Cultural influences on student learning.

Abstract

Students and their preferred learning styles are diverse. The preferences may become even more diverse when considering students of different international cultures. The implications for practice that learning styles of a cultural diverse student population have on teaching styles are explored in this research.

Background

The redesigning of our course, Trends and Issues in Technology, for international and domestic Ph.D. students led us to explore teaching styles and how they may ultimately be affected by student learning styles. The approach to the study may appear backwards to some but it eventually rights itself.

The study represents an "emergent design, in which each incremental research decision depends on prior information" (McMillan and Schumacher, 2001, p.398). The site selected was our class of 32 students consisting of 19 international students representing three countries (Taiwan, Brazil, and Bangladesh) and 13 domestic students. Domestic students identified the United States as their home country.

The course design incorporated nine (9) subject matter expert speakers representing a wide range of experience in the field of technology. The three initial class sessions were spent setting the stage for the speakers by defining technology, differentiating between instructional technology and management of information systems, and addressing the need for leaders and managers to be proficient in technology. Students were asked to evaluate each speaker with respect to presentation skills, use of multiple instructional strategies, interaction with audience, and content expertise. Additional student evaluation data was collected at the end of the speakers' series. The researchers applied Grasha's (1996) five teaching styles (Expert, Formal Authority, Personal Model, Facilitator, and Delegator) to the evaluative data. Expert possesses knowledge and expertise, formal authority possesses status due to role, personal model oversees, guides and directs by showing, facilitator guides and directs students by asking questions, and delegator expects students to be independent learners. Following the completion of the course, students were asked to take an online learning style assessment (Fleming and Bonwell, 1998). Individual data and data in aggregate were analyzed to address the study's purpose, which was to increase the understanding of the differences of learning styles of international and domestic students and its possible implication for practice (teaching styles).

Methods

The study began with the redesign of Trends and Issues in Technology, a common core course in the Interdisciplinary Doctoral program at a small, Catholic University. The course provided 32 international and domestic students with the opportunity to develop critical thinking and seminar presentation skills as they researched, discussed, and listened to guest speakers who presented issues and trends in technology as it is used in business and education. Nine experts in the field of technology conducted weekly seminars. The speakers were notified in writing of the international student population and reminded in person when they arrived to present. The first data collection method was a required assignment in which students evaluated each speaker through the use of online journals. The evaluations addressed (a) new knowledge gained from content; (b) presentation of content (written and verbal); (c) application of concepts; and (d) assessment of speaker with respect to presentation skills, use of multiple instructional strategies, interaction with audience, and content expertise. The journal entries were read and the responses aligned to Grasha's (1996) five teaching styles according to the quasi-statistical style model of McMillan and Schumaclier (2001)."

The second method of data collection was students' responses to the following request submitted online by the researchers: Are you stronger pro or con toward the speaker's teaching style? Give one quick statement (sentence) about the speaker by clicking on the "Reply." The follow-up question was used to validate the initial evaluation and the responses were coded as positive, neutral, or negative. A table was created to compare individual speaker results.

The final data collection method was employed following the conclusion of the course. Each student was sent an email message and was asked to take the VARK (Visual, Aural, Read/Write, Kinesthetic, Fleming and Bonwell, 1998) learning style assessment. After finishing the online assessment, the students were asked to copy and return the results to the researchers. Participation in this aspect of the study was strictly voluntary. A triangulation of participants' perceptions and a comparison of preferred learning styles to teaching styles concluded the study. To validate, a convenient sample of the original participants was asked to review the results and findings.

Results

Demographics 

The students were identified as either International or Domestic. The home country determined their designation. According to Table 1, of the 32 students, 19 (59 percent) were classified as International and 13 (41 percent) were classified as Domestic. See issue's website <http://rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/fal2003.htm>

Journal Evaluations

The researchers read and reread the written evaluation of each speaker from each student's online journal. Thirty-two (n) out of 32 entries for each speaker were read. The speakers were identified with a number, 1 through 9, and were coded by Grasha's (1996) teaching styles (Table 2). See issue's website <http://rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/fal2003.htm>

As researchers, we coded the students' perceptions to Grasha's categories. A sampling of the students' perceptions recorded in their online journals of Speakers #2, #5 and #7, identified as Facilitators, are: step by step presentation, useful explanation of the differences, wonderful job demonstrating, made it look easy, and sequential. Examples of an Expert, Speakers #3, #6, #8 and #9, were referenced: offered new knowledge, good information, strengthened my understanding, not really understanding, helped define it, difficult, and content is good. The Personal Model, Speaker #1, comments included: insightful, active examples, described the benefits, useful materials, and great student interaction. The fourth style, Delegator, Speaker #4, was described as: never gave us any examples, not showing what can be done necessarily, but what is pedagogically appropriate, presentation was very limited, valuable resource, but the presentation lacked demonstration, and quite difficult to get benefits from the speech. The fifth style, Formal Authority, was not identified among the nine speakers. Even though four of the nine speakers are current faculty members at the university, in their role of guest speaker, the students' perceptions did not categorize them as Formal Authority, a descriptor attributed to faculty status as defined in Table 2.

