- Email: [email protected]
The learning style preferences of hospitality and tourism students: Observations from an international and cross-cultural study
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Hospitality Management 25 (2006) 552–569 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhosman
The learning style preferences of hospitality and tourism students: Observations from an international and cross-cultural study Conrad Lashleya,, Paul Barronb a
Nottingham Business School, Nottingham Trent University, Burton Street, Nottingham, NG1 4BU, UK School of Tourism and Leisure Management, The University of Queensland, Salisbury Road, Ipswich, Queensland 4305, Australia
b
Abstract This paper reports on a study of the learning style preferences of new entrants onto hospitality and tourism programmes in Australia and the United Kingdom. It suggests that a majority of students on these programmes in both countries have strong learning style preference that present some challenges to educators and the planning of learning experiences in higher education. Typically these students prefer learning styles that are concrete rather than abstract, and active rather than reflective. Furthermore, substantial minorities register low or very low preferences for learning in abstract and reflective styles. The initial learning style of new entrants on to taught programmes, therefore, present substantial teaching and learning barriers for educators who are attempting to develop reflective practitioners. Inappropriate teaching strategies can present some genuine learning difficulties for these students. In Australia, educators face added complexity because students from Confucian heritage backgrounds display learning style preferences at odds with their piers. They are more likely to respond positively to abstract and reflective approaches but negatively to active and concrete teaching strategies. The authors suggest one way of approaching the learning needs of
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 115 982 2264.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C. Lashley), [email protected] (P. Barron). 0278-4319/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2005.03.006
ARTICLE IN PRESS C. Lashley, P. Barron / Hospitality Management 25 (2006) 552–569
553
these students is to use Kolb’s experiential learning cycle as a way of encouraging the development of ‘balanced’ learning strategies that lead to reflective practice. r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Learning styles; Hospitality; Tourism education; Activist learners; Education management
1. Introduction Since the early 1970s there has been a dramatic increase in the number of hospitality and tourism programs offered by universities in the UK and Australia. Indeed, a rudimentary search of the Commonwealth Department of Education and Science and Training website (http://www.dest.gov.au/highered/ausunis.htm) found that of the 43 publicly funded universities in Australia, 29 offered hospitality and/or tourism programs at either undergraduate or postgraduate level. Added to this are at least five private providers who specialise in hospitality and tourism education at undergraduate and postgraduate levels. Undergraduate hospitality and tourism education in the UK commenced slightly earlier with the first Hotel and Catering degrees being launched in the mid 1960s and by 1997 the Higher Education Funding Council for England (1998) found that some 28 universities in England offered hospitality management. By the year 2000, there were 75 honours programmes in tourism being offered in UK universities (Botterill, 2002). Whilst recognising that there are some variations in curriculum across both hospitality and tourism programmes, the universities participating in these surveys were chiefly concerned with the management of hospitality and tourism. Students were all in the first year of their programme and in most cases, studying a majority of common modules on their specific programme pathways. While the majority of students studying hospitality and tourism management at publicly funded universities in the UK and Australia continue to be domestic, there is evidence that the student body is becoming more diverse (Hsu, 1996). In Australia, the student population increasingly includes students from an array of Asian countries, and in the UK, increasing participation rates attract growing numbers of students from non-traditional backgrounds. As disciplines, hospitality and tourism management appears to be attractive to international students and draw a higher than average number of such students (Malfroy and Daruwalla, 2000; Khwaja and Bosselman, 1990). This popularity perhaps is due to the maturing of hospitality and tourism management as an area of study. In addition, the notion of a career in the hospitality and tourism industry is no longer seen as demeaning (Zhao, 1991). This, coupled with the rapid growth of the hotel and tourism industry in, for example, mainland China (Huyton, 1997; Yu, 1998) has encouraged students from countries with developing service economies to pursue hospitality and tourism education in western universities. A consequence of this diversity is that the cultural differences which often manifest themselves with different cognitive and linguistic patterns, often constitute
ARTICLE IN PRESS 554
C. Lashley, P. Barron / Hospitality Management 25 (2006) 552–569
formidable barriers that initially may prevent successful participation in Australian and UK classrooms (Beaven et al., 1998). In both cases, institutions are consequently confronted with the tasks of managing this diversity, and not only ensuring a measure of quality in international students’ learning but also for domestic students who share the same classrooms. This paper reports on research undertaken in both Australia and the UK covering first-year students on tourism and hospitality management programmes in higher education. The paper aims to explore similarities and differences between students learning preferences using an adapted version of the Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ) (Lashley and Shaw, 2002). It is therefore primarily concerned with informing educators so as to better focus on the immediate learning needs of students and to assist in the development of students who achieve the ‘qualities of graduateness’ (Higher Education Funding Council for England, 2001).
2. Different types of learning styles Learning style literature is studded with a confusing array of conceptual models and constructs and overlapping terminology (Cassidy, 2003). In some cases, researchers are concerned with the physiological dimensions of brain function in the learning process (Given, 2002; Thies, 2003). For others, the key concern is what kind of learning environment best suits the individual (Dunn and Dunn, 1993; Dunn and Griggs, 2000). For others, there is a concern for the learning strategies adopted by surface and deep learners (Entwistle and Tait, 1994). Sadler-Smith (1997) suggests that often researchers are working on frameworks that can be explained with an onion-like metaphor, overlapping but giving insights into different dimensions of learning. Curry (1983, 1987) also uses an onion-like metaphor to suggest a model that has inner and outer layers to the construct. Curry suggests four broad layers of ‘learning or cognitive style’. Moving from the outer to the inner layers, Curry defines these following layers: (i) ‘instructional preference’ refers to the individuals preferred choice of learning environment including lighting, sound, design etc.; (ii) ‘social interaction’ relates preferences for the company of others as part of the learning process; (iii) ‘information processing style’ relates to the individual’s intellectual approach to processing information, and (iv) ‘cognitive personality style’ relates to relatively permanent personality dimensions. Although Sadler-Smith advocates a ‘multidimensional as opposed to a bipolar model of learning style’ (1997, p. 52), this paper is focused on information processing styles of students on tourism and hospitality management courses. In particular, it is concerned with learning styles as the learning process defined by Kolb (1984) but measured through Honey and Mumford’s (1986, 2000) Learning Styles Questionnaire. Whilst Kolb and Honey and Mumford use different terms to establish learning style differences (different ways of processing information), the conceptual model is similar in that they suggest that four discernable styles emerge from the interactions of two continua. The first deals with preferences to learn in an abstract or concrete manner. The former prefers to learn general principles and theories before
ARTICLE IN PRESS C. Lashley, P. Barron / Hospitality Management 25 (2006) 552–569
555
application, whilst the second prefers to learn from concrete situations. The second dimension is concerned with learning through active experience or from reflection based on thinking. The Honey and Mumford model produces four domains, each representing a different learning style preference. Activists learn through experience in concrete situations. Reflectors like to process information by pondering experiences and observe them from different perspectives. Theorists process information by assimilating it into coherent theories and models. Pragmatists learn by relating new information to practical situations and problems. In each case these preferences provide a semi-permanent set of preferences for how information is processed. Each provides a set of strengths and set of weaknesses. There is no one best way, but teaching strategies that are not sensitive to students’ learning style preferences can present learners with difficulties. Thus, an overly theoretical introduction to a group of Activist learners is likely to result in learning difficulties. Similarly, students need to appreciate their own learning style preferences so that they can better understand the strengths and weaknesses of each style. By focusing on the information processing aspect of learning, we recognise the weaknesses and strengths of both Kolb’s and Honey and Mumford’s instruments. The theoretical underpinnings of Kolb’s work and the internal robustness of Honey and Mumford’s questionnaire do point to flaws that question the predictive qualities of these ‘measures’ of student preferences for the processing of information (Allinson and Hayes, 1990). Berings and Poell (2002, p. 57) suggest that ‘The Learning Styles Questionnaire has better reliability and better face validity than other instruments, but its construct validity has hardly been investigated’. Whilst acknowledging these drawbacks, our experience as educational practitioners suggest that the use of this instrument with students helps engage them in discussion of their own preferences and the presentation of alternatives (Lashley, 1999). It encourages students to think about and discuss the processes of learning. In addition, we are attracted to the notion implicit in Kolb’s approach that suggests that student strategies for information processing can change and that ‘reflective practitioners’ (Schon, 1983, 1987) can be developed through these reflections on learning. These instruments also provide a non-judgemental student insight that subsequently encourages and guides changes in information processing preferences. Some other instruments and conceptual models tend to identify learners as deep, surface or strategic learners (Entwistle and Ramsden, 1983; Richardson, 2002), which can appear somewhat judgemental to some learners. Labour (2002, p. 228), discussing the use of Honey and Mumford’s instrument with teacher training, states it ‘y is driven by a decision making process that posits learners (as ‘‘managers’’) with direct responsibility for the consequences of their decisions for themselves and those around them.’ A formal understanding of learning style preferences and information processing strategies, therefore, has value both for their time as students, and most importantly given the nature of their subsequent careers, for their role as managers in industry. Our chief concern, therefore, is to raise the students’ understanding of learning so as to stimulate reflective practice. Although there are implications for teaching styles through a ‘matching process’ (Andrew et al., 2002), our main focus is the learner. In these circumstances, the Kolb’s advocacy of a ‘balanced learner’ (Mainemelis et al.,
ARTICLE IN PRESS 556
C. Lashley, P. Barron / Hospitality Management 25 (2006) 552–569
2002) seems to fit best with a commitment to ‘thinking about action’ in a manner that is convenient for students destined to follow management careers. The work of Kolb and Honey and Mumford has been useful to us as educators because, if nothing else, it provides a valuable insight into student learning differences which have resulted in teaching and learning strategies that encourage reflection (Lashley, 1999). Whilst accepting the criticism of the construct validity of the instrument, its role as an instrument for the engagement of lecturers and students does seem to be underpinned by student results. The causal linkages may well be unclear but in at least one case, they have informed teaching and learning in a way that is consistent with improvements in study performance (Lashley, 1999; Lashley and Shaw, 2002).
