Using questionnaire study on accounting and technology undergraduate pupils. this survey examines whether class choice and class experience could act upon their acquisition manner penchant. Four types of larning manner identified in Kolb’s theoretical account: converger. diverger. learner. obliger were examined. The consequences show that classs enrolled by pupils could act upon their acquisition manner. peculiarly. the obliger pupils. The consequences besides show that the length of experience in a class influence students’ acquisition manner and the influence is important on the converger pupils. The cardinal findings in this survey is the realization that class choice and class experience may play an of import function in act uponing students’ learning manner. Therefore. it could be implied that larning manner could be cultivated and non inborn. The determination of this survey provides some hindsight to faculty members and universities on the importance of understanding students’ learning manner penchant in heightening their public presentation. Keywords: Learning manner. LSI. class choice. class experience. undergraduate pupils.

1. Introduction
It is good acknowledged that instruction environment is an of import component in finding students’ ability to make to their fullest quality ( Rutter et al. . 1979 ; Bealing Jr et Al. . 2006 ) . Within the instruction environment. the constitution and placing students’ acquisition manner has frequently been recognised in the instruction system. The importance of larning manner could assist faculty members to understand students’ penchant of larning that could help in choosing appropriate instructional methods and educational options ( Fox. 1984 ) . If students’ acquisition manner is known. faculty members could expect their students’ penchants. take advantage of their strengths and avoid their failings ( Birkey and Rodman. 1995 ; Hartman. 1995 ) .

Surveies within the instruction literature have focused on analyzing and understanding learning manner penchant ( such as Honey and Mumford. 1992 ; Jackson and Lawty-Jones. 1996 ; Hong. 2006 ; Mulalic et Al. . 2009 ) . One peculiar issue within the learning manner penchant that has been examined is the factors that influence larning manner penchant. These surveies examined assorted factors such as personality ( Jackson and Lawty-Jones. 1996 ) . civilization ( Auyeung and Sands. 1996 ; Jaju et Al. . 2002 ) . class context ( Stout and Rubble. 1991 ) and demographic profile ( Slater et al. . 2007 ; Wehrwein et Al. . 2007 ) among others. These issues were examined utilizing assorted theories and theoretical accounts such as MyersEuropean Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10. Number 1 ( 2009 )

Briggs ( Myers-Briggs. 1962 ) . Felder-Silverman ( Felder. 1996 ) . Dunn and Dunn ( Dunn and Dunn. 1978 ) and Herrmann Brain Dominance ( Herrmann. 1999 ) . One theory that has received great attending is Kolb’s theoretical account.

Best services for writing your paper according to Trustpilot

Premium Partner
From $18.00 per page
4,8 / 5
4,80
Writers Experience
4,80
Delivery
4,90
Support
4,70
Price
Recommended Service
From $13.90 per page
4,6 / 5
4,70
Writers Experience
4,70
Delivery
4,60
Support
4,60
Price
From $20.00 per page
4,5 / 5
4,80
Writers Experience
4,50
Delivery
4,40
Support
4,10
Price
* All Partners were chosen among 50+ writing services by our Customer Satisfaction Team

Kolb’s theoretical account is peculiarly well-designed since it offers both a manner to understand individual’s different acquisition manners and besides an account of a rhythm of experiential acquisition that applies to all persons ( Healey and Jenkins. 2000 ) . Kolb’s theoretical account of experiential larning theoretical account explains that different single of course prefer a certain individual different larning manner ( Kolb. 1984 ) . Within this theoretical account. the learning manner stock list ( LSI ) was introduced ( Kolb. 1984 ) . Kolb developed LSI to mensurate larning manner penchants. Surveies in the accounting instruction literature have used Kolb’s theoretical account to analyze assorted factors that could act upon students’ preferable acquisition manner. These surveies have chiefly focused on one of Kolb’s theoretical account. the experiential acquisition theoretical account ( ELM ) ( such as Brown and Burke. 1987 ) .

