .795 .795
AP5 AP .786 .786
Table 8: Factor loading comparison

Measurement Model Structural Model

Relationship Parameter Estimates Relationship Parameter Estimates
AP <--- KSB 0.913 AP <--- KSB .561
AP <--- THE 0.883 AP <--- THE .137
AP <--- ACT 0.893 AP <--- ACT .483
AP <--- REF 0.897 AP <--- REF -.181
AP <--- PRA 0.806 AP <--- PRA -.019
Table 3: Path analysis comparison

The below table explains that the variables KSB and ACT has a positive and significant impact on
AP, but THE, REF and PRA native and significant impact on AP. Some hypothesis are rejected as
shown below table. A mandatory analysis was performed in the subsequent part to analyze
whethere KSB is mediator between lo and AP.

P Accepted or
Hypotheses Estimate S.E. C.R.
(<0.05) Rejected
AP <--- KSB .535 .130 4.117 0.000 Accepted

AP <--- THE .148 .133 1.111 .267 Rejected

AP <--- ACT .528 .238 2.219 .026 Accepted

AP <--- REF -.171 .258 -.662 .508 Rejected

AP <--- PRA -.020 .085 -.242 .809 Rejected

Table 4: Hypothesis for LS and KSB on AP

KSB as a mediator only

The Mediator analysis according to below figure it is good fit model it is considering all the
indices with the recommended as highlighted such as RMSEA scored 0.067, chi-square with
p=0.00 and normed chi- square is 3.003 it is more than the 3 but its is still considered as
acceptable, and CFI has scored 0.919 a with Knowledge sharing behavior as the mediator factor,
which is in above the 0.9 therefor RMSE scored 0.67 therefore this model is ungenerous but it
will be accepted

ISSN: 2289-6694 Page 11

 Figure 4: SEM for hypotheses testing using KSB as a mediator only

The path analysis with knowledge sharing behavior as a mediator between learning style and
academic performance the result of it is as per the given below table, it indicates the learning
style constructs are statically significant and it is acceptable P- values are 0.00, the ideal alpha
level is 0.05. However the knowledge sharing with mediating factor and it is acceptable some
variable and it is rejected in some variables. As per the below table KSB as mediating factor it is
acceptable with the variables, KSB on AP is completely acceptable with the vales of 0.00, and,
KSB on LS is acceptable with vales on 0.00 and 0.04 for all the variables, and it is rejected with
the variables with some components of LS, therefore KSB has a mediating effect on learning
style and academic performance. Therefore the hypotheses H9 is acceptable with the all the
H1, H3, and H7 are rejected and this KSB is not completely acceptable rather than a partial
mediator.

Measurement Model Structural Model

Relationship Parameter Estimates Relationship Parameter Estimates
KSB <--- THE 0.890 KSB <--- THE .354
KSB <--- ACT 0.850 KSB <--- ACT -.100
KSB <--- REF 0.910 KSB <--- REF .632
KSB <--- PRA 0.838 KSB <--- PRA .094
AP <--- KSB 0.913 AP <--- KSB .944
Table 5: Path analysis

P (<0.05) Accepted or
Hypotheses Estimate S.E. C.R.
Rejected
KSB <--- THE .395 .114 3.447 0.00 Accepted

