Journal of Public and Private Management■ Article ■Vol. 8, No. 4, March 2022, pp. 1-13
ISSN 2189-2490

A Preliminary Study to Develop a Cross-Cultural
Learning Style Measurement
Yoshitaka Yamazaki
Faculty of Business Administration, Bunkyo University
yyama@bunkyo.ac.jp
Michiko Toyama
Faculty of Business Administration, Bunkyo University
toyama3@bunkyo.ac.jp
Received: 7, January, 2022

Abstract
Although cross-cultural learning has been studied extensively in various contexts, how an individual
approaches learning in cross-cultural situations remains unclear. To better understand individuals’
learning in such situations, we modified Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory to fit respondents in a crosscultural setting. The modified questionnaire was tested in a graduate school in Japan, with a sample
of 37 administrative employees in a cross-cultural working environment. Results indicated that thesix key learning style variables based on Kolb’s learning theory were significantly correlated interms of two types of learning style dimensions. Additionally, results empirically supported Kolb’s
theory, showing that a relative preference for one learning mode over another in one dimension was
independent of that in the other dimension. Furthermore, results revealed that variables relevant to
the learning dimension of concrete experience vs. abstract conceptualization were significantly related
to gender, congruent with previous research. All of these results suggest that the cross-culturallearning style questionnaire could be further developed.
Keywords : c ross-cultural learning style, scale development, cross-cultural situations, higher
educational contexts, Japan

Faculty of Business Administration, Bunkyo University
5-6-1 Hanahata, Adachi, Tokyo 121-8577, JAPANTel +81-3-5688-8577, Fax +81-3-5856-6009
http://www.bunkyo.ac.jp/faculty/business/

経営論集Vol. 8, No. 4（2022）pp. 1-13

style differences among countries and cultures

Introduction

have employed a bottom-up approach (Joy
& Kolb, 2009; Yamazaki, 2005). Such studies

Cross-cultural learning has drawn muchtypically involve research participants in

attention from multiple study areas that include

their own country’s culture; thus, findings canmanagement learning and education (Mujtaba

demonstrate cultural differences in learning& Thomas, 2005; Napier, 2006; Yamazaki &style between countries. To identify learning

Kayes, 2004), higher education (Apfelthaler

style based on those studies, it is assumed thatet al., 2006; Foster, 2017; Rienties et al., 2015),

learning situations are embedded in the culture

adult learning (Virjee, 2010), e-learningof research participants, which differs from

(Kayumova & Sadykova, 2016), and design

cross-cultural contexts, intercultural situations,education (Montana-Hoyos et al., 2015). Cross-or culturally different learning environments.

cultural environments are so complex that

Apfelthaler et al. (2006) pointed out that

individuals often face culture shock (Ward et

the term intercultural relates to interactional., 2001). Since individuals have a preferred

between individuals with different cultures

way of learning in learning environments (Kolb,

or between individuals who handle a matter

1984; Kolb & Kolb, 2017), they may attempt tooutside their own cultures. Because cross-apply a learning strategy to learn somethingcultural learning style entails cross-cultural

important or necessary in cross-culturallearning situations, cross-cultural learning

situations. Yet, their preferred way of learning,style should be investigated among individuals

which is called a learning style, might become

who face cross-cultural or intercultural

ineffective due to a large cultural distancesituations, who have had cross-cultural learning

between home and host cultures (Yamazaki

experiences, or who can at least consider cross-& Kayes, 2007). Past studies indicated acultural contexts where they encounter cultural

theoretical and empirical connection between

differences.

learning style and culture (Yamazaki, 2005),

A representative case of this cross-suggesting that a dominant learning style incultural situation is global appointments likeone country may not work smoothly in anotherexpatriation, inpatriation, transpatriation, andcountry. A critical step to handle this challenge

repatriation. To the best of our knowledge,

is knowing one’s learning style when engaging

very few studies on learning style have beenin cross-cultural situations. The present study

conducted in cross-cultural contexts where

aimed to measure the cross-cultural learning

individuals face cultural differences in their jobs

style of those who work in cross-culturalor in their interactions with local people. One

contexts.

exception is the study of Yamazaki and Kayes(2007) that investigated learning style changes

Many studies that have examined learning1

in expatriates, who adopted a more suitable

This is important because the measure islearning style for their work context. However,theoretically explained with empirical support

the measures used in that study related to(Kolb & Kolb, 2013, 2017). Third, Kolb’s theory

general, integrative learning situations rather

and measure have been widely applied to cross-than cross-cultural situations. Since cross-cultural investigations to understand how

cultural learning style focuses on cross-learning style differs with culture (Auyeung

cultural environments, it seems important to& Sands, 1996; Barmeyer, 2004; Holtbrugge &specify cross-cultural learning situations in theMohr, 2010; Joy & Kolb, 2009; Yamazaki, 2005;

measure. By doing so, the measure can examine

Yamazaki & Kayes, 2007, 2010; Yamazaki &how individuals respond to such situations.

