학습유형에 문화적 차이가 있을까? (INT J INTERCULT REL, 2008)

학습유형에 문화적 차이가 있을까? (INT J INTERCULT REL, 2008)

Are there cultural differences in learning style?

Simy Joy *, David A. Kolb

2. 문화적 차이를 보여주는 특징들

2. Characterizing cultural differences

문화란 다음과 같이 정의된다. 

Research on culture spans many disciplines such as Anthropology (Benedict, 1946; Hall, 1976; Kluckhohn, 1962), Psychology (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1994) and Management (Hofstede, 2001; House et al., 2004). Irrespective of the discipline, the scholars have come to more or less a common ground with respect to defining 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 et al., 2004, p. 15).

그러나 이러한 공통적 개념에도 불구하고 분석의 단위는 연구자마다 다르다. 

초창기, 특히 인류학에서는 사회나 커뮤니티를 연구했다. 

This common understanding notwithstanding, the units of analysis chosen by culture researchers vary. The earlier researchers on culture, especially in the field of Anthropology, studied societies or communities. 

• For example, Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) studied five communities in America discovering differences in their value orientations. 
• There have been studies that focused on countries like Benedict’s (1946) research on the Japanese culture. 

20세기 중후반에는 국가에 대해서 연구했다. 국가가 지배구조, 법, 사회 기관 등을 정의하는 것에 따른 결과일지도 모른다. 호프스테드의 연구, 더 최근의 GLOBE 연구. 

Research in the latter half of the 20th century increasingly focused on country differences in culture, perhaps resulting from the development of nation states that defines boundaries for governing structures, law and social institutions that paved the way for increased cultural homogeneity within nations. 

• Hofstede’s (2001) research on differentiating between the cultures of around 40 countries reinforced the use of country names as the surrogates to represent culture. 
• The more recent Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) study (House et al., 2004) followed suit. 

역사적 진화를 바탕으로 문화적 클러스터를 제안하기도 했다.

There have also been scholars who looked at the historical evolution of different regions of the world and suggested the possibility for cultural clusters that transcend national boundaries. 

• Huntington’s (1996) classification of the world cultures into Western, Latin America, African, Islamic, Sinic, Hindu, Orthodox, Buddhist and Japanese is an example. 
• The GLOBE study empirically arrives at ten cultural clusters – Anglo, Latin Europe, Nordic Europe, Germanic Europe, Eastern Europe, Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, Middle East, Southern Asia and Confucian Asia – wherein the countries within a cluster are more similar to each other while being significantly different from countries in other clusters.

문화 연구자들은 특정 문화에 담긴 풍습과 실제를 이해하기 위해서 노력했으며, 문화간 비교를 위한 노력도 기울였다.

Culture researchers have endeavored to build in-depth understanding of the customs and practices within certain cultures and also to develop meaningful ways to enable comparison between cultures. This has resulted in a number of cultural typologies based on the salient features identified by the researcher. Some examples include 

• 고맥락과 저맥락 high context and low context cultures (Hall, 1976) based on the amount of dependence on the context used in determining the meaning of messages, 
• 고신뢰와 저신뢰 low trust and high trust cultures (Fukuyama, 1995) based on the relationship between trust and social structures, 
• 독립적과 상호의존적 independent and interdependent self cultures (Markus&Kitayama, 1991) based on the extent to which definition of self is in relation to the larger society, and 
• 부끄러움과 죄책감 shame and guilt cultures (Benedict, 1946) based on whether the standards for behavior are internal or external to the individual. 

그러나 이러한 방식은 이분법적이다. 호프스테드는 연속적인 개념을 도입했다.

These typologies tend to be dichotomous in nature. Hofstede (2001) introduced the concept of continuous cultural dimensions as the basis for comparison. Dimensions are various categories into which the salient features of the cultures are grouped. Hofestede identified 

1. power distance, 
2. uncertainty avoidance, 
3. individualism-collectivism and 
4. masculinity-femininity (later long versus short term orientations) 

as the major aspects on which cultures differ. 

GLOBE연구는 호프스테드의 작업을 더 정교화하여 아홉 개 차원으로 구분함.

The GLOBE study (House et al., 2004) refined Hofestede’s work suggesting nine dimensions: 

1. in-group collectivism, 
2. institutional collectivism, 
3. power distance, 
4. uncertainty avoidance, 
5. future orientation, 
6. performance orientation, 
7. humane orientation, 
8. assertiveness and 
9. gender egalitarianism. 