ISSN: 2289-6694 Page 12

KSB <--- ACT -.115 .199 -.576 .564 Rejected

KSB <--- REF .617 .190 3.257 .001 Accepted

KSB <--- PRA .103 .081 1.267 .205 Rejected

AP <--- KSB .919 .055 16.671 0.00 Accepted

Table 6: hypotheses analysis

Hypothesis Measuremen SEM LS & KSB SEM LS SEM whole SEM KSM as
t Model direct effect impact on KSB Analysis mediator only
AP & AP
Estima P Estima P Estima P Estima P Estima P
te te te te te
TH - AP .469 0.0 0.148 0.26 0.430 0.01
0.26
E - 0 7 7 0.148
7
>
AC - AP 0.467 0.0 0.528 0.02 -0.893 0.02
0.02
T - 0 6 6 0.528
6
>
RE - AP 0.544 0.0 -0.171 0.50 1.425 0.00
0.50
F - 0 8 -0.171
8
>
PR - AP 0.435 0.0 -0.02 0.80 -0.156 0.24
0.80
A - 0 9 1 -0.020
9
>
KS - AP 0.547 0.0 0.535 0.00 0.919 0.00
B - 0 0.535 0.00
>
TH - KS 0.496 0.0 0.538 0.12
0.00
E - B 0 6 0.395 0.395 0.00
4
>
AC - KS 0.466 0.0 -2.719 0.09
0.14 0.56
T - B 0 -0.362 -0.115
9 4
>
RE - KS 0.579 0.0 3.044 0.04
0.00
F - B 0 5 0.793 0.00 0.617
1
>
PR - KS 0.474 0.0 -0.27 0.41
0.19 0.20
A - B 0 3 0.127 0.103
9 5
>
AP - KS 0.547 0.0 0.535 0.00
- B 0
>
Table 6: hypotheses analysis

Discussion Of Results
As per the above table and hypotheses analysis the connectivity system are resulted in positive
and the significant impact on the academic performance . The embedded system (ES), however
have positive impact and also significant impact on the academic performance. In this research
all Hypotheses related to three variables are accepted, and none of hypotheses are rejected.
Subsequently hypotheses testing by using knowledge sharing behavior as the mediating factor
reveled that learning style dimensions did not significantly accepted or significant impact on the
academic performance, however with estimated value of 0. 547 with p vales 0.00 therefor it is
acceptable. The earlier value is 0.919 as per the above table, therefor KSB is a completely
acceptable meditator, hence overall the hypotheses from H1 to H9 is acceptable.

ISSN: 2289-6694 Page 13

learning style on KSB: As per the hypotheses testing the Theorists and reflectors learning style
are significantly acceptable and the Activist and pragmatists is are have got negative impact in
the study, the p activist got a negative value -0.115 of 0.564which indicates negative and
significant impact on the KSB, whereas the pragmatist is estimate SME is 0.103, and p= 0.205
there for this component is negative impact on the KSB and other hypotheses Theorists and
reflectors are acceptable with the SME value =0.00 and impact is positive a and also significant
impact on KSB therefor the hypotheses of H1 and H7 are rejected.

But this are positive impact on AP, there for the rejected the H1 and H7 is not confirm,
Topchyan (2016), the disparate finding factor have been contributed few factors such first in
the saple size , the study have been done on the sample of 450 and, as per other authors the
study sample are suggested around 500-530 (Silva et al, 2015).

Learning style on AP: As per the hypotheses testing above the table the three learning style
dimensions are negative impact the academic performance, the research finding that in the past
studies like Topchyan (2016) and He (2009) these AP are impacted on the LS some extend
level, the hypotheses H2, H6, H8 are have negative impact with the values are Re- impact on AC
the SME= -0.171, -0.893 and PR impact on AC SME= -0.02, and these are have negative impact
on the academic performance, but the findings are not considered that AP is negative impact on
the Learning style.

Academic performance is impacted by learning style to some extent, therefor the hypotheses of
H2 H4 and H8 are the rejected. Because of high sample sizes used in other researches the
outcome of the research is different but the variables are similar like Ling et al (2017) the
research doen in Malaysia, Danies Mendes da silva research done in brazil with sample size of
120, the LS dimensions are had significant impact on the AP as per the study Ling et al (2017).
Mediating impact: Mediating impact

Chi-Square DF Normed CFI RMSEA P-value

Chi Square (>0.9) (<0.08)
(<3)
Measurement 1151.232 390 2.952 0.921 0.066 0.000
model
SEM 1151.232 390 2.952 0.921 0.066 0.000
LS AND KSB
direct effect
on ap
SEM 1163.453 391 2.976 0.920 0.066 0.000
LS IMPACT
ON KSB AND
AP
SEM 1151.232 390 2.952 0.921 0.066 0.000
WHOLE
ANALYSIS
SEM 1183.141 394 3.003 0.919 0.067 0.000
KSM as
mediator
only
Table 7: Model fitness comparison

As per the research the alternative way of checking about the model fitness is by analyzing the
whole measurement model values and the structural vales, which according to the standard
rule both from the models and should similar parameters, or estimated values (Waheed &
Hassan, 2016), as per the above table most of the values are similar like Chi_ square values are
=1151.232, 1163.453, 1183.141, for the structural model and SME- mediator similarly, The DF
vales are similar values=390, 391, 394 and similarly normed chi- square 2.952, 3.003, but the
ideal for normed chi- square is below 3, The RMSEA 0.066, 0.067 and CFI 0.921, 0.919 and P=

ISSN: 2289-6694 Page 14

0.00 also recorded very similar value correspondingly therefore as per the above mediated
table, so it is considered as good model fit.

