ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Intercultural Relations

28 (2004) 577–594
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel

Learning styles and their impact on cross-cultural

training: An international comparison in France,
Germany and Quebec
Christoph I. Barmeyer!
IECS—Ecole de Management de Strasbourg/Université R. Schuman, CESAG (Centre d 0 Etude des Sciences
Appliquées à la Gestion), 61, Ave de la Forêt Noire, F 67085 Strasbourg, France

Abstract

Every person has his or her own individual way to learn and to solve problems in day-to-day
situations. These personal cognitive strategies, acquired in a long socialization process are
called ‘‘learning styles’’ and may differ depending on gender, age or culture.
In this study, the learning styles of over 300 students in business administration in France,
Germany and Quebec are examined with the Learning Style Inventory (LSI). Representative
and significant learning differences where found. This is why the LSI can be used in a first step
for the illustration and comparison of typical patterns of learning. In a second step the results
may be of use to international trainers in making decisions about course design and methods
of cross-cultural training in relation to the learning profiles of the participants.
r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Learning styles; LSI; Culture; Cross-cultural management; Socialization; Intercultural training;
Cultural differences; Training methods

!Fax:+33 3 90 41 42 70.
E-mail address: [email protected].

0147-1767/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.01.011
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
578 C.I. Barmeyer / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 28 (2004) 577–594

1. Introduction

On account of increasing globalization, cross-cultural training has become more

and more important. The diversity of people coming from different countries and
working together in multicultural groups may lead to cultural synergy as well as
misunderstandings. Most of the previous literature on cross-cultural differences in
behavior has so far focused on values and attitudes (Barmeyer & Mayrhofer, 2002;
Dupriez & Simons, 2000; Hampden-Turner & Trompenaars, 2000; Hofstede, 1980,
2001). One of the problems of these studies, in terms of concrete application, is that it
has been difficult to show that the differences in values or attitudes are directly linked
to behavioral outcomes such as managerial performance.
Another problem is the relationship between culture and personality, meaning the
group and the individual. This is also particularly important in the process of cross-
cultural training because even if the contents of the training are of high quality and
interest, what about the learning process and the transmission of knowledge
according to the participants’ personalities and cultures? Only a few international
studies of learning styles and their influence on cross-cultural interaction and
training exist (Jackson, 1995; Oxford, 1995), but there is a growing interest
(Abramson, Keating, & Lane, 1996; Holman, Pavlica, & Thrope, 1997; Nishida,
Hammer, & Wiseman, 1998).
This is why in the present article, cultural differences in learning styles of business
students—future managers—in France, Germany and Quebec will be examined. The
results should give some essential orientation for nationally bound attitudes and
explanations for the use of this knowledge in relation to the design of cross-cultural
trainings.

2. Culture and learning

Every person has his or her own individual way of gathering and processing
information, which means ways of learning and solving problems in day-to-day
situations. These personal cognitive abilities, acquired in the course of a long
socialization process are called ‘‘learning styles’’ (Reynolds, 1997). A learning style
can be defined as the individual, natural and preferred way of a person to treat
informations and feelings in a certain (learning-)situation which will influence his
decisions and behaviors. Each culture trains and molds those within its system for
what it considers the most appropriate methods of problem solving, as Geert
Hofstede explains:
[y] our cognitive development is determined by the demands of the environment
in which we grew up: a person will be good at doing things that are important to
him/her and that (s)he has occasion to do often. Cognitive abilities are rooted in
the total patterns of a society. (Hofstede, 1986, p. 305)
Culture, defined by Hofstede as ‘‘the collective programming of the mind which
distinguishes the members of one human group from another’’ (Hofstede, 1980,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C.I. Barmeyer / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 28 (2004) 577–594 579

p. 25), is thus determined by national socialization through institutions such as

family, school, universities and work (Dubar, 1991). All of those influence the
development of learning styles—the way to acquire, order and use concepts.
Consequently, culture may be related to the development of learning styles.
International research is usually interested in discussing the clash which may
appear when teachers and students from different cultures interact because their
teaching and learning styles are divergent (Hofstede, 1986; Oxford, 1995). When
teachers fail to recognize the cultural differences, students react in negative ways to
the instruction and may show bad results. For optimal learning progress, instructors
need to understand their students’ learning stylesy and their culture. This is the
same for cross-cultural training (Bennett, 1986).
In the following, a typology of learning styles in France, Germany and Quebec will
be shown and some generalizations worked out since cultural groups will have to be
compared. Categorizations of people as ‘‘types’’ can easily become stereotypes that
tend to trivialize human complexity and end up denying human individuality rather
than characterizing it. For this reason, every person, in spite of his ‘‘mental
programming’’, has his or her own individual style:
The reason that one can proceed in most situations to act sensibly without having
to make hundreds of conscious choices is that one develops organized ways of
automatically processing most of the kinds of information encountered. In
computer terms, one does what one is ‘‘programmed’’ to do. Much of the
programming is the same for all or most of the human race; much is imposed by
the structure of particular culture and subcultures. But in addition there are
programs unique to individuals, and these are fundamental to psychological
individuality. (Tyler, 1978, p. 106)
Human individuality results from the pattern or program created by personal
choices and their consequences. In the following comparison, this must be kept in
mind.