문화 차원적 접근법을 지지하는 사람들은 각 차원에 대한 점수를 산출하는 방법을 도입했고 순위를 매겼다.

The proponents of the cultural dimensions approach introduced the practice of calculating scores on each dimension for each culture enabling relative ranking among them. These typologies and dimensions are especially useful in providing explanations when we encounter differences in outcomes that seem to originate from the differences in cultural values and practices. Researchers in variety of fields that range from education to epidemiology have explored the potential impact of cultural variables on outcomes that vary from educational accomplishments to depression.

3. 경험학습이론과 학습유형

3. Experiential learning theory and learning style 

ELT는 인간의 학습과 발전에 있어서 경험의 중요성을 주창한 20세기의 유명 학자들의 업적에 근거한다. 

Experiential learning theory draws on the work of prominent 20th century scholars who gave experience a central role in their theories of human learning and development —notably John Dewey, Kurt Lewin, Jean Piaget, WilliamJames, Carl Jung, Paulo Freire, Carl Rogers and others — to develop a holistic model of the experiential learning process and a multi-linear model of adult development (Kolb, 1984). 

ELT는 학습을 다음과 같이 정의한다. "경험의 변형을 통해 지식이 생성되는 과정으로서, 경험을 grasping하고 transforming하는 것의 종합적 결과로 지식이 생성된다."

ELT defines learning as ‘‘the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience. Knowledge results from the combination of grasping and transforming experience’’ (Kolb, 1984: 41). 

Grasping에 대한 대한 두 가지 형태, Transforming에 대한 두 가지 형태가 있다.

The ELT model portrays 

• two dialectically related modes of grasping experience – concrete experience (CE) and abstract conceptualization (AC) – and 
• two dialectically related modes of transforming experience— reflective observation (RO) and active experimentation (AE). 

경험학습의 과정은 이상적으로 순환(cycle)혹은 나선(spiral)한 것으로 묫되는데, 여기서 학습자는 "모든 베이스를 밟아간다". 이 과정은 반복적인 과정으로서, 학습 상황과 배우는 내용에 따라 달라진다. 

Experiential learning process is portrayed as an idealized learning cycle or spiral where the learner ‘‘touches all the bases’’ – experiencing, reflecting, thinking, and acting – in a recursive process that is responsive to the learning situation and what is being learned. 

• Immediate or concrete experiences give rise to observations and reflections that are assimilated and distilled into abstract concepts from which new implications for action are drawn. When these implications are actively tested new experiences are created again (See Fig. 1). 

반드시 모든 사람이 같은 순서로 각 지점을 밟아나가는 것은 아니다. 개인마다 유전적 특성과 과거의 경험, 현재의 요구가 다르기 때문에 네 가지 학습모드 중에서 선호하는 것이 있다. 

It is not necessary that each person starts his/her learning cycle in the same mode, say for example, concrete experience, and goes through all other modes in a uniform manner. Because of our hereditary equipment, our particular life experiences, and the demands of our present environment, we develop a preferred way of choosing among the four learning modes. 

• 구체적인 경험에 의존하는 사람 (정보를 모으고 직관적으로 판단을 내린다)Those who rely on concrete experience for grasping are open to new experiences, depend on people contact for gathering information, are intuitive and make feeling based judgments (Barmeyer, 2004; Kolb & Kolb, 2005). 
• 추상적 개념화에 의존하는 사람(이론과 일반화를 추구한다) Those who rely on abstract conceptualization are logical and analytical in their approach to a learning situation and seek theories and generalizations (Auyeung & Sands, 1996). 

A person may transformthe experience either through reflective observation or active experimentation. 

• 성찰적 관찰을 선호하는 사람(의미를 이해하려면 모든 측면을 다 봐야하며, 행동에 옮기기까지 시간이 걸린다.)Those who prefer reflective observation watch and observe all sides of an issue in order to understand its meaning and take time to act. 
• 능동적 실험을 선호하는 사람(무언가를 해보기를 좋아하고, 위험을 감수하는 특성이 있으며, 실용적이다.)Those who prefer active experimentation like to try things out, are more willing to take risks and are practical and application oriented (Barmeyer, 2004; Kolb & Kolb, 2005). 