Attrapreyangkul, 2014; Yamazaki et al., 2018).

In this study, we attempted to explore cross-

Before further discussing a cross-cultural

cultural learning by examining cross-culturallearning measurement, the next section better

learning situations and applying the lens of

explains Kolb’s theory and learning styles.

Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning theory.
We used Kolb’s (1984; Kolb & Kolb, 2017)

Literature Review

experiential learning model for three reasons.
First, the learning model considers human

Kolbʼs Learning Model

experience as the source of individuals’ learning(Kolb, 1984; Kolb & Kolb, 2017). In cross-cultural

Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning theory was

situations, face-to-face communication withfounded on the research of James, Dewey,

locals and hands-on cross-cultural experiences

Follett, Lewin, Piaget, Vygotsky, Jung, Rogers,

seem to influence individuals’ learning andand Freire (Kolb & Kolb, 2017). A uniqueadaptation to situations. The interplay between

aspect of the learning theory is that individuals’

people and the world through experience isexperience plays a pivotal role in learning.

key. Also, Kayes (2002) illustrated connections

This model is composed of the four learning

between personal knowledge and social

modes of concrete experience (CE), reflective

knowledge within Kolb’s experiential learningobservation (RO), abstract conceptualization

theory, suggesting the importance of the(AC), and active experimentation (AE). The CE

outside social world for individuals’ learning.

and AC learning modes both capture humanIn this regard, it appears that Kolb’s learning

experiences and lead to knowledge creation, butmodel is a good fit for cross-cultural learningthey work differently. The CE mode requires

situations. Second, an existing measurement isapplying feeling and sensing and producesaligned with Kolb’s learning theory to examine

apprehension or tacit knowledge, while the AC

individual learning style: Kolb’s (1999; Kolb &mode involves thinking and conceptualizing and

Kolb, 2013) Learning Style Inventory (KLSI).

generates comprehension or explicit knowledge.

2

経営論集

Vol. 8, No. 4（2022）pp. 1-13

The RO and AE modes both transform one

to four basic learning styles: The diverging

type of knowledge to the other. The RO modelearning style consists of CE and RO modes;

requires reflectively observing knowledge

the converging style, AC and AE modes; thecreated through the CE mode and changing

assimilating style, AC and RO modes; and theit as a source for comprehension knowledge

accommodating style, CE and AE modes. Eachrelevant to the AC mode. The AE modelearning style has a particular feature that

requires taking action to test comprehension

relies on the characteristics of the two learningknowledge generated by the AC mode andmodes. Furthermore, Kolb and Kolb (2005, 2013,transforming it for a new experience that the2017) proposed a classification of nine learning

CE mode can address. In Kolb’s learning model,

styles beyond the four fundamental learning

people learn by feeling (CE mode), reflecting

styles. This classification contains a balanced(RO mode), thinking (AC mode), and acting

learning style in which people keep a balance(AE mode), which together comprise a learning

between the CE and AC modes or between thecycle. The CE mode is dialectically opposed to

RO and AE modes, rather than being inclined

the AC mode, while the RO mode is dialecticallytowards either one. Thus, with this type of

opposed to the AE mode.

learning style, individuals’ learning tendency

When people learn, they tend to apply

seems more integrated than specialized. Figure

two learning modes: one from AC vs. CE

1 illustrates Kolb’s learning model and fourand the other from AE vs. RO (Kolb, 1984,

basic learning styles.

1999). Combinations of these two modes lead
Figure 1. Kolb’s experiential learning model.
Concrete Experience

Converging
learning style(AC)learning dimension

Assimilating
learning style

Abstract
Conceptualization

3

(RO)

AE and RO dialectical

Diverginglearning styleReﬂective Observation

Accommodating
learning style

AC and CE dialectical learning dimension(AE)

ActiveExperimentation(CE)Attrapreyangkul (2014) showed that Japanese

Learning Style and Culture

employees had a diverging learning style,

Kolb’s learning style is associated withwhile Thai employees had an accommodatingc o u n t r i e s ’ c u l t u r e s ( Y a m a z a k i , 2005),

learning style. Academic samples also showed

particularly Hofstede’s (1991; Hofstede etcultural differences in learning style. For

al., 2010) cultural dimensions (Holtbrugge &example, the study of Auyeung and Sands

Mohr, 2010). Yamazaki (2005) argued that

(1996) illustrated that Australian students

characteristics of individualism or independent

exhibited a diverging learning style, whereas

self can be seen in a converging learning style,Hong Kong Chinese and Taiwan students had

while those of collectivism or interdependent

an assimilating learning style. Also, Barmeyer

self are observable in a diverging learning style.