3. The Learning Style Inventory (LSI)

Building on the work of Dewey (1938), Lewin (1951) and Piaget (1970), David A.
Kolb developed a theory of experiential learning (Kolb, 1984), which still plays an
influential role in management education (Holman et al., 1997; Kayes, 2002; Kolb &
Kolb, 2003; Vince, 1998). People do learn from their experience. According to the
theory of experiential learning, Kolb (1984, p. 38) defines learning as ‘‘the process
whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience.’’. Another
definition, very similar to that one, is focused on the process:
Learning is defined broadly as that set of processes by which new elements of
action-orientation are acquired by the actor, new cognitive orientations, new
values, new objects, new expressive interests. Learning is not confined to the early
stages of the life circle, but continues throughout life. What is ordinarily called a
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
580 C.I. Barmeyer / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 28 (2004) 577–594

‘‘normal’’ adaptation to a change in the situation or the ‘‘unfolding’’ of an

established dynamic pattern is a learning process. (Parsons, 1952, p. 203)
Learning is thus a holistic process and not a product. It is a process of human
adaptation, in general, and not one limited to the classroom. Experimental learning
combines experience, perception, cognition and behavior. In the heart of all learning,
lies the way in which experience is processed, in particular, the critical reflection of
experience. Learning is like a cycle that begins with experience, continues with
reflection and later leads to action, which itself becomes a concrete experience (CE)
for reflection. It is, therefore, highly interesting for cross-cultural management
training. As many of the major contributors to the field point out, experience has
once again become a crucial topic of discussion in the intercultural field. A central
theme of Kolb’s theory states that the learning process is not the same for everybody:
As a result of heredity, past life experiences and demands linked to environmental
circumstances, everybody develops an individual learning style, which has both
strong and weak points (Jonassen & Grabowski, 1993).
Learning styles help to resolve problems and conflicts in day-to-day situations.
Some people tend to be more abstract, others more concrete. A mathematician may
come to place great emphasis on abstract concepts, whereas a poet may value CE
more highly. A manager may be primarily concerned with the active application of
ideas, whereas a naturalist may develop his observational skills more strongly. While
teaching at universities in different countries, one may notice the diverging cognitive
abilities of students. Some of them learn best during formal lectures, while others
prefer exercises or discussions. This is why Kolb built his model on the following
assumptions:
Learning is conceived as a four-stage cycle. Immediate concrete experience is the
basis for observation and reflection. An individual uses these observations to
build an idea, generalization, or ‘‘theory’’ from which new implications for action
can be deduced. These implications or hypotheses then serve as guides in acting to
create new experience. The learners, if they are to be effective, need four different
kinds of abilities: Concrete Experience abilities (CE), Reflective Observation
abilities (RO), Abstract Conceptualization abilities (AC) and Active Experimenta-
tion (AE) abilities. (Kolb, 1981, p. 111)

In the process of learning, and especially in particular situations, every human

being moves in varying degrees from being an actor to an observer, and from specific
involvement to general analytic detachment. Different learners may start at different
phases of the cycle. Some individuals integrate and use all four learning modes; for
others, some learning modes will come to predominate. For this reason, every human
being develops a specific learning style (Fig. 1).
The Experiential Learning Theory (ELT) represents an integration of research on
learning styles and conceptualizes the learning process. To assess individual
orientations toward learning, Kolb developed a simple self-description test, called
LSI. The LSI has found broad acceptance and is frequently used in management and
education (Kayes, 2002). It is a short questionnaire, which evaluates the way people
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C.I. Barmeyer / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 28 (2004) 577–594 581

1) Concrete Experience:
"Feeling"

Grasping via
Apprehension

4) Active Transformation Transformation 2) Reflective

Experimentation via Extension via Intention Observation
"Doing" "Watching"
Grasping via
Comprehension

3) Abstract Conceptualization
"Thinking"

Fig. 1. The experiential learning cycle.

deal with new ideas and day-to-day situations. It is designed to measure the strengths
and weaknesses of a learner by asking him to rank in a series of four sentences the
different abilities shown in the figure above. The totals are summed for each column,
and these represent the respondent’s relative emphasis on the different learning
phases (Kolb, 1984; Hay/McBer, 1999; McBer & Company, 1985):

! A high score on CE represents a receptive, experience-based approach to learning.

