• 沒有找到結果。

Learning Style and Personality Type Profiles of Hospitality Undergraduate Students of Taiwan and the United States

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Learning Style and Personality Type Profiles of Hospitality Undergraduate Students of Taiwan and the United States"

Copied!
14
0
0

加載中.... (立即查看全文)

全文

(1)

Learning Style and Personality Type Profiles of

Hospitality Undergraduate Students of Taiwan and the

United States

Wu, Chih-Kang

Assistant Professor, Department of Tourism Management, National Kaohsiung University of Applied Sciences

Lai, Hong-Shan

Assistant Professor, Department of Hospitality Management, Ming-chung University

Abstract

The purpose of this cross-cultural study was to compare learning style and personality type profiles of hospitality undergraduate students in Taiwan and the United States (U.S.). Four hundred and ninety-seven (497) Taiwanese hospitality students from 2 general universities in May 2002 and 294 American hospitality students from a southwest university in the fall semester of 2002 completed a questionnaire that included demographic information, Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory (LSI), and Personal Style Inventory (PSI). Frequencies were tabulated to report the distribution of personality types and learning styles of participants in Taiwan and the U.S. in relation to the demographic information. Results showed that the learning styles of the participants from these two countries showed slight differences with the Taiwanese participants having more assimilators (42.7% vs. 32.3%; z = 9.44, p < .000) and fewer

accommodators (5.6% vs. 15.3%; z = -2.81, p < .005) than their U.S.

counterparts.

Keywords: Learning Style; Personality Type; Learning Style Inventory; Personal Style Inventory; Hospitality Education

(2)

Introduction

Stuart (1992) highlighted several factors that have an impact on how effectively individuals can learn. These factors included age or generation, education, culture, language fluency, level and types of intelligence, learning environment, beliefs and attitudes, learned strategies, and source of motivation, as well as learning style and personality.Otherresearchershave suggested thatunderstanding students’learning style preferences in accordance with personality types can help educators plan for activities that take advantage of their natural skills and inclinations (Geary & Sims, 1995; Sims & Sims, 1995). However, learning preferences and personality types of students may differ significantly across cultures and for different historical periods.

The first American four-year hospitality management program, the Hotel School at Cornell University, was established in 1922 (Barrows, 1999). Hospitality programs in the U.S. have educated hospitality professionals and managers since then. Hospitality students and managers were identified as having unique learning styles and different personality traits (Berger, 1983; Bagdan & Boger, 2000; Hsu, 1999; Hsu, Smith, & Finley, 1991; Stone, 1988). Graves (1996, p. 109) found that thepersonality traitsofsuccessfulmanagerswere“energetic,sociable,trustworthy, friendly, stable, disciplined, confident, and objective,” and that “energy and trustworthiness” were mostimportantamong allthepersonality traits. However, common learning styles and personality types of students in the U.S. hospitality programs may not be the same as those of students in different cultures and educational systems.

Hospitality Programs in Taiwanese Higher Education

In recent years, Taiwan has experienced political and economic changes that directly affect the development of higher education (R.O.C. Ministry of Education, 2001). Together with the advent of an open society, a prosperous economy, and the acceleration of communication technologies, higher education has been able to expand at a fast rate in the 1990s. From the originally established four state universities, there are now more than 158 public and private universities and colleges in Taiwan (R.O.C. Ministry of Education, 2010).

(3)

113

Hospitality education is one of the fastest growing fields of study in Taiwan. The first hospitality program was established in 1968, and only two bachelor degree-granting programs had been established by 1990. Currently, there are 45 four-year degree-granting hospitality and tourism programs (R.O.C. Tourism Bureau, 2010). Two reasons have explained the growth of hospitality programs: one was the strong, steady economy that increased the demands for quality hospitality establishments to provide services to domestic and international customers. The second explanation was the increasing needs for trained hospitality professionals as the establishments mushroomed (R.O.C. Tourism Bureau, 2002).

