Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE October 2012 ISSN 1302-6488 Volume: 13 Number: 4 Article 18

CULTURAL VARIATIONS
IN LEARNING AND LEARNING STYLES

Pegah OMIDVAR
Bee Hoon TAN
Department of English Language,
Faculty of Modern Languages and Communication,
Putra University, MALAYSIA
ABSTRACT

The need for cross-cultural understanding of the relationship between culture and
learning style is becoming increasingly important because of the changing cultural mix of
classrooms and society at large. The research done regarding the two variables is mostly
quantitative. This review summarizes results of the existing research on cultural
variations in learning styles. Limitations of the existing studies are discussed and some
suggestion for future research is proposed.

Keywords: Culture, cultural variations, learning, learning styles

INTRODUCTION

Although culture has been defined differently, there is a universal definition of culture.
Culture can be conceptualized as “shared motives, values, beliefs, identities, and
interpretations or meanings of significant events that result from common experiences of
members of collectives that are transmitted across generations” (House, Hanges,
Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004, p. 15). There are various areas where culture has
been examined. Three areas which are more related to language and learning include
anthropology (e.g., Benedict, 1946; Kluckhohn, 1962; Hall, 1976), psychology (e.g.,
Markus & K itayama 1991; Triandis, 1995) and management (e.g., Hayashi, 1999;
Hofstede, 1980). Researchers (e.g., Bedell & Oxford, 1996) believe that language and
culture are inseparable part of each other and comprehending a culture without paying
attention to its language is impossible. On the other hand, it is also impossible to
understand a language without its cultural contexts. The two are strongly interwoven. It
has been said that there is a clear and strong relationship between different categories
of thought of a given community and the forms of language they use (Beattie, 1996).

Learning involves human activities such as feeling, thinking, reflecting and doing (Kolb,
1984). Individuals have to learn to develop special abilities and preferences for such
activities. These specialized abilities are called learning stylex. Learning styles are
defined as “individual consistencies in perception, memory, thinking and judgment
across any stimulus condition” (Curry, 2000, p.239).

Learning styles have been investigated by many researchers and all agree on culture
affects the development of learning styles (e.g., Devita, 2001; Pratt, 1991; Katz, 1988;
Barmeyer, 2004; Yamazaki & Attrapreyangkul, 2011; Gundaz & Ozcan, 2010; Yamazaki &
Kayes, 2007).
269
DEFINING CULTURAL VARIATIONS

Although numerous definitions have been offered by anthropologists and sociologists

through the years, the concept of culture remains elusive, broad and ambiguous (Ball &
Farr, 2003; Lessard-Clouston, 1997).

Various elements constitute the cognitive and behavioral aspects of culture. In other
words, cultures are unified entities in which these elements exhibit strong
interdependent relationships. Among the variety of elements, some elements such as
language, gender, religion, and ethnicity do have a greater relevance to the notion of
culture (Hall & Hall, 1990). People with similar cultures may speak different languages
and people belonging to different cultures may speak the same language (Beattie, 1996).
It has been argued that culture and language, apart from their interrelationship,
influence each other so much so that linguists use the term language to refer to “the
abstract system underlying the collective totality of the speech and writing behavior of a
community” (Ball & F arr, 2003, p. 436). Culture is defined by Hofstede, a prominent
figure in the field of cultural studies as ‘‘the collective programming of the mind which
distinguishes the members of one human group from another’’ (Hofstede, 1980, p. 25),
and is determined through institutions such as family, school, universities and work.
Culture and learning are connected in important ways.

CULTURAL DIMENSIONS IN ANTHROPOLOGY

Edward Hall and Ruth Benedict are among the main figures in t his field. Hall (1976)
classified culture to high-context and low-context cultures. In high-context cultures,
non-verbal behaviors, external physical environment are important for its members in
conveying the meaning in communication. For instance, Japanese, Chinese, French and
Arabic countries represent high-context cultures. In high-context cultures people value
having long terms relationships (Yamazaki, 2005). Furthermore, looking at Kolb’s
learning style model in relation to Hall’s (1976) dimensions of culture by Yamazaki
(2005) reveals that high-context cultures cherish interpersonal relationships and this
trait goes well together with the concrete experience (CE) abilities in which persons
value relationships.

In contrast, in low-context culture, explicit verbal messages are important in

communication rather than non-verbal behaviors and external physical environment.
Most information is conveyed through explicit codes, therefore explicit communicative
styles in logical forms are highly valued. Interpersonal relationships last for a shorter
time (Hall, 1976). For instance, the United States, Switzerland and Germany present low-
context cultures. It has been stated that communication patterns of low-context cultures
are related to active conceptualization (AC) abilities, since those with low-context
culture are likely to learn by logical thinking and analysis which accords to
characteristics of AC abilities (Yamazaki, 1995).

The second dimension of culture in the anthropology field which is classified by Benedict
(1946) is shame versus guilt cultures. In the culture of shame, shame process relies on
individual experience with their perception about surrounding audience and environment
(Doi, 1979). It has been further explained that shame process is more related with CE
abilities, since CE is an ability that can stir up shame emotion as a psychological reaction
about one’s behavior (Yamakazi, 2005).
270
In Guilt culture, the development of an individual conscious is important and the focus is
on inner standards of behavior within the self rather than outer standards such as
environment and audience (Benedict, 1946). Internalized criticism in guilt process
activates reflective observation (RO) abilities. Consequently, the development of inner
standards and internalized criticism leads us to conclude that guilt culture is
conceptually related to RO abilities (Yamazaki, 2005).