These individuals rely heavily on feeling-based judgments. High CE individuals
tend to be ‘‘people oriented.’’ They learn best from specific examples in which they
can become involved, such as discussions.
! A high score on RO indicates a tentative and reflective approach to learning. Such
individuals rely heavily on careful observation and prefer learning situations such
as lectures.
! A high score on AC indicates an analytical and conceptual approach to learning.
These individuals rely on logical thinking and rational evaluation. These
individuals tend to be more oriented towards things and symbols and less toward
other people. They learn best from impersonal learning situations.
! A high score on AE indicates an active orientation that relies on experimentation.
These individuals learn best from projects and dislike passive learning situations.

The structural model of experiential learning showed two fundamental dimensions

of the learning process, standing in dialectical opposition: CE versus AC and RO
versus AE. As a result of intercorrelations in his studies, Kolb suggests the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
582 C.I. Barmeyer / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 28 (2004) 577–594

1. Concrete Experience

ACCOMMODATING DIVERGING
Getting things done Being imaginative
Leading Understanding people
Taking risks Recognizing problems
Initiating Brainstormings
Being adaptable and practical Being open-minded
4. 2.
Active Reflective
Experimentation Observation
CONVERGING ASSIMILATING
Solving problems Planning
Making decisions Creating models
Reasoning deductively Defining problems
Defining problems Developing theories
Being logical Being patient

3. Abstract Conceptualization

Fig. 2. Basic caracteristics of learning style types.

combination of the two scores in order to create a two-dimensional map of learning

space of four elementary forms of knowing: converging, diverging, assimilating,
accommodating (Kolb, 1984, pp. 76–78; Hay/McBer, 1999, p. 8), shown in Fig. 2.
The four phases of the learning cycle (CE, RO, AC, AE) and the four learning
style types (converging, diverging, assimilating, accommodating) offer a practical
tool for comparing not only individual, but also collective cultural learning styles,
which will be illustrated in the following part.

4. Empirical study

4.1. Sample/respondents

A total of 353 French, German and French–Canadian (Quebec) students in

International Management or Human Resource Management from two business
schools and one university participated in this study (Barmeyer, 2000).
The three cultural areas France, Germany and Quebec were chosen in order to
have other—non-anglophones—samples, because most of the empirical studies of
the LSI were done till now in the USA. The idea was to use the LSI for the first time
in Germany and France. The political, economical, scientific and managerial
cooperation of these three cultural areas is quite important, especially between
France and Germany. But also Quebec in North America, as ‘‘an island of 7 million
Francophones in an ocean of 300 millions Anglophones’’ (Barmeyer, 1998, p. 92) has
special relationships to France and Germany with its own diplomatic missions
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C.I. Barmeyer / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 28 (2004) 577–594 583

Table 1
Sample: students from France, Germany and Quebec

Ecole de Management, Universität des Saarlandes, Ecole des Hautes

Lyon Saarbrücken Etudes Commerciales,
Montréal

Period October 1996–June 1997 June 1996 September 1995

Number 132 98 123
Culture French German Quebecois
Mean age 22.3 24.4 —
Gender f: 61, m: 71 f: 34, m: 64 f: 50, m: 73
Discipline Gestion/Management Betriebswirtschaftslehre Gestion/Management

besides the state of Canada. Quebec is considered in the Canadian constitution as a

‘‘distinctive society’’, which has a specific management system relative to
demography, language, laws, religion and economy (Colongue, 1996; Kolboom &
Lieber, 1998). Thus, Quebec represents with its European tradition and his location
in North America some kind of a cross between both cultures. The three
management institutions EM Lyon (France), Universität des Saarlandes (Germany)
and HEC Montréal (Quebec) are highly ranked and are to some extent,
representative for the business education of each site. There was also a pragmatic
reason that motivated the choice: the three management institutions have a students-
exchange program that facilitates the empirical research.
The students from France, Germany and Quebec were used as a proxy for actual
managers. The use of students rather than managers has been favored in studies
(Abramson, Keating, & Lane, 1996; Jackson, 1995) because it results in a more
homogeneous, balanced and matched sampling with regard to age, socio-economic
background and education (given the differences in educational traditions and
formal education). It has to be stressed that even if students of management are in
some way similar to real managers because they aspire to become managers
themselves upon graduating, they don’t have yet the practical managerial experience
(Table 1).