Culminating Evaluation

A culminating commentary of the speakers' series is based on responses received from an average of 24(n) of 32 students (75 percent) of the online discussion question: "Are you stronger pro or con toward the speaker's teaching style?" The coded responses of positive, negative, or neutral are in Table 3. The researchers interpreted pro or positive to mean the speaker was viewed as a strong presenter. Con or negative indicated strong disagreement with the speaker's style and neutral was neither pro nor con. See issue's website <http://rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/fal2003.htm>

The teaching style average of positive perception for Personal Model was 96 percent; for Facilitator, 90 percent; for Expert, 72 percent; and for Delegator, 52 percent. More positive assessments (average of 91 percent) were attributed to teaching styles (Personal Model and Facilitator) that encouraged student participation either through observation or interactions.

The International results are shown in Table 4. The responses of the international students indicated consistently lower perceptions of six of the nine speakers. In fact, of the 28 total Negative responses in Table 3, 22 (79 percent) were from international students (Table 4). Their positive perceptions favored Personal Model (100 percent) and Facilitator (89 percent), as did the totals for the class. The International students expressed a stronger negative perception with fewer positive responses going to Expert (66 percent) and Delegator (23 percent). See issue's website <http://rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/fal2003.htm>

Learning Styles

The response rate was 47 percent with 15(n) out of 32 students responding to the email requesting participation in the learning style assessment. Nine domestic students (60 percent) and six international students (40 percent) returned the results. Due to the voluntary nature of the response, this response rate was smaller than the response to the other data collection procedures. Table 5 shows the various combinations of learning styles selected using the VARK (Visual, Aural, Read/Write, Kinesthetic) assessment. See issue's website <http://rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/fal2003.htm>

Seven students indicated a multimodal preference, using three or four learning styles. Of the seven, five (71 percent) were identified as Domestic and two (29 percent) were International. Four students (two International and two Domestic) used two preferred learning styles and four students had a strong preference for a single style, either Read/Write or Kinesthetic. Of the six international students, two students had a Visual, Aural, or Read/Write preference combined with another learning style. Even though the response rate of the international students was low, an interesting result was that five of the six students (83 percent) had Kinesthetic learning style preferences, either alone (2) or in combination (3) with other learning styles, indicating a need to incorporate a hands-on aspect in the learning process.

Conclusion

The international students indicated, in a United States classroom, a preference for kinesthetic learning. Learning is most likely to occur either through experience, example, practice or simulation. This finding agrees with Ladd and Ruby (1999) who stated that international students "preferred learning situations that would provide direct contact with materials, topics, or situations being studied" (p.4) even though it is in direct contradiction to the primary means of delivery outside the United States, lecture. To compensate for language barriers it appears that the international students have a stronger preference for kinesthetic learning and instructors that employ it such as Personal Models and Facilitators rather than Experts and Delegators. Domestic students indicated a multimodal preference, with 55 percent preferring three or more learning styles and a greater acceptance of a variety of teaching styles.

Students and their preferred learning styles are diverse. Nine variations of four styles were identified out of 15 students. The preferences may become even more diverse when addressing students of different international cultures. Instructors should be aware that preferences might be masked by alien classroom settings. According to Anthony (1994, p. 1) teachers "engage in defensive strategies designed to protect our preferred image of ourselves." Those preferred images could be expert, facilitator, personal model, delegator, or formal authority. At the same time, we believe students demonstrate preferred learning styles to protect their image. An example of this would be our students from Taiwan who consistently indicated an attempt at "saving face" by trying to conceal what the students considered insufficient facility in speaking English.

Since students carry the culture which was formative to them when they move to other cultural settings (Collis, 1999), the researchers wanted to pay particular attention to how we may influence the choice of teaching styles selected by class speakers for these students. For those instructors who will be experiencing similar classrooms, attention to the kinesthetic mode would be to encourage speakers to use lectures with real-life examples and applications, hands-on activities, and small group discussions. Speakers or instructors should use a variety of modes in their presentations for effective understanding. Replication of this study and increased response rates from international students could strengthen this study's results. Future research for these researchers includes instructional design for homogeneous classrooms (International and Domestic) and various mixtures (percentages) of International and Domestic students. Every classroom becomes a world within itself.

References

Anthony, F. 1994. A special section discovering your best teaching styles, College Teaching, 42 (4), 1-2.

Collis, B. 1999. Designing for differences: Cultural issues in the design of www-based course-support sites, British Journal of Educational Technology, 30 (3), p. 201-221.

Fleming, N. & Bonwell, C. 1998. VARK (visual, aural, read/write, kinesthetic). Available: http://vark-learn.com

Grasha, A. 1996. Teaching with style. Pittsburgh, PA: Alliance Publishers.

Ladd, P. & Ruby, R. 1999. Learning style and adjustment issues of international students, Journal of Education for Business, 74 (6), p. 363-367.

McMillan, J. & Schumacher, S. 2001. Research in education: A conceptual introduction (5th ed). New York: Longman.

National Teaching and Learning Forum. 1999. Teaching styles. Available: http://www.ntlf.com/html/lib/faq-indiana.htm

Nancy Robbins, University of the Incarnate Word, TX Annette Craven, University of the Incarnate Word, TX

Dr. Robbins is Assistant Professor in an interdisciplinary, organizational leadership doctoral program. She received her Ed.D. from Teachers College, Columbia University. Dr. Craven, Assistant Professor of Organizational Leadership, has expertise in the areas of leadership, education, training and development.