(2004) reported that, compared with Germans,

The research of Holtbrugge and Mohr (2010) as

French and Quebecois students learned morewell as Joy and Kolb (2009) largely supported

by feeling and acting. The study of Yamazaki

this relationship. Also, strong uncertainty

et al. (2018) showed that Japanese and Thai

avoidance seems to be related to the RO

students were more likely to have a diverging

learning mode, whereas weak uncertainty

learning style, while U.S. students were more

avoidance tends to be associated with the AE

likely to have an assimilating learning style.

learning mode (Yamazaki, 2005). Similarly, theFinally, the study of Yamazaki and Kayes

study of Joy and Kolb (2009) revealed that(2007) highlighted the learning style change

an assimilating learning style was related to aof Japanese expatriate managers who werestrong uncertainty avoidance culture.

assigned to the United States through a cross-

Past empirical cross-national studies withsectional research design. The first cohort ofbusiness and student participants indicatedJapanese managers (<1 year) preferred to use

a connection between learning style, based

an assimilating learning style; the second cohort

on Kolb’s theory, and culture. In business(1 to <2 years), a diverging learning style; thecontexts, the study of Yamazaki and Kayes

third cohort (2 to <3 years), an accommodating(2007) showed that, overall, U.S. managers hadlearning style; and the fourth cohort (>3 years),a converging learning style, while Japanese

a diverging learning style (Yamazaki & Kayes,managers had a diverging learning style.

2007). This study suggests that individuals’

Yamazaki and Kayes (2010) compared threelearning style changes with cross-culturalcountries and found that Japanese managers

situations.

had a diverging learning style, Chinese

Kolbʼs Learning Style Inventory

managers had an assimilating learning style,and Malaysian managers had a converging

The KLSI was developed as a self-diagnostic

lea r ning st y le. Furt her, Ya ma za k i a nd

instrument to assess students’ and managers’

4

経営論集

Vol. 8, No. 4（2022）pp. 1-13

learning style (Kayes, 2002) and has become

Methods

one of the most widely applied tools (Davies etal., 1997; West, 1982). The KLSI was redesigned

Sample and Proceduresin 1985 and 1999 (Kayes, 2002), which resulted
in improvements in its psychometric properties

Thirty-seven administrative staff members(Andreou et al., 2015; Kayes, 2005; Veres etworking for a graduate school in Japan

al., 1991). Although Version 4 of the KLSI wasparticipated in this study. Their working

provided to identify one of nine learning styles

context was characterized as international

for individual respondents (Kolb & Kolb, 2013),

or cross-cultural. Most graduate students

this study used Version 3.1 of the KLSI (Kolb,

came from foreign countries, and the official

1999) in a preliminary study of cross-cultural

language on campus is English. Among thelearning style measurement. Many past studies

participants, 29 were women and 8 were men.

have used Version 3.1, allowing comparisons

All participants were Japanese except one

with results of this study.

administrative staff member from the United

The KLSI asks individuals to consider

States. Their average age was 43.6 years (SD =some recent learning situations as they respond

11.3). They had overseas experiences, with an

to 12 statements (Kolb, 1999, p. 2). Individuals

average of 2.2 months abroad. Nearly two-thirds

are asked to rank four optional answersof the participants were able to speak English

relevant to the four learning modes of CE, RO,

or a foreign language at above intermediateAC, and AE. An example is completion of thelevel. Almost all staff frequently communicatedstatement “When I learn,” with the options of “Iwith non-Japanese individuals; 60% talked toam happy” (CE), “I am careful” (RO), “I am fast”

such individuals every day.

(AE), and “I am logical” (AC) (Kolb, 1999). The

To obtain research cooperation from thetotal score for each learning mode corresponds

manager in charge, one of the authors visited

to a level of learning mode preference.

the graduate school and explained this study

Subtracting the total score of CE from that ofand the voluntary nature of participation.