4.2. Method and procedure

All respondents where administered the LSI questionnaire (McBer, 1985)

developed by David A. Kolb. The LSI has been found to possess adequate validity
and reliability (Atkinson, 1988; Certo et al., 1980; Vince, 1998). The questionnaire
contains 12 sentences with four statements each, which evaluate a person’s relative
learning preference. All responses were made on a 4-point scale with ‘1’ describing
the ‘least’ way the respondent learns and ‘4’ describing how she/he learns ‘best’. A ‘3’
is given to that word in the remaining pair that is most like them and a ‘2’ to the
word that is left over. In class, respondents were asked to complete the questionnaire
either on their own or with the assistance of the researcher. All respondents
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
584 C.I. Barmeyer / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 28 (2004) 577–594

participated voluntarily. At the end of the questionnaire, the respondents had to sum
up the score of each of the four endings. After having responded to the
questionnaire, the ELT was explained to the students and the results where
discussed in detail.

4.3. Findings and interpretation

For the analysis, the items of each questionnaire were inspected based on variables
such as education, age, gender and culture. The data was analyzed with the software
program Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS 6.0). A total of 16,944
pieces of data were used (4 rows " 12 items " 353 students). One-way analysis of
variance (ANOVA) was used to determine the significance. The categorically
independent variables were named ‘gender’, ‘age’, ‘education’ and ‘culture’. The
dependent variables were the four dimensions of Kolb’s learning cycle. Due to
limitations on the length of an article, only the collective profiles concerning the
variables gender and culture will be presented (Barmeyer, 2000).

4.3.1. Gender differences

One important variable of differences in learning styles is gender. A number of
studies confirm the hypotheses about divergences in the gender-specific styles of
learning, thinking and working (Belenky, Clinchy, & Goldberger, 1986; Belle, 1990;
Philbin & Meier & Huffmann, 1995). Due to gender-related differences in society
and specific value orientations, women tend to emphasize interpersonal abilities such
as sensitivity, patience, tolerance, friendly atmosphere, and empathy more than men.
These traits were labeled by Hofstede (1998) as ‘feminity’. Gender roles themselves
and the behavior of men and women in society are widely a product of culture
because the underlying values and norms are learned (unconsciously) during the
process of socialization (Game, 1994, Sternberg, 1997; Tata, 2000). In this study,
central research questions arise: Do similarities or differences exist between the
learning styles of female and male students? How do the differences manifest
themselves? Do the female students, for example, tend to have a more emotional
learning style? In this study, the LSI-questionnaire was answered by 145 female
(41,1%) and 208 male (58,9%) students. The following table shows the results of the
four dimensions in relation to gender. The over all sum of the four dimensions is 120
points (Table 2).
The results of the four LSI-dimensions show some gender divergences, which are
significant. The dimension CE (feeling) between female students and male students
was found significant (p ¼ 0.0113). Female students scored higher than male
students in this dimension, which reflects social or emotional competences (Kolb,
1984) or Hofstede’s (1980, 1998) femininity dimension. The results also show
significant differences concerning the dimensions RO (watching, p ¼ 0.0299) and AC
(thinking, p ¼ 0.0239). Here the male students show a higher average score than the
female students. There was no significant difference concerning the fourth
dimension, AE (doing). The results confirm the research question of a more
affective orientation of the female learning style.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C.I. Barmeyer / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 28 (2004) 577–594 585

Table 2
Learning styles and gender

Dimension Female students Male students Significance

n ¼ 145 n ¼ 208

1. Concrete experience: feeling 27.5310 25.3702 0.0113***

2. Reflective observation: watching 28.3931 29.9471 0.0299**
3. Abstract conceptualization: thinking 31.9724 33.8654 0.0239*
4. Active experimentation: doing 32.1034 30.8173 0.0830 n.s.

*: pp0.05; **: pp0.01; ***: p p0.001; n.s.: pX0.05.

1.
Concrete Experience
"Feeling" female =
male =
40

30

4. 2.
Active 40 30 20 20 Reflective
Experimentation Observation
"Doing" 20 20 30 40 "Watching"

30

40

3.
Abstract Conceptualization
"Thinking"

Fig. 3. Learning cycle and gender profile.

The following figures show a profile of the statistical results within the learning
cycle (Fig. 3) and gender differences according to the four learning style types by
reporting percentages of gender in each quadrant (Fig. 4).
The quantitative distribution reveals that more male students (41.8%) represent
the assimilating learning style type than the female students (32.4%). On the other
hand, female students are slightly more represented in diverging learning style type
with 24.1%. More than 22.8% of the female students are in the converging field but
only 18.8% revealed of the male students. 20.7% of the female students use the
accommodating learning style but only 17.8% seen of the male students.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
586 C.I. Barmeyer / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 28 (2004) 577–594

ACCOMODATING DIVERGING

female 20,7% female 24,1%

male 17,8% male 21,6%

EA-OR

CONVERGING ASSIMILATING

female 22,8% female 32,4%

male 18,8% male 41,8%

CA-EC

Fig. 4. Learning style types and gender profile.