The usage of Kolb’s LSI in the disciplinary of accounting. nevertheless. is mostly undiscovered. This paper attempts to relieve the spread in the accounting instruction literature by analyzing the consequence of two factors: class choice and class experience on students’ larning manner penchant. The balance of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 provides a literature reappraisal on the acquisition manner and the nexus between class choice. class experience and acquisition manner. Section 3 provides the research model and hypotheses. Section 4 outlines the research method. The consequences are presented in subdivision 5. Drumhead and decision are presented in the last subdivision. 2. Literature Reappraisal

Learning manner is a characteristic cognitive. affectional and physiological behaviours that serve as a comparatively stable index of how persons perceive. interact with and react to the acquisition environment ( Keefe. 1979 ) . It is a sensitivity to follow a peculiar acquisition scheme affecting a peculiar form of information processing activities ( Schmeck. 1984 ) . Harmonizing to Kolb ( 1984. p. 41 ) . “learning is the procedure whereby cognition is created through the transmutation of experience. Knowledge consequences from the combination of hold oning experience and transforming it. ” He farther argued that there are four types of larning manner. viz. . converger. diverger. learner and obliger.

Converger refers to an person who wants to work out a job and frequently focuses on specific jobs. An person is a diverger when the individual solves jobs by sing state of affairss from many positions and relies to a great extent on thoughts bring forthing and brainstorming. Assimilator refers to an person who solves jobs utilizing inductive logical thinking and has the ability to make theoretical theoretical accounts. Accommodator is classified as an person who solves jobs by transporting out programs and executing experiments and accommodating to specific immediate fortunes ( Kolb’s et al. 1979 ) . Surveies have shown that pupils could fit their learning manner to an appropriate activity or environment ( Claxton and Murell. 1985 ; Reid. 1987 ; Ellison. 1995 ; Felder. 1995 ) . These surveies argued that the greater the attending paid to the congruity of larning activities within students’ learning manner. the better the pupils will learned.

This is due to the fact that students’ acquisition capacity is partly determined by the students’ ability and capableness of their acquisition manner ( Honey and Mumford. 1992 ) . Therefore. the failure in recognizing the importance of difference acquisition manners among the faculty members would frequently take to students’ hapless public presentation ( Mulalic et al. . 2009 ) . A organic structure of the literature has examined the nexus between class choice and students’ acquisition manner ( Baldwin and Reckers. 1984 ; Katz. 1988 ; Stout and Ruble. 1991 ; Gibbs. 1992 ) . Most of these surveies found that class choice could act upon students’ acquisition manner.

For illustration: Baldwin and Reckers ( 1984 ) found that accounting students’ learning manner differ significantly from other concern big leagues and most of these pupils belong to the converger and obliger type of survey manner. Other surveies. nevertheless. supply contrasting consequences ( Biberman and Buchanan. 1986 ) . Another group of surveies have examined whether students’ acquisition manner could be influenced by class experience ( Liapis and Seybolt. 1975 ; Baldwin and Reckers. 1984 ; Baker et Al. . 1986 ) . These European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10. Number 1 ( 2009 ) surveies frequently compared two groups of pupils ( such as junior and senior pupils ) analyzing whether the length of clip they had in the class that they enrolled in would alter their acquisition manner. These surveies suggested that more junior pupils tend to go converger while senior pupils tend to go learner.

There are besides surveies that examined larning manner utilizing Kolb’s theoretical account in the accounting literature ( Baker et Al. . 1987 ; Brown and Burke. 1987 ; Stout and Rubble. 1991 ) . The consequences of these surveies are assorted. Some of the surveies showed that most accounting big leagues are learner ( Baker et Al. . 1987 ) . Other surveies found that accounting pupils tend to go learners ( Holley and Jenkins. 1993 ; Loo. 2002 ) . There are besides surveies that showed no important difference in the acquisition manner penchants ( Brown and Burke. 1987 ) .

Within the instruction literature. most surveies were conducted in the lingual disciplinary. Often. these surveies examined students’ learning manner in English classs ( such as Abu. 2006 ; Hong. 2007 ; Mulalic et Al. . 2009 ) . Other surveies have focused on online classs ( Vafa. 2004 ; Cooze and Barbour. 2005 ; Brown et Al. . 2006 ) . mental and/or occupational wellness ( Estes. 1975 ; Gallic et Al. . 2007 ) and physiology ( Slater et al. . 2007 ) . These surveies used state puting such as Hong Kong and Australia ( Auyeung and Sands ( 1996 ) ; Katz ( 1988 ) . Thailand ( Sarawit. 1988 ) . Tibet ( Hong. 2007 ) . Sri Lanka ( Gunawardena. 1996 ) and USA ( Cooze and Barbour. 2005 ) . Study on larning manner in a Malayan context. nevertheless. is thin.