AC shows a relative preference for AC overThe manager provided a survey packet

CE or vice versa in the learning dimension

to administrative staff through an internalof AC vs. CE. Similarly, subtracting the total

distribution system. One month later, thescore of RO from that of AE is interpreted as

author visited again to collect completed

a relative preference for AE over RO or vice

questionnaires, which were anonymous.

versa in the other learning dimension of AE vs.

Cross-Cultural Learning Style Measures

RO. By calculating these scores, respondents
can identify their preferred learning modes andThis preliminary study aimed to develop alearning style.

measurement of cross-cultural learning mode5

and style based on the KLSI Version 3.1 (Kolb,

situation.” The third modification was handled1999), which is theoretically derived fromvery carefully to retain relevance to the four

Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning theory

learning modes of Kolb’s model: CE, RO, AC,(Kolb & Kolb, 2017). We made three types ofand AE. If options were modified, they weremodifications to the KLSI: (1) modification ofrigorously examined to match with the four

instructions to highlight the context of cross-learning modes. For example, by adding thiscultural situations, (2) modification of sevensituation, one option was changed to “I am openstatements by adding the term this situation,

to new experiences in this situation.” Otherand (3) modification of 34 optional answers

optional answers were rephrased, such as “Iout of 48 by adding this situation, rephrasingtake action to make things happen.” Finally,

original optional answers, or both.

some optional answers added this situation andIn terms of the first modification, therephrased the text, such as “I like to organize

instructions were presented as follows: “Think

information gained in this situation.” Table 1

about a cross-cultural situation or a different

summarizes the changes for each statement/

cultural situation that you encounter. This

question number.

situation may be seen in a workplace, in a

Like the KLSI, the cross-cultural learningschool, in an overseas trip, in living abroad,style questionnaire required respondents toor in other contexts. Take a few moments

rank four optional answers as first, second,to think about this situation.” In the second

third, and fourth based on their preference.

modification, this situation was added to theThis response type is important because theoriginal statement, such as “When I learn in thisindividual learning process encompassed inTable 1. Style of adaptation of Learning Style Inventory questions for a cross-cultural learning context
Number of optional answers to be ranked

Questionno.

No change

Addition of this situation

Rephrasing

Rephrasing andaddition of this situation

1

3

0

1

0

2

0

0

4

0

3

0

0

4

0

4

4

0

0

0

5

0

1

0

3

6

4

0

0

0

7

0

2

0

2

8

0

0

4

0

9

0

2

0

2

10

3

0

1

0

11

0

3

0

1

12

0

0

4

0

6

経営論集

Vol. 8, No. 4（2022）pp. 1-13

Kolb’s experiential learning theory highlights

original wording group through correlation

the dialectical quality between the CE and AC

analysis, highlighting the six key learning stylemodes and between the RO and AE modes.

variables. Finally, using the independent t test,
we examined how gender differed in cross-Analytical Design

cultural learning style variables of the three

To explore the development of this cross-groups. If cross-cultural learning style variables

cultural learning style measurement, we split

relevant to the new questionnaire were proper

12 statements into two groups: one groupand correct, the learning dimension of AC vs.

had more original wording optional answers

CE would be correlated to gender difference.

or those with the addition of this situation

This perspective is based on past findings(Nos. 1, 4, 6, 10, 11), while the other had moreon learning style differences by gender. For

rephrasing answers or those with the addition

example, the meta-analysis of Severiens andof this situation (Nos. 2, 3, 5, 8, 12). As thisTen Dam (1994) indicated that men prefer tocondition created two groups that consisted

use AC more than women do.

of five statements, the other two statements

Results(Nos. 7 and 9) were allocated into one groupor the other. As a consequence, three groups
were generated: the whole questions group, theFirst, this study examined how six key learning

original wording group (Nos. 1, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11),style variables were related with each otherand the rephrasing group (Nos. 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 12).

for the whole questions group, the original

This grouping allowed us to evaluate how eachwording group, and the rephrasing group.

of the three groups was effective in examining

Table 2 illustrates relationships between two

cross-cultural learning modes and styles oflearning style variables that were significant or

those who engage in cross-cultural situations,insignificant within the three groups. Similar

with a particular focus on how the rephrasing

patterns were observed for all three groups:

group differed from the original wording group.

significantly negative relationships between

First, correlation was analyzed among

CE and AC, RO and AE, CE and AC – CE, andthe six key variables of learning style—

RO and AE – RO and significantly positive

CE, AC, RO, AE, AC – CE, and AE – RO—

relationships between AC and AC – CE andwith regard to those three groups. The first

between AE and AE – RO. Relationships ofinvestigation concerned how these variables

the other combinations were insignificant.

were related based on Kolb’s learning theory.