3. Learning style preferences of hospitality and tourism management students Several studies have recently been undertaken that attempt to identify the learning preferences of hospitality, tourism and travel management students in the UK, Asia and Australia. In a study of predominantly domestic students in the UK, Lashley (1999) found that the vast majority of students who were recruited to a particular hospitality management programme in the UK displayed preferred learning styles which indicated they enjoy practical activity, but were less comfortable with theorising and reflection. Students display preferences for Activist learning styles (Lashley, 1999). Activist learners thrive on the challenges associated with new experiences and they were described as tending to ‘act first and consider the consequences later’ (Lashley, 1999, p. 181). In Australia, Barron and Arcodia (2002) also found that Australian hospitality and tourism students were also predominantly Activist learners. The dominance of the Activist style of learning on hospitality and tourism programmes has been explained by the nature of the vocational and peoplecentred nature of the programme (Lashley, 1999). In other words, people who like working with other people are likely to display extrovert personality characteristics and ‘right-hand brain’ preference that ultimately underpin Kolb’s model and thereby defines the Activist learning style. Armstrong (2002, p. 15) points out that the split brain formulation can be criticised as an over-simplification, but it does ‘serve as a useful metaphor for describing these cognitive differences’. In contrast, students studying hospitality management, hotel and catering management, tourism management and travel and tourism studies at Higher Diploma level and above in various colleges and universities in Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan displayed preferences for Reflector learning styles (Wong et al., 2000). It was found that all but one of the student groups questioned displayed a strong preference for the Reflector learning style. These students prefer to learn through observation and benefit from the opportunity to think before acting. They appreciate the opportunity to undertake research before an activity and think about what they have learned. Reflectors find it more difficult to learn from activities where they are forced into the limelight, for example through peer presentations or role playing. Similarly, methods of learning such as case studies may prove problematic
ARTICLE IN PRESS C. Lashley, P. Barron / Hospitality Management 25 (2006) 552–569
557
for these students as they are not keen on undertaking a task without prior notice or sufficient information (Honey and Mumford, 2000). Interestingly, Barron and Arcodia (2002) found that ‘Chinese’ students appeared to change their learning style preference as they had studied in the Australian context. Students on the later stages of the degree were closer to Australian students and registered stronger preferences for Activist learning styles. Thus, there are two significant issues which might challenge current models of effective teaching in hospitality and tourism management programmes in universities. Firstly, it is important to understand the learning style preferences of all students studying hospitality and tourism management and to attempt initiatives that encourage students to adopt a more reflective approach to their studies. Secondly, it is important to recognise the diversity that is currently common in university classrooms and attempt to recognise the preferred learning styles of students from different educational backgrounds. Equally, it is essential to nurture and encourage the use of more ‘balanced’ learning strategies so as to support more reflective approaches to information processing. Fundamentally balanced approaches discourage short-term surface learning as typified by the ‘McDonalidization’ of higher education (Ritzer, 2002). This research aimed to compare the preferred learning styles of first-year domestic and international students studying hospitality and tourism programmes in the UK and Australia. Specifically, this research: 1. detailed the composition of two groups of students, namely those studying hospitality and tourism in the UK and in Australia; 2. identified the learning style preferences of first-year hospitality and tourism students in the UK and Australia; 3. compared the learning style preferences of the UK and Australian sample.
4. Research approach A variation of the LSQ designed by Honey and Mumford (2000) was used in this study to investigate the learning styles of international students enrolled in Schools of Tourism and Leisure Management at a variety of universities in Australia and the UK. The questionnaire consisted of 80 questions relating to the four different types of learning styles as identified by Honey and Mumford (1986), namely Activists, Reflectors, Theorists and Pragmatists. This section comprises 20 questions which are designed to examine each of the four learning styles. Respondents were asked to identify on a six-point Likert scale (0 ¼ Strongly Disagree; 1 ¼ Disagree; 2 ¼ Disagree on Balance; 3 ¼ Agree on Balance; 4 ¼ Agree; 5 ¼ Strongly Agree) their strength of feeling for each statement. Table 4 lists the questions under each learning style. This means of response differs from the original Honey and Mumford (2000) method of responding which involved respondents merely placing a tick to indicate if they agreed with a statement, or a cross to indicate that they disagreed with a statement. It is felt that the employment of a scale adds to the sophistication
ARTICLE IN PRESS 558
C. Lashley, P. Barron / Hospitality Management 25 (2006) 552–569
of the responses as it allows respondents to present a more accurate measure of their feelings concerning each question (Lashley and Shaw, 2002). In order to achieve a maximum response, and to answer questions students may have had during the completion of the questionnaire, the questionnaire was administered in the controlled environment of formal class time and under the supervision of the authors. Ticehurst and Veal (1999, p. 138) describe this approach to a questionnaire survey as a ‘captive group survey’ and suggest that this method of questionnaire administration is expeditious and less problematic than in less-controlled situations. The data collected from were analysed by the score mean of each type of learning style. Due to the use of the Likert Scale, an indication of likes and dislikes relating to learning styles was determined for each person. It is not the intention here to discuss the curriculum in both settings, because readers are likely to understand that these programmes tend to be best described as applied management set in a specific sector context (HEFCE, 1998). All students were on the first year of their specific programme and many were undertaking common modules across hospitality and tourism. Essentially, both groups of students were, therefore, studying similar programmes in their home country and both groups completed the same questionnaire using similar data collection techniques. Differences in these results suggest that results may be due to the differing cultural contexts and approaches to education. 4.1. The sample The questionnaire was given to first-year students in the UK and in Australia within the first 3 weeks of the beginning of the programme. Typically, a lecture theatre period was taken as part of an induction or study skill programme and all students present completed the instrument. In most cases, responses were gathered from 90% of all students on the programme. Table 1 provides details of the numbers of students responses from the eight Australian colleges and universities, and the responses from students in the School of Tourism and Hospitality Management at a university in the UK. In total, responses were gathered from 361 students on hospitality management and tourism programmes in higher education in the two countries. The Australian sample reflected a consistent proportion of students from three broad origins: 47 students were from Australasia, 59 were of Confucian Heritage, and the remaining 20 were a cluster of European, American, African, Indonesian or Thai. The UK Table 1 Respondents to the LSQ
Eight institutions University
Country
No of respondents
Total Australian respondents Total UK respondents
126 235
ARTICLE IN PRESS C. Lashley, P. Barron / Hospitality Management 25 (2006) 552–569
559
sample drawn from just one university included students on a range of degrees and HND programmes in tourism and hospitality management courses. All respondents were from UK and European origins.
5. Findings As shown in Table 2, the dominant learning style across the Australian home student profile is that most students (74.4%) entering these programmes have strong or very strong preferences for the Activist learning style. The most outstanding exception being the students from the Confucian Heritage origins where a majority (53.2%) have low or very low preferences for the Activist style and registered (61%) a strong or very strong preference for the Reflector style. Substantial minorities of Australian home students have a low or very low preference for Reflector (40.4%) and for Theorist styles (40.4%) and small numbers have any strong or very strong preference for these styles. The ‘other heritage’ students (75%) in the Australian sample also have a strong or very preference for the Activist style. A majority (60%) of students also register a strong or very strong preference for the Pragmatist style, though a substantial minority (40%) register a low or very low preference for the Reflector style. Table 3 details the responses from students on different courses in the UK student programme. There are some variations across courses, though the general patterns across the intake as a whole are consistent. The intake of students tends to be culturally coherent and there were not same clear clusters of difference between
Table 2 Australian year one learning style preferences 2000/2001 Preference
Course and degree type
No of students
Activist %
Reflector %
Theorist %
Pragmatist %
Strong and very BHM Australian students (1) 47 strong preference BHM Confucian heritage 59 culture students (2) BHM Other (3) 20
74.4
8.5
6.3
10.6
22.1
61.0
46.8
14.9
75.0
10.0
20.0
60.0
Moderate preference
Low and very low preference
BHM Australian students
47
21.3
48.9
53.1
78.7
BHM Confucian heritage culture students BHM other
59
25.5
38.3
36.1
51.1
20
20.0
50.0
60.0
35.0
BHM Australian students
47
4.3
42.5
40.4
10.6
BHM Confucian heritage culture students BHM other
59
53.2
0
17.0
34.0
20
5.0
40.0
20.0
5.0
ARTICLE IN PRESS 560
C. Lashley, P. Barron / Hospitality Management 25 (2006) 552–569
Table 3 UK students year one learning style preference 2000/2001 Preference
Course and degree type
No of students
Activist %
Reflector Theorist Pragmatist % % %
Strong and very strong preference
BALRM
35
68.5
20.0
10.0
0
HND hospitality BA HM HND tourism BA tourism BA international tourism
30 45 45 45 35
56.0 66.7 60.0 62.2 71.4
20.0 16.7 17.8 22.2 11.4
4.0 0 8.9 6.7 11.4
0 0 0 4.4 2.9
BALRM
35
31.5
51.4
57.1
40.0
HND hospitality BA HM HND tourism BA tourism BA international tourism
30 45 45 45 35
44.0 33.3 35.6 35.6 28.6
60.0 66.7 62.2 55.6 57.1
32.0 50.0 44.4 48.9 28.6
24.0 35.0 31.1 28.9 37.1
BALRM
35
0
28.6
32.9
60.0
HND hospitality BA HM HND tourism BA tourism BA international tourism
30 45 45 45 35
0 0 4.4 2.2 0
20.0 16.7 20.0 22.2 31.5
64.0 50.0 46.4 44.4 60
76.0 65.0 68.9 66.7 60
Moderate preference
Low and very low preference
students on the UK programmes. The majority of students register strong or very strong preferences for the Activist learning style, though minorities register (18%) strong or very strong preferences for the Reflector styles. The numbers registering strong preference for Theorist and Pragmatist styles are limited to a handful of individuals. Many of these students registered low or very low preferences for the Theorist style (49.6%) and for the Pragmatist style (66.1%). The Reflector style was also a low preference for some 23% of the respondents. Fig. 1 compares the learning style preferences of the key groups where some interesting patterns emerge. A substantial majority of UK students on hospitality and tourism programmes, Australian home students and ‘other Australian’ students register strong or very strong preferences for the Activist style. Using Honey and Mumford’s (1986) instrument, Activist learners will have agreed or strongly agreed with statements that suggest they prefer to learn through experience and experimentation rather than through reflection and conceptualisation. Table 4 lists the 20 statements which Honey and Mumford use to identify the learning style preferences. In their original, respondents register agreement with the majority of the statements so as to identify a strong or very strong preference for the style. In this
ARTICLE IN PRESS C. Lashley, P. Barron / Hospitality Management 25 (2006) 552–569
REFLECTOR
ACTIVIST
64% UK students high pref.