Conclusion

This research is studied on the impact of learning style (LO) on Knowledge sharing behavior
and academic performance of the students. In addition the study also examined the impact of
learning style on academic performance with knowledge sharing behavior is a mediating factor,
the study is concluded that the learning style impacts on academic performance on extent. Most
of the learning dimensions are positive correlation with the dependent variable of the academic
performance, the two components activist and pragmatist constructions significant impact on
the academic performance, and other hand it is not significant and it Is placed as negative
impact effected by learning style dimensions. Knowledge sharing behavior is mediator in both
ceases resulted as positive and significant impact on organizational performance. Since other
dimensions of learning style are significant with positive impact on academic performance,
therefore suggested that knowledge sharing behavior is partial mediating factor for academic
performance. The result of it overall, demonstrated that all learning style dimension have an
impact on the knowledge sharing and academic performance, there for this research confirm
that all objectives of the study have been met and all the study questions have been considered.
The various result of the study has successfully addressed and the gap between the study is
used the Honey and Mumford (2000) for learning style and dimensions of the learning style, for
examine the impact on knowledge sharing behavior and academic performance. The study have
been come out with additional result that impact of learning style dimensions in examine the
impact on academic performance by using the knowledge sharing behavior is a mediating
factor. There is no research have been conduct based on the variables in Malaysia or globally

Examine the Impact of REF and PRA on knowledge sharing and innovation: This finding of the
research is suggested both Reflectors and pragmatist are components of learning style are has
impact on academic performance and knowledge sharing behavior of students, which means
the objective of the study have been met and the research questions 2 questions 2 are related to
a learning style questions, the findings of the research study have suggested that both REF and
PRA has an impact on the Academic performance and knowledge sharing behavior, means the
objective of this study has been met. And the result for the question is the REF has significant
impact on knowledge sharing behavior and academic performance, and negative impact on the
Academic performance and Knowledge sharing behavior of the students. It is become evident
that the study on students from different country it is emphasize shared learning style through
different source and study models by capturing the ideas but not optimized their capability is
calculated in the knowledge sharing behavior are reserved Osman, et. al., (2015). Therefore it
explains that the insignificant impact of REF and PRA on KSB in the study. Vise versa this is
negative impact on the academic performance it is also effect uses of the learning captured.
(Dohrenwend 2009). This is effect on the collected information and it leads to a batter Academic
performance. The conclusion is that REF and PRA has a negative and but not significant impact
on the knowledge sharing behavior and Academic performance. Therefore it can be conclude
that the students must improve the knowledge sharing behavior and Academic performance
when REF and PRA are participated.

Mediating effects of Knowledge Sharing Behavior: The research have been come out with the
smart result, that is as per the literature, one of the gap found that in previous studies with the
use of knowledge sharing behavior as the mediating factor effect between the learning style
with subject wise but not on the academic performance, this also one of the key objectives of the
study, the finding reveled that learning style has an impact on knowledge sharing and subject
knowledge, but not on the academic performance. But none of the research has used the
knowledge sharing behavior as mediator. The result of it clearly mentioned that none of the
research have been done on this variable and tested compared to the previous hypotheses and
result. The findings are partially correlate to the topic example (Connelly & Kelloway, 2003)
since KSB is main variable not a mediated variable for learning style, the study have been

ISSN: 2289-6694 Page 15

Several studies conducted in the University of phoenix online, USA by Topchyan (2015). The key
elements of the concept is Knowledge sharing, Knowledge sharing , learning styles, The result of
the study is understanding the knowledge management indistinct education to which
Knowledge sharing in team is create negative impact because s of competencies. Markovic and
Bagherzadeh 2018) found that jnowldge sharing has a mediting impact between the
relationship between stakehodlers and co value creation process. A study by Karabulut‐Ilgu
Jaramillo Cherrez and Jahren (2018). concluded that some type of learning engineering in the
online is not provide much data as can provide in the classroom therefore it is create negative
impact on learning style of engineering. Furthermore Ling, Basit and Hassan (2017) found that
there is a positive impact of learning style on academic performance, but it is suggested further
investigation to explore on relationship between learning style and academic performance.Also
it was found that Knowledge sharing behaviour has a mediating effects on innovation and
academic performance (Ngugi & Goosen, 2018).