4.3.2. Cultural differences

Culture is determined by socialization through institutions such as family, friends,
school, universities and work. All of these factors influence the development of
learning styles, help to create a system of shared values, assumptions and knowledge
(Geertz, 1973; Hofstede, 1980), determine people’s perception, interpretation and
problem-solving methods. These cognitive capacities are learned during a socializa-
tion process and influence the individuals’ specific methods. Consequently, culture
can be related to the development of learning styles. In this study, other research
questions arise: Are there similarities or differences in the learning styles of
German, French and Quebecois students? How do the differences manifest
themselves? (Table 3)
The results of the sample show that differences where found in the CE (feeling)
scores: The scores of French and Quebecois students were higher than of the German
and these differences are highly significant (p ¼ 0:000). This could indicate a
preference for personal involvement with people and a more intuitive approach to
problems and situations. The RO (watching, p ¼ 0:3496) scores do not show
significant differences, but the AC (thinking, p ¼ 0:007) scores do. The German
students scored higher than the French and the Quebecois. This result shows a
definite preference for theoretical stimuli and an emphasis on logic orientation rather
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C.I. Barmeyer / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 28 (2004) 577–594 587

Table 3
Learning styles and cultural group

Dimension French students German Quebecois Significance

n ¼ 132 students n ¼ 98 students
n ¼ 123

1. Concrete experience: feeling 28.1667 22.4898 27.2114 0.0000***

2. Reflective observation: 28.6667 29.5918 29.7724 0.3496 n.s.
watching
3. Abstract conceptualization: 32.2424 35.0918 32.3984 0.0103**
thinking
4. Active experimentation: 30.9242 32.8265 30.6179 0.0392*
doing

*: pp0.05; **:pp0.01; ***: pp0.001; n.s.: pX0.05.

1.
Concrete Experience France =
"Feeling" Germany =
Quebec =
40

30

4. 2.
Active 40 30 20 20
Reflective
Experimentation Observation
"Doing" 20 20 30 40 "Watching"

30

40

3.
Abstract Conceptualization
"Thinking"

Fig. 5. Learning cycle and cultural profile.

than subjective–cognitive orientation. Finally, the higher AE (doing, p ¼ 0:0392)

score of German students indicates the importance that seems to be attributed to
activity, and the value of ‘‘getting things done.’’ In general, the results of the French
and Quebecois students are very close.
The following Fig. 5 shows a profile of the statistical results within the learning
cycle.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
588 C.I. Barmeyer / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 28 (2004) 577–594

ACCOMODATING DIVERGING

France 21,2% France 28,0%

Germany 12,2% Germany 12,2%
Quebec 22,0% Quebec 25,2%

EA-OR

CONVERGING ASSIMILATING

France 16,7% France 34,1%

Germany 32,7% Germany 42,9%
Quebec 14,6% Quebec 38,2%

CA-EC

Fig. 6. Learning style types and cultural group.

Fig. 6 shows the four learning style types by reporting percentages of each culture
in each quadrant. A majority of the German students, 42.9%, is found in the
assimilating quadrant but only 38.2% of the Quebecois students and 34.1% of the
French students. A majority of German students is also in the converging quadrant
with 32.7% but only 16.7% of French and 14.6% of Quebecois students.
Assimilating and converging learning style types have a strong cognitive orientation.
The French and the Quebecois students are more to be found in the opposite
quadrants with a more emotional orientation: converging and accommodating. 28%
of the French and 25% of the Quebecois students represent a diverging learning style
type and 22% of Quebecois and 21.2% of French students represent an
accommodating learning style type. In all quadrants, the students from France
and Quebec are more close together than their German counterparts.

4.4. Limitations

Some critical perspectives in general concerning learning theories and instruments

such as the LSI are treated by Hayes & Allinson (1988), Reynolds (1997), Jonassen &
Grabowski (1993) and Kayes (2002). With regard to this study, some limitations of
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C.I. Barmeyer / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 28 (2004) 577–594 589

the results and the use of the LSI as a tool for demonstrating cultural differences
have to be mentioned:

! The LSI is a self-evaluation test. Thus it gives only a general idea of how a person
views him—or herself as a learner (self-concept). It does not rate learning style
preferences through standards of behavior; it only gives relative strengths within
the individual learner, not in relation to others. Other information sources should
be gathered from friends, instructors and co-workers.
! The LSI uses an ipsative measure for cross-subject comparison. This means that a
high score on one dimension results in a correspondingly low score on another
dimension, which leads to a self-referential nature.
! The data of the sample is acquired only from a questionnaire (not from observed
behavior) and the results were analyzed only on a collective/group level (age,
education, gender and nationality).
! The instrument LSI has a cultural and linguistic bias concerning the content. This
makes the translation or the comprehension difficult for persons from another
culture and for those who speak a language other than English. Wording in the
questions may be vague on account of semantic problems.
! The LSI decontextualizes the learning process and provides only some factors that
influence learning. Especially, in comparative and intercultural research, it would
be interesting to describe a specific international learning situation and then to
analyze the specific attitude of the respondents.
! Important cultural dimensions, such as power distance, uncertainty avoidance
(Hofstede, 2001) or information flow, are not directly measured by the LSI, nor
are stereotypes, which can seriously influence cross-cultural interactions. This may
explain the measured ‘‘cultural proximity’’ between French and Quebecois
students, which does not necessarily seem to be true in real interactions.
! This point leads to another critical subject: this study has a comparative and not an
intercultural orientation. Thus, it may give some indications for problems in
intercultural interactions, but does not directly measure these interactions.