561
61% Conf heritage high pref.
74% Aus students high pref. 42% Aus low
75% other Aus high pref.
40% other Aus low
59% Conf heritage low pref.
PRAGMATIST 60% Other Aus high pref.
34% Conf Heritage low pref.
THEORIST
47% Conf heritage high pref.
51% UK students low pref.
66% UK students low pref
40% Aus students low pref.
Fig. 1. Patterns of high and low learning style preference amongst UK and Australian students.
instrument, respondents would score 4 or 5 against the majority of these statements. Those registering a low preference for a style score the item 0 or 1. The Activist style is consistent with Kolb’s Accommodator style derived from the interaction of two continua of learning preferences—learning through concrete experience or abstract conceptualisation and learning by active experimentation or by reflective observation. The Accommodator prefers to learn through concrete experience and active experimentation. In fact Kolb’s model is founded on learning preferences which are shaped by personality type and preferences to learn using the left or right brain domains. Large number of students on these programmes registering preference Activist/ Accommodator learners are likely to be extrovert personalities who prefer to learn with right hand brain domains. That said, conceptual problems associated with Kolb’s model question the robustness of this conclusion. The key point is that using
562
Table 4 Honey and Mumford’s statements identifying learner preferences Reflector
I often act without considering the possible consequences.
I like the sort of work where 1 have time for thorough preparation and implementation.
I believe that formal procedures and policies restrict people. I often find that actions based on feelings are as sound as those based on careful thought and analysis. I actively seek out new experiences.
I prefer to respond to events on a spontaneous flexible basis rather than plan things out in advance. Quiet, thoughtful people tend to make me feel uneasy. It is more important to enjoy the present moment than to think about the past or future. In discussions I usually produce lots of spontaneous ideas. More often than not, rules are there to be broken. On balance I talk more than I listen. I enjoy being the one that talks a lot. When things go wrong I am happy to shrug it off and ‘put it down to experience’ . I find the formality of having specific objectives and plans stifling. I’m usually one of the people who puts life into a party. I quickly get bored with methodical, detailed work. I enjoy the drama and excitement of a crisis situation.
I take care over the interpretation of data available to me and avoid jumping to conclusions. I like to reach a decision carefully after weighting up many alternatives. I pay meticulous attention to detail before coming to a conclusion. I am careful not to jump to conclusions too quickly. I prefer to have as many sources of information as possible—the more data to think over the better. I listen to other people’s points of view before putting my own forward.
In discussions I enjoy watching the maneuverings of the other participants. It worries me if I have to rush out a piece of work to meet a tight deadline. I often get irritated by people who want to rush things. I think that decisions based on a thorough analysis of all the information are sounder than those based on intuition. I prefer to stand back from a situation and consider all the perspectives. I tend to discuss specific things with people rather than engaging in social discussion. If I have a report to write I tend to produce lots of drafts before settling on the final version. I like to ponder many alternatives before making up my mind. In discussions I’m more likely to adopt a ‘low profile’ than to take the lead and do most of the talking. It’s best to think carefully before taking action.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
I’m attracted more to novel, unusual ideas than to practical ones. I thrive on the challenge of tackling something new and different. I enjoy fun-loving, spontaneous people. I tend to be open about how I am feeling.
I take pride in doing a thorough job.
C. Lashley, P. Barron / Hospitality Management 25 (2006) 552–569
Activist
On balance I do the listening rather than the talking. I’m always interested to find out what people think. Theorist
I have a reputation for saying what I think simply and directly. What matters most is whether something works in practice. When I hear about a new idea or approach I immediately start working out how to apply it in practice. I accept and stick to laid down procedures and policies so long as I regard them as an efficient way of getting the job done. In discussions I like to get straight to the point.
I have strong beliefs about what is right and wrong, good and bad.
I regularly question people about their basic assumptions. I get on best with logical, analytical people and less well with spontaneous ‘irrational’ people. I find it difficult to produce ideas on impulse. I don’t like disorganized things and prefer to fit things into a coherent pattern.
I like to relate my actions to a general principle. I tend to have distant, rather formal relationships with people at work. Flippant people who don’t take things seriously enough usually irritate me. I tend to be a perfectionist. I can often see inconsistencies and weaknesses in other people’s arguments. I believe that rational, logical thinking should win the day. I am keen to reach answers via a logical approach. In discussions with people I often find I am the most dispassionate and objective. I like to be able to relate current actions to a longer term bigger picture. I tend to be tough on people who find it difficult to adopt a logical approach. I am keen on exploring the basic assumptions, principles and theories underpinning things and events. I like meetings to be run on methodical lines, sticking to a laid down agenda, etc. I steer clear of subjective or ambiguous topics.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
I believe in coming to the point immediately. I tend to be attracted to techniques such as network analysis, flow charts, branching programmes, contingency planning etc. I tend to judge people’s ideas on their practical merits. In meetings I put forward practical realistic ideas. I can often see better, more practical ways to get things done. I think written reports should be short and to the point. I like people who approach things realistically rather than theoretically. In discussions I get impatient with irrelevancies and digressions. I am keen to try things out to see if they work in practice. In discussions I often find I am the realist, keeping people to point and avoiding wild speculations. I tend to reject wild, spontaneous ideas as being impractical. Most times I believe the end justifies the means. I don’t mind hurting people’s feelings so long as the job gets done. I do whatever is expedient to get the job done. People often find me insensitive to their feelings.
I tend to solve problems using a step-by-step approach.
C. Lashley, P. Barron / Hospitality Management 25 (2006) 552–569
Pragmatist
563
ARTICLE IN PRESS 564
C. Lashley, P. Barron / Hospitality Management 25 (2006) 552–569
the LSQ we know that respondents largely agree or disagree with statements listed in Table 4. Honey and Mumford point out that Activist learners are at an advantage when they are in contexts where they are working with other people, and through talking with other people. They enjoy contexts where there is a great deal of variety and situations are difficult to predict. Many aspects of the hospitality working environment could be said to match these requirements. Often demand is difficult to predict precisely. Unusual customer requests, or customer complaints require quick responses, and the work usually involves immediate contact with other employees and customers. Hospitality and tourism management university programmes have been described as ‘vocation/action in orientation’ (Airey and Tribe, 2000) because they prepare graduates for specific occupations and Activist learning styles could be seen as compatible with this type of programme. Honey and Mumford (1986) identify some drawbacks to the Activist learning style. They suggest that Activist learners tend to rush into things, they avoid planning work in advance and tend to neglect subjects in which they are uninterested. Often they leave things to the last minute and have difficulty on deciding priorities. Frequently they have poor time management skills, and cannot be bothered with details. As both students and managers, these disadvantages to Activist approach can lead to poor performance. Furthermore, substantial numbers of UK and Australian home students register low or very low preferences for Reflector and Theorist styles, which presents added difficulties when research from both industry and academia suggest ‘reflective practitioners’ are required for effective performance (Airey and Tribe, 2000; HEFCE, 2001). In Australia, the substantial number of Confucian Heritage students present an added difficulty because it appears that their learning styles preferences are out of kilter with ‘home student’ preferences. The responses appear to be linked to cultural issues stemming from either the nature of the general culture or from educational experiences within the culture (Barron, 2004). As Table 4 shows, these students were more likely agree or strongly agree with statements that suggest a more considered and cautious approach to study than their Australian and UK peers. Using the Kolb framework, they might be described as being extroverts who tend to be more left brain orientated. A further insight into this tendency to be reticent and reflective is gained from the number of Confucian Heritage students who register disagreement or strongly disagreement with statements that suggest a preference for unconsidered action. Responses to statements that indicate support for the Pragmatist learning style also reveal some interesting differences amongst the different groups of respondents. A majority of the ‘other Australian heritage’ students register strong or very strong support for these statements. UK and Confucian heritage students on the other hand tend to have less empathy with these statements. Over 60% of UK respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed, whilst a substantial minority of Confucian heritage students disagreed. It is difficult to speculate on the foundation for these differences with any certainty. It is likely that the Confucian heritage and UK students are responding negatively to different aspects of the Pragmatist style of learning. The
ARTICLE IN PRESS C. Lashley, P. Barron / Hospitality Management 25 (2006) 552–569
565
lack of concern for the views of others and for appear too ‘forward’ might create negative responses in both sets of students.