학습유형의 개념은 이 네 가지 모드의 조합 중 어떤 것을 선호하느냐에 대한 것이다.  

The concept of learning style refers to the individual differences in approaches to learning based on an individual’s preference for using a combination from these dialectic modes. The four basic learning style types are Diverging, Assimilating, Converging and Accommodating. 

• Diverging learners prefer to make more use of concrete experience and reflective observation, 
• Assimilating types prefer to learn through reflective observation and abstract conceptualization, 
• Converging types rely on abstract conceptualization and active experimentation and 
• Accommodating types use active experimentation and concrete experience. 

Kolb의 학습유형검사는 개인의 학습유형을 측정하기 위한 것이다. 12문항. 점수 범위는 -36에서 +36.

The Kolb Learning Style Inventory (KLSI, Kolb, 2005) is an instrument ‘designed to measure the degree to which individuals display different learning styles’. It contains 12 items that ask the respondents to rank four sentence endings that correspond to the four learning modes—CE, RO, AC and AE. Because of this forced choice format, the cumulative ranks reflect the relative preferences among the dialectic modes. 

• The combination score AC-CE (i.e., cumulative rank for CE subtracted fromthe cumulative rank for AC) represents the preference for abstract conceptualization over concrete experience and AE- RO(i.e., cumulative rank for RO subtracted fromthe cumulative rank for AE) the preference for active experimentation over reflective observation. 

• The combination scores may range from 36 to +36. 

• 높은 AC-CE 점수(Abstractness 선호(Concrete보다)) A higher AC-CE score implies a relatively greater inclination for abstractness (AC) and lesser inclination for concreteness (CE), whereas a lower AC-CE implies the opposite. 
• 높은 AE-RO 점수는(Action 선호(Reflection보다)) Similarly, a higher AE-RO score would mean preference for action (AE) over reflection (RO) and a lower score the reverse. 

• One’s learning style type can be determined by taking both combination scores together and comparing themwith the cut- off values from the normative group. 

ELT는 학습유형이 고정된 심리학적 특성이 아니라 사람과 환경 사이의 시너지에 의해 변화하는 상태라는 것을 강조한다. 이 유동적인 상태가 얼마나 지속되느냐는 유전, 성격, 환경 등에 의해서 결정된다. 

ELT emphasizes that learning style is not a psychological trait but a dynamic state resulting from synergistic transactions between the person and the environment. The stability and endurance of these dynamic states depend not only on the genetic qualities or characteristics of human beings but also on the demands of the environment they are in. The way we process each emerging event determines our choices and decisions, which in turn determine the future events we live through (Kolb, 1984: 63–64). The environment in which this process of self-creation takes place is shaped by the pervasive influence of culture.

집단주의

4.2.1. Collectivism 

Collectivism perhaps is the most widely used dimension to differentiate between cultures, to the extent that both scholars and laymen often think of it as the only way to explain cultural differences. A number of scholars agree that collectivismis not as simple and straightforward as it is portrayed and have made attempts to fine-tune the concept. House et al. (2004) found out in the GLOBE study that collectivism can be differentiated into in-group collectivism and institutional collectivism. 

일반적으로 이해하는 집단주의와 유사함. 집단주의적 사회에서 사회적인식의 기본단위는 '집단'이다. 역할, 책임 등이 그룹 멤버에게 주어진다. 그룹 멤버들간에 조화를 이루고 체면을 유지하는 것이 중요하다. 

In-group collectivism is ‘The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty and cohesiveness in their organizations or families’ (House et al., 2004, p. 12). In-group collectivism is similar to the concept of collectivism as it is generally understood. In collectivistic societies, the group is the basic unit of social perception. There are roles, duties and obligations attached to the group membership. It is important to maintain harmony and save face of the group members. The choice of action and communication depend heavily on the context (Hall, 1976). While communicating, they pay attention to the non- verbals to grasp the full meaning of what is being communicated. The pace of life is slow allowing for reflection (Hofstede, 1997; House et al., 2004; Triandis, 1994). To be an acceptable member of such a culture one needs to constantly pay attention to the experiences and develop intuitionand reflection. Ina less collectivistic and more individualistic culture, the individual is the recognized social unit. These cultures believe in the individual’s intellectual and affective autonomy (Schwartz, 1999). Freedom, pursuit of individual pleasure, individual initiative and achievement are accepted values. Cognition and communication are context independent. Verbal articulation is essential to communicate, silence is embarrassing. They are objective and use explicit logic, proofs and linear argument. They have a positive attitude to trying out newthings (Hofstede, 1997; House et al., 2004; Triandis, 1994). Being a member in individualistic culture may guide a person towards abstract conceptualization and active experimentation. 