In general, based on the research design, the findings are not generalizable to the
French, German and Quebecois culture, but they pertain only to business students of
theses areas. However, from these results, it was possible to infer some cross-cultural
differences in learning preferences. Culture appears to exert a measurable influence
on the process, which an individual uses to organize and make sense of his
environment. In this case, Kolb’s model provides a possible tool for looking into
how differences might be categorized.

5. Implications for cross-cultural training

The main goal of cross-cultural training is to develop cross-cultural effectiveness

and competence (Bennett, 1986; Dinges & Baldwin, 1996; Gudykunst, 1984) by
moving from ethno-centric to ethno-relative stages (Bennett, 1993; Hammer 1998).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
590 C.I. Barmeyer / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 28 (2004) 577–594

Affective France = F
Germany = G
Culture simulations Quebec = Q
Culture awareness
Discussions of case studies

F 21,2% F 28,0%
G 12,2% G 12,2%
Q 22,0% Q 25,2%
Behavioral Reflective
ACCOMODATING DIVERGING Observation
Role plays
Simulations CONVERGING ASSIMILATING all methods concerned
F 16,7% F 34,1%
G 32,7% G 42,9%
Q 14,6% Q 38,2%

Cognitive
Books, articles, lectures, films,
CD-ROM and internet-based
learning, case-studies, Culture
Assimilator

Fig. 7. Training methods and learning style types

Cross-cultural training can never be a ‘‘cure-all’’ but it can make important

contributions to people’s adjustment (Bolten, 1999; Brislin & Yoshida, 1994;
Hannigan, 1990; Landis & Bhagat, 1996; Müller-Jacquier, 2000).
Studies on cross-cultural competences use often the three-factor model with
cognitive, affective and behavioral elements, once introduced by Gudykunst,
Wiseman and Hammer (1977). In this respect, training should provide knowledge
and information—‘‘cognitive’’—increase awareness and understanding—‘‘affec-
tive’’—and develop skills—‘‘behavior’’ (Bennett, 1986). A lot of training methods
already exist. Some well-known training methods include ‘‘Culture Awareness’’, the
‘‘University Model’’, or the ‘‘Culture Assimilator’’. However, in training practice, no
clear distinction between these methods is made, because normally a trainer does not
stick to one method but applies a variety of approaches depending on the
participant’s profile. Even if there is a lot of interpenetration, known training
methods often have a strong relation to one of the three elements, which also
correlate with the four learning styles.
To be effective, trainers have to be aware of their own teaching styles and the
learning style of the participants. Depending on the dynamics of cross-cultural
training situations and the participants, the trainer may change or adopt his methods
and may rarely stick to one method. Good intentions are not enough—trainers need
a structure. For this reason, Fig 7 shows a combination of Kolb’s learning styles
types, known training methods, and the result of this study.
Based on the empirical results of this study, it can be assumed that participants with a
high CE score—as in the sample of French and Quebecois and female students—may
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C.I. Barmeyer / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 28 (2004) 577–594 591

prefer culture affective oriented methods, such as culture awareness exercises or

discussions. Participants with a high AC score—as in the sample of German or male
students—may prefer cognitive information transfer by lectures or articles. Finally,
participants with a high score of AE may prefer a behavioral approach of interactions,
simulation games and role-plays. But, due to the diversity of learning styles within a
group, ‘‘an effective intercultural training pedagogy will use learning activities that
address all of Kolb’s basic four learning styles’’ (Paige, 1996, p. 151).