Although limited. there are surveies that have examined learning manner in Malaysia. These surveies examined larning manner penchant in the disciplinary of lingual ( such as Abu. 2006 ; Mulalic et Al. . 2009 ) . Abu ( 2006 ) used Kolb’s theoretical account and found different larning manner penchants within a class. However. as celebrated before. these surveies were examined in a non-accounting disciplinary. Such restriction provides a spread in the accounting literature and hence. provides motive for this survey to analyze these issues.

3. Model and Hypothesis
3. 1. Model
Figure 1 illustrates the model that underpins this survey. The model shows that class choice and class experience could act upon students’ larning manner penchants. Particularly. four types of acquisition manner are examined in this survey.

In the instruction literature. surveies have examined the factors that deemed to be of import in act uponing learning manner penchant. These surveies examined assorted factors such as demographic profile and personality utilizing assorted theories and theoretical accounts such as the Myers-Briggs theoretical account ( Myers- Briggs. 1962 ) and Dunn and Dunn theoretical account ( Dunn and Dunn. 1978 ) . One eminent theoretical account that has been in used in researching learning manner penchants is the Kolb’s theoretical account. However. surveies that have used these theoretical accounts were conducted in a non Malayan scene. This survey aims to analyze learning manner penchants in a Malayan scene.

Learning manner becomes the dependent variable. Course choice is the first independent variable. Surveies have researched on the being of a prevailing learning manner among accounting pupils. Other surveies have extended to analyzing the difference in larning manner penchant between accounting pupils and other comparing pupils groups ( such as Baker et Al. . 1987 ; Stout and Rubble. 1991 ) . These surveies showed that accounting pupils frequently have different learning manner penchants compared to other non-accounting pupils. However. there is yet a survey that examines whether the class choice could act upon larning manner penchants between accounting pupils and technology pupils. The different nature of the class may supply different consequence on larning manner penchants.

European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10. Number 1 ( 2009 ) 77
Figure 1: Model of this survey
Learning Style
• Converger
• Diverger
• Accommodator
• Assimilator
Course Selection
• Accounting
• Engineering
Course Experience
• First twelvemonth
• Second twelvemonth
One group of surveies in the literature has examined the consequence of class experience on larning manner penchants. These surveies compared the acquisition manner mark for junior and alumnus pupils and found important difference in the acquisition manner penchants between the two groups ( Baldwin and Reckers. 1984 ; Stout and Rubble. 1991 ) . Although a few of these surveies were conducted in the accounting disciplinary. the Numberss of similar survey is limited. Such restriction warrants this survey to revisit this issue. Therefore. class experience becomes the 2nd independent variable. 3. 2. Hypothesiss












Learning manner could be influenced by several factors. One factor that has been examined is class choice. The consequences of the surveies analyzing the nexus between class choice and survey manner are assorted ( Baldwin and Reckers. 1984 ; Katz. 1988 ; Stout and Ruble. 1991 ; Gibbs. 1992 ) . Few surveies found that class choice influences study manner. Other surveies provided contrasting consequences. The assorted consequences motivate this survey to farther analyze this issue. The undermentioned hypothesis is developed. H1: There is no important difference in the acquisition manner penchants caused by class choice. One of the factors that received least attending is the class experience. Few surveies have suggested that students’ acquisition manner would be different when students’ experience in the class they enrolled addition ( Baldwin and Reckers. 1984 ; Baker et Al. . 1986 ) . However. there is a limited survey that examines this issue. This leads to the development of the undermentioned hypothesis. H2: There is no important difference in the acquisition manner penchants caused by class experience. 4. Research Design

This survey examines whether class choice and experience could act upon students’ acquisition manner. Specifically. this survey examines whether: 1. Course choice could act upon larning manner penchants. 2. Course experience could act upon larning manner penchants These aims are examined by manner of questionnaire study. 4. 1. Sample Choice

The sample is drawn from the pupils who were enrolled into the undergraduate classs. majoring in Accounting and Engineering in a public university in Malaysia. Such sample is chosen because the pupils would hold encountered the same exposure in footings of direction and environment despite the difference in major classs. Two types of classs: accounting and technology were chosen to stand for the nature of the disciplinary. Accounting pupils are selected as representative of the societal scientific discipline disciplinary and technology pupils are selected as representative of the scientific discipline and engineering disciplinary.