CULTURAL DIMENSIONS IN MANAGEMENT

Another field of study from which culture has been examined is cross-cultural
management domain. In cross-cultural management studies, the focus is on cultural
differences in values, perceptions, attitudes and behaviors in organizational settings.
Hofstede’s model of cultural dimensions and Hayashi’s cultural model of organization will
be discussed in the review.

Hofstede is one of the main figures in the field of management and organizational
culture. Despite the existing criticism on his work, his model is influential in this field
(Clark, 2003). Hofstede’s four collectivism/individualism, power distance, uncertainty
avoidance, masculinity/femininity dimensions are the most famous cross-cultural work
and still the major reference in today’s cross-cultural researches. Hofstede’s cultural
framework has been applied in a wide variety of contexts by many researchers (Blodgett,
Rose, Horton & Bakir, 2008). For example, they cited studies in management and
marketing such as Alden, Hoyer and Lee (1993) that used Hofstede’s framework to
examine cross-cultural differences in attitudes and behaviors. In addition, they also cited
Abrams, Ando, and Hinkle (1998) who used his model in organizational identification and
employee turnover intentions. They also mentioned Soutar, Grainger, and Hedges (1999)
who used his framework to look compare stereotypes across different cultures.

It has been said that societies with high uncertainty avoidance tendencies prefer to use
RO abilities. These cultures have a feeling of fear or anxiety when facing unfamiliar
situation or conflicts in their work place, therefore the use of RO enables them to watch
carefully and reflect upon experiences and observations and control their fears
(Yamazaki, 2005). In contrast, those who have low uncertainty avoidance culture feel
more comfortable in unstructured and unclear situations and are more willing to take
risks when facing new rules and ideas (Hofstede, 1997). It has been stated that those
with AE abilities learn through risk taking and action taking therefore, it would be logical
to conclude that those with low uncertainty avoidance are involved in AE abilities (Kolb,
1984; Yamazaki, 2005). The second classification in the field of cross-cultural
management is made by Hayashi (1999). He classified organizational culture to M-type
and O-type organizations. Based on his classification, western organizations are example
of M-type, while Japanese organizations are considered as the O-type. Individuals or any
section in M-type organizations have clear job boundaries, and within these boundaries,
members tend to perceive reality by analytical cognition that is embedded in AC learning
abilities (Hayashi, 1999).

In contrast, individuals in O-type organizations don’t have explicit job boundaries in their
work place and more people oriented rather than task oriented. People orientation is a
characteristic of the CE learning abilities. Furthermore, members in O-type organizations
develop analogue cognition that makes them to see the world as a whole (Hayashi,
1999). This trait of cognition represents CE abilities in a way that members see the world
entirely (Yamasaki, 2005).
271
CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY

In the domain of psychology, the two cultural typologies that maybe theoretically related
to the Kolb’s model of learning abilities are interdependent-self and independent-self
discussed by Markus and Kitayama (1991) and the other is cognitive style of social
context which is introduced by Witkin (1976).

Interdependent-self is the self and others who are situated in the surrounding social
contexts. In dependent-self, the persons show their thoughts and feelings as individual
beings and are detached and distinct from others. It has been proposed that those with
interdependent-self are more likely to learn through the CE and RO abilities, whereas
those with independent-self tend to learn through the AC and AE abilities (Yamazaki,
2005).

The other sub dimensions of culture in the cross-cultural psychology domain are
cognitive styles of field-dependent and field-independent which are introduced by
Witkin’s (1976, 1979). It has been said that field-dependent people, develop social and
interpersonal skills in communication and contact with others. In contrast, field-
independent people place distinct boundaries between their inner self and outer self
(Witkin, 1976, 1979). Regarding learning styles, it has been proposed that those with
field-dependent style are more likely to learn through the CE abilities, while those with
the field-independent style tend to learn through the AC abilities (Yamazaki, 2005).

DEFINING LEARNING STYLES

One of the famous learning theories especially relative to cross-cultural examination is

Kolb’s (1984) learning model. Learning styles can be summarized in the Figure 1.

Concrete Experience (CE)

Accommodating Diverging
Active Reflective
Experimentation Observation
Converging Assimilating

Abstract
Conceptualization

Figure: 1
Experiential Learning Cycle (Kolb, 1984)

272
It also has been used extensively in management and education fields (Kayes, 2002).
Kolb’s model has been applied in the field of cross-cultural and international studies
(e.g., Barmeyer, 2004; Fridland, 2002; Yamazaki & Kayes, 2007; Auyeung & Sands, 1996;
etc.). Kolb’s model is consisted of concrete experience (CE), abstract conceptualization
(AC), reflective observation (RO) and active experimentation (AE) learning abilities
(Kolb, 1984). The combination of four learning abilities constitutes a diverging learning
style specialized in the two CE and RO learning abilities, a converging learning style
specialized in the two learning abilities of AC and AE, an assimilating learning style
specialized in AC and RO abilities, and an accommodating learning style set in CE and AE
abilities (Kolb, 1984; Kolb & Fry, 1975).

Learning styles have been investigated in the educational psychology literature (e.g.,
Claxton & M urrell, 1997; Schmeck, 1998), and over thirty instruments for measuring
learning styles have been developed (e.g., Guild & Garger, 1985; Jensen, 1987). It has
been identified that there are different kinds of learner such as active and reflective
learners, sensing and intuitive learners, visual and verbal learners, and sequential and
global learners.

Active and reflective learners are related to extrovert and introvert, as described by the
Jung-Myers-Briggs model. Sensing learners learn by observing, gathering data through
the senses, while intuitive learners learn by indirect perception and imagination. Visual
learners learn by seeing pictures, diagrams and timetables. On the other hand, verbal
learners learn through words, written and spoken explanations. Sequential learners learn
by following logically step by step, whereas global learners learn more randomly without
any connections (Gunduz & Ozcan, 2010).

It has been stated that people from different cultures and even individuals within the
same culture have distinctive learning style patterns (Guild, 1994). Due to different types
of learning style, teaching methods which are used by instructors may vary. Some
instructors prefer giving lectures at classroom; other may focus more on rules, some use
demonstration, while some prefer memorization. As a result, the mismatch between the
individual’s learning style and the instructor’s teaching style may lead to failure of
learners. In order to address different learning styles, effective teachers use a variety of
teaching styles and apply diverse teaching strategies and make effective educational
decisions and practices that work best for all students (Guild, 1994; Felder & Silverman,
1998; Lawrence, 1993; Oxford, Ehrman, & Lavine, 1991; Schemeck, 1998).

INTEGRATION OF CULTURE AND LEARNING STYLES

Exploring culture is becoming an important and insightful issue since being part of a
culture can influence human behavior in many ways. People who belong to the same
culture may share similar ways of thinking, values and beliefs (Hale-Benson, 1986).
While we are living in our native country, it is difficult to identify the existing differences
between the cultures and people. The possible differences among people are especially
hard to recognize among homogenous culture such as Iran which can considered as a
monoculture society. On the other hand, in a multicultural society such as Malaysia,
seeing the differences among people and students would be certainly less difficult.
Therefore, in Malaysia, people have more opportunities to compare and observe different
cultures. Mainly the researchers in the field of education are perhaps more familiar with
cultural differences among their students.

273
Moreover, the question that whether being in a different culture impacts an individual’s
learning style arises. In this regard, the study by Guild (1994) explains that learning
styles and culture connection are both important and controversial. It is important
because obtaining this information helps learners to succeed in school and makes
curriculum designers and instructors reexamine educators’ expectations, beliefs and
values. However, it is controversial since “generalization about a group of people has
often led to naive inferences about individuals within that group” (Guild, 1994, p.16). It
means that although people who share a culture usually share the same learning styles,
it is a mistake to consider that all members of the group have the tendency toward the
same style. Moreover, finding the relationship between learning style and culture is
controversial because of the sensitivity surrounding the achievement difference between
minority and non-minority students.

Guild (1994) gives an example of African-American as minority students whose learning

style preferences described by the state of New York booklet has led to much debate and
intense inspection.

Coming to this point, a question that comes into mind is that how we know if culture and
any way of learning are connected. To conclude about their relationship is not easy or
definite (Guild, 1994). Guild further indicates that although there are lots of studies
investigating the different ways of learning with a unique and distinctive approach, their
works are not broad enough and mainly focus on a specific learning style model or a
particular cultural group. He claims that “no work, to my knowledge claims to be
comprehensive on the topic of culture and learning styles” (1994, p.17).

The research has shown that there are three approaches from which researchers have
provided information about culture and learning styles. The first method is the set of
observation-based descriptions about cultural groups of learners. Studies done using this
method have often compared the learning style patterns of European-Amercian and
minority students such as African-Americans, Mexican-Americans and Native Americans
(Guild, 1994).

The second method to measure the connection of culture with learning style is data-
based description of specific groups (Guild, 1994). Guild further explains that in this
method, the learning style instrument is used to collect data of a cultural group, compare
the different groups with each other or compare a group with another previously studied
one. There are various instruments designed to measure learning styles. Learning style
instruments usually assess differences in two general ways. Some instruments look for
style preferences such as Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.

Another type of instrument examines style strength such as Swassing-Barbe Modality

Index. This type of assessment requires the respondents to repeat the given patterns
auditory, visually and tactilely. Then, the obtained data should be interpreted in relation
to the type of assessment (Guild, 1994). An important fact regarding self report
instruments is that “they are language and culture specific” (Guild, 1994, p.18). It means
that when respondents reply to an item, their cultural experiences will be reflected in
their response.The third approach to measure the relationship of culture and learning
style is through direct discussion (Guild, 1994). Ramirez (1989) believes that cognitive
style research could provide a framework to consider the diversities within and between
cultures.

For example, Shade (1989) comments that: 274

 P erceptual developm ent differs w ithin various ethnocultural groups. I t is
therefore, an erroneous assum ption in teaching-learning process to
assum e children see the sam e event, idea or object in the sam e w ay
(p.142).

There are five common assumptions held by researchers who study culture and learning
style connections. The first common idea is that students from different age groups will
differ in their way of learning. Secondly, most scholars believe that learning styles are a
function of both nature and nurture. It means that although learning styles are inborn
abilities, the effect of environment such as family, immediate culture and wider culture
are inevitable. The third agreement on culture and learning style is that learning styles
are neutral. In another word, although learning style approaches can be used both
successfully, it can become a barrier if applied inappropriately (Guild & Garger, 1985).
The fourth common concept concurred by researchers is that results obtained from
learning style research cannot be generalized and a particular learning style cannot be
attributed to all individuals within a group (Griggs & Dunn, 1989).

Finally, many researchers agree that cultural conflicts may happen between some
students and their learning experiences in schools. When students are socialized in
different ways from their school expectations they have to adjust themselves to the
culture of school (Guild, 1994).

Despite the accepted ideas, there are differences of opinion about applying theory on
culture and learning style. For instance, some researchers have different opinions on
whether a particular cultural value or expectation should be acquired by students or it is
an inborn ability. Another dispute is that whether teachers who have their own cultures
and teaching styles can successfully deal with students who also have their own
preferred learning styles (Guild, 1994).

Hence, as it has been suggested, in order to provide equal opportunities for success we
have to use different or diverse teaching methods that can be corresponding to the
differences among students (Bennett, 1986). Furthermore, Guild (1994) states that ideas
about culture and learning style can be a great help for teachers who believe all students
can learn to offer chances for success to all students.

SOURCES OF DATA

For this meta-analysis study, the search for articles related to culture and learning style
and their connections was done basically by Google search on some key words such as
culture, culture and learning, learning styles and culture and learning styles in the first
stage to get some ideas of authors and journal papers related to the topic (Table 1). In
the second stage, searches were made via university’s electronic databases to either find
the related articles by using key words or the full texts of the articles or through Google.
The databases used for the searches include ERIC, Oxford Journals Online, Science
Direct, Sage Journals Online and Taylor and Francis.

Out of 56 searched articles, 30 were identified as related to culture and learning styles.
The rest were found to be less relevant and unrelated to the focus of the study. Of the 30
related articles for review, 10 articles are based on quantitative methodology (e.g.,
questionnaire) were used for the discussion on results, and the rest were used for the
definitions.
275
 Table: 1
Topics on culture and learning styles

Topic Subtopic
Cultural variations High vs. low context cultures, shame vs. guilt cultures,
uncertainty avoidance culture, M-type vs. O-type cultures,
interdependent-self vs. independent-self and field dependent
vs. field independent cultures.
Learning styles Diverging, Converging, Assimilating and Accommodating.

METHOD

A meta-analysis is the statistical analysis of a large collection of analysis results for the
purpose of integrating the findings (Glass, 1976).

It has been stated that the goal of a review is to summarize the common issues and data
regarding the specified topic, to emphasize the similarities and differences between the
similar and comparable studies, to discuss the strength and weaknesses of available
researches on the topic of interest and to provide valuable suggestions for future
researches related to cultural studies on learning style.

The discussion should be structured and include factors that help interpreting the main
findings and possible causes of bias. It should cover completeness of the evidence, the
quality of the evidence, and the possibility of bias (DeCoster, 2004).

The current review searched for all related articles in the area of culture and learning
style; by analyzing each individual article, the related ones were identified. The ones
which were more relevant to the topic were classified under one category and the
irrelevant ones were put aside.

This process was repeated until there was no article left, and all the similar ones in
content were gathered together under one category. The common or similar concepts
and themes in the selected articles were identified and various categories were formed.
Finally the identified categories were compared to each other.

COMMON THEMES

The two main themes of the review were cultural variations and learning styles. There
were 6 dimensions within cultural variations, and 4 categories within learning styles.
Learning styles have been investigated by many researchers and all agree on cultural
effects upon the development of learning styles (e.g., Devita, 2001; Pratt, 1991; Katz,
1988).

CULTURAL VARIATIONS AND LEARNING STYLES

In a study examining the learning styles of 150 Arabic, 150 Turkish and 150 Cypriot
university students, a learning style questionnaire was used to collect data.

The questionnaire developed by Felder and Solomon (1991) consists of demographical

information regarding the participants’ gender, age, culture, department and native
language.
276
The results showed that the culture of the students affected their learning styles. It was
found that Arabic students learned more actively than Turkish and Cypriot students. The
result in this case was contradictory to most teachers’ expectations for quiet and non-
active Arabic students. In addition, it was found that native languages of the students
affect students’ learning styles, and there was no difference between female and male
students in terms of their learning styles. Regarding gender differences, there was
difference between men and women in terms of learning styles (Gundaz and Ozcan,
2010).

Another study examined learning style differences between Japan and Thailand on a
sample of 210 of Japanese and 188 of Thai employees. The data for Japanese learning
styles were collected from Japanese employees in Tokyo and the data for examination of
Thai learning styles were collected from Japanese employees in Bangkok. With regard to
gender, a majority of the Japanese employees were male.

Conversely, a majority of the employees were female in Thailand. Kolb’s (1999) Learning
Style Inventory (LSI) was used to examine individual learning styles. Results of the
analysis showed that there were significant differences between Japanese and Thai
employees in terms of all of the eight learning style variables that connect the dimension
of the AC versus the CE mode. However, learning style variables in relation to the other
dimension of the AE versus the RO had no significant association between the two
nationalities.

Among four learning modes in the process of learning: CE, AC, RO and AE, Japanese
preferred to use more CE and less AC than Thai, while both Japanese and Thai preferred
to employ RO and AE at the similar level. It can be further explained that Japanese
exhibited their preference for CE over AC, and RO over AE, which created the learning
style of diverging. While Thai employees showed more balanced learners who used
relatively four learning styles equally. Thai learners showed more tendencies for using CE
over AC and AE over RO, which presented the accommodating learning style. However,
their learning preferences were not so particularly inclined towards CE or AE on account
of their balancing orientation (Yamazaki & Attrapreyangkul, 2011).Another study
examined cultural differences in learning styles between Japanese managers (n=267)
and American managers (n=126) using quantitative (Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory,
1999) and qualitative data (unstructured interview) in three stages (an initial contact
and visit, a confirmation by telephone call, and a data collection visit) to examine
learning styles.

The study was conducted in Japanese multinational corporations doing business in the
USA to reveal how learning style of Japanese emigrants changed over time, and how
Japanese managers differed from their US counterparts. Results suggested that
Japanese managers became more concrete and more active in their learning styles over
time spent in the USA. Results also revealed that the learning style of emigrants changed
in response to cultural demands, and that the patterns of change did not necessarily
reflect that of US managers. In addition, there was a significant difference in their
learning styles.

Japanese managers are more concrete and reflective, whereas American managers are
more abstract and active. It means that Japanese managers are linked more with the
diverging learning style, and American managers reside in the converging learning style
(Yamazaki & Kayes, 2007).
277
Another study on the learning styles of 160 Japanese undergraduate students with
Economics and Science Majors using Kolb’s (1985) instrument (Learning Style Inventory
Version 2a) found that Japanese students had more tendencies toward CE and RO. For
example, 39% of the total students were inclined to CE, 36% RO, 15% AC, and 10% AE
(McMurray, 1998).

Learning style differences between Chinese (N =100) and American (N =105) teachers in
work settings were investigated by another research. The data were collected using
Kolb’s (1984) Learning Style Inventory. The data showed that there were no significant
differences between the American ESL teachers and Chinese EFL teachers in terms of
their learning style inclination. The largest number of teachers in both groups had
tendencies toward diverging style, while there was no predominant style within the
American group (Fridland, 2002).

Boyatzis and Mainemelis’s (2000) studied 607 full-time and 679 part-time graduate
American students of an MBA program. Data about students’ learning styles were
collected by Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory (1999). They also examined whether there
were significant demographic differences between gender and age groups.

The result showed that full-time students had more tendencies toward CE and somewhat
reflective abilities, but that 679 part-time students showed a significantly stronger
preference for abstract and active learning abilities that are categorized as the
converging learning style.

In terms of gender differences, male students had more tendencies toward abstract
conceptualization, while female students showed significantly stronger preference for
concrete experience. Women also had a significantly stronger preference for active
experimentation. There were no significant differences between age groups.

In another cross-cultural study, the learning styles of 123 Quebecois, 98 German and 132
French students in a business administration program were examined. It was found that
German students were significantly more abstract than French and Quebecois students,
while French and Quebecois students were significantly more concrete than German
students. German students had significantly stronger preferences for active experience
abilities than the other two groups and there was no statistical difference in the
reflective observation among them. The results of the learning-style distribution of
French, German, Quebec students also indicated that French were more oriented toward
diverging style; German students toward assimilating and converging style, and
Quebecois toward accommodating style (Barmeyer, 2004).

In addition, he looked at learning style and gender differences and found significant
gender differences. Female students had higher CE abilities than male students in this
dimension, while male students showed a higher average score than the female students
related to RO and AC abilities. There was no significant difference concerning the fourth
dimension, AE. The results of his study showed that female students had more affective
orientation in the learning style and this finding supports the hypothesis of his study
(Barmeyer, 2004).

A study on Australian, Hong Kongese and Taiwanese accounting students examined how
individualism-collectivism is reflected in learners’ learning styles.

278
Australia represents the Western individualistic culture, and Hong Kong and Taiwan
represent the Chinese collectivistic culture. The study collected data employing Kolb’s
Learning Style Inventory (1999). The sample comprised 303 Australian, 157 Taiwanese
accounting students and 172 accounting students from Hong Kong. The results showed
that students from Chinese cultures were significantly more reflective and abstract and
less active and concrete than the Australian students. In addition, the result of the study
supported the hypothesis that the interdependent-self was more connected with RO
whereas the independent-self is more related to AE (Auyeung and Sands, 1996).

Hoppe’s (1990) study used the Hofstede’s Values Survey Module and Kolb’s Learning
Style Inventory to examine the relationship between uncertainty avoidance and learning
styles using a sample of 1590 alumni from 19 countries: the US, Turkey, and 17 European
countries. The questionnaires were sent to different countries through post between
December 1983 and April 984. He examined the relationship between strong-weak
uncertainty avoidance and the reflective-active learning abilities, and found that those
countries whose members were more willing to take risks and tolerated unclear and
unstructured situations (low uncertainty avoidance) tended to acquire knowledge in a
more active, experimental way, whereas those countries such as France, Spain and
Turkey which showed stronger uncertainty avoidance were more likely to gain skills
through RO.

Another research study was conducted on the relationship between Witkin’s cognitive
style and Kolb’s learning model (1984) with 199 nurses. The results showed that field-
dependence was related to CE abilities, while field-independence was connected with AC
abilities (Murphy, 1993).

In sum, the common theme in all reviewed studies is that learners from different cultures
have different preferences for learning styles. Since the findings confirmed the
relationship between some dimensions of culture and learning styles, being aware of the
relationship between the two aspects of learning can improve the learner and classroom
outcome extensively.

Therefore, special attention should be paid to the relationship between the cultural
tendencies of learners and their preferred learning styles.

DISCUSSION

This review found some limitations in previous studies concerning the measurement
method of the cultural variations and tendencies itself. None of the above studies have
come up with some sort of instrument in order to determine the tendencies of students
towards some of the culture dimensions.

Some studies have considered cultural variations as being in a different country or

society, and some followed Hofstede’s study and his findings to present the differences
between societies with scores and numbers resulted from Hofstede’s study. However,
these studies did not approach the variations with some other methods or design a
questionnaire to examine culture that is a very complex phenomenon.In addition,
qualitative measurement of culture such as interview, observation and focus group
discussion along with quantitative methods followed by sound instruments to measure
the investigated cultural dimensions would be crucial. For example, only Yamazaki and
Kayes’s (2007) study employed qualitative methods along with quantitative mode.
279
Another gap in previous studies concerning cultural variation among students and its
relation to learning styles is that some dimensions of culture are related to learning
styles of students, however the number of the cross-cultural comparative studies is not
sufficient to fully understand the relationship between cultural differences and learning
styles (Yamazaki, 2005).