These results align with Kolb’s learning theory.

Then, we compared the rephrasing group andThat is, a diametrical association between CE

the original wording group to determine how

and AC and between RO and AE involves a

the rephrasing group was associated with thenegative relationship. A variable of AC – CE as7

a relative preference in the learning dimension

learning theory assumes that a variable of AC –of AC vs. CE is based on subtraction of CE

CE is independent of that of AE – RO. Resultsfrom AC, while that of AE – RO as a relativeof the three groups revealed insignificant

preference in the learning dimension of AE vs.

relationships between them, which empirically

RO is generated by subtracting RO from AE.

supports the theory.

Accordingly, it can be theoretically postulated

Second, the study investigated how thethat the former variable is positively related torephrasing group was associated with the

AC and negatively related to CE, whereas theoriginal wording group in terms of six key

latter variable is positively related to AE andlearning style variables. As depicted in Table

negatively related to RO. Based on these results,

3, CE of the original wording group was

it seems that the cross-cultural learning stylesignificantly positively related to CE of thequestions work well. Finally, Kolb’s experiential

rephrasing group and significantly negatively

Table 2. R elationships among six learning style variables based on type of adaptation of
Learning Style Inventory questions for a cross-cultural learning context
Learningstyle variables

Mean

S.D.

CE

AC

RO

AE

AC – CE

Whole questions group
CE

31.49

7.64

AC

26.73

7.45

–0.70**

RO

36.89

8.31

–0.25

–0.14

AE

25.49

8.13

0.01

–0.15

AC – CE

–4.76

13.89

–0.92**

0.92**

0.06

–0.08

AE – RO–11.41

15.39

0.14

0.00

–0.94**

0.94**–0.75**–0.08

Original wording group
CE

15.84

4.51

AC

13.38

3.75

–0.66**

RO

18.95

4.97

–0.32

–0.13

AE

12.43

4.96

0.00

–0.07

AC – CE

–2.46

7.54

–0.93**

0.89**

0.13

–0.03

AE – RO

–6.51

9.33

0.17

0.03

–0.94**

0.94**

CE

15.65

3.68

AC

13.35

3.99

RO

17.95

3.87

–0.23

-0.23

AE

13.05

3.68

–0.12

-0.25

–0.58**

AC – CE

–2.30

6.84

–0.88**

0.90**

–0.01

–0.08

AE – RO

–4.89

6.70

0.06

0.00

–0.89**

0.88**–0.76**–0.08

Rephrasing group–0.59**–0.04

Note. CE = concrete experience, AC = abstract conceptualization, RO = reflective observation, AE =active experimentation, AC – CE = a relative preference for AC over CE, AE – RO = a relative
preference for AE over RO; **p < 0.01.

8

経営論集

Vol. 8, No. 4（2022）pp. 1-13

Table 3. C omparisons between the rephrasing group and the original wording group for
Learning Style Inventory questions in a cross-cultural learning context
Original
wording
group

Rephrasing group
CE

AC

RO

AE

AC – CEAE – ROCE

0.74**–0.63**

AC–0.61**

0.85**

–0.09

0.04

–0.76**

0.07

–0.20

–0.10

0.82**

0.06

RO

–0.22

AE

0.09

0.00

0.76**–0.58**

0.12–0.76**–0.12–0.69**

0.76**–0.12

AC – CE–0.74**

0.82**

0.80**

–0.05

–0.08

0.87**–0.02

AE – RO

0.16

–0.06

–0.77**

0.72**–0.13

0.84**

Note. CE = concrete experience, AC = abstract conceptualization, RO = reflective observation, AE =active experimentation, AC – CE = a relative preference for AC over CE, AE – RO = a relative
preference for AE over RO; **p < 0.01.

related to AC and AC – CE. In contrast, AC ofgroup. Thus, the results seem to support thethe original wording group was significantly

view that the words in four optional answers innegatively related to CE of the rephrasing

the rephrasing group have proper functions ingroup, while AC was significantly positively

distinguishing a preferred learning mode fromassociated with AC and AC – CE of that group.

others in cross-cultural learning situations.