6. Conclusion and perspectives

In conclusion, due to cultural socialization and mental programming, learning

styles are culture-bound cognitive schemes. When managers from different cultures
communicate and work together in multinational teams or training situations,
different learning styles meet, influencing both learning and working.
Persons from different cultural backgrounds, such as the French, the German and
the Quebecois, may differ in the way they think and act. The LSI findings above
show that German students have significantly different learning style preferences
when compared to French and French–Canadian students. Significant cultural
distance therefore really seemed to exist between these cultures, which may indicate
that Germans might have some difficulties in interacting with French and Quebecois
(Barmeyer, 1998; Segal, 1990). The close LSI findings of students from France and
Quebec may be explained by the French heritage of Quebec (Barmeyer 1998; Dupuis,
1995; Kolboom, 2001).
Despite cross-cultural irritations and problems, the diversity of learning styles and
working styles is also a precious source of cultural synergy because various ways of
problem solving lead to a greater variety of solutions. Cross-cultural training could
be more efficient if the culturally bound learning styles were taken into
consideration. Understanding one’s preferred learning style and that of others helps
to understand areas of weakness, and gives people the opportunity to work on
becoming more proficient in other modes or it helps to realize strengths, which are
useful in cross-cultural training and management situations.
Knowing more about learning styles, trainers may orient their training methods
according to the aspirations and learning preferences of the participants, who can
differ, for example, in gender or culture, as was shown in this article. An analysis of
the participants’ learning styles at the beginning of a training session may be very
useful and can make a real improvement in the outcome of the training.
Nevertheless, as the literature and practice show, the exploration of learning styles
and their use in cross-cultural trainings has just begun.

References

Abramson, N. R., Keating, R. J., & Lane, H. W. (1996). Cross-national cognitive process differences:
A comparison of Canadian, American and Japanese managers. Management International Review, 2,
123–147.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
592 C.I. Barmeyer / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 28 (2004) 577–594

Atkinson, G. (1988). Reliability of the learning style inventor. Psychological Reports, 62,
755–758.
Barmeyer, C. I. (1998). Le Québec et l’Allemagne. Aspects interculturels du management. In I. Kolboom,
& I. Lieber (Eds.), Le Québec Société et Cultures. Les enjeux d’une francophonie lointaine (pp. 91–105).
Dresden: University Press.
Barmeyer, C. I. (2000). Interkulturelles Management und Lernstile. Studierende und Führungskräfte in
Frankreich, Deutschland und Quebec. Frankfurt/New York: Campus.
Barmeyer, C., & Mayrhofer, U. (2002). Le management interculturel: Facteur de réussite des fusions-
acquisitions internationals. Gérer et Comprendre. Annales des Mines, 70, 24–33.
Belenky, M., Clinchy, B., & Goldberger, N. (1986). Womens ways of knowing. New York: Basic Books.
Belle, F. (1990). Les femmes cadres. Quelles différences dans la difference? In J.-F. Chanlat (Ed.),
L’individu dans l’Organisation (pp. 431–465). Québec: Les Presses de l’Université de Laval.
Bennett, J. M. (1986). Modes of cross-cultural training. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10,
117–134.
Bennett, M. J. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity.
In M. R. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 21–71). Yarmouth: Intercultural
Press.
Bolten, J. (1999). Interkultureller Trainingsbedarf aus der Perspektive der Problemerfahrung entsandter
Führungskräfte. In K. Götz (Ed.), Interkulturelles Lernen/Interkulturells Training (pp. 61–80).
München: Rainer Hampp.
Brislin, R. W., & Yoshida, T. (1994). The content of cross-cultural training: An introduction. In R. W.
Brislin, & T. Yoshida (Eds.), Improving intercultural interactions (pp. 1–14). London: Sage
Publications.
Certo, S. C., & Lamb, S. W. (1980). An investigation of bias within the learning style inventory through
factor analysis. Journal of Experiential Learning and Simulation, 2, 1–7.
Colongue, Ray. (1996). The impossible nation. The longing for homeland in Canada and Quebec. Stratford:
Mercury Press.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Dover Publications.
Dinges, N., & Baldwin, K. (1996). Intercultural competence. A research perspective. In D. Landis, &
R. Bhagat (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (pp. 106–123). London: Sage.
Dupriez, P., & Simons S. (Ed) (2000). La résistance culturelle. Fondements, applications et implications du
management interculturel. Bruxelles: De Boeck Université.
Dubar, C. (1991). La Socialisation. Construction des identités sociales et professionnelles. Paris: Armand
Colin.
Dupuis, J.-P. (1995). Le modèle québécois de développement économique. Québec: Presses Inter
Universitaires.
Game, E. M. (1994). Masculin/féminin. In H. Riffault (Ed.), Les Valeurs des Franc- ais (pp. 227–249). Paris:
Presses Universitaires de France.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. London: Hutchinson.
Gudykunst, W. B. (1984). Dimensions of intercultural effectiveness: Culture specific or culture general?
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 8, 1–10.
Gudykunst, W. B., Wiseman, R., & Hammer, M. (1977). An analysis of an integrated approach to cross-
cultural training. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 1, 99–110.
Hammer, M. R. (1998). A measure of intercultural sensitivity: The intercultural development inventory.
In S. Fowler, & M. Fowler (Eds.), The intercultural sourcebook. Yarmouth: Interculturtal Press.
Hampden-Turner, C., & Trompenaars, A. (2000). Building cross-cultural competence. London: Yale
University Press.
Hannigan, T. (1990). Traits, attitudes, and skills that are related to intercultural effectiveness and their
implications for cross-cultural training: A review of the literature. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 14, 89–111.
Hay/McBer (1999). Learning style inventory. Version 3, Boston.
Hayes, J., & Allinson, C. W. (1988). Cultural differences in the learning styles of managers. Management
International Review, 28, 75–80.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C.I. Barmeyer / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 28 (2004) 577–594 593