조직과 사회가 자원의 집단 차원의 분배와 집단 차원의 행동을 격려하고 보상하는 정도

Institutional collectivism is ‘the degree to which organizational and societal institutional practices encourage and reward collective distribution of resources and collective action’ (House et al., 2004, p. 12). Institutional collectivism is ‘part of a cultural syndrome that is future and performance oriented’ and that tries to achieve them through collective efforts that are not assertive or dominating. It seems to originate more froma sense of justice, equality, collective action and camaraderie, the basis of which is rationality rather than feeling of kinship. The members of the societies that are high on institutional collectivism may have a preference for abstract conceptualization.

불확실성 회피

4.2.2. Uncertainty avoidance 

Uncertainty avoidance refers to ‘the extent to which the members of an organization or a society strive to avoid uncertainty by relying one stablished social norms, rituals, andbureaucratic practices’ (House et al., 2004, p. 11). Uncertainty avoiding societies resort to creating laws and rules and/or following rituals and religion in order to reduce ambiguity and unpredictability. In the laws they create, they aim to see clarity, structure and purity. In scientific pursuits, they favor deduction, formulating general principles first to apply themto specific situations (Hofstede, 2001). There is a tendency to consider what is different as dangerous. Breaking rules is not tolerated (House et al., 2004). They are more resistant to change. There is fear of failure and preference for tasks with sure outcomes, clear guidelines and less risk. Children are actively protected fromexperiencing unknown situations. In education, both teachers and students are more comfortable with the structured learning situations with clear objectives and timetables. They like learning situations with one correct answer and reward accuracy (Hofstede, 2001). The methods by which such societies deal with uncertainty may predispose its members to resort to abstract conceptualization and reflection and refrain fromexposing themselves to newexperiences and experiments while learning. Hoppe (1990) and Yamazaki (2005) have found evidence for a positive relation between uncertainty avoidance and reflective observation. Members of the less uncertainty avoiding societies are more comfortable with ambiguity, chaos, novelty and convenience. They take every day as it comes. In scientific logic they favor induction, taking note of the empirical facts first to reach general principles. They view what is different as curious. They are more tolerant of breaking rules, less resistant to change and innovation, and willing to take risks. They believe in one’s ability to influence one’s life and others. Children are encouraged to experience novel situations. In education, they prefer open ended learning situations where there is room for sense of empiricism, relativity and original and unconventional ideas. The members of such societies may find it easier to learn from concrete experiences and active experimentation.

미래지향성

4.2.3. Future orientation 

Future orientation implies ‘the degree to which individuals in organizations or societies engage in future oriented behaviors such as planning, investing in the future, and delaying individual or collective gratification’ (House et al., 2004,p. 12). Future orientated societies engage in planning. This requires the cognitive ability to see ‘the world beyond its present physical state’. These societies are cautious in initiating new tasks. They want to ensure that there are strong and positive links between the current tasks and the desired future state (House et al., 2004). Thus abstract conceptualization is a necessary condition to envisage the future (Trommsdorff, 1983). Future orientation requires being flexible (Tendem, 1987), open to taking risks and persistent. Leaders of such societies expect their members to be more innovative and tolerant of change (House et al., 2004). Future orientation thus fosters abstract conceptualization and active experimentation. Less future oriented societies are able to engage more in the present and enjoy the moment. They may show incapacity or unwillingness to plan to accomplish goals in the future. While planning, the thrust is to ensure that they are compatible with the customs and traditions. Only past experience can legitimate innovation and experience (House et al., 2004). This attitude towards the future may develop in members of such societies, habits of absorbing the experiences and reflecting on themin order to have guidelines for the future.