Similarly, RO of the original wording group

Third, we checked whether the learning

had a significantly positive relation to RO of

dimension of AC vs. CE relates to a gender

the rephrasing group and had a significantly

difference in the three groups of the cross-negative relation to AE and AE – RO of that

cultural learning style questionnaire. Tablegroup. Conversely, AE of the original wording

4 summarizes the results of the independentgroup was significantly negatively associatedt-test between female participants (N = 29) andwith RO, but was significantly positively related

male participants (N = 8). The three variables

to AE and AE – RO of the rephrasing group. Asof CE, AC, and AC – CE of all three groups

to the remaining two learning style variables of

had a significant relationship with gender,

AC – CE and AE – RO of the original wording

indicating that male participants preferred togroup, similar patterns appeared: the variable

use more AC (thinking) over CE (feeling) thanAC – CE had a significant relation to CE, AC,

did female participants. Additionally, effectand AC – CE of the rephrasing group, andsizes in the variables of the AC vs. CE learningthat of AE – RO had a significant relation todimension were over 0.8 of Cohen’s d, which

RO, AE, and AE – RO of the rephrasing group.

suggests a large effect (Ellis, 2010) of genderAccordingly, the rephrasing group in the cross-on such variables. When comparing values ofcultural learning style questionnaire appeared

the variables of CE, AC, and AC – CE between

to be congruent with the original wording

the original wording group and the rephrasing

9

Table 4. E ffect of gender on learning style based on type of adaptation of Learning Style
Inventory questions for a cross-cultural learning context
Female (N = 29)
Mean

S.D.

Male (N = 8)
Mean

S.D.

T

d

Whole questions group
CE

33.10

6.87

25.63

7.80

2.64*

1.01

AC

24.93

6.20

33.25

8.33

–3.11**

1.13

RO

38.41

8.13

31.38

6.80

2.24*

0.94

AE

24.14

7.93

30.38

7.33

–2.00

0.82

AC – CE

–8.17

11.86

7.63

14.37

–3.19**

1.20

AE – RO–14.28

15.10

-1.00

12.18

–2.28*

0.97

Original wording group
CE

16.72

3.90

12.63

5.37

2.42*

0.87

AC

12.52

3.15

16.50

4.31

–2.92**

1.05

RO

19.79

4.87

15.88

4.32

2.06*

0.85

AE

11.55

4.84

15.63

4.24

–2.16*

0.90

AC – CE

–4.21

6.27

3.88

8.76

–2.96**

1.06

AE – RO

–8.24

9.14

-0.25

7.50

–2.37*

0.96

CE

16.38

3.48

13.00

3.30

2.46*

1.00

AC

12.41

3.43

16.75

4.27

–3.01**

1.12

RO

18.62

3.77

15.50

3.38

2.11*

0.87

AE

12.59

3.67

14.75

3.41

–1.50

0.61

AC – CE

–3.97

6.07

3.75

6.32

–3.16**

1.25

AE – RO

–6.03

6.67

-0.75

5.28

–2.06*

0.88

Rephrasing group

Note. CE = concrete experience, AC = abstract conceptualization, RO = reflective observation, AE =active experimentation, AC – CE = a relative preference for AC over CE, AE – RO = a relative
preference for AE over RO; **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05.

group, the effect sizes of the rephrasing group

Kolb, 2017). We modified Version 3.1 of thewere slightly larger than those of the original

KLSI (Kolb, 1999) to fit cross-cultural learning

wording group. Thus, the rephrasing groupsituations. The modified version seemed tomight be better able to capture a gender effectexamine those working in cross-cultural workon those variables in cross-cultural learning

settings in terms of four learning modes of CE,

situations.

AC, RO, and AE. Particularly, the rephrasinggroup that contained different wording from

Discussion

the original group may be somewhat better inassessing cross-cultural learning modes of thoseThis study preliminarily explored a cross-

who engage in cross-cultural learning situations.

cultural learning style questionnaire based on

It showed a slightly higher effect size.

Kolb’s experiential learning theory (Kolb &This study was considered a preliminary

10

経営論集

Vol. 8, No. 4（2022）pp. 1-13

phase for further developing a cross-cultural

Acknowledgment

learning style questionnaire. Before proceedingwith future research on this issue, several

This study was supported by JSPS KAKENHI

limitations of the present study should be(grant no. 19K01893).

discussed. The first limitation concerns theReferences

division into three groups. The original wording

Andreou, C., Papastavrou, E., Lemonidou, C., Mattheou,group as well as the rephrasing group wereK., & Merkouris, A. (2015). Adaptation andnot 100% complete conditions, as shown invalidation of the Learning Style Inventory

Table 1. Although both groups had effective

Version 3.1 in Greek language: A methodologicalcorrelational results among six learning style

study. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 23(2),variables, it is unknown to what extent the88E–111. https://doi.org/10.1891/1061-3749.23.2.88
Apfelthaler, G., Hansen, K., Keuchel, S., Neubauer, M.,

incomplete condition affected such results.