Previous surveies have found that larning manner of pupils between similar nature of disciplinary would frequently be similar and that accounting and other non-engineering. scientific discipline and engineering disciplinary would besides be similar ( such as Biglan. 1973 ) . These surveies. nevertheless. did non specifically concentrate on analyzing accounting versus technology students’ larning manner. The selected sample in this survey would add part to the literature where sample represents a societal scientific discipline subject and a scientific discipline and engineering subject are examined. Three hundred questionnaires were distributed to the pupils in both classs over a period of one month through the university administrative office. Each pupil was given an envelope consisting of a questionnaire and a self-addressed envelope. The respondents were encouraged to return the questionnaire to the university administrative office within one month. Out of the 300 questionnaires distributed. 214 ( 71. 3 % ) were completed and returned.

4. 2. Questionnaire Design
This survey used questionnaire study to analyze the consequence of class choice and experience on students’ larning manner penchant. The questionnaire is adapted from the larning manner questionnaire ( LSI ) developed by Kolb ( 1984 ) with some alterations to accommodate the context of this survey. The questionnaire is divided into two subdivisions. Section A requested the respondents to finish information related to demographic profile. The inquiries in this subdivision are developed on categorical footing.

Section B of the questionnaire consists of inquiries related to the respondents’ larning manner. In this subdivision. 24 points related to learning manner are asked. The points are based on four larning manner penchants: converger. diverger. learner. accomodotar. Under converger. 6 points were developed. The respondents are requested to place points related to converger such as acquiring involve when larning new things. necessitate practical illustrations when larning new theory. larn best by work outing jobs with solutions. required specific illustrations to larn new things and holding trouble when unable to associate constructs to physical undertaking.

Under diverger. 6 points were developed. The respondents are requested to react to inquiries related to diverger such as tend to sit back when larning new things. be given to stay soundless in group treatment. prefer to watch instead than taking the lead when working on a undertaking. listen to other people’s sentiment instead than giving sentiments. take more clip to fix reply and hesitate to lend thoughts on jobs with ill-defined solutions.

Under learner. 6 points were besides developed. The respondents are requested to place points related to assimilator such as learn best by explicating theories. measure thoughts by logical thought. better at larning theories than proceedingss inside informations. act rationally in larning complicated stuffs. ability to abstract constructs without physical illustrations and work outing jobs by analyzing logical relationships to the elements involved.

The last learning manner is accommodator. Under obliger. 6 inquiries were besides developed. The respondents are requested to react to inquiries related to active experimentation such as invariably looking for new job to work out larning procedure. be given to come up with a batch of self-generated thoughts. active induction in larning procedure. prefer to follow new attack to work outing job. active engagement in group treatment and tend to seek out self-generated thoughts in the acquisition procedure. The respondents are requested to place their acquisition manner penchant by finishing subdivision B on a 4-point graduated table of 1 being “rarely” to 4 being “almost always” .

4. 3. Dependent Measure
Students’ larning manner is determined by the respondents’ responses on the 24 points. All tonss of the 24 points are added up to find the entire tonss. This would consequences to a sum of 24 for each acquisition manner. For illustration ; if a respondent provides a 4 ( i. e about ever ) for all points. the respondents would hold obtain the highest mark ( i. e 24 ) . The entire mark for each acquisition manner becomes the dependent step.

5. Research Consequences
5. 1. Demographic Profile
Table 1 presents the demographic profile of the respondents. The consequences indicate that 56. 5 % of the respondents are female while the staying 43. 5 % of the respondents are male. The consequences besides show that out of the 214 respondents. the per centum of the accounting is somewhat more ( 53. 7 % ) than the per centum of technology pupils ( 46. 3 % ) .