The conclusion is, knowledge sharing behavior is significantly impacted by learning style and
knowledge sharing behavior positively and significantly impact on the academic performance,
which is suggested that knowledge sharing behavior could include in the academic performance
of the student (Honey &Mumford, 2000; Ling et al , 2017)).

Examine the Impact of ACT and THE on the knowledge sharing behavior and academic
performance: The literature review it was showed that five studies on leering style by using the
same dimensions, does these studies have an impact on knowledge sharing behavior and the
academic performance, hence the relevant objective has been meet. However none of the
researches had significant impact on the observed variables it can be on both directly or
knowledge sharing behavior used as mediator. With the reference of the literature, the learning
opportunity influence knowledge sharing behavior and academic performance, in distinction to
the belief that learning from the mistake and experience and seeing problem as an opportunity
encourages the knowledge sharing behavior that is it promotes on academic performance (Hew
& Brush, 2007), it has come out from this research that it may not be the case with students in
the Act and THE prospect.

This THE that significant impact on knowledge sharing behavior and academic performance
that is the reason students can perform good in the academic events and changes the goal
according to their learning style (Tohidinia & Mosakhani, 2010). According to Peacock (2001),
when instruction in an education setting is matched with the students' learning style
preferences, students seem to achieve higher scores than when mismatched (Peacock, 2001).
Miller, Jennings, Alvarez-Rivera and Miller (2008) found that both student examination scores
and student's attitude toward learning scores were significantly as result of THE and in the
learning style.

The ACT is significantly impacting on the on knowledge sharing behavior and academic
performance and it is benefited to the students by providing the information in important part
of development is innovative behavior by providing the right learning style , environment and
coaching centers mentoring their students and good intuitions to improves helps to improve
the learning style (Goh & Sandhu, 2013a). The conclusion is that learning style dimension ATC
and THE is significantly and positively impact on both the Knowledge sharing behavior and
academic performance.

Recommendation

Educational Implication: The recommendation for this research is educational implication of the
students, because this study will be usefull for the students, teachers and academic institutions,
to change the way they think and act, because of the most of learning style elements specially by
Activist and theorist The present study yielded some important insights into learning style
preferences among students and the following recommendations are made, therefore this
research could be useful in the assigns firm to recognize the critical link between the learning
style and academic performance, how it can be used to improve computation strategy between
the students by accepting the Activist and Theorist ( THE and ACT), it improves the skills and

ISSN: 2289-6694 Page 16

learning style of the students along with the continues learning process among the skill of the
students. The knowledge sharing in the other hand it was significantly impacted by THE and
ACT, hence the students and teachers are accommodating knowledge sharing behavior in their
strategic plan:

Teachers/instructors need to take into account their students ‘diverse learning styles, design
instructional methods that take care of those diversities and remain sensitive of such during the
instruction process; Teachers should also help their students to understand their learning style
preferences and make use of such to develop the skills and lead life-long learners; School
administrators need to provide various learning materials which can bring diversity in the
classroom by employing visual, auditory and kinesthetic materials such as use of technology
and student’s project writing and presentation among other methods.

Future Research Direction: The research of the findings reveled , the output of the result have
been positively to words the hypotheses, hence to refer a great validity and impact of the result
theses item should be analyzed by using the bigger sample, which includes more applicable
while using the Structural Equation Modeling. More over the future research should be
challenged and defend on constructions which is presented in the research, which does not only
expandable on the learning style and the country but also the development in the fields of
learning by using the different models and theories. Another factor must considered from
demographic view to examine the impact of learning specifically concerning the elements which
concluded in the limitations, in addition since learning style does not have a significant impact
on the academic performance and future studies should be recommended to use the knowledge
sharing behavior as an additional dimension of learning style constructs instead of the mediator
specially on academic performance.