Ong, S. H., Tapachai, N., & Mueller, C. (2006).

The second limitation is the small sample

Cross-cultural learning styles in higher education.

size of 37 administrative staff. To not onlyInternational Journal of Learning, 12, 247–256.
https://doi.org/10.18848/1447-9494/CGP/

confirm the eligibility of the cross-cultural

v12i05/47784

learning style questionnaire but also advance

Auyeung, P., & Sands, J. (1996). A cross-cultural study

it, a larger sample size should be used. Theof the learning style of accounting students.

third limitation is also related to the research

Accounting and Finance, 36(2), 261–274.

sample. The study sample was relatively

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-629X.1996.tb00310.x

homogeneous, with nearly all JapaneseBarmeyer, C. L. (2004). Learning styles and theirimpact on cross-cultural training: An international

participants, though their work and context

comparison in France, Germany and Quebec.

were cross-cultural. The mean scores of AC

International Journal of Intercultural Relations,– CE and AE – RO of the three groups were28(6), 577–594.

below zero, which suggests that participants

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.01.011

prefer to learn by feeling and reflecting rather

Davies, S. M., Rutledge, C. M., & Davies, T. C. (1997).
The impact of student learning styles onthan by thinking and acting. These learninginterviewing skills and academic performance.

style features typically correspond with a

Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 9(2), 131–

Japanese learning style (Yamazaki, 2005)—or

135. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401339709539827

having a Japanese culture. To better develop

Ellis, P. D. (2010). The essential guide to ef fecta cross-cultural learning style questionnaire,sizes: Statistical power, meta-analysis, and theinterpretation of research results. Cambridge

more diverse samples are necessary. Despite

University Press.

these limitations, this preliminary investigation

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511761676

is an important step towards developing a

F o s t e r , M . (2017). E x p l o r i n g t h e i m p a c t o fmeasurement of cross-cultural learning style—international student mobility on cross-culturalwhich is needed but not yet available.

learning adaptation. In G. B. Tec & S. C. Choy

11

(Eds.), Empowering 21st century learners

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experiencethrough holistic and enterprising learning (pp.

as the source of learning and development.

157–165). Springer Nature Singapore.

Prentice-Hall.
Kolb, D. A. (1999). Learning Style Inventory, Version

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4241-6_16
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations:

3. TRG Hay/McBer.
Montana-Hoyos, C. A., Scharoun, L., & Poplin, J. (2015).

Software of the mind. McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010).

The importance of cross-cultural learning in the

Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind

design disciplines: A case study reviewing a series(3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

of short term study tours designed to support

Holtbrugge, D., & Mohr, A. T. (2010). Cultural

cross-cultural exchange in the Asia-Pacific region.

determinants of learning style preferences.

International Journal of Arts and Sciences, 8(5),Academy of Management Learning & Education,

435–442.
Mujtaba, B., & Thomas, G. (2005). Leading and9, 622–637.
Joy, S., & Kolb, D. A. (2009). Are there cultural

managing disparate generations in cross-culturaldifferences in learning style? International

learning organizations. The International College

Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33, 69–85.

Teaching Methods & Styles Journal, 1(1), 41–55.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.11.002

https://doi.org/10.19030/ctms.v1i1.5218

Kayes, D. C. (2002). Experiential learning and its

Napier, N. K. (2006). Cross cultural learning and thecritics: Preserving the role of experience inrole of reverse knowledge flows in Vietnam.

management learning and education. Academy of

I nt e r n a t i o n a l J ou r n a l o f C r o s s C ul t u r a l

Management Learning & Education, 1(2), 137–

Management, 6(1), 57–74.

149. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2002.8509336

https://doi.org/10.1177/1470595806062352

Kayes, D. C. (2005). Internal validity and reliability of

Rienties, B., Johan, N., & Jindal-Snape, D. (2015). Bridge

Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory Version 3 (1999).

building potential in cross-cultural learning: A

Journal of Business and Psychology, 20, 249–257.

mixed method study. Asia Pacific Education

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-005-8262-4

Review, 16(1), 37–48.

Kayumova, A. R., & Sadykova, G. V. (2016). Online

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-014-9352-7

collaborative cross-cultural learning: Students’

Severiens, S. E., & Ten Dam, G. T. M. (1994). Gender

perspectives. Journal of Organizational Culture,differences in learning styles: A narrative

Communications and Conflict, 20, 248–255.

review and quantitative meta-analysis. Higher

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning style and

Education, 27, 487–501.

learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01384906
Veres, J. G., III, Sims, R. R., & Locklear, T. S. (1991).

in higher education. Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 4(2), 193–212.