Before 2002, undergraduate students were admitted to colleges and universities mainly through the outcome of a highly competitive national standardized examination, the University Joint Entrance Examination (UJEE). The exam tests four core disciplines: Chinese literature, English, mathematics, Dr. Sun Yi-Sen Philosophy (social studies), and two elective fields: natural sciences (physics, chemistry, and/or biology) or the liberal arts (geography and history). Over 100,000 high school graduates have taken the UJEE every year since 1985 (R.O.C. Ministry of Education, 2002b).

The UJEE was replaced by a Multi-Channel Admission System in 2002. Base on this admission system, Taiwanese high school graduates can be admitted to colleges and universities through selection and enrollment (including self application and school recommendation) and/or examination and assignment dependentson candidates’preferences(R.O.C. Ministry of Education, 2005). The selection and enrollment channel requires candidates to take a General Scholastic Ability Test including Chinese Language and Literature, English, Mathematics, Social Studies, and Natural Sciences (The College Entrance Examination Center, 2010). The candidate can be recomendated by her/his high school to one college program and can apply for up to five college programs according to the test outcome and other required documentations (College Entrance and Examination Center, 2010).

For candidates who choose the examination and assignment channel, he or she needs to take a Department Required Test. The test includes 9 disciplines, Chinese Literature, English, Mathematics I, Mathematics II, Physics, Chemistry, Biology,

(4)

Geographic, and History. The university departments elect the three to six test scores as their admitting standards. The candidate apply for desired department according to her/his scores. Regardless which channel the candidate elect, he or she needs to take one or two highly competitive test(s) to be qualified for the candidacy.

Theoretically, each student can apply for the program suitable for the individual’s career goals; nevertheless, the program admission standards place moreemphasison students’testing outcomesthan theircareergoals.To increase the odds of having the opportunity to pursue postsecondary education, students tended to select all the programs they are qualified to apply for. This practice disregarded theconsideration ofstudents’personality preferencesand careergoals in the selection process. At the same time, to effectively prepare for the General Scholastic Ability Test and the Department Required Test, students in Taiwan tended to spent most of their time on studying and memorizing the book. Eventually, they might be forced to develop a specific learning style early in their high school years that could align them with the rigorous tests hereby increasing the opportunity of being admitted to the top ranked universities and programs (R.O.C. Ministry of Education, 2002b).

Consequence to the tests oriented high school education, hospitality students in general universities have limited exposure to the nature of the hospitality industry before they are admitted to the academic programs. After being admitted to the hospitality program, the cohorts of students who begin their college studies the same year usually enroll in the same classes throughout their academic programs (R.O.C. Ministry of Education, 2002a).

Hospitality Programs in U.S. Higher Education

The higher education system in the United States has two types of institutions for hospitality management programs: (a) eight hundred community colleges that offer hospitality management programs with associate degrees, certificates, or diplomas; and (b) 170 universities and colleges that offer a four-year undergraduate degree and 40 programs that offer graduate degrees in hospitality management (Riegel & Dallas, 2008, p.10).

(5)

115

Generally, admission to hospitality programs in the U.S. involves the same selection criteria required for undergraduate programs in other majors. However, specific admission requirements vary widely from university to university.

According to Hutton (1997), a four-year U.S. hospitality college education combines career education with a basis in the business disciplines and liberal arts. Undergraduate students should complete two years of foundation courses, including liberal arts and business management studies combined with introductory courses in hospitality areas. Other areas and skills outside the major that may be required and are of particular use to hospitality professionals include people skills, communication skills, computer knowledge, foreign languages, mathematics, speech, statistics, and practical ethics (Hsu, 2002; Hutton, 1997).

Hutton (1997) stated that some hospitality programs include direct study in the hospitality undergraduate student's major. Some undergraduate programs allow time for career-oriented specialization in which lectures are combined with hands-on hospitality work on-campus, analysis of case studies, and experiential off-campus training. In some hospitality programs, students may be able to earn specific concentrations in hospitality areas, such as hotel and motel management, restaurant and institutional operation/management, travel and tourism, sales and marketing, group and convention sales, facility design, and human resources management (Hutton, 1997; Walker, 2002).