6. Discussion Dunn and Griggs (2000) note that explaining learning styles to students and providing suggestions for the improvement of learning, empowers students in a way that they take active ownership of their personal learning and development. Irrespective of the merits of individual instruments, such as the LSQ, our experience suggests that the process of opening the discussion about learning and learning preferences encourages active reflection which is itself an exemplar of Kolb’s experiential learning. ‘Immediate personal experience is the focal point for learning, giving life, texture and subjective personal meaning to abstract concepts and at the same time providing a concrete, publicly shared reference point for testing the implications and validity of ideas created during the learning process’ (Kolb, 1984, p. 21). In this case, the process of learning provides the concrete experience which then becomes the subject of observation and reflection (White, 2004). It is our view that all hospitality and tourism educators need to actively engage students in consideration of their learning preferences. In addition, this paper suggests that educators also need to plan teaching and learning activities in a way that recognises student learning preferences and the educational practice that best aids student learning. Certainly, these results are consistent with other studies of learning style preferences of students on hospitality and tourism programmes in the UK and in Australia (Lashley, 1999; Barron and Arcodia, 2002; Lashley and Shaw, 2002), though it also shows for the first time, similarities and differences in learning preferences of students from different national and cultural backgrounds on these courses. Substantial numbers of UK and Australian students register strong preferences for Activist learning styles when they enter these programmes, and perhaps more concerning, substantial minorities show low preference for Reflector, Theorist, Pragmatist styles. Students from other Confucian cultures are more likely to be Reflectors when they enter their programme, and substantial minorities find more active approaches to learning difficult. These are two groups of students, in the same classes with quite different learning needs, each presenting educators with a need to understand their preferences so as to engage them in change. Educators committed to developing graduates who are reflective practitioners, or even ‘philosophical practitioners’ (Tribe, 2002), educators need to understand the learning style preferences of their students, and adopt learning and teaching strategies that develop different approaches to learning, but which are compatible with students initial learning style preferences. We agree with Tribe’s view that learners need to be encouraged to learn through concrete and abstract, as well as active and reflective stages. Andrew et al. (2002, p. 6) suggest ‘The role of identifying learning styles is to act as a catalyst for development rather than to accept an identified style’. For all its limitations, the Learning Style Questionnaire does provide
ARTICLE IN PRESS 566
C. Lashley, P. Barron / Hospitality Management 25 (2006) 552–569
lecturers and students with an opportunity to consider approaches to learning and processing information. The work of Kolb (1984) suggests a model that can be useful as a tool for engaging students in this ‘balanced’ learning process. Students and managers must reflect on actions undertaken—see how these reflections fit with theories—consider how they might need to alter future actions, and then act. Fig. 2 reproduces these stages involving both collective and individual reflection. For the purposes of this paper, and for future educational activities, we suggest that the process of learning needs to move through the stages outlined in Kolb’s model. Active experience needs to be followed by reflection including the critical evaluation of the experience, consideration of how experiences inform or adapt theoretical understanding, and how this might inform future actions. Traditionally, this is shown as a cycle as in Fig. 2; however, it is more accurately a series of spirals where the process of acting, reflect, theorising and deciding of future actions leads to new learning situations leading on from the past. (Andrew et al., 2002, p. 8) state that ‘For Kolb the learning process is a continuos interaction between the individual and the world, which Kolb describes as a tension and conflict filled process y and conflict that require special skills at each stage of his four part model.’ Fig. 3 expresses this process more accurately. Educators and students engaged with a consideration of student information processing preferences as revealed by the LSQ are in a good position to adopt teaching and learning strategies that engage these processes. It is our view that these preferences can be developed and changed, and that active consideration of learning styles provides a useful approach for dealing with both the learning style preferences of the majority, as well as with minorities as in the Australian context. The statements outlined in Table 4 provide some really useful insights into the way hospitality and tourism students see themselves as learners. We believe that these insights can assist in developing more effective study techniques but which also assist
Concrete Experience (feeling)
Reflective Observation Active Experimentation (doing) (watching)
Abstract Conceptualisation (thinking)
Fig. 2. Kolb’s learning cycle. Source: Lashley and Best, 2003.
ARTICLE IN PRESS C. Lashley, P. Barron / Hospitality Management 25 (2006) 552–569
567
Performance
Time Fig. 3. A model of reflective practice.
students to develop approaches to processing information that will be invaluable in their future careers. Strategies that set student learning style preferences at the heart of the educational experience provide a means of developing balanced approaches to learning and empowering students to take active control of the way they learn. Ultimately, their development as reflective or ‘philosophical’ practitioners requires students to learn using processes that engage reflection and theorising as well as action. References Airey, D., Tribe, J., 2000. Education for hospitality. In: Lashley, C., Morrison, A. (Eds.), In Search of Hospitality: Theoretical Perspectives and Debates. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford. Allinson, C.W., Hayes, J., 1990. Validity of the learning styles questionnaire. Psychological Reports 67, 859–866. Andrew, D., Pheiffer, G., Green, M., Holley, D., 2002. The uses of learning styles: beyond the matching hypotheses. European Learning Styles Information Network Conference Proceedings. University of Ghent, Ghent Belgium. Armstrong, S.J., 2002. Effects of cognitive style on the quality of research supervision. European Learning Styles Information Network Conference Proceedings. University of Ghent, Ghent. Barron, P., 2002. Providing a more successful education experience for Asian hospitality management students studying in Australia: a focus on learning styles. Journal of Teaching in Travel and Tourism 2 (2), 63–88. Barron, P., 2004. An evaluation of learning styles and learning problems of Confucian heritage culture students studying hospitality and tourism management in Australia. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Queensland, Australia. Barron, P., Arcodia, C., 2002. Linking learning style preferences and ethnicity: international students studying hospitality and tourism management in Australia. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education 1 (2), 1–13. Beaven, M., Calderisi, M., Tantral, P., 1998. Barriers to learning experienced by Asian students in American accounting classes. Paper Presented at American Accounting Association Mid Atlantic Regional Meeting, March 1998. Berings, M., Poell, R., 2002. Measuring on-the-job learning styles: a critique of most widely used questionnaires. European Learning Styles Information Network Conference Proceedings. University of Ghent, Ghent Belgium.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 568
C. Lashley, P. Barron / Hospitality Management 25 (2006) 552–569
Botterill, D., 2002. Tourism studies and research quality assessment in universities. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education 1 (2). Cassidy, S., 2003. Learning styles: an overview of theories models and measures. European Learning Styles Information Network Conference Proceedings. University of Hull, Hull. Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training, 2002. Higher Education Institutions in Australia, http://www.dest.gov.au/highered/ausunis.htm, Site Visited 6.5.03. Curry, L., 1983. An Organisation of Learning Styles Theory and Constructs, ERIC Document ED 235 185. Curry, L., 1987. Integrating Concepts of Cognitive or Learning Styles: A Review With Attention to Psychometric Standards. Canadian College of Health Service Executives, Ottawa ON. Dunn, R., Dunn, K., 1993. Teaching Secondary Students Through Their Individual Learning Styles. Parker Publishing, West Nyack, NY. Dunn, R., Griggs, S., 2000. Practical Approaches to Using Learning Styles in Higher Education. Bergin & Garvey, Westport, CN. Entwistle, N.J., Ramsden, P., 1983. Understanding Student Learning. Croom Helm, London. Entwistle, N.J., Tait, H., 1994. The Revised Approaches To The Study Inventory. Centre for Research into Learning, Edinburgh. Given, B., 2002. Teaching to Brain’s Natural Learning Systems. ASCD, Alexandria, VA. Higher Education Funding Council for England, 1998. Review of Hospitality Management. HEFCE, London. Higher Education Funding Council for England, 2001. Getting Ahead: Graduate Careers in Hospitality Management. HEFCE, London. Honey, P., Mumford, A., 1986. The Manual of Learning Styles, second ed. Peter Honey Publications Ltd., Maidenhead, Berkshire, UK. Honey, P., Mumford, A., 2000. The Learning Styles Questionnaire: 80 Item Version. Peter Honey Publications Ltd., Maidenhead, Berkshire, UK. Hsu, C.H.C., 1996. Needs and concerns of international students: what can educators do? Hospitality and Tourism Educator 8 (2/3), 68–75. Huyton, J.R., 1997. The implications of cross-cultural communication in the hotel industry: A Chinese case: National Tourism and Hospitality Research Conference 1997. In: Proceedings from the National Tourism and Hospitality Research Conference: Sydney, Bureau of Tourism Research, pp. 158–165. Khwaja, H.S., Bosselman, R.H., 1990. Cultural adjustment of international graduate students in American hospitality and tourism programs. Hospitality Research Journal 14 (2), 75–82. Kolb, D., 1984. Experiential Learning. Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. PrenticeHall, Engelwood Cliffs, NJ. Labour, M., 2002. Learner empowerment via raising awareness of learning styles in foreign language teacher training. European Learning Styles Information Network Conference Proceedings. University of Ghent, Ghent. Lashley, C., 1999. On making silk purses: developing reflective practitioners in hospitality management education. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 11 (4), 180–185. Lashley, C., Best, W., 2003. 12 Steps to Study Success. Continuum, London. Lashley, C., Shaw, M., 2002. The effects of learning styles on student achievement in HE and the implications for curriculum design, development and delivery. European Learning Styles Information Network Conference Proceedings. University of Ghent, Ghent. Mainemelis, C., Boyatzis, R., Kolb, D., 2002. Learning styles and adaptive flexibility. Management Learning 33 (1), 5–33. Malfroy, J., Daruwalla, P., 2000. Culture and communication in a postgraduate hospitality program. Australian Journal of Hospitality Management 7 (1), 27–34. Richardson, J.T.E., 2002. Variations in student learning and perceptions of student learning. European Learning Styles Information Network Conference Proceedings. University of Ghent, Ghent. Ritzer, G., 2002. McDonaldization: The Reader. Sage, London. Sadler-Smith, E., 1997. Learning style frameworks and instruments. Educational Psychology 17 (1/2), 51–65.
ARTICLE IN PRESS C. Lashley, P. Barron / Hospitality Management 25 (2006) 552–569
569
Schon, D.A., 1983. The Reflective Practitioner. Temple Smith, London. Schon, D.A., 1987. Educating the Reflective Practitioner. Jossey-Bass, San Fransisco, CA. Thies, A.P., 2003. Connections: neuropsychology, neuroscience, and learning styles. European Learning Styles Information Network Conference Proceedings. University of Hull, Hull. Ticehurst, G.W., Veal, A.J., 1999. Business Research Methods: A Managerial Approach. Longman, Australia. Tribe, J., 2002. The philosophical practitioner. Annals of Tourism Research 29 (2), 338–357. White, A.M., 2004. Lewin’s action research model as a tool for theory building. Action Research 2 (2), 127–144. Wong, K.K.F., Pine, R.J., Tsang, N., 2000. Learning style preferences and implications for training programs in the hospitality and tourism industry. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education 12 (2), 32–40. Yu, L., 1998. China’s hotel industry: assessment and prospects. Journal of Vacation Marketing 4 (4), 368–380. Zhao, J.L., 1991. A current look at hospitality and tourism education in China’s colleges and universities. International Journal of Hospitality Management 10 (4), 357–367.
Hospitality Management 25 (2006) 552–569 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhosman
The learning style preferences of hospitality and tourism students: Observations from an international and cross-cultural study Conrad Lashleya,, Paul Barronb a
Nottingham Business School, Nottingham Trent University, Burton Street, Nottingham, NG1 4BU, UK School of Tourism and Leisure Management, The University of Queensland, Salisbury Road, Ipswich, Queensland 4305, Australia
b
Abstract This paper reports on a study of the learning style preferences of new entrants onto hospitality and tourism programmes in Australia and the United Kingdom. It suggests that a majority of students on these programmes in both countries have strong learning style preference that present some challenges to educators and the planning of learning experiences in higher education. Typically these students prefer learning styles that are concrete rather than abstract, and active rather than reflective. Furthermore, substantial minorities register low or very low preferences for learning in abstract and reflective styles. The initial learning style of new entrants on to taught programmes, therefore, present substantial teaching and learning barriers for educators who are attempting to develop reflective practitioners. Inappropriate teaching strategies can present some genuine learning difficulties for these students. In Australia, educators face added complexity because students from Confucian heritage backgrounds display learning style preferences at odds with their piers. They are more likely to respond positively to abstract and reflective approaches but negatively to active and concrete teaching strategies. The authors suggest one way of approaching the learning needs of
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 115 982 2264.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C. Lashley), [email protected] (P. Barron). 0278-4319/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2005.03.006
ARTICLE IN PRESS C. Lashley, P. Barron / Hospitality Management 25 (2006) 552–569
553
these students is to use Kolb’s experiential learning cycle as a way of encouraging the development of ‘balanced’ learning strategies that lead to reflective practice. r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Learning styles; Hospitality; Tourism education; Activist learners; Education management
1. Introduction Since the early 1970s there has been a dramatic increase in the number of hospitality and tourism programs offered by universities in the UK and Australia. Indeed, a rudimentary search of the Commonwealth Department of Education and Science and Training website (http://www.dest.gov.au/highered/ausunis.htm) found that of the 43 publicly funded universities in Australia, 29 offered hospitality and/or tourism programs at either undergraduate or postgraduate level. Added to this are at least five private providers who specialise in hospitality and tourism education at undergraduate and postgraduate levels. Undergraduate hospitality and tourism education in the UK commenced slightly earlier with the first Hotel and Catering degrees being launched in the mid 1960s and by 1997 the Higher Education Funding Council for England (1998) found that some 28 universities in England offered hospitality management. By the year 2000, there were 75 honours programmes in tourism being offered in UK universities (Botterill, 2002). Whilst recognising that there are some variations in curriculum across both hospitality and tourism programmes, the universities participating in these surveys were chiefly concerned with the management of hospitality and tourism. Students were all in the first year of their programme and in most cases, studying a majority of common modules on their specific programme pathways. While the majority of students studying hospitality and tourism management at publicly funded universities in the UK and Australia continue to be domestic, there is evidence that the student body is becoming more diverse (Hsu, 1996). In Australia, the student population increasingly includes students from an array of Asian countries, and in the UK, increasing participation rates attract growing numbers of students from non-traditional backgrounds. As disciplines, hospitality and tourism management appears to be attractive to international students and draw a higher than average number of such students (Malfroy and Daruwalla, 2000; Khwaja and Bosselman, 1990). This popularity perhaps is due to the maturing of hospitality and tourism management as an area of study. In addition, the notion of a career in the hospitality and tourism industry is no longer seen as demeaning (Zhao, 1991). This, coupled with the rapid growth of the hotel and tourism industry in, for example, mainland China (Huyton, 1997; Yu, 1998) has encouraged students from countries with developing service economies to pursue hospitality and tourism education in western universities. A consequence of this diversity is that the cultural differences which often manifest themselves with different cognitive and linguistic patterns, often constitute
ARTICLE IN PRESS 554
C. Lashley, P. Barron / Hospitality Management 25 (2006) 552–569
formidable barriers that initially may prevent successful participation in Australian and UK classrooms (Beaven et al., 1998). In both cases, institutions are consequently confronted with the tasks of managing this diversity, and not only ensuring a measure of quality in international students’ learning but also for domestic students who share the same classrooms. This paper reports on research undertaken in both Australia and the UK covering first-year students on tourism and hospitality management programmes in higher education. The paper aims to explore similarities and differences between students learning preferences using an adapted version of the Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ) (Lashley and Shaw, 2002). It is therefore primarily concerned with informing educators so as to better focus on the immediate learning needs of students and to assist in the development of students who achieve the ‘qualities of graduateness’ (Higher Education Funding Council for England, 2001).
2. Different types of learning styles Learning style literature is studded with a confusing array of conceptual models and constructs and overlapping terminology (Cassidy, 2003). In some cases, researchers are concerned with the physiological dimensions of brain function in the learning process (Given, 2002; Thies, 2003). For others, the key concern is what kind of learning environment best suits the individual (Dunn and Dunn, 1993; Dunn and Griggs, 2000). For others, there is a concern for the learning strategies adopted by surface and deep learners (Entwistle and Tait, 1994). Sadler-Smith (1997) suggests that often researchers are working on frameworks that can be explained with an onion-like metaphor, overlapping but giving insights into different dimensions of learning. Curry (1983, 1987) also uses an onion-like metaphor to suggest a model that has inner and outer layers to the construct. Curry suggests four broad layers of ‘learning or cognitive style’. Moving from the outer to the inner layers, Curry defines these following layers: (i) ‘instructional preference’ refers to the individuals preferred choice of learning environment including lighting, sound, design etc.; (ii) ‘social interaction’ relates preferences for the company of others as part of the learning process; (iii) ‘information processing style’ relates to the individual’s intellectual approach to processing information, and (iv) ‘cognitive personality style’ relates to relatively permanent personality dimensions. Although Sadler-Smith advocates a ‘multidimensional as opposed to a bipolar model of learning style’ (1997, p. 52), this paper is focused on information processing styles of students on tourism and hospitality management courses. In particular, it is concerned with learning styles as the learning process defined by Kolb (1984) but measured through Honey and Mumford’s (1986, 2000) Learning Styles Questionnaire. Whilst Kolb and Honey and Mumford use different terms to establish learning style differences (different ways of processing information), the conceptual model is similar in that they suggest that four discernable styles emerge from the interactions of two continua. The first deals with preferences to learn in an abstract or concrete manner. The former prefers to learn general principles and theories before
ARTICLE IN PRESS C. Lashley, P. Barron / Hospitality Management 25 (2006) 552–569
555
application, whilst the second prefers to learn from concrete situations. The second dimension is concerned with learning through active experience or from reflection based on thinking. The Honey and Mumford model produces four domains, each representing a different learning style preference. Activists learn through experience in concrete situations. Reflectors like to process information by pondering experiences and observe them from different perspectives. Theorists process information by assimilating it into coherent theories and models. Pragmatists learn by relating new information to practical situations and problems. In each case these preferences provide a semi-permanent set of preferences for how information is processed. Each provides a set of strengths and set of weaknesses. There is no one best way, but teaching strategies that are not sensitive to students’ learning style preferences can present learners with difficulties. Thus, an overly theoretical introduction to a group of Activist learners is likely to result in learning difficulties. Similarly, students need to appreciate their own learning style preferences so that they can better understand the strengths and weaknesses of each style. By focusing on the information processing aspect of learning, we recognise the weaknesses and strengths of both Kolb’s and Honey and Mumford’s instruments. The theoretical underpinnings of Kolb’s work and the internal robustness of Honey and Mumford’s questionnaire do point to flaws that question the predictive qualities of these ‘measures’ of student preferences for the processing of information (Allinson and Hayes, 1990). Berings and Poell (2002, p. 57) suggest that ‘The Learning Styles Questionnaire has better reliability and better face validity than other instruments, but its construct validity has hardly been investigated’. Whilst acknowledging these drawbacks, our experience as educational practitioners suggest that the use of this instrument with students helps engage them in discussion of their own preferences and the presentation of alternatives (Lashley, 1999). It encourages students to think about and discuss the processes of learning. In addition, we are attracted to the notion implicit in Kolb’s approach that suggests that student strategies for information processing can change and that ‘reflective practitioners’ (Schon, 1983, 1987) can be developed through these reflections on learning. These instruments also provide a non-judgemental student insight that subsequently encourages and guides changes in information processing preferences. Some other instruments and conceptual models tend to identify learners as deep, surface or strategic learners (Entwistle and Ramsden, 1983; Richardson, 2002), which can appear somewhat judgemental to some learners. Labour (2002, p. 228), discussing the use of Honey and Mumford’s instrument with teacher training, states it ‘y is driven by a decision making process that posits learners (as ‘‘managers’’) with direct responsibility for the consequences of their decisions for themselves and those around them.’ A formal understanding of learning style preferences and information processing strategies, therefore, has value both for their time as students, and most importantly given the nature of their subsequent careers, for their role as managers in industry. Our chief concern, therefore, is to raise the students’ understanding of learning so as to stimulate reflective practice. Although there are implications for teaching styles through a ‘matching process’ (Andrew et al., 2002), our main focus is the learner. In these circumstances, the Kolb’s advocacy of a ‘balanced learner’ (Mainemelis et al.,
ARTICLE IN PRESS 556
C. Lashley, P. Barron / Hospitality Management 25 (2006) 552–569
2002) seems to fit best with a commitment to ‘thinking about action’ in a manner that is convenient for students destined to follow management careers. The work of Kolb and Honey and Mumford has been useful to us as educators because, if nothing else, it provides a valuable insight into student learning differences which have resulted in teaching and learning strategies that encourage reflection (Lashley, 1999). Whilst accepting the criticism of the construct validity of the instrument, its role as an instrument for the engagement of lecturers and students does seem to be underpinned by student results. The causal linkages may well be unclear but in at least one case, they have informed teaching and learning in a way that is consistent with improvements in study performance (Lashley, 1999; Lashley and Shaw, 2002).