성취 지향성

4.2.4. Performance orientation 

Performance orientation is ‘the degree to which an organization or society encourages and rewards group members for performance improvement and excellence’ (House et al., 2004, p. 13). Highly performance oriented societies are found to value self-reliance, independence and achievement. The achievement orientation in themmay make themfocus on future, take initiatives and are persistent in the pursuit of goals (Fyans et al., 1983). They have a ‘can-do’ attitude and a sense of urgency. The emphasis is more on results than people. What one does matters more than what one is (House et al., 2004). The individuals and groups that produce results and accomplish assignments are appreciated (Parsons & Shils, 1951; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998). Thus the societal attitude is one that favors action. The societies that are less performance oriented focus on maintenance of tradition, family, affiliation and social ties than on individual achievement. They value one’s role and position in society. In communication, they prefer subtlety and pay attention to context (House et al., 2004). Such an attitude may favor concrete experience. Such an attitude may favor less action and demand more reflection from the members of those societies.

자기주장

4.2.5. Assertiveness 

Assertiveness implies ‘the degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are assertive, confrontational and aggressive in social relationships’ (Houseet al., 2004, p. 12). Highly assertive societies appreciate assertive, dominant and tough behaviors from all of its members. They are direct in communication. They believe that anyone can be successful through hard work, take initiatives and are competitive in nature (House et al., 2004). They may have a ‘doing’ orientation (Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961). Assertive behavior indicates pragmatism(Rakos, 1991) and adaptiveness. The accepted behavior in assertive societies is one that is oriented towards action and taking charge. Societies that are low on assertiveness consider assertiveness unacceptable and endorse modesty and tenderness. They cherish people and relationships and are cooperative. They value self-possessed conduct. In communication, they are indirect (House et al., 2004). They have a more ‘being’ orientation than ‘doing’ (Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961). In learning, they may be more attuned towards using reflection than action.

권력거리

4.2.6. Power distance 

It is ‘the degree to which members of an organization or society expect and agree that power should be stratified and concentrated at higher levels of an organization or government’ (House et al., 2004, p. 12). Societies that are high on power distance tend to value social hierarchies. They don’t give the individual the freedom to do whatever they want or make own decisions. It is important for them to do what is socially correct and proper. However, the hierarchical systems of such societies assign roles to ensure socially responsible behavior (Schwartz, 1999). There are reciprocal obligations between those who occupy high and low positions in the hierarchy (House et al., 2004). A certain level of thoughtfulness and reflection is required from the members of such societies for them to understand their roles and behave suitably. In such societies, the education system places a value on the wisdom and authority of the teacher. The students are expected to obey the teacher and take in the lessons offered (Hofstede, 2001). The social norms combined with the education system appear to promote reflection rather than active experimentation. In the societies that are low on power distance, the social relationships are not hierarchically arranged. An individual is respected and appreciated for what he or she can offer (House et al., 2004). The education system is student centered where the students are encouraged to question and experiment. The members of such societies may not hesitate to engage in active experimentation (Hofstede, 2001).

성 평등

4.2.7. Gender egalitarianism 

Gender egalitarianism is ‘the degree to which an organization or society minimizes gender role differences while promoting gender equality’ (House et al., 2004, p. 12). In cultures that are more gender egalitarian, gender stereotypes and gender roles may be less pervasive, making the lived experiences of both men and women more homogeneous. Women may be as educated and employed in same occupations as men. In such cultures, there might be heightened notions about human equality and justice. It is likely that the sense making is more dependent on such abstract concepts than through relating to the heterogeneous experiences of self and others.

인간지향성

4.2.8. Humane orientation 

Humane orientation refers to ‘the degree to which individuals in organizations or societies encourage and reward individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous, caring, and kind to others’ (House et al., 2004, p. 13). In more humane oriented societies, others (family, friends, community and strangers) are very important. The members of the society are responsible for ensuring the well-being of others. They provide the social support for each other (Houseet al., 2004). They value being for giving, loving, cheerful and helpful (Bigoness &Blakely, 1996). They are motivated by altruism, benevolence, kindness and generosity (Triandis, 1994). The need for belongingness is high. The members of such societies are likely to develop the faculties for intuition and reflection and may make judgments based on feelings than logic. In less humane oriented societies, the members are not expected to look out for others. People are expected to solve their problems by themselves. There might be state structures to offer social and economic security(Houseet al., 2004). Therefore, the members can focus on self-enhancement (Schwartz, 1992) by promoting self-interest and self-gratification. They might feel freer to experiment with own lives. Since affiliation is neither a need nor a motivating factor, they might be more objective in their judgments and rely on logic and reason.