Table 1: Demographic profile
Panel A: Gender
Gender N Percent
Male 93 43. 5
Female 121 56. 5
Entire 214 100
Panel B: Type of Course
Course N Percent
Accounting 115 53. 7
Engineering 99 46. 3
Entire 214 100









5. 2. Descriptive Statisticss
This subdivision presents the consequences of the descriptive analyses on each of the learning manner. The consequences are shown in Table 2. Mentioning to panel A. Table 2. the consequences show that 68. 2 % of the converger respondents opined that they would wish to be involved in the procedure of larning new subjects. The consequences besides show that 87. 4 % of the respondents need to hold practical illustrations when larning new theory. Most respondents prefer to larn work outing jobs that have solutions. Ninety four per centum of the respondents prefer to hold detailed information in order to larn new subjects. Panel B. Table 2 provides the descriptive statistics for diverger acquisition manner. In this tabular array. the consequences show that more respondents tend to stay soundless during group treatments ( 75. 7 % ) than going an active information supplier during group treatment ( 24. 3 % ) . Sixty two per centum of the respondents besides prefer to watch than taking the lead when working on a undertaking. More respondents besides prefer to listen to other people’s sentiments instead than giving sentiments themselves ( 68. 2 % ) . The consequences indicate that most pupils prefer to go an perceiver and listen to other people’s thoughts instead than go a leader when holding group treatments.

Panel C. Table 2 provides the descriptive statistics demoing learner learning manner. From the tabular array. the consequences show that 70 % of the respondents act rationally in larning complicated stuffs. However. when given a pick. they prefer to larn by explicating theories instead than minute inside informations. Another interesting point is that 58. 4 % of the respondents agreed that they need practical illustrations in order to understand the constructs being taught.

Panel D. Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics demoing obliger learning manner. The consequences show that more respondents prefer to take active enterprise in larning procedure ( 60. 8 % ) and would wish to go active participants in group treatment ( 61. 7 % ) . The respondents were slightly European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10. Number 1 ( 2009 ) 80

indifference in their sentiment on seeking out self-generated thoughts in the acquisition procedure ( 56. 5 % ) and coming up with tonss of self-generated thoughts ( 52. 9 % ) . The consequences indicate that respondents with active experimentation acquisition manner would wish to happen new jobs to work out in the acquisition procedure although they prefer to utilize the same attack when work outing jobs. Table 2:

Panel A: Converger larning manner
Rarely Less frequently More frequently Almost ever
1. Geting involved in larning new things 4. 7 27. 1 54. 2 14. 0 2. Necessitate practical illustrations when larning new theory 0. 9 11. 7 31. 8 55. 6 3. Learn best by work outing jobs that have solutions 3. 3 19. 6 47. 2 29. 9 4. Necessitate specific illustrations to larn new things 3. 7 32. 7 42. 5 21. 1 5. Need valuable information to larn new things 0. 1 5. 6 49. 1 45. 2 6. Having trouble if can non associate constructs to physical things 3. 7 32. 7 42. 5 21. 1 Panel Bacillus: Diverger larning manner

Rarely Less frequently More frequently Almost ever
1. Tend to sit back when larning new things 11. 7 46. 3 28. 5 10. 7 2. Tend to stay soundless in group treatment 28. 0 47. 7 19. 2 5. 1 3. Prefer to watch instead than taking the lead when working on a undertaking 24. 3 37. 9 29. 0 8. 8

4. Listen to other people’s sentiments instead than giving sentiments 7. 5 24. 3 60. 3 7. 9 5. Take more clip to fix answer compared to other people 8. 9 38. 3 38. 8 14. 0 6. Reluctance in giving thoughts on jobs with ill-defined

solutions 8. 9 33. 6 43. 0 14. 5
Panel C: Learner acquisition manner
Rarely Less frequently More frequently Almost
ever
1. Learn best by explicating theories 6. 1 25. 7 55. 1 13. 1
2. Evaluate thoughts by logical believing 1. 9 15. 9 48. 1 34. 1
3. Better at larning theories than proceedingss inside informations 6. 9 26. 2 56. 2 10. 7 4. Act rationally in larning complicated stuffs 2. 0 28. 0 57. 9 12. 1 5. Can associate to abstract constructs without physical illustrations 13. 1 45. 3 37. 4 4. 2 6. Solving jobs by analysing logical relationships to