3. Learning style preferences of hospitality and tourism management students Several studies have recently been undertaken that attempt to identify the learning preferences of hospitality, tourism and travel management students in the UK, Asia and Australia. In a study of predominantly domestic students in the UK, Lashley (1999) found that the vast majority of students who were recruited to a particular hospitality management programme in the UK displayed preferred learning styles which indicated they enjoy practical activity, but were less comfortable with theorising and reflection. Students display preferences for Activist learning styles (Lashley, 1999). Activist learners thrive on the challenges associated with new experiences and they were described as tending to ‘act first and consider the consequences later’ (Lashley, 1999, p. 181). In Australia, Barron and Arcodia (2002) also found that Australian hospitality and tourism students were also predominantly Activist learners. The dominance of the Activist style of learning on hospitality and tourism programmes has been explained by the nature of the vocational and peoplecentred nature of the programme (Lashley, 1999). In other words, people who like working with other people are likely to display extrovert personality characteristics and ‘right-hand brain’ preference that ultimately underpin Kolb’s model and thereby defines the Activist learning style. Armstrong (2002, p. 15) points out that the split brain formulation can be criticised as an over-simplification, but it does ‘serve as a useful metaphor for describing these cognitive differences’. In contrast, students studying hospitality management, hotel and catering management, tourism management and travel and tourism studies at Higher Diploma level and above in various colleges and universities in Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan displayed preferences for Reflector learning styles (Wong et al., 2000). It was found that all but one of the student groups questioned displayed a strong preference for the Reflector learning style. These students prefer to learn through observation and benefit from the opportunity to think before acting. They appreciate the opportunity to undertake research before an activity and think about what they have learned. Reflectors find it more difficult to learn from activities where they are forced into the limelight, for example through peer presentations or role playing. Similarly, methods of learning such as case studies may prove problematic
ARTICLE IN PRESS C. Lashley, P. Barron / Hospitality Management 25 (2006) 552–569
557
for these students as they are not keen on undertaking a task without prior notice or sufficient information (Honey and Mumford, 2000). Interestingly, Barron and Arcodia (2002) found that ‘Chinese’ students appeared to change their learning style preference as they had studied in the Australian context. Students on the later stages of the degree were closer to Australian students and registered stronger preferences for Activist learning styles. Thus, there are two significant issues which might challenge current models of effective teaching in hospitality and tourism management programmes in universities. Firstly, it is important to understand the learning style preferences of all students studying hospitality and tourism management and to attempt initiatives that encourage students to adopt a more reflective approach to their studies. Secondly, it is important to recognise the diversity that is currently common in university classrooms and attempt to recognise the preferred learning styles of students from different educational backgrounds. Equally, it is essential to nurture and encourage the use of more ‘balanced’ learning strategies so as to support more reflective approaches to information processing. Fundamentally balanced approaches discourage short-term surface learning as typified by the ‘McDonalidization’ of higher education (Ritzer, 2002). This research aimed to compare the preferred learning styles of first-year domestic and international students studying hospitality and tourism programmes in the UK and Australia. Specifically, this research: 1. detailed the composition of two groups of students, namely those studying hospitality and tourism in the UK and in Australia; 2. identified the learning style preferences of first-year hospitality and tourism students in the UK and Australia; 3. compared the learning style preferences of the UK and Australian sample.
4. Research approach A variation of the LSQ designed by Honey and Mumford (2000) was used in this study to investigate the learning styles of international students enrolled in Schools of Tourism and Leisure Management at a variety of universities in Australia and the UK. The questionnaire consisted of 80 questions relating to the four different types of learning styles as identified by Honey and Mumford (1986), namely Activists, Reflectors, Theorists and Pragmatists. This section comprises 20 questions which are designed to examine each of the four learning styles. Respondents were asked to identify on a six-point Likert scale (0 ¼ Strongly Disagree; 1 ¼ Disagree; 2 ¼ Disagree on Balance; 3 ¼ Agree on Balance; 4 ¼ Agree; 5 ¼ Strongly Agree) their strength of feeling for each statement. Table 4 lists the questions under each learning style. This means of response differs from the original Honey and Mumford (2000) method of responding which involved respondents merely placing a tick to indicate if they agreed with a statement, or a cross to indicate that they disagreed with a statement. It is felt that the employment of a scale adds to the sophistication
ARTICLE IN PRESS 558
C. Lashley, P. Barron / Hospitality Management 25 (2006) 552–569
of the responses as it allows respondents to present a more accurate measure of their feelings concerning each question (Lashley and Shaw, 2002). In order to achieve a maximum response, and to answer questions students may have had during the completion of the questionnaire, the questionnaire was administered in the controlled environment of formal class time and under the supervision of the authors. Ticehurst and Veal (1999, p. 138) describe this approach to a questionnaire survey as a ‘captive group survey’ and suggest that this method of questionnaire administration is expeditious and less problematic than in less-controlled situations. The data collected from were analysed by the score mean of each type of learning style. Due to the use of the Likert Scale, an indication of likes and dislikes relating to learning styles was determined for each person. It is not the intention here to discuss the curriculum in both settings, because readers are likely to understand that these programmes tend to be best described as applied management set in a specific sector context (HEFCE, 1998). All students were on the first year of their specific programme and many were undertaking common modules across hospitality and tourism. Essentially, both groups of students were, therefore, studying similar programmes in their home country and both groups completed the same questionnaire using similar data collection techniques. Differences in these results suggest that results may be due to the differing cultural contexts and approaches to education. 4.1. The sample The questionnaire was given to first-year students in the UK and in Australia within the first 3 weeks of the beginning of the programme. Typically, a lecture theatre period was taken as part of an induction or study skill programme and all students present completed the instrument. In most cases, responses were gathered from 90% of all students on the programme. Table 1 provides details of the numbers of students responses from the eight Australian colleges and universities, and the responses from students in the School of Tourism and Hospitality Management at a university in the UK. In total, responses were gathered from 361 students on hospitality management and tourism programmes in higher education in the two countries. The Australian sample reflected a consistent proportion of students from three broad origins: 47 students were from Australasia, 59 were of Confucian Heritage, and the remaining 20 were a cluster of European, American, African, Indonesian or Thai. The UK Table 1 Respondents to the LSQ
Eight institutions University
Country
No of respondents
Total Australian respondents Total UK respondents
126 235
ARTICLE IN PRESS C. Lashley, P. Barron / Hospitality Management 25 (2006) 552–569
559
sample drawn from just one university included students on a range of degrees and HND programmes in tourism and hospitality management courses. All respondents were from UK and European origins.
5. Findings As shown in Table 2, the dominant learning style across the Australian home student profile is that most students (74.4%) entering these programmes have strong or very strong preferences for the Activist learning style. The most outstanding exception being the students from the Confucian Heritage origins where a majority (53.2%) have low or very low preferences for the Activist style and registered (61%) a strong or very strong preference for the Reflector style. Substantial minorities of Australian home students have a low or very low preference for Reflector (40.4%) and for Theorist styles (40.4%) and small numbers have any strong or very strong preference for these styles. The ‘other heritage’ students (75%) in the Australian sample also have a strong or very preference for the Activist style. A majority (60%) of students also register a strong or very strong preference for the Pragmatist style, though a substantial minority (40%) register a low or very low preference for the Reflector style. Table 3 details the responses from students on different courses in the UK student programme. There are some variations across courses, though the general patterns across the intake as a whole are consistent. The intake of students tends to be culturally coherent and there were not same clear clusters of difference between
Table 2 Australian year one learning style preferences 2000/2001 Preference
Course and degree type
No of students
Activist %
Reflector %
Theorist %
Pragmatist %
Strong and very BHM Australian students (1) 47 strong preference BHM Confucian heritage 59 culture students (2) BHM Other (3) 20
74.4
8.5
6.3
10.6
22.1
61.0
46.8
14.9
75.0
10.0
20.0
60.0
Moderate preference
Low and very low preference
BHM Australian students
47
21.3
48.9
53.1
78.7
BHM Confucian heritage culture students BHM other
59
25.5
38.3
36.1
51.1
20
20.0
50.0
60.0
35.0
BHM Australian students
47
4.3
42.5
40.4
10.6
BHM Confucian heritage culture students BHM other
59
53.2
0
17.0
34.0
20
5.0
40.0
20.0
5.0
ARTICLE IN PRESS 560
C. Lashley, P. Barron / Hospitality Management 25 (2006) 552–569
Table 3 UK students year one learning style preference 2000/2001 Preference
Course and degree type
No of students
Activist %
Reflector Theorist Pragmatist % % %
Strong and very strong preference
BALRM
35
68.5
20.0
10.0
0
HND hospitality BA HM HND tourism BA tourism BA international tourism
30 45 45 45 35
56.0 66.7 60.0 62.2 71.4
20.0 16.7 17.8 22.2 11.4
4.0 0 8.9 6.7 11.4
0 0 0 4.4 2.9
BALRM
35
31.5
51.4
57.1
40.0
HND hospitality BA HM HND tourism BA tourism BA international tourism
30 45 45 45 35
44.0 33.3 35.6 35.6 28.6
60.0 66.7 62.2 55.6 57.1
32.0 50.0 44.4 48.9 28.6
24.0 35.0 31.1 28.9 37.1
BALRM
35
0
28.6
32.9
60.0
HND hospitality BA HM HND tourism BA tourism BA international tourism
30 45 45 45 35
0 0 4.4 2.2 0
20.0 16.7 20.0 22.2 31.5
64.0 50.0 46.4 44.4 60
76.0 65.0 68.9 66.7 60
Moderate preference
Low and very low preference
students on the UK programmes. The majority of students register strong or very strong preferences for the Activist learning style, though minorities register (18%) strong or very strong preferences for the Reflector styles. The numbers registering strong preference for Theorist and Pragmatist styles are limited to a handful of individuals. Many of these students registered low or very low preferences for the Theorist style (49.6%) and for the Pragmatist style (66.1%). The Reflector style was also a low preference for some 23% of the respondents. Fig. 1 compares the learning style preferences of the key groups where some interesting patterns emerge. A substantial majority of UK students on hospitality and tourism programmes, Australian home students and ‘other Australian’ students register strong or very strong preferences for the Activist style. Using Honey and Mumford’s (1986) instrument, Activist learners will have agreed or strongly agreed with statements that suggest they prefer to learn through experience and experimentation rather than through reflection and conceptualisation. Table 4 lists the 20 statements which Honey and Mumford use to identify the learning style preferences. In their original, respondents register agreement with the majority of the statements so as to identify a strong or very strong preference for the style. In this
ARTICLE IN PRESS C. Lashley, P. Barron / Hospitality Management 25 (2006) 552–569
REFLECTOR
ACTIVIST
64% UK students high pref.