Since the 1920s, the hospitality programs in the U.S. have successfully educated hospitality professionals and managers. According to several researchers, hospitality students and managers have unique learning styles and different personality traits (Berger, 1983; Bagdan & Boger, 2000; Hsu, 1999; Hsu, Smith, & Finley, 1991; Stone, 1988).

Learning Style Studies

A large number of learning style studies have been conducted since the 1960s. There are over 1,000 research articles about learning styles. Although years have passed since some of the studies were completed, the results and discussions of those studies are still accurate and relevant. Kolb (1984) and Smith and Kolb (1986) found that women tended to prefer concrete experience learning styles, whereas

(6)

men were more likely to opt for abstract conceptualization modes of learning. Vernon-Gerstenfeld (1989) found that women were slightly more reflective in their learning styles than men. In a study conducted by Prosser-Gelwick (1985), women appeared to be concrete learners; men appeared to be abstract learners. A meta-analysis of 26 previous studies revealed slightly lower scores for women on the abstract conceptualization scale. Men were more likely than women to start the learning process with abstract concepts (Severiens & Ten Dam, 1994).

Several studies have explored the use of a variety of instructional strategies to increaseretention based on collegestudents’learning stylepreferences.Nelson, Dunn, Griggs, Primavera, Fitzpatric, and Miller (1993) reported significantly higher overall grade point averages when the instructional strategies were congruent rather than incongruent. Clark-Thayer (1987) found that higher achievement related to students' learning styles across subject matter.

Additional studies also found that students studying in learning situations that matched their learning styles and preferences had higher achievement (Kolb, l984; Dunn, Beaudey, & Klavas, 1989), gained greater satisfaction from the course (Kolb, 1984), performed better on problem-solving measures, and needed less time to learn outside of classes (Katz, 1990). Armstrong (1981), Lockhard and Schmeck (1983), and Murray (1984) found that students tended to positively evaluate teachers who taughtthem according to thestudent’slearning styles.Although these results are far from conclusive, they clearly indicate that individual learning styles and preferences are important factors that should be taken into account in designing effective instructional strategies for students (Fung et al., 1993).

Several studies suggested that individuals tended to enter academic and vocational fields that were consistent with their own learning styles (Canfield, 1988; Kolb, 1976; Moody, 1989; Myers & McCaulley, 1985a). According to Kolb (1981, 1984), learning style develops as a consequence of hereditary factors, previous life experiences, and demands of the present environment. Although a learning style is relatively stable, qualitative changes result from maturation and environmental stimuli (Cornett, 1983).

Berger (1983) showed that most hospitality students in the U.S. were Divergers (33%) and accommodators (29%) and most hospitality professors were convergers

(7)

117

(42%). Hsu et al. (1991) reported that 78% of unit-level and 76% of district-level restaurant managers in the U.S. were convergers.

Personality Types

In 1942, Katharine Cook Briggs and her daughter, Isabel Briggs Myers, studied and elaborated on Carl G. Jung’s work and developed the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (Myers, 1993). The MBTI is a self-reporting questionnaire designed to identify and make psychological types understandable.

Although the MBTI is widely used, the developers are cautious about how the MBTI should be used. They suggested that the results are useful in identifying individual strengths and unique talent when they are interpreted by an institutional certified psychological professional and . The developers caution that administrators should be careful in interpreting results and potentially mislabeling individuals (Myers, 1993)

Individuals are categorized into one of sixteen MBTI personality profiles, which characterize an individual's preferences in two major categories of perceiving (taking in information) or judging (organizing information) characteristics. The variations in what one prefers, uses, and develops, leads to fundamental differences between people. The resulting predictable patterns of behavior form psychological types (Myers, 1993).

Based on the theory of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator instrument, Hogan and Champagne developed the Personal Style Inventory (PSI) in 1979. In essence, this is a simplified variation of the MBTI instrument. The purpose of the PSI is to provide a simple instrument for knowing the shape ofone’spreferences,butthat shape, while different from the shapes of other persons' personalities, has nothing to do with mental health or mental problems (Hogan & