6th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 0-9742114-6-X
The Importance Level of Typically Used Training/Teaching Styles
as Rated by Undergraduate, MBA, Male, Female,
and Foreign Business Students
Carl A. Rodrigues, Montclair State University, Upper Montclair, NJ
Eileen Kaplan, Montclair State University, Upper Montclair, NJ
ABSTRACT
This paper examines the importance level students place on ten teaching techniques commonly used by
U.S.A. business instructors and trainers. Four of the techniques are hands-on centered and six are teacher centered.
Undergraduate and MBA business students, including students born in the USA and students born in a foreign
country, rated the techniques. It is proposed that MBA, male, and USA students will rate the hands-on techniques
higher than undergraduate, female, and foreign students, and that undergraduate, female, and foreign students will
rate the teacher centered techniques higher than the MBA, male, and USA students. The findings support these
propositions in several teaching/learning styles, but not in all. The highest rated technique by all groups is by far
"lectures by instructor," followed by "classroom discussions." The research limitation is that the respondents are
from one U.S.A. University and the findings are not tested scientifically, therefore, they cannot be generalized.
Notwithstanding, the framework is useful in that it reminds instructors and trainers that if a group of learners has
the same learning style preferences, a customized training program may be effective, but if the group has diverse
preferences, the program may have to be adapted to the differing preferences.
INTRODUCTION
When conducting instructional and/or training programs, for economic and other reasons, instructors and
trainers sometimes apply a formalized program; they identify a set of learning expectations and certain training
activities applicable to all participants, such as lectures, individual projects, and group projects. Subsequently, they
assess the trainees' performance. Those participants who best met the learning expectations receive the higher
appraisals, and vice versa. And those participants which did not adequately meet the learning expectations are
sometimes asked to repeat the same training program; a program which did not teach them properly in the first
place (Stuart, 1992).
A formalized training approach may be adequate for a group of trainees holding similar pedagogical
preferences, but not for a group holding dissimilar preferences. For example, males and females may have different
preferences. Furthermore, a training approach which is effective with trainees from one culture may not be
effective with trainees from another (Johnson, 1991; Warner, 1991). This is because, as many scholars (e.g.,
Holland, 1989; Kolb & Fry, 1975; Witkin, More, Goodenough & Cox, 1977) believe, fundamental differences in
learning style lead to differing pedagogical preferences, and cultures develop differing learning styles. Hence, use
of an inappropriate training style is likely to result in trainee frustration.
Therefore, to be effective in training, instructors and trainers would need to know the training style
preferred by the trainees they are going to be training, and, other factors, such as economics and organizational
needs, permitting, they would apply it accordingly. To aid instructors and trainers in this respect, this paper
presents the results of a survey asking university business students to rate the importance level of ten
teaching/learning styles typically used by business instructors. The objective of the study is not to learn through
which styles the students actually learn best, rather, it is to learn which styles they think are more or less important
as teaching/learning techniques.
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE
Learning-style refers to the elements of individual differences, which are important to knowledge and skills
acquisition (Shade, 1989a). Basically, distinctive learning style emerges among people sharing a common
historical and geographical setting because they must collectively adapt to a unique set of environmental demands
(Shade, 1989b). Characteristic learning-style of a culture is also institutionalized and reinforced through its child
OCTOBER 15-17, 2006
GUTMAN CONFERENCE CENTER, USA
1
6th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 0-9742114-6-X
rearing practices and education systems. Hence, there are many aspects of individual differences, which shape the
way by which one acquires knowledge and skills (Dunn, Dunn, & Price, 1975). Thus, there are many learning-style
theories. One is Kolb's (1977, 1984) experiential learning theory.
Kolb's theory describes four stages of learning which require four learning abilities: concrete experience,
reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation. According to Kolb, learners input
information from either concrete experiences or abstract conceptualizations and process information from either
effecting internally on experience (reflective observation) or acting externally on the conclusions drawn (active
experimentation). According to Biglan (1973), Kolb (1977), and Fry (1978), those with the abstract
conceptualization learning ability learn best in a "symbolic domain" environment, where learning is math based,
hard, paradigmatic. Those with the reflective observation ability learn best in a "perceptual domain" environment,
where learning is theory based, pure. Those with the concrete experience ability learn best in an "affective domain"
environment, where what is being learned is humanities based, soft, nonparadigmatic. And those with active
experimentation learn best in a "behavioral domain" environment, where emphasis is on practical use, application.
According to Fry (1978), the teacher's role in the affective domain and symbolic domain environments is
teacher-centered learning, e.g., lecturing, where low control and personal responsibility is given to learners, and in
the perceptual domain and behavioral domain environments it is hands-on, e.g., assigned individual research
projects, where relatively high control and responsibility is given to learners. Of the ten teaching/learning styles
included in this study, six are teacher-centered and four are hands-on. The purpose of this study is thus to learn to
what extent the ratings differ between undergraduate and MBA students, male and female students, and USA and
foreign business students.
The undergraduate participants in this study are young, inexperienced daytime students, while the MBA
participants are older, experienced night students. It is thus predicted that the MBA students will rate the hands-on
styles higher than the undergraduate students, and vice versa, the undergraduate students will rate the
teacher-centered styles higher than the MBA students.
The USA has been classified as a masculine society, wherein roles between male and females are
differentiated (Hofstede, 1980). In these societies, males are culturally conditioned to carry out the more
aggressive roles, and females are conditioned to carry out the softer, caring roles. Therefore, it is predicted that
male participants will rate the hands-on styles higher than the female participants, and vice versa, the female
participants will rate the teacher-centered styles higher than the male participants.
Some writers (e.g., Lindsay & Dempsey, 1983) have proposed that Asian and Western learners hold
differing pedagogical preferences. For example, Pun (1989a, 1989b) proposed that Western learners accept
involvement, and learning through own discovery and exploration, and Chinese learners expect the teacher to lead
and provide learning points. And some people want greater control and personal responsibility in the learning
process, and some do not (Dejoy & Dejoy, 1987). Furthermore, it has been proposed that most students throughout
the world are accustomed to rote learning (Ladd & Ruby, 1999; Jarrah, 1998). Hence, the USA respondents are
predicted to rate the hands-on styles higher than the foreign students, and vice versa, the foreign respondents are
predicted to rate the teacher-centered styles higher than the USA respondents.
METHOD
Ten teaching/learning styles business professors and trainers typically use were identified. Four, case
studies, individual research projects, group projects, classroom discussions, are hands-on like, and six, lectures,
textbooks, guest speakers, videos shown in class, classroom presentations by students, and computerized learning
assignments, are teacher-centered like. A survey questionnaire asking business students at Montclair State
University to rate each technique on a Likert-like scale, ranging from "not important," "a little important,"
"somewhat important," "important," and "very important," was prepared and administered. One may assume that
if a student rates a technique high, it means that he or she believes that he or she learns at a high level from it, and
vice versa, if he or she rates a technique lower, it means that he or she believes he or she learns at a lower level from
it. But that is not necessarily the case. It may be true in some cases but not in others. Some students may rate a
technique higher or lower for other reasons, such as believing that if professors use it, it must be important. The
students were asked to indicate their gender, degree seeking (bachelor's or MBA), major concentration, to name
their country of birth, their country where they received their elementary, middle, and high school education, and
OCTOBER 15-17, 2006
GUTMAN CONFERENCE CENTER, USA
2
6th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 0-9742114-6-X
if seeking MBA, to name the country where they obtained their bachelor's degree.
The questionnaire was administered in various classes during the spring 1999, fall 1999, spring 2000, fall
2000, fall 2001, and spring 2003 semesters by two graduate assistants. The business school at Montclair State
University enrolls more than 2000 students, with a relatively large number from foreign countries. The heading on
the questionnaire reads as follows:
Please indicate (by a check or an X) your opinion about the importance level of each of the
teaching/learning techniques listed below. If you have not had previous experience with a technique,
please also indicate n.e. next to the check or X. If you already completed this questionnaire in another
class, please do not complete this one. Thank you for participating.
Since the vast majority of the business students are at the upper undergraduate and MBA level, it was felt
that the vast majority of the respondents would have had experience with all ten styles. Furthermore, it was believed
that the heading on the questionnaire prevents students from thinking they are evaluating the particular class in
which they are in when responding to the questionnaire.
RESULTS
There were 310 responses collected. 181 are students born and early educated in the U.S.A. and 129 are
students born and early educated in foreign countries. The 129 foreign students represent 46 countries. Figure 1
presents the overall responses in terms of percentage for each level of importance.
Figure 1
Overall Responses
_________________________________________________________________________________
___
Not
Important
%
LEARNING
STYLES
A Little
Important
%
Somewhat
Important
%
Important
%
Very
Important
%
_________________________________________________________________________________
___Case
Studies
n=308
1.3
10.7
33.8
40.0
14.0
_________________________________________________________________________________
___Individual
Research
Projects n=307
4.2
12.4
34.9
37.5
11.1
_________________________________________________________________________________
___
Group
Projects
n=307
8.1
17.9
30.0
32.2
12.7
_________________________________________________________________________________
___
Classroom
Discussions n=309
.7
5.8
17.2
46.6
29.8
_________________________________________________________________________________
___
Lectures by
Instructor n=310
.0
1.6
11.6
45.5
41.6
_________________________________________________________________________________
___Reading
Textbooks
n=307
3.6
10.1
27.7
43.0
16.6
_________________________________________________________________________________
OCTOBER 15-17, 2006
GUTMAN CONFERENCE CENTER, USA
3
6th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 0-9742114-6-X
___Guest
Speakers
n=301
7.0
17.6
35.6
29.2
10.6
_________________________________________________________________________________
___Videos
Shown
in Class
n=303
4.6
17.2
39.3
31.4
7.6
_________________________________________________________________________________
___
Classroom
Presentations
by Students n=304
14.8
21.1
32.9
25.0
6.3
_________________________________________________________________________________
___Computerized
Learning
Assignments n=304
8.9
20.7
30.6
27.6
12.2
_________________________________________________________________________________
___
Figure 2 presents a total of the combined Important and Very Important ratings comparing undergraduate
and MBA, male and female, and USA and foreign student responses. Relative to the four hands-on like techniques,
as Figure 2 indicates, as predicted, MBA students did rate the case studies, individual research projects, and group
projects styles higher than the undergraduates, but the undergraduates, not as predicted, rated classroom
discussions higher than the MBAs.
Male students, as predicted, rated the case studies, individual research projects, and group projects styles
higher than did the female students, but the female students, not as predicted, rated classroom discussions higher
than did the male students.
The foreign students, not as predicted, rated the case studies, individual research projects, and the group
projects styles higher than did the USA students, but the USA students, as predicted, rated the classroom
discussions style higher than did the foreign students.
Regarding the six teaching-centered techniques, as Figure 2 shows, as predicted, undergraduates rated the
lectures by instructor, reading textbooks, videos shown in class, and the computerized learning assignments higher
than did the MBAs. But, not as predicted, the MBAs rated the guest speakers higher, and classroom presentations
by students were rated evenly.
Females, as predicted, rated the lectures by instructor, reading textbooks, and the computerized learning
assignments higher than did the males. But, not as predicted, the males rated the guest speakers, videos shown, and
classroom presentations by students techniques higher than did the females.
Foreign students, as predicted, rated the lectures by instructor, reading textbooks, videos shown in class,
classroom presentations by students, and the computerized learning assignments styles higher than did the USA
students. But not as predicted, the USA students rated the guest speakers technique style higher than did the foreign
students -- although just slightly higher.
Figure 2
Comparison By Important and Very Important Responses
_________________________________________________________________________________
___LEARNING Over.
Bach. MBA
Male Fem.
USA Frgn.
STYLES
%
n=310
%
%
n=246 n=64
%
%
n=148 n=162
%
%
n=181 n=129
_________________________________________________________________________________
___Case
OCTOBER 15-17, 2006
GUTMAN CONFERENCE CENTER, USA
4
6th Global Conference on Business & Economics
Studies
54.0
50.4
ISBN : 0-9742114-6-X
68.7
56.8 51.9
50.8 58.9
_________________________________________________________________________________
___Individual
Research
Projects
48.6
47.7
51.6
51.4 46.0
44.7 53.9
_________________________________________________________________________________
___
Group
Projects
44.9
44.9 45.3
51.4 39.2
43.3 47.3
_________________________________________________________________________________
___
Classroom
Discussions
76.4
77.9 70.3
75.5 77.0
82.1 68.3
_________________________________________________________________________________
___
Lectures by
Instructor
87.1
88.6 79.7
84.3 88.9
86.2 87.3
_________________________________________________________________________________
___Reading
Textbooks
59.6
62.4 48.5
55.5 63.2
56.2 64.1
_________________________________________________________________________________
___Guest
Speakers
39.8
38.6 44.5
41.1 38.7
41.6 40.2
_________________________________________________________________________________
___Videos
Shown
in Class
39.0
39.9 35.5
40.4 37.6
37.3 41.2
_________________________________________________________________________________
___
Classroom
Presentations
by Students
31.3
31.3 31.3
37.0 25.9
25.3 38.7
_________________________________________________________________________________
___Computerized
Learning
Assignments
39.8
43.2 25.4
39.3 40.3
31.5 51.6
_________________________________________________________________________________
___
Since it is the most dominant of the five, the Very Important rating is used as the basis to test the
predictions. Figure 3 presents the Very Important ratings comparing undergraduate and MBA, male and female,
and USA and foreign student responses.
Relative to the four hands-on like techniques, as Figure 3 indicates, not as predicted, MBA students did
not rate the individual research projects and the group projects styles higher than did the undergraduates, and the
individual research projects technique was rated evenly. Only the case studies technique was rated as predicted.
Male students, as predicted, rated the case studies, and the group projects styles higher than did the female
students. But not as predicted, the female and male students rated the individual research projects and the
classroom discussions styles evenly.
Foreign students, not as predicted, rated the case studies, individual research projects, and the group
projects styles higher than did the USA students. But, as predicted, the USA students rated the classroom
discussions style higher than did the foreign students.
OCTOBER 15-17, 2006
GUTMAN CONFERENCE CENTER, USA
5
6th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 0-9742114-6-X
Regarding the six teaching-centered techniques, as Figure 3 shows, as predicted, undergraduates rated the
lectures by instructor, reading textbooks, videos shown in class, classroom presentations by students, and the
computerized learning assignments higher than did the MBAs. But not as predicted, the MBAs did rate the guest
speakers higher.
Females, as predicted, rated the lectures by instructor, and the computerized learning assignments higher
than did the males. But not as predicted, the males rated the guest speakers, videos shown, and the classroom
presentations by students techniques higher than did the females, and the reading textbooks style was rated evenly.
Foreign students, as predicted, rated the lectures by instructor, reading textbooks, guest speakers, videos
shown in class, classroom presentations by students, and the computerized learning assignments styles higher than
did the USA students.
Figure 3
Comparison By Very Important Responses
_________________________________________________________________________________
___LEARNING Over.
Bach. MBA
Male Fem.
USA Frgn.
STYLES
%
n=310
%
%
n=246 n=64
%
%
n=148 n=162
%
%
n=181 n=129
_________________________________________________________________________________
___Case
Studies
14.0
12.3 20.3
16.9 11.3
10.6 18.6
_________________________________________________________________________________
___Individual
Research
Projects
11.1
11.1 11.0
11.0 11.2
5.0 19.5
_________________________________________________________________________________
___
Group
Projects
12.7
14.0
7.8
17.8
8.1
9.0 17.8
_________________________________________________________________________________
___
Classroom
Discussions
29.8
30.8 26.6
29.9 29.8
32.4 26.4
_________________________________________________________________________________
___
Lectures by
Instructor
41.6
43.1 35.9
39.2 43.8
37.6 47.3
_________________________________________________________________________________
___Reading
Textbooks
16.6
19.0 6.3
16.4 16.3
11.8 22.7
_________________________________________________________________________________
___Guest
Speakers
10.6
8.8 17.5
13.0 8.4
8.6 13.4
_________________________________________________________________________________
___Videos
Shown
in Class
7.6
7.9 6.5
10.3 5.1
6.8
8.7
_________________________________________________________________________________
___Classroom
Presentations
by Students
6.3
6.7 4.7
OCTOBER 15-17, 2006
GUTMAN CONFERENCE CENTER, USA
8.2 4.4
6
4.5
8.7
6th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 0-9742114-6-X
_________________________________________________________________________________
___Computerized
Learning
Assignments
12.2
13.7 4.8
9.0 15.1
5.6 21.4
_________________________________________________________________________________
___
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
It is no surprise that MBA students rated case studies substantially higher than did the undergraduate
students, as the MBAs are full-time, experienced employees attending college at night, while the undergraduates
are young, relatively inexperienced. Thus, the MBAs would have a deeper appreciation for practical cases. It is a
surprise, however, that the foreign students, who are more experienced in teacher-centered learning, rated the case
studies, which are often assigned to groups, higher than did the USA students. This may be attributed to the fact that
many of the foreign students are from group-oriented cultures where individuals prefer to work in groups, while the
USA students are more individualistic and prefer to work alone. This thus leads to another surprise in that foreign
students rated individual research projects higher than did USA students. This may be attributed to the fact that
foreign students are sometimes put in groups consisting mostly of USA students and they may not prefer to work
with them. Hence individual projects may be more feasible for the foreign students.
It is no surprise that the USA students rated the classroom discussions style far higher than did the foreign
students. This may be attributed to foreign students' language problems and to the fact that many of the foreign
students are from Asia and Asians don't like to stick out. The responses to the computerized learning assignments
technique tells us that foreign students are far more open to computerized learning than USA students and that
undergraduate students are also far more open to computerized learning than MBA students. This may be attributed
to the fact that computerized learning techniques are fairly recent and foreign students from developing countries
may have been exposed to such technique much earlier than USA students, and younger USA undergraduate
students may have been exposed to it much earlier than the older MBA students as well.
It should be noted that the lectures by instructor is by far the highest rated style by all groups, followed
by classroom discussions, and reading textbooks. These styles are traditionally the most widely used by instructors
and trainers. Given the relatively lower rating of the computerized learning technique and the much higher rating
of the lectures by instructor and classroom discussions techniques, one might conclude that those teaching
institutions which have high hopes for long-distance teaching programs might be in for some disappointments.
The results of this survey tend to lend support to the propositions. But a shortcoming of the study,
obviously, is that the respondents are from one university and the study has not been scientifically tested. Thus, the
results cannot be generalized. Another shortcoming is that the respondents may have had differing experiences
with the styles. For example, some students may have experienced the case studies style, for instance, under the
teacher-centered style, while others experienced it under the hands-on style. Their ratings may thus be different.
Nevertheless, this study has in essence developed a framework for thinking by briefly describing some
groups, which typically participate in management education or in corporate management training programs, by
describing ten teaching/learning techniques typically used by business instructors and corporate trainers, and by
proposing that different individuals may have a different preference for a teaching/learning technique. For example,
as indicated earlier, trainees with certain characteristics may prefer the hands-on techniques to the teacher-centered
techniques, and vice versa, trainees with a different orientation may prefer the teacher-centered techniques to the
hands-on techniques. Thus, instructors and trainers, to be effective, must design training programs according to the
needs of the participants.
However, it should be pointed out that training programs must often be designed to accommodate the
attainment of the organization's goals, and such designs are sometimes not congruent with the trainer or trainees'
preferred training style. In other words, a trainer's and trainees' preferred style and the job needs sometimes do not
match -- and having to train the trainee to meet the job needs (behavior modification) can sometimes result in
uncertainty and unpredictability (Johnston, 1986).
Furthermore, the style applied is often influenced by whether the trainees want to participate or are being
OCTOBER 15-17, 2006
GUTMAN CONFERENCE CENTER, USA
7
6th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 0-9742114-6-X
forced to participate in the training program -- if they do not want to participate, the teacher-centered style may (at
least in the early stages of the training program) be required.
Another problem instructors and trainers face is how to implement the framework in training programs
where some trainees come from a culture, which prefers one approach and others from a culture, which prefers
another. Customizing training approaches to trainees' individual needs is sometimes difficult to do, especially when
assessing and comparing participants' performance, and can be very costly. In this respect, some psychologists
have proposed providing a segment of the approaches (Stuart, 1992); i.e., at least some part of the program should
be suited to each trainee's preference.
Furthermore, in situations where trainers are training a group of learners with diverse learning views and
cannot customize their training approach, the framework may help them explain lower participant performances -in training people, weak participant performance is often the result of the application of an inappropriate training
program. And at the very least, the framework provides a starting point for assessing and determining which
training style might be preferred by the trainees in the group. For example, participants can be asked to rank-order
major categories of learning activities, which they have experienced on the basis of their conduciveness to learning.
The learning activities may include lecture, video viewing, reading, examination preparation, simulation game,
case analysis, research projects, and problem solving exercises, and so on.
However, the self-report approach will not work if the participants have not been exposed to the various
learning activities. For instance, instructors in China typically use the lecture approach when conducting training
programs. Hence, how would trainees in China know about the effectiveness of an independent assignment
approach? (In this study, students were asked to indicate if he/she had not been exposed to any of the styles.) Thus,
the propositions might be tested effectively in U.S. colleges/universities, where there is an abundance of students
from a multitude of nations. (This was the case in this study.)
Trainers and researchers are, however, cautioned that foreign students' stated style preference might
sometimes be different from the actual preference. For example, regardless of their preferred learning styles,
learners with a low fluency level in English may resist certain pedagogical methods simply because of their
inability to meet with the language requirements of those methods. For instance, foreign trainees may rank video
viewing and guest speakers low as a preferred pedagogical tool mainly because of their inadequate fluency in
English. And they may rank reading assignments and individual projects high mainly because it gives them time to
digest the material (Bu & Mitchell, 1992).
REFERENCES
Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37: 195-203.
Bu, N., & Mitchell, V. F. (1992). Developing the PRC's managers: How can Western experts become more helpful? Journal of Management
Development, 11(2): 42-53.
Dejoy, J.K., & Dejoy, D.M. (1987). Self-directed learning: The time is now. Training and Development Journal, 41(9): 64-66.
Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. E. (1975). Learning style inventory. Lawrence, KS: Price Systems.
Fry, R.E. (1978). Diagnosing professional learning environments: An observational framework for assessing situational complexity.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (MLR no. 387081.)
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Holland, R. P. (1989). Learner characteristics and learner performance: Implications for instructional placement decision. In B. J. R. Shade
(Ed.), Culture, Style and the educative process (pp. 167-183). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher.
Jarrah, F. (1998), New courses will target transition to university, China Morning Post, April 23: 28.
Johnson, H. (1991). Cross-cultural differences: Implications for management education and training. Journal of European Industrial Training,
15(6): 13-16.
Johnston, J.S., Jr. (1986). Educating managers for change. In J. S. Johnston, Jr. (Ed.), Educating managers: Executive effectiveness through
liberal learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Learning style inventory technical manual. Boston: McBer.
Kolb, D.A. (1977). Disciplinary learning norms and student learning styles: Diverse pathways for growth. Unpublished manuscript, Graduate
School of Management, Case Western Reserve University.
Kolb, D. A., & Fry, R. (1975). Toward an applied theory of experiential learning. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of group process. New York:
John Wiley.
Ladd, P.D., & Ruby, R., Jr (1999), Learning style and adjustment issues of international students, Journal of Education in Business, 74(6):
363-367.
Lindsay, C. P., & Dempsey, B. L. (1983). Ten painfully learned lessons about working in China: The insights of two American behavioral
scientists. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 19: 265-276.
Pun, A.S.L. (1989a). Developing managers internationally: Culture free or culture bound? Symposium presentation at the Conference on
International Personnel and Human Resource Management, December 13, Hong Kong.
OCTOBER 15-17, 2006
GUTMAN CONFERENCE CENTER, USA
8
6th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 0-9742114-6-X
Pun, A.S.L. (1989b). Action learning in the Chinese culture: Possibility or pitfall. Paper presented at the 1989 Manchester International
Human Resource Development Conference, Manchester, England.
Shade, B. J. R. (1989a). Cognitive style: What is it? In B. J. R. Shade (Ed.), Culture, Style and the educative process (pp. 87-93). Springfield,
IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher.
Shade, B. J. R. (1989b). Culture: The key to adaptation. In B. J. R. Shade (Ed.), Culture, Style and the educative process (pp. 9-15).
Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher.
Stuart, P. (1992). New directions in training individuals. Personnel Journal, 71(9): 86-92.
Warner, M. (1991). How Chinese managers learn. Journal of General Management, 16(4): 66-84.
Witkin, H. A., Moore, C., Goodenough, D. R., and Cox, P. W. (1977). Field dependent and field independent cognitive styles and their
educational implications. Review of Educational Research, 47: 1-64.
OCTOBER 15-17, 2006
GUTMAN CONFERENCE CENTER, USA
9