7.1. Conclusion 

문화가 영향이 있는 것은 자명해보인다. AC-CE에 대한 영향은 유의했고, AE-RO에 대한 영향은 그보다는 작았다.

From the above results, it is evident that culture has an impact on the learning style scales that is comparable to that of some of the demographic variables. Culture has a significant effect in deciding a person’s preference for abstract conceptualization versus concrete experience. The significance of its effect on the preference between active experimentation and reflective observation is marginal. 

문화에 의한 영향과 인구통계학적 변인에 의한 영향 비교. 어떤 분야를 전공하였느냐가 AC-CE에 영향을 준다.

On comparing the effect of culture and that of the demographic variables, the area of specialization seems to have a slightly larger effect on determining a person’s liking for abstraction or concreteness than culture does. This may be because of the fact that educational specialties are particularly focused on the development of and socialization into the ways of learning needed to meet the performance demands of the discipline. In case of culture, the socialization with respect to learning may be more indirect. Level of education seems to have as much of effect as culture and gender slightly less. In case of developing a preference for active experimentation or reflective observation age and area of specialization had more impact than culture. Age appears to have the greatest impact in inculcating the habit of refection than any other variable. If we take the marginal significance level of culture as acceptable, it has equal effect as level of education on developing a preference for active experimentation or reflective observation. Overall, we can see that it is culture and variables related to education, i.e., level of education and area of specialization that have the largest impact on learning styles. 

이 연구결과는 교육과 경영에 모두 중요한 의의를 지닌다.

This finding is of particular importance to the fields of education as well as management. 

• Educators need to be aware that conditioning by certain cultures may complement the learning style requirements of certain areas of specialization where as it might be clashing with some other specializations. Also, in the first years of higher education, say before graduation, where discipline specific conditioning is yet to take root, the culture-based differences may be even more pronounced. Therefore, higher educators in each area of specialization may have to ensure that the learning situations they design have elements that the students from different cultures can comprehend. 
• In management, multicultural teams became prevalent with globalization. Now with the new challenges facing organizations such as sustainability, that require paradigm shift in understanding and resolving the problem, these teams are becoming much more multidisciplinary as well. In order for these multicultural multidisciplinary teams to engage with each other effectively, they may have to understand each other’s sense making and problem solving approaches and how their cultures and areas of specialization might have predisposed them to certain approaches. Our findings from the analysis of the dimensions of culture that impact learning style differences may prove useful for these managers—the individuals tend to have a more abstract learning style in countries that are high in in- group collectivism, institutional collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, future orientation and gender egalitarianism and the individuals may have a more reflective learning style in countries that are high in in-group collectivism, uncertainty avoidance and assertiveness.

---

Are there cultural differences in learning style?

• Simy Joy^, , 
• David A. Kolb

• Department of Organizational Behavior, Case Western Reserve University, 10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44106, United States

Accepted 24 November 2008, Available online 21 January 2009

 Show less

doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.11.002

Get rights and content

---

Abstract

This study examines the role that culture plays in the way individuals learn. Experiential learning theory is used to describe the learning process and the Kolb Learning Style Inventory is used to assess differences in how individuals learn. Using the framework for categorizing cultural differences from the Global Leadership and Organizational Effectiveness (GLOBE) study, national cultures are examined by cultural clusters and individual cultural dimensions. The first part of the study assesses the relative influence of culture in comparison to gender, age, level of education and area of specialization of 533 respondents born in and currently residing in 7 nations. We found that a significant portion of the variance in the preference for abstract conceptualization was explained by culture, gender, level of education and area of specialization. The variability in preference for active experimentation over reflective observation was accounted for by age and area of specialization. The impact of culture was only marginally significant. In the second part of the study where we examined the influence of individual culture dimensions in shaping the learning style preferences, we discovered that individuals tend to have a more abstract learning style in countries that are high in in-group collectivism, institutional collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, future orientation and gender egalitarianism. Individuals may have a more reflective learning style in countries that are high in in-group collectivism, uncertainty avoidance and assertiveness.

Keywords

• Learning style; 
• Kolb learning style inventory (KLSI); 
• Culture; 
• Cultural dimensions;
• Culture clusters; 
• GLOBE study