In addition, as reviewed above, there are only a few studies that discuss the relationship
between a type of culture and a particular learning style (e.g., Hoppe, 1990; Auyeung
and Sands, 1996). These studies only focused on particular cultural models such as
Hofstede’s (1997). Nevertheless, it has been argued that the cultural models suitable for
linking with learning styles are vast and should not be limited to one or two models
(Yamazaki, 2005). For example, Murphy (1993) in his study focused only on cultural
variations from the psychology domain and investigated the relationship between field
dependent and field independent styles introduced by Witkin (1976, 1979). Another
study by Hopp (1990) examined the relationship between uncertainty avoidance from
Hofstede’s model and learning styles, however it could be more inclusive and
generalizable if other dimensions of culture from different domains were investigated in
the study.

This issue also concerns the measurement of learning styles. Almost all the above studies
(Hopp, 1990; Yamazaki and Kayes, 2005; Auyeung and Sands, 1996; McMurray, 1998;
Boyatzis and Mainemelis, 2000; etc.) employed Kolb’s (1984) Learning Styles Inventory
since the LSI is one of the most frequently used instruments to assess learning styles
(Davies, Rutledge, and Davies, 1997; West, 1982) and has been widely used to examine
learning styles in cross-cultural settings.

However, it would be beneficial to employ other available learning style instruments as

well to validate other instruments and not sticking to one instrument which has been
said to be the most widely used. Furthermore, it has been asserted that the interplay
between people and the world shapes learning styles at five levels: psychological types,
educational specialization, professional career, current job, and adaptive competencies
(Kolb, 1984; Kolb, Boyatzis, & Mainemelis, 2001).

Therefore, as Yamazaki (2005) suggests, a close examination between the cultural

component from different domains and all of the six factors will give us valuable insights
into how individual learning styles are shaped and developed in a particular culture.

Studies on learning styles regarding gender differences have reached to mixed

conclusions. It has been concluded that there is no significant difference between male
and female learners in terms of their learning styles (e.g., Gunduz & Ozcan, 2010).

Men and women are different but do these differences extend to learning styles?
However, the results of other studies showed that there is a significant difference
between male and female students. For example, female students had more affective
orientation in the learning style and a significantly stronger preference for AE (Barmeyer,
2004; Boyatzis and Mainemelis, 2000).

Although several researchers have started to compile a database to clearly identify the
female learning experience, there is not enough data yet to definitely answer questions
in comparing women’s and men’s learning styles.

280
SUGGESTION FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Coming from different cultural backgrounds, students could be incorrectly evaluated by

teachers. Educators may under-estimate capabilities of learners by concluding that
learning styles are not the reason these children fail. It could be a teacher’s incorrect
perception about students and these perceptions could reduce the quality of instruction
provided these learners. Thus, instruction could be mismatched to the learner (Dunn,
1990). In addition, as most reviews showed, demographic variables affect students
learning styles. Thus, each student learns in a different way, and to address these
learning styles, teachers should use a variety of teaching styles. For further research on
this topic, teaching styles of teachers and life styles of students should be examined to
get more convincing results.

Future research can also examine the role of native language of the students since
language is a medium for transmitting and internalizing culture. Culture and language
are therefore embedded in each other. If language plays the key role for the differences,
then we should observe a language effect among the different cultures.

As the reviews showed, there are differences in learning styles among learners from
different cultures. With the growing multicultural nature of both L2 and foreign language
classes, teachers and researchers have to do their best to facilitate learners’ progress
and solve difficulties in students’ academic affairs, which may be caused by socio-
cultural and educational differences.

Therefore, teachers should be fully aware of differences among learners’ culture to

minimize misunderstanding in either instructor/student or student/student interactions.
In order to minimize the misunderstandings, teachers need to know how to teach and
deal with learners from different cultures.

It means that teachers should get intellectually and emotionally accustomed to the fact
that in other societies, people learn in different ways. Bennett (1996) challenges TESOL
educators to move “beyond tolerance” in order to develop intercultural communication in
multicultural classes.

BIODATA and CONTACT ADDRESSES of AUTHORS

Pegah OMIDVAR was born in Tehran, Iran in 1985. She is currently

pursuing her doctorate degree in English Language, University Putra
Malaysia. She is graduated in English Language from University Putra
Malaysia in 2008. Her Master degree was on English Language and
Literature. Her High school Diploma is in Mathematical sciences. She has
ICDL 1&2 Computer certificates from Technical & Vocational
organization. MCSE & InfoTech certificates from Tehran Institute of
Technology.

Pegah OMIDVAR (Corresponding Author)

Department of English Language
Faculty of Modern Languages and Communication
Universiti Putra Malaysia, MALASIA
Tel: 017-3621292
Email: pegah160@yahoo.com
281
 Dr BH Tan is Associate Professor of applied linguistics at Universiti
Putra Malaysia. Her research interests are in CALL, CMC, ESP and
language assessment. Her research in writing centre approach,
automated essay scoring and application of weblog in language
learning has won her notable research grants. Her recent publication
includes two co-edited books titled Theoretical and Practical
Orientations in Language and Literature Studies (2007 Pearson
Longman) and Critical Perspectives on Language and Discourse in the New World Order
(2008 Cambridge Scholars), a chapter in The Pulse of a Malaysian University: Ethno- and
Sociolinguistic Issues (2008 Peter Lang), and several journal articles. She is the Chief
Editor of The English Teacher, a MELTA journal from 2008, and an editorial board
member of the Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities published by the
UPM Press.