Research Limitation: The research was limited to the sample size is 450 participate only, by
selecting the students in different part of country and also from Malaysia, the result the research
is not provided the comprehensive perception from students. The research outcome is
necessarily be applicable to other students from different country and at the same time the
participants are responding for the questions which framed by the research point of view but
theses question could not be ignored, because which may have the slight variation on the result
accuracy.

References

Al-Rahmi, W. M., Alias, N., Othman, M. S., Marin, V. I., & Tur, G. (2018). A model of factors
affecting learning performance through the use of social media in Malaysian higher
education. Computers & Education, 121, 59-72.

Baker, R. S., D'Mello, S. K., Rodrigo, M. M. T., & Graesser, A. C. (2010). Better to be frustrated than
bored: The incidence, persistence, and impact of learners’ cognitive–affective states
during interactions with three different computer-based learning
environments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68(4), 223-241.

Bakon, K., & Hassan, Z. (2013). Perceived value of smartphone and its impact on deviant
behaviour: An investigation on higher education students in Malaysia. International
Journal of Information System and Engineering (IJISE) , 1(1), 1-17

Brown, A. L. (1988). Motivation to learn and Understand; On taking charge of one’s own
learning.cognition and instruction, 5(4), 311-321.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0504_4

Chang, H. H., & Chuang, S. S. (20110. Social capital and individual motivations on knowledge
sharing: Participant involvement as a moderator. Information & Management, 48(1), 9-18
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2010.11.001

ISSN: 2289-6694 Page 17

Connelly, C. E., & kelloway, E. K. (2003). Predictors of employees’ perceptions of knowledge
sharing cultures. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(50), 294-301.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730310485815

Cueva, R., Calderón, J., Salazar, D., & Grijalva, G. (2018, March). Learning style analysis of
engineering and technology freshmen. In 2018 IEEE Integrated STEM Education
Conference (ISEC) (pp. 181-188). IEEE.

Cunningham-Williams, R. M., Wideman, E. S., Fields, L., & Jones, B. D. (2018). Research
Productivity of Social Work PhD Candidates Entering the Academic Job Market: An
Analysis of Pre-and Postadmission Productivity Indicators. Journal of Social Work
Education, 54(4), 776-791.

Dennen*, V. P. (2005). From message posting to learning dialogues: Factors affecting learner
participation in asynchronous discussion. Distance Education, 26(1), 127-148.

Dohrenwend, A. (2009). Perspective: a grand challenge to academic medicine: speak out on gay
rights. Academic Medicine, 84(6), 788-792.

Dunbar, R. L., Dingel, M. J., Dame, L. F., Winchip, J., & Petzold, A. M. (2018). Student social self-
efficacy, leadership status, and academic performance in collaborative learning
environments. Studies in Higher Education, 43(9), 1507-1523.

Ghaffari, R., Ranjbarzadeh, F. S., Azar, E. F., Hassanzadeh, S., Safaei, N., Golanbar, P., ... & Abbasi, E.
(2013). The analysis of learning styles and their relationship to academic achievement in
medical students of basic sciences program. Research and Development in Medical
Education, 2(2), 73.

Goh, S. K., & Sandhu, M. S. (2013a). Knowledge Sharing Among Malaysian Academics: Influence
of Affective Commitment and Trust. Electronic Journal of Knowledge
Management, 11(1).38-48

Goh, S. K., & Sandhu, M. S. (2013b). Affiliation, Reciprocal Relationships and Peer Pressure in
Knowledge Sharing in Public Universities in Malaysia. Asian Social Science, 9(7), 290.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ass.v9n7p290

Gregorc, A. F., & Butler, K. A. (1984). Learning is a matter of style. VocEd, 59(3), 27-29.

Haba, H.F. & Dastane, O. (2018). An Empirical Investigation on Taxi Hailing Mobile App
Adoption: A Structural Equation Modelling. Business Management & Strategy, 9(1), 48-72.
doi:https://doi.org/10.5296/bms.v9i1.13006

Haba, F. H., Hassan, Z., & Dastane, O. (2017). Factors leading to consumer perceived value of
smartphones and its impact on purchase intention. Global Business and Management
Research: An International Journal, 9(1), 42-71

Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2012). An assessment of the use of partial
least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of the academy
of marketing science, 40(3), 414-433.

Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (2000). The learning styles helper's guide. Maidenhead: Peter Honey
Publications.

Hassan, Z., & Basit, A. (2018). Impact of Individual Learning on Team Learning and Innovation in
the Petroleum Industry of Malaysia. International Journal of Management, Accounting and
Economics, 5(6), 417-447.

Hassan, Z. (2017). Impact of Social, Epistemic and Conditional Values on Customer Satisfaction
and Loyalty in Automobile Industry: A Structural Equation Modelling. Journal of
Marketing and Consumer Behaviour in Emerging Markets, (1 (5)), 29-44.

ISSN: 2289-6694 Page 18

Hassan, Z., & Diallo, M. M. (2013). Cross-cultural adjustments and expatriate’s job performance:
a study on Malaysia. International Journal of Accounting and Business
Management,(IJABM), 1(1), 8-23.

Harney, O., Hogan, M. J., & Broome, B. J. (2012). Collaborative learning: The effects of trust and
open and closed dynamics on consensus and efficacy. Social Psychology of
Education, 15(4), 517-532.

Hau, Y. S., Kim, B., Lee, H., & Kim, Y. G. (2012). The effects of individual motivations and social
capital on employees’ and explicit knowledge sharing intentions. International journal of
Information Management, 33(2), 356-366.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2012.10.009

He, J. (2009). Examining factors that affect knowledge sharing and students’ attitude toward
their learning experience within virtual teams. Dissertation Abstracts International A, The
Humanities and Social Sciences, 71.

Hendriks, P. (1999). Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the motivation for
knowledge sharing. Knowledge and process management, 6(2), 91-100.

Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current
knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational technology
research and development, 55(3), 223-252.

Hinkin, T. R., Tracey, J. B., & Enz, C. A. (1997). Scale construction: Developing reliable and valid
measurement instruments. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 21(1), 100-120.

Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (2000). The learning styles helper's guide. Maidenhead: Peter Honey
Publications.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a
multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1-55.

Hussein, N., Omar, S., Noordin, F., & Ishak, N. A. (2016). Learning organization culture,
organizational performance and organizational innovativeness in a public institution of
higher education in Malaysia: A preliminary study. Procedia Economics and Finance, 37,
512-519.

Johnston, M. P. (2017). Secondary data analysis: A method of which the time has
come. Qualitative and quantitative methods in libraries, 3(3), 619-626.

Karabulut‐Ilgu, A., Jaramillo Cherrez, N., & Jahren, C. T. (2018). A systematic review of research
on the flipped learning method in engineering education. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 49(3), 398-411

Kline, R. B. (1998). Software review: Software programs for structural equation modeling:
Amos, EQS, and LISREL. Journal of psychoeducational assessment, 16(4), 343-364.

Koh, J., & Kim, Y. G. (2004). Knowledge sharing in virtual communities: an e-business
perspective. Expert systems with applications, 26(2), 155-166.

Kolb, D. A. (2007). The Kolb learning style inventory. Boston, MA: Hay Resources Direct.

Kolb, A. Y. (2005). The Kolb learning style inventory–version 3.1 2005 technical
specifications. Boston, MA: Hay Resource Direct, 200, 72.

Ling, A.S, Basit, A & Hassan , Z (2017) Does learning style impact student academic
performance. International Journal of Education, Learning and Training, 2(2), 1-13. DOI:
24924/ijelt/2017.11/v2.iss2/1.13

ISSN: 2289-6694 Page 19

Liu, C. C., Lin, C. C., Deng, K. Y., Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2014). Online knowledge sharing
experience with creative commons. Online Information Review, 38(5), 680-696.

Lillis, A. M., & Mundy, J. (2005). Cross-sectional field studies in management accounting
research—Closing the gaps between surveys and case studies. Journal of management
accounting research, 17(1), 119-141.

Levitt, H. M., Bamberg, M., Creswell, J. W., Frost, D. M., Josselson, R., & Suárez-Orozco, C. (2018).
Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and
mixed methods research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board
task force report. American Psychologist, 73(1), 26

Markovic, S., & Bagherzadeh, M. (2018). How does breadth of external stakeholder co-creation
influence innovation performance? Analyzing the mediating roles of knowledge sharing
and product innovation. Journal of Business Research, 88, 173-186.