561
61% Conf heritage high pref.
74% Aus students high pref. 42% Aus low
75% other Aus high pref.
40% other Aus low
59% Conf heritage low pref.
PRAGMATIST 60% Other Aus high pref.
34% Conf Heritage low pref.
THEORIST
47% Conf heritage high pref.
51% UK students low pref.
66% UK students low pref
40% Aus students low pref.
Fig. 1. Patterns of high and low learning style preference amongst UK and Australian students.
instrument, respondents would score 4 or 5 against the majority of these statements. Those registering a low preference for a style score the item 0 or 1. The Activist style is consistent with Kolb’s Accommodator style derived from the interaction of two continua of learning preferences—learning through concrete experience or abstract conceptualisation and learning by active experimentation or by reflective observation. The Accommodator prefers to learn through concrete experience and active experimentation. In fact Kolb’s model is founded on learning preferences which are shaped by personality type and preferences to learn using the left or right brain domains. Large number of students on these programmes registering preference Activist/ Accommodator learners are likely to be extrovert personalities who prefer to learn with right hand brain domains. That said, conceptual problems associated with Kolb’s model question the robustness of this conclusion. The key point is that using
562
Table 4 Honey and Mumford’s statements identifying learner preferences Reflector
I often act without considering the possible consequences.
I like the sort of work where 1 have time for thorough preparation and implementation.
I believe that formal procedures and policies restrict people. I often find that actions based on feelings are as sound as those based on careful thought and analysis. I actively seek out new experiences.
I prefer to respond to events on a spontaneous flexible basis rather than plan things out in advance. Quiet, thoughtful people tend to make me feel uneasy. It is more important to enjoy the present moment than to think about the past or future. In discussions I usually produce lots of spontaneous ideas. More often than not, rules are there to be broken. On balance I talk more than I listen. I enjoy being the one that talks a lot. When things go wrong I am happy to shrug it off and ‘put it down to experience’ . I find the formality of having specific objectives and plans stifling. I’m usually one of the people who puts life into a party. I quickly get bored with methodical, detailed work. I enjoy the drama and excitement of a crisis situation.
I take care over the interpretation of data available to me and avoid jumping to conclusions. I like to reach a decision carefully after weighting up many alternatives. I pay meticulous attention to detail before coming to a conclusion. I am careful not to jump to conclusions too quickly. I prefer to have as many sources of information as possible—the more data to think over the better. I listen to other people’s points of view before putting my own forward.
In discussions I enjoy watching the maneuverings of the other participants. It worries me if I have to rush out a piece of work to meet a tight deadline. I often get irritated by people who want to rush things. I think that decisions based on a thorough analysis of all the information are sounder than those based on intuition. I prefer to stand back from a situation and consider all the perspectives. I tend to discuss specific things with people rather than engaging in social discussion. If I have a report to write I tend to produce lots of drafts before settling on the final version. I like to ponder many alternatives before making up my mind. In discussions I’m more likely to adopt a ‘low profile’ than to take the lead and do most of the talking. It’s best to think carefully before taking action.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
I’m attracted more to novel, unusual ideas than to practical ones. I thrive on the challenge of tackling something new and different. I enjoy fun-loving, spontaneous people. I tend to be open about how I am feeling.
I take pride in doing a thorough job.
C. Lashley, P. Barron / Hospitality Management 25 (2006) 552–569
Activist
On balance I do the listening rather than the talking. I’m always interested to find out what people think. Theorist
I have a reputation for saying what I think simply and directly. What matters most is whether something works in practice. When I hear about a new idea or approach I immediately start working out how to apply it in practice. I accept and stick to laid down procedures and policies so long as I regard them as an efficient way of getting the job done. In discussions I like to get straight to the point.
I have strong beliefs about what is right and wrong, good and bad.
I regularly question people about their basic assumptions. I get on best with logical, analytical people and less well with spontaneous ‘irrational’ people. I find it difficult to produce ideas on impulse. I don’t like disorganized things and prefer to fit things into a coherent pattern.
I like to relate my actions to a general principle. I tend to have distant, rather formal relationships with people at work. Flippant people who don’t take things seriously enough usually irritate me. I tend to be a perfectionist. I can often see inconsistencies and weaknesses in other people’s arguments. I believe that rational, logical thinking should win the day. I am keen to reach answers via a logical approach. In discussions with people I often find I am the most dispassionate and objective. I like to be able to relate current actions to a longer term bigger picture. I tend to be tough on people who find it difficult to adopt a logical approach. I am keen on exploring the basic assumptions, principles and theories underpinning things and events. I like meetings to be run on methodical lines, sticking to a laid down agenda, etc. I steer clear of subjective or ambiguous topics.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
I believe in coming to the point immediately. I tend to be attracted to techniques such as network analysis, flow charts, branching programmes, contingency planning etc. I tend to judge people’s ideas on their practical merits. In meetings I put forward practical realistic ideas. I can often see better, more practical ways to get things done. I think written reports should be short and to the point. I like people who approach things realistically rather than theoretically. In discussions I get impatient with irrelevancies and digressions. I am keen to try things out to see if they work in practice. In discussions I often find I am the realist, keeping people to point and avoiding wild speculations. I tend to reject wild, spontaneous ideas as being impractical. Most times I believe the end justifies the means. I don’t mind hurting people’s feelings so long as the job gets done. I do whatever is expedient to get the job done. People often find me insensitive to their feelings.
I tend to solve problems using a step-by-step approach.
C. Lashley, P. Barron / Hospitality Management 25 (2006) 552–569
Pragmatist
563
ARTICLE IN PRESS 564
C. Lashley, P. Barron / Hospitality Management 25 (2006) 552–569
the LSQ we know that respondents largely agree or disagree with statements listed in Table 4. Honey and Mumford point out that Activist learners are at an advantage when they are in contexts where they are working with other people, and through talking with other people. They enjoy contexts where there is a great deal of variety and situations are difficult to predict. Many aspects of the hospitality working environment could be said to match these requirements. Often demand is difficult to predict precisely. Unusual customer requests, or customer complaints require quick responses, and the work usually involves immediate contact with other employees and customers. Hospitality and tourism management university programmes have been described as ‘vocation/action in orientation’ (Airey and Tribe, 2000) because they prepare graduates for specific occupations and Activist learning styles could be seen as compatible with this type of programme. Honey and Mumford (1986) identify some drawbacks to the Activist learning style. They suggest that Activist learners tend to rush into things, they avoid planning work in advance and tend to neglect subjects in which they are uninterested. Often they leave things to the last minute and have difficulty on deciding priorities. Frequently they have poor time management skills, and cannot be bothered with details. As both students and managers, these disadvantages to Activist approach can lead to poor performance. Furthermore, substantial numbers of UK and Australian home students register low or very low preferences for Reflector and Theorist styles, which presents added difficulties when research from both industry and academia suggest ‘reflective practitioners’ are required for effective performance (Airey and Tribe, 2000; HEFCE, 2001). In Australia, the substantial number of Confucian Heritage students present an added difficulty because it appears that their learning styles preferences are out of kilter with ‘home student’ preferences. The responses appear to be linked to cultural issues stemming from either the nature of the general culture or from educational experiences within the culture (Barron, 2004). As Table 4 shows, these students were more likely agree or strongly agree with statements that suggest a more considered and cautious approach to study than their Australian and UK peers. Using the Kolb framework, they might be described as being extroverts who tend to be more left brain orientated. A further insight into this tendency to be reticent and reflective is gained from the number of Confucian Heritage students who register disagreement or strongly disagreement with statements that suggest a preference for unconsidered action. Responses to statements that indicate support for the Pragmatist learning style also reveal some interesting differences amongst the different groups of respondents. A majority of the ‘other Australian heritage’ students register strong or very strong support for these statements. UK and Confucian heritage students on the other hand tend to have less empathy with these statements. Over 60% of UK respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed, whilst a substantial minority of Confucian heritage students disagreed. It is difficult to speculate on the foundation for these differences with any certainty. It is likely that the Confucian heritage and UK students are responding negatively to different aspects of the Pragmatist style of learning. The
ARTICLE IN PRESS C. Lashley, P. Barron / Hospitality Management 25 (2006) 552–569
565
lack of concern for the views of others and for appear too ‘forward’ might create negative responses in both sets of students.