Bee Hoon TAN

English Language Department Faculty of Modern Languages & Communication Universiti
Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, MALAYSIA
Telephone: (603)8946 8798,
Email: tanbh@fbmk.upm.edu.my

REFERENCES

Abrams, D., Ando, K., & Hinkle, S. (1998). Psychological attachment to the group: cross
cultural differences in organizational identification and subjective norms as predictors of
workers’ turnover intentions. P ersonality and Social P sychology Bulletin . 24 (10), 1027-
1040.

Alden, L., Hoyer, D., & Lee, C. (1993). Identifying global and culture-specific dimensions
of humor in Advertising. A Multinational Analysis. Journal of M ark eting , 57 , 64-75.

Auyeung, P., & Sands, J. (1996). A cross-cultural study of the learning style of accounting
students. Accounting and Finance . 36 (2), 261–274.

Ball, A., & Farr, M. (2003). Language varieties, culture and teaching the English language
arts. In J.M. Jensen (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts
(2nd ed., pp. 435-445). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Barmeyer, C. I. (2004). Learning styles and their impact on cross-cultural training: An

international comparison in France, Germany and Quebec. I nternational Journal of
I ntercultural R elations . 28 , 577–594.

Beattie, J. (1996). Other cultures: aim s, m ethods and achievem ents in social
anthropology (2nd ed.). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Bedell, D., & Oxford, R. (1996). Cross cultural comparisons of language learning
strategies in the people’s Republic of China and other countries. In Rebecca L. Oxford
(Ed.), Language learning strategies around the w orld: cross cultural perspectives .
(pp.47-60). Honolulu: university of Hawai, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum
center.

Benedict, R. (1946). The chrysanthem um and the sw ord: P atterns of Japanese

culture . Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. 282
Bennett, C. (1986). Comprehensive Multicultural Education, Theory and Practice. Boston;
Allyn and Bacon.

Bennett, M. (1996). Beyond tolerance: Intercultural communication in a multicultural

society. TESOL M atters . 6 (2), 1-15, & 6(3), 6.

Blodgett, G., Rose, M., Bakir, A. & Horton, M. (2008). A test of the validity of Hofstede’s
cultural framework. Journal of Consum er M ark eting . 25 (6), 339 – 349.

Boyatzis, R. E., & Kolb, D. A. (1995). From learning styles to learning skills: The executive
skills profile. Journal of M anagerial P sychology . 10 (5), 3–17.

Boyatzis, R. E., & Mainemelis, C. (2000). An em pirical study of pluralism of learning and
adaptive styles in an M B A program . Working Paper 00-1. Department of Organizational
Behavior, Weatherhead of School of Management, Case Western Reserve University,
Cleveland, OH.

Clark, T. (2003). Review of the book Culture’s consequence: Comparing values,

behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations, 2nd. Journal of M arketing .
67 (2), 151–153.

Claxton, C. S., & Murrell, P.H. (1987). Learning styles: I m plications for I m proving
Educational P ractice. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4, Washington, DC: George
Washington University.

Curry, L. (2000). Review of learning style, studying approach, and instructional

preference research in medical education. In R. J. Riding, & S. G. Rayner (Eds.),
I nternational perspectives on individual differences : Vol. 4. Cognitive styles. Stamford,
CT: Ablex Publishing.

Davies, S. M., Rutledge, C.M., & Davies, T.C. (1997). The Impact of Student Learning
Styles on Interviewing Skills and Academic Performance. Teaching and Learning in
M edicine. 9 (2), 131–135.

DeCoster, J. (2004). Meta-analysis Notes. Retrieved from the web October, 18, 2011.
http://www.stat-help.com/notes.html

De Vita, G. (2001). Learning styles, culture and inclusive instruction in the multicultural
classroom: A business and management perspective. I nnovations in Education and
Teaching I nternational . 38 (2), 165–174.

Doi, T. (1979). Am ae no K ozo . Tokyo, Japan: Kobundo.

Dunn, R. (1990). Rita Dunn answers question on learning styles. Educational Leadership.
48 (15), 15-19.

Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L.K. (1988). Learning and Teaching Styles in Engineering
Education. Engineering Education. 78, 674-681.

Felder, R. M., & Soloman, B. A. (1991). I ndex of learning styles. Retrieved on February23,
2009, from http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/ILSpage.html
283
Fridland, G. H. (2002). Adult learning styles and cultural background: A com parison of
the learning style preferences of Am erican teachers of English as a second language and
Chinese teachers of English as a foreign language . Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Memphis, TN.

Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational

Researcher. 5 , 3-8.

Griggs, S. A., & Dunn, R., (1989). The learning style of multicultural groups and
counseling implications. Journal of M ulticultural Counseling and Developm ent . 17 , 146-
155.

Guild, P. (1994). The culture/leaning style connection. Educational Leadership . 51 (8),

16-21.

Guild, P. B., & Garger, S. (1985). M arching to Different Drum m ers. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Gunduz, N., & Ozcan, D. (2010). Learning styles of students from different cultures and
studying in Near East University. P rocedia Social and Behavioral Sciences . 9, 5-10.

Hale-Benson, J. E. (1986). Black Children: Their Roots, Culture, and Learning Styles .
Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Hall, E. T. (1976). B eyond Culture. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday.

Hall, E., & Hall, M. (1990). Understanding cultural differences . Yarmouth: International
Press.