Improving the reliability of Kolb’s revised LSI.

https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2005.17268566

Educational and Psychological Measurement,

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2013). The Kolb Learning

51(1), 143–150.

Style Inventory 4.0: A comprehensive guide to thehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0013164491511013

theory, psychometrics, research on validity andVirjee, Z. (2010). Cross-cultural learning in adulteducational applications. Hay Resources Direct.

continuing education. Education Canada, 44(2),Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2017). The experiential

35–37.
Ward, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001). The

educator: Principles and practices of experiential

psychology of culture shock (2nd ed.). Routledge.

learning. EBLS Press.

12

経営論集

Vol. 8, No. 4（2022）pp. 1-13

West, R. F. (1982). A construct validity study of Kolb’s

Yamazaki, Y., & Kayes, D. C. (2007). Expatriate

learning style types in medical education. Journal

learning: Exploring how Japanese managers

of Medical Education, 57, 794–796.

adapt in the United States. International Journal

Yamazaki, Y. (2005). Learning styles and typologies

of Human Resource Management, 18(8), 1373–

of cultural differences: A theoretical and1395. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190701502521

empirical comparison. International Journal of

Yamazaki, Y., & Kayes, D. C. (2010). Learning andIntercultural Relations, 29(5), 521–548.

work satisfaction in Asia: A comparative study

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.07.006

of Japanese, Chinese, and Malaysian managers.

Yamazaki, Y., & Attrapreyangkul, A. (2014). A

International Journal o f Human Resourcecomprehensive approach to understand learning

Management, 21(12), 2271–2289.

styles across countries: A comparison between

https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2010.509628

the Japanese and Thai employees of JapaneseYamazaki, Y., Toyama, M., & Attrapreyangkul, T.

MNCs. In V. Taras & M. L. Gonzales-Perez(2018). Cross-cultural differences in learning(Eds.), The handbook of experiential learning

styles and learning skills: A comparison of Japan,

in international business (pp. 91–112). Palgrave

Thailand, and the USA. In C. Maheshkar & V.

Macmillan.

Sharma (Eds.), Handbook of research on cross-

Yamazaki, Y., & Kayes, D. C. (2004). An experiential

cultural business education (pp. 160–182). IGI

approach to cross-cultural learning: A review

Gobal.

and integration of competencies for successful

https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-3776-2.ch008

expatriate adaptation. Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 3(4), 362–379.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2004.15112543

13

経営論集
Vol. 8, No. 4, March 2022, pp. 1-13
ISSN 2189-2490

異文化学習スタイル尺度を開発するための予備調査
山﨑

佳孝

遠山

道子

概要
異文化学習はさまざまな学習状況で広く研究されてきたが、個人が異文化状況でどのように学習しているか依然として不明である。異文化状況において個人の学習をより理解するために、異文化環境下で適切に回答できるように Kolb の学習スタイル質問票を修正し、異文化環境における学習スタイル尺度の開発を探求した。この修正された質問票を分析するために、異文化環境の職場で働いている 37 人の大学院職員をサンプルとし調査した。Kolb の学習理論は 6 つの主要な学習スタイル変数があり、理論的に 3変数ずつ 2 つの学習軸に分類されるが、今回の調査結果で同一軸内の 3 変数間で有意に相関していることを示した。また、この 2 つの学習軸は理論的に独立しているが、本研究の結果も独立していることを示した。さらに、この１つの学習軸に関連した具体的な経験と抽象的な概念化の変数は、男女の違いによる有意差を示した。この学習スタイル変数と性別に関する結果は過去の研究結果と一致している。これらの結果は、異文化学習スタイル質問票の研究をさらに進めることができる可能性を示唆している。

キーワード：異文化学習スタイル、尺度開発、異文化状況、高等教育環境、日本（投稿日

文教大学経営学部〒 121-8577 東京都足立区花畑 5-6-1
TEL：03-5688-8577

FAX：03-5856-6009

http://www.bunkyo.ac.jp/faculty/business/

2022 年 1 月 7 日）

経営論集

Vol . 8, No . 4

ISSN 2189-2490
2022年 3 月31日発行
発行者

文教大学経営学部

石塚

浩

編集

文教大学経営学部

研究推進委員会

編集長

山﨑

佳孝

〒121-8577 東京都足立区花畑5-6-1
TEL：03-5688-8577

FAX：03-5856-6009

http://www.bunkyo.ac.jp/faculty/business/