6. Discussion Dunn and Griggs (2000) note that explaining learning styles to students and providing suggestions for the improvement of learning, empowers students in a way that they take active ownership of their personal learning and development. Irrespective of the merits of individual instruments, such as the LSQ, our experience suggests that the process of opening the discussion about learning and learning preferences encourages active reflection which is itself an exemplar of Kolb’s experiential learning. ‘Immediate personal experience is the focal point for learning, giving life, texture and subjective personal meaning to abstract concepts and at the same time providing a concrete, publicly shared reference point for testing the implications and validity of ideas created during the learning process’ (Kolb, 1984, p. 21). In this case, the process of learning provides the concrete experience which then becomes the subject of observation and reflection (White, 2004). It is our view that all hospitality and tourism educators need to actively engage students in consideration of their learning preferences. In addition, this paper suggests that educators also need to plan teaching and learning activities in a way that recognises student learning preferences and the educational practice that best aids student learning. Certainly, these results are consistent with other studies of learning style preferences of students on hospitality and tourism programmes in the UK and in Australia (Lashley, 1999; Barron and Arcodia, 2002; Lashley and Shaw, 2002), though it also shows for the first time, similarities and differences in learning preferences of students from different national and cultural backgrounds on these courses. Substantial numbers of UK and Australian students register strong preferences for Activist learning styles when they enter these programmes, and perhaps more concerning, substantial minorities show low preference for Reflector, Theorist, Pragmatist styles. Students from other Confucian cultures are more likely to be Reflectors when they enter their programme, and substantial minorities find more active approaches to learning difficult. These are two groups of students, in the same classes with quite different learning needs, each presenting educators with a need to understand their preferences so as to engage them in change. Educators committed to developing graduates who are reflective practitioners, or even ‘philosophical practitioners’ (Tribe, 2002), educators need to understand the learning style preferences of their students, and adopt learning and teaching strategies that develop different approaches to learning, but which are compatible with students initial learning style preferences. We agree with Tribe’s view that learners need to be encouraged to learn through concrete and abstract, as well as active and reflective stages. Andrew et al. (2002, p. 6) suggest ‘The role of identifying learning styles is to act as a catalyst for development rather than to accept an identified style’. For all its limitations, the Learning Style Questionnaire does provide
ARTICLE IN PRESS 566
C. Lashley, P. Barron / Hospitality Management 25 (2006) 552–569
lecturers and students with an opportunity to consider approaches to learning and processing information. The work of Kolb (1984) suggests a model that can be useful as a tool for engaging students in this ‘balanced’ learning process. Students and managers must reflect on actions undertaken—see how these reflections fit with theories—consider how they might need to alter future actions, and then act. Fig. 2 reproduces these stages involving both collective and individual reflection. For the purposes of this paper, and for future educational activities, we suggest that the process of learning needs to move through the stages outlined in Kolb’s model. Active experience needs to be followed by reflection including the critical evaluation of the experience, consideration of how experiences inform or adapt theoretical understanding, and how this might inform future actions. Traditionally, this is shown as a cycle as in Fig. 2; however, it is more accurately a series of spirals where the process of acting, reflect, theorising and deciding of future actions leads to new learning situations leading on from the past. (Andrew et al., 2002, p. 8) state that ‘For Kolb the learning process is a continuos interaction between the individual and the world, which Kolb describes as a tension and conflict filled process y and conflict that require special skills at each stage of his four part model.’ Fig. 3 expresses this process more accurately. Educators and students engaged with a consideration of student information processing preferences as revealed by the LSQ are in a good position to adopt teaching and learning strategies that engage these processes. It is our view that these preferences can be developed and changed, and that active consideration of learning styles provides a useful approach for dealing with both the learning style preferences of the majority, as well as with minorities as in the Australian context. The statements outlined in Table 4 provide some really useful insights into the way hospitality and tourism students see themselves as learners. We believe that these insights can assist in developing more effective study techniques but which also assist
Concrete Experience (feeling)
Reflective Observation Active Experimentation (doing) (watching)
Abstract Conceptualisation (thinking)
Fig. 2. Kolb’s learning cycle. Source: Lashley and Best, 2003.
ARTICLE IN PRESS C. Lashley, P. Barron / Hospitality Management 25 (2006) 552–569
567
Performance
Time Fig. 3. A model of reflective practice.
students to develop approaches to processing information that will be invaluable in their future careers. Strategies that set student learning style preferences at the heart of the educational experience provide a means of developing balanced approaches to learning and empowering students to take active control of the way they learn. Ultimately, their development as reflective or ‘philosophical’ practitioners requires students to learn using processes that engage reflection and theorising as well as action. References Airey, D., Tribe, J., 2000. Education for hospitality. In: Lashley, C., Morrison, A. (Eds.), In Search of Hospitality: Theoretical Perspectives and Debates. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford. Allinson, C.W., Hayes, J., 1990. Validity of the learning styles questionnaire. Psychological Reports 67, 859–866. Andrew, D., Pheiffer, G., Green, M., Holley, D., 2002. The uses of learning styles: beyond the matching hypotheses. European Learning Styles Information Network Conference Proceedings. University of Ghent, Ghent Belgium. Armstrong, S.J., 2002. Effects of cognitive style on the quality of research supervision. European Learning Styles Information Network Conference Proceedings. University of Ghent, Ghent. Barron, P., 2002. Providing a more successful education experience for Asian hospitality management students studying in Australia: a focus on learning styles. Journal of Teaching in Travel and Tourism 2 (2), 63–88. Barron, P., 2004. An evaluation of learning styles and learning problems of Confucian heritage culture students studying hospitality and tourism management in Australia. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Queensland, Australia. Barron, P., Arcodia, C., 2002. Linking learning style preferences and ethnicity: international students studying hospitality and tourism management in Australia. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education 1 (2), 1–13. Beaven, M., Calderisi, M., Tantral, P., 1998. Barriers to learning experienced by Asian students in American accounting classes. Paper Presented at American Accounting Association Mid Atlantic Regional Meeting, March 1998. Berings, M., Poell, R., 2002. Measuring on-the-job learning styles: a critique of most widely used questionnaires. European Learning Styles Information Network Conference Proceedings. University of Ghent, Ghent Belgium.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 568
C. Lashley, P. Barron / Hospitality Management 25 (2006) 552–569
Botterill, D., 2002. Tourism studies and research quality assessment in universities. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education 1 (2). Cassidy, S., 2003. Learning styles: an overview of theories models and measures. European Learning Styles Information Network Conference Proceedings. University of Hull, Hull. Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training, 2002. Higher Education Institutions in Australia, http://www.dest.gov.au/highered/ausunis.htm, Site Visited 6.5.03. Curry, L., 1983. An Organisation of Learning Styles Theory and Constructs, ERIC Document ED 235 185. Curry, L., 1987. Integrating Concepts of Cognitive or Learning Styles: A Review With Attention to Psychometric Standards. Canadian College of Health Service Executives, Ottawa ON. Dunn, R., Dunn, K., 1993. Teaching Secondary Students Through Their Individual Learning Styles. Parker Publishing, West Nyack, NY. Dunn, R., Griggs, S., 2000. Practical Approaches to Using Learning Styles in Higher Education. Bergin & Garvey, Westport, CN. Entwistle, N.J., Ramsden, P., 1983. Understanding Student Learning. Croom Helm, London. Entwistle, N.J., Tait, H., 1994. The Revised Approaches To The Study Inventory. Centre for Research into Learning, Edinburgh. Given, B., 2002. Teaching to Brain’s Natural Learning Systems. ASCD, Alexandria, VA. Higher Education Funding Council for England, 1998. Review of Hospitality Management. HEFCE, London. Higher Education Funding Council for England, 2001. Getting Ahead: Graduate Careers in Hospitality Management. HEFCE, London. Honey, P., Mumford, A., 1986. The Manual of Learning Styles, second ed. Peter Honey Publications Ltd., Maidenhead, Berkshire, UK. Honey, P., Mumford, A., 2000. The Learning Styles Questionnaire: 80 Item Version. Peter Honey Publications Ltd., Maidenhead, Berkshire, UK. Hsu, C.H.C., 1996. Needs and concerns of international students: what can educators do? Hospitality and Tourism Educator 8 (2/3), 68–75. Huyton, J.R., 1997. The implications of cross-cultural communication in the hotel industry: A Chinese case: National Tourism and Hospitality Research Conference 1997. In: Proceedings from the National Tourism and Hospitality Research Conference: Sydney, Bureau of Tourism Research, pp. 158–165. Khwaja, H.S., Bosselman, R.H., 1990. Cultural adjustment of international graduate students in American hospitality and tourism programs. Hospitality Research Journal 14 (2), 75–82. Kolb, D., 1984. Experiential Learning. Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. PrenticeHall, Engelwood Cliffs, NJ. Labour, M., 2002. Learner empowerment via raising awareness of learning styles in foreign language teacher training. European Learning Styles Information Network Conference Proceedings. University of Ghent, Ghent. Lashley, C., 1999. On making silk purses: developing reflective practitioners in hospitality management education. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 11 (4), 180–185. Lashley, C., Best, W., 2003. 12 Steps to Study Success. Continuum, London. Lashley, C., Shaw, M., 2002. The effects of learning styles on student achievement in HE and the implications for curriculum design, development and delivery. European Learning Styles Information Network Conference Proceedings. University of Ghent, Ghent. Mainemelis, C., Boyatzis, R., Kolb, D., 2002. Learning styles and adaptive flexibility. Management Learning 33 (1), 5–33. Malfroy, J., Daruwalla, P., 2000. Culture and communication in a postgraduate hospitality program. Australian Journal of Hospitality Management 7 (1), 27–34. Richardson, J.T.E., 2002. Variations in student learning and perceptions of student learning. European Learning Styles Information Network Conference Proceedings. University of Ghent, Ghent. Ritzer, G., 2002. McDonaldization: The Reader. Sage, London. Sadler-Smith, E., 1997. Learning style frameworks and instruments. Educational Psychology 17 (1/2), 51–65.
ARTICLE IN PRESS C. Lashley, P. Barron / Hospitality Management 25 (2006) 552–569
569
Schon, D.A., 1983. The Reflective Practitioner. Temple Smith, London. Schon, D.A., 1987. Educating the Reflective Practitioner. Jossey-Bass, San Fransisco, CA. Thies, A.P., 2003. Connections: neuropsychology, neuroscience, and learning styles. European Learning Styles Information Network Conference Proceedings. University of Hull, Hull. Ticehurst, G.W., Veal, A.J., 1999. Business Research Methods: A Managerial Approach. Longman, Australia. Tribe, J., 2002. The philosophical practitioner. Annals of Tourism Research 29 (2), 338–357. White, A.M., 2004. Lewin’s action research model as a tool for theory building. Action Research 2 (2), 127–144. Wong, K.K.F., Pine, R.J., Tsang, N., 2000. Learning style preferences and implications for training programs in the hospitality and tourism industry. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education 12 (2), 32–40. Yu, L., 1998. China’s hotel industry: assessment and prospects. Journal of Vacation Marketing 4 (4), 368–380. Zhao, J.L., 1991. A current look at hospitality and tourism education in China’s colleges and universities. International Journal of Hospitality Management 10 (4), 357–367.