Hayashi, K. (1999). I bunka intafeisu k eiei (3rd ed). Tokyo, Japan: Nihon Keizai
Shinbunsha.

Hofstede, G. H. (1997). Culture and organization: Softw are of m ind . New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: I nternational differences in w ork related

values . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Hoppe, M. H. (1990). A com parative study of country elites: I nternational differences in

w ork-related values and learning and their im plications for m anagem ent training and
developm ent. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Caroline at Chapel Hill, NC.

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture,
leadership and organizations : The GLOBE study of 62 Societies. Sage Publications Inc.

Jensen, G.H. (1987). Learning Styles in Applications of the M yers-Briggs Type I ndicator
in Higher Education, J.A. Provost and S. Anchors, Eds. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists
Press, 181-206.

Katz, N. (1988). Individual learning style: Israeli norms and cross-cultural equivalence of
Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology . 19 (3), 361–379.
284
Kayes, D. C. (2002). Experiential learning and its critics: Preserving the role of
experience in management learning and education. Academ y of M anagem ent Learning
and Education . 1 (2), 113-149.

Kluckhohn. C. (1962). Culture and Behaviour. The Free Press, New York.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and

development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kolb, D. (1985). Learning Style I nventory . Boston, MA: McBer and Company.

Kolb, D. A. (1999). Learning Style Inventory, Version 3. Boston, MA: Hay Group, Hay
Resources Direct. 116 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02116, haytrg@haygroup.com.

Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R. E., & Mainemelis, C. (2001). Experiential learning theory:
Previous research and new directions. In R. J. Sternberg, & L. Zhang (Eds.). P erspectives
on cognitive, Learning, and thinking styles (pp. 228–247). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Kolb, D. A., & Fry, R. (1975). Toward an applied theory of experiential learning. In C.
Cooper (Ed.). Theories of group processes (pp. 33–57). New York, NY: Wiley.

Lawrance, G. (1993). P eople Types and Tiger Stripes: A P ractical Guide to Learning
Styles, 3rd edition. Gainesville, FL: Center for Applications of Psychological Type.

Lesard-Clouston, M. (1997). Towards an Understanding of Culture in L2/FL Education.

The I nternet TESL Journal. I I I (5), 131-150.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,
emotion, and motivation. P sychological R eview . 98 , 224-253.

McMurray, D. (1998). Learning styles and organizational behavior in Japanese EFL

classrooms. Journal of Fukui P refecture University . 13 , 29-43.

Murphy, R. H. (1993). Relationship of field dependence/independence with learning

styles and locus of control among registered nurses. P erceptual and M otor Skills . 76,
976-986.

Oxford, R., Ehrman, M., & Lavine. R (1991). Style Wars: Teacher-Student Style Conflicts
in the Language Classroom in S. Magnan, ed., Challenges in the 1990’s for College
Foreign Language P rogram s. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.

Pratt, D. D. (1991). Conceptions of self within China and the United States. I nternational
Journal of I ntercultural Relations. 15 , 285–310.

Ramirez, M., (1989). Pluralistic education: a Bicognitive-Multicultural Model.

Clearinghouse B ulletin. 3 , 4-5.

Schmeck, R. R., (1998). Learning Strategies and Learning Styles. New York: Plenum Press.

285
Shade, B. J., (1989). The influence of perceptual development on cognitive style: cross
ethnic comparisons. Early Child Developm ent and Care. 51 , 137-155.

Soutar, G., Grainger, R., & Hedges, P. (1999). Australian and Japanese value stereotypes:
A two country study. Journal of I nternational Business Studies .30 (1), 203-217.

Triandis, H. C. (1995). I ndividualism and Collectivism . San Francisco, CA: Westview

Press.

West, R. F. (1982). A construct validity of Kolb’s learning style types in medical

education. Journal of M edical Education . 57 , 794–6.

Witkin, H. A. (1976). Cognitive style in academic performance and in teacher-student

relations. In S. Messick & Associates (Eds.). The I ndividuality in Learning (pp. 38–72).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.

Witkin, H. A. (1977). Educational implications of cognitive styles. Review of Educational

Research . 47 , 1-64.

Witkin, H. A. (1979). Socialization, culture and ecology in the development of group and
sex difference in cognitive style. Hum an Developm ent . 22 , 358–372.

Yamazaki, Y. (2005). Learning styles and typologies of cultural differences: A theoretical

and empirical comparison. I nternational Journal of I ntercultural Relations . 29 , 521–548.

Yamazaki, Y., & Attrapreyangkul, T. (2011). Learning style differences between Japan
and Thailand: A case of Japanese multinationals. Econom ics & M anagem ent Series . 18.

Yamazaki , Y., & Kayes, D. C. (2007). Expatriate learning: Exploring how Japanese
managers adapt in the United States. The I nternational Journal of Hum an R esource
M anagem ent . 18 (8), 1373 - 1395.

Appendix: Summary of Reviewed Studies

Hoppe’s (1990) Adults from Survey Reflective observation is more linked

19 countries: with strong uncertainty avoidance,
the US, Turkey, and whereas the abstract experience is
17 European more related to weak uncertainty
countries avoidance.
Murphy (1993) Nurses (N =199) Survey Field-dependence is related to the
concrete experience abilities,
while field-independence is connected
with the abstract conceptualization
abilities.
Yamazaki and Japanese (N=210) Survey Among four learning modes in the
Attrapreyangkul Thai (N=188) process of learning: CE, AC, RO and AE,
(2011) employees Japanese preferred to use more the CE and
less the AC than Thai, while both Japanese
and Thai preferred to employ the RO and
the AE at the similar level

286