Miller, H. V., Jennings, W. G., Alvarez-Rivera, L. L., & Miller, J. M. (2008). Explaining substance use
among Puerto Rican adolescents: A partial test of social learning theory. Journal of Drug
Issues, 38(1), 261-283.

Nareeman, A., & Hassan, Z. (2013). Customer perceived practice of CSR on improving customer
satisfaction and loyalty. International Journal of Accounting and Business
Management, 1(1), 30-49.

Ngugi, J., & Goosen, L. (2018). Modelling course-design characteristics, self-regulated learning
and the mediating effect of knowledge-sharing behavior as drivers of individual
innovative behavior. EURASIA J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ, 14(8), 1-18.

Osman, S., Kamal, S. N. I. M., Ali, M. N., Noor, J. M. M., WahiAnuar, M. A., & Othman, R. (2015).
Mechanisms of Knowledge Sharing among Undergraduate Students in UiTM
Johor. Procedia Economics and Finance, 31, 903-908.

Peacock, M. (2001). Match or mismatch? Learning styles and teaching styles in

EFL. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 1-20.

Peng, L. F., Hassan, Z., & Basit, A. (2018). Store Attributes: A Sustainable Strategy to Influence
Customer Satisfaction and Purchase Intention. Indonesian Journal of Management and
Business Economics, 1(1), 19-41.

Radhakrishnan, G.S, Basit, A., & Hassan, Z. (2015). The Impact of Social Media Usage on
Employee and Organization Performance: A Study on Social Media Tools Used by an IT
Multinational in Malaysia. Journal of Marketing and Consumer Behaviour in Emerging
Markets, 1(7), 48-65

Silva, D. M. D., Leal, E. A., Pereira, J. M., & Oliveira Neto, J. D. D. (2015). Learning styles and
academic performance in Distance Education: a research in specialization courses. Revista
Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios, 17(57), 1300-1316.

Stevens, J. (1992). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.

Svanum, S., & Bigatti, S. M. (2009). Academic course engagement during one semester forecasts
college success: Engaged students are more likely to earn a degree, do it faster, and do it
better. Journal of College Student Development, 50(1), 120-132.

Tohidinia, Z., & Mosakhani, M. (2010). Knowledge sharing behaviour and its
predictors. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 110(4), 611-631.

Topchyan, R. (2016). Does social presence relate to knowledge sharing in virtual learning
teams?. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, 8(4), 646-660..

ISSN: 2289-6694 Page 20

Tunkarimu, T. I., & Hassan, Z. (2017). Entrepreneurial characteristics among local & foreign
students studying in Malaysia: The role of gender. International Journal of Education,
Learning & Training, 2(1), 12-27. DOI: 10.24924/ijelt/2017.04/v2.iss1/12.27

Van Den Hooff, B., & De Ridder, J. A. (2004). Knowledge sharing in context: the influence of
organizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge
sharing. Journal of knowledge management, 8(6), 117-130.

Vonderwell, S., & Zachariah, S. (2005). Factors that influence participation in online
learning. Journal of Research on Technology in education, 38(2), 213-230.

Waheed, N & Hassan, Z (2016). Influence of Customer Perceived Value on Tourist Satisfaction
and Revisit Intention: A study on Guesthouses in Maldives. International Journal of
Accounting, Business and Management, 4(1), 101-123

Williams, C. (2007). Research methods. Journal of business & economic research, 5(3), 65-72.

Yang, J. (2008), “Individual attitudes and organizational knowledge sharing”, Tourism

Management, 29(2): 345-53.

Yadav, R., Sharma, S. K., & Tarhini, A. (2016). A multi-analytical approach to understand and
predict the mobile commerce adoption. Journal of enterprise information
management, 29(2), 222-237.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2013). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An

overview and analysis. In Self-regulated learning and academic achievement (pp. 10-45).
Routledge.

Zywno, M. S. (2003, June). A contribution to validation of score meaning for Felder-Soloman’s

index of learning styles. In Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering
Education annual conference & exposition (Vol. 119, No. 1-5). Washington, DC: American
Society for Engineering Education.

IJELT is a FTMS Publishing Journal

ISSN: 2289-6694 Page 21