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills:
Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 10, 301–320.
Hofstede, G. (Ed.). (1998). Masculinity and femininity. The taboo dimension of national cultures. London:
Sage.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations
across nations. London: Sage.
Holman, D., Pavlica, K., & Thrope, R. (1997). Rethinking Kolb’s theory of experiential learning in
management education. Management Learning, 28, 135–148.
Jackson, T. (1995). European management learning. A cross-cultural interpretation of Kolb’s learning
cycle. Journal of Management Development, 6, 42–50.
Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. L. (1993). Handbook of individual differences, learning, and instruction.
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kayes, C. D. (2002). Experiential learning and its critics: Preserving the role of experience in management
learning and education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2, 137–149.
Kolb, D. A. (1981). Learning styles and disciplinary differences. In A. W. Chickering (Ed.), The Modern
American College (pp. 232–255). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. Experience as the source of learning and development. New York:
Prentice Hall.
Kolb, A., Kolb D.A. (2003). Bibliography on experiential learning theory. www.learningfromexperience.-
com/research, 30.3.2004.
Kolboom, I., Lieber, I. (1998). (Ed). Le Québec. Société et Cultures. Les enjeux d’une francophonie
lointaine. Dresden: University Press.
Kolboom (2001). Québec—Deutschland: Parallelen, Analogien, Vergleiche—ein Versuch. Zeitschrift für
Kanada-Studien, 39, pp. 109–124.
Landis, D., & Bhagat, R. (1996). A model of intercultural behavior and training. In D. Landis, & R. S.
Bhagat (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (pp. 1–13). London: Sage.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social sciences. New York: Harper & Row.
McBer & Company (1985). LSI—learning style inventory. Boston: Self-Scoring Inventory and
Interpretation Booklet.
Müller-Jacquier, B. (2000). Linguistic awareness of cultures: Grundlagen eines Trainingsmoduls. In J.
Bolten (Ed.), Studien zur internationalen Unternehmenskommunikation (pp. 18–48). Leipzig: H. Popp.
Nishida, H., Hammer, M. R., & Wiseman, R. L. (1998). Cognitive differences between Japanese and
Americans in their perceptions of difficult social situations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 4,
499–524.
Oxford, L.R., Anderson, N.J. (1995). A crosscultural view of learning styles. In: Language teaching (Vol.
10, pp. 201–215). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Paige, R. M. (1996). Intercultural trainer competencies. In D. Landis, & R. S. Bhagat (Eds.), Handbook of
intercultural training (pp. 148–164). London: Sage.
Parsons, T. (1952). The social system. New York: Free Press.
Philbin, M., Meier, E., & Huffmann, S. (1995). A survey of gender and learning styles. Sex Roles,
7/8, 491.
Piaget, J. (1970). The place of the sciences of man in the system of science. New York: Harper Touchbooks.
Reynolds, M. (1997). Learning styles: A critique. Management Learning, 28, 115–133.
Segal, J.-P. (1990). Les pièges du management interculturel. Une aventure franco-québécoise. Gérer et
Comprendre, 21, 47–58.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tata, J. (2000). Implicit theories of account-giving: Influence of culture and gender. International Journal
of Intercultural Relations, 24, 437–454.
Tyler, L. (1978). Individuality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Vince, R. (1998). Behind and beyond Kolb’s learning cycle. Journal of Management Education, 22,
304–319.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
594 C.I. Barmeyer / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 28 (2004) 577–594

Further reading

Dinges, N. (1983). Intercultural competence. R.W. dans Brislin, & H.C. Triandis (dir.), Handbook of
Intercultural Training (pp. 176–202). New York: Pergamon.
Highhouse, S., & Doverspike, D. (1987). The validity of the learning style inventory 1985 as a predictor of
cognitive style and occupational preference. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47, 749–753.
Lieberman, D. A. (1991). Ethnocognitivism and problem solving. In L. A. Samovar, & R. E. Porter (Eds.),
Intercultural communication (pp. 229–234). Belmont: Wadsworth.
Pateau, J. (1998). Une étrange alchimie. La dimension interculturelle dans la coopération franco-allemande.
Paris: CIRAC.