elements involved 8. 4 17. 8 52. 3 21. 5
Panel D: Obliger acquisition manner
Rarely Less frequently More frequently Almost ever
1. Constantly looking for new jobs to job work outing 12. 6 27. 6 47. 7 12. 1 2. Tend to come up with a batch of self-generated thoughts 12. 1 35. 0 38. 8 14. 1 3. Active induction in the acquisition procedure 9. 3 29. 9 40. 7 20. 1 4. Prefer new attacks in job work outing 15. 9 48. 1 28. 0 7. 9 5. Active engagement in group treatment 9. 3 29. 0 43. 9 17. 8 6. Tend to seek self-generated thoughts in larning procedure 7. 1 36. 4 48. 1 8. 4 5. 3. Course Selection and Learning Style


This subdivision presents the consequences of proving hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 1 provinces that there is no important difference in larning manner caused by class choice. Hypothesis 1 was analysed utilizing independent sample T-Test.

Table 3 provides the consequences of proving hypothesis 1. The consequences show that out of the four acquisition manners. obliger larning manner penchant between accounting and technology respondents are marginally significantly different ( p=0. 060 ) . The consequences. nevertheless. show that class choice does non impact the diverger. learner and converger larning manner respondents. The consequences European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 10. Number 1 ( 2009 ) 81

indicate that accounting pupils tend to hold higher ability when going this type of larning manner compared to the technology pupils.
Table 3: Course choice and acquisition manner
p-value
Converger 0. 515
Assimilator 0. 712
Diverger 0. 713
Accommodator 0. 060
5. 4. Course Experience and Learning Style
This subdivision presents the consequences of proving hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 2 provinces that there is no important difference in larning manner caused by class experience. Hypothesis 2 was analysed utilizing independent sample T-Test.







Table 4 provides the consequences of proving hypothesis 2. The consequences show that out of the four acquisition manners. converger larning manner penchant between first and 2nd twelvemonth respondents are significantly different ( p=0. 0036 ) . The consequences. nevertheless. show that class experience does non impact the learner. diverger and obliger acquisition manner respondents. The consequences indicate that there is a important difference on converger larning manner pupils as their experience in the class increased.

Table 4: Course experience and acquisition manner
p-value
Converger 0. 036
Assimilator 0. 746
Diverger 0. 830
Accommodator 0. 808




6. Drumhead and Decision
This survey examines whether the class selected by undergraduate pupils in a public university is influenced by their learning manner. This survey besides examines whether the length enrolled in a class could besides be affected by the students’ larning manner. A questionnaire study to the undergraduate pupils enrolled in the accounting and technology class were selected as the respondents. The consequences in this survey shows that class selected by the respondents act upon their acquisition manner. The consequences indicate that respondents who are in the technology class seemed to be accommodator compared to the respondents in the accounting class. Such consequences is understood since technology disciplinary involves many activities related to disciplinary work and hence. would probably to necessitate pupils to go experimental scholars ( Kolb. 1984 ) . The findings of this survey are consistent to old surveies such as by Baldwin and Reckers ( 1984 ) and Biberman and Buchanan ( 1986 ) but contrast to much earlier survey by Liapis and Seybolt ( 1975 ) .

The consequences in this survey besides show that class experience may act upon the students’ larning manner. Particularly. the influence is important for converger larning manner scholars. The consequences show that respondents in their first twelvemonth tend to go converger scholars compared to the respondents in the 2nd twelvemonth. Similar consequences appear in Stout and Rubble ( 1991 ) . The cardinal findings in this survey is the realization that class choice and class experience may play an of import function in act uponing students’ learning manner. Therefore. it could be implied that larning manner could be cultivated harmonizing to the demands of the scholars and non inborn. This survey has few restrictions. The sample used in this survey is limited to the pupils in a public university in Malaysia.

x

Hi!
I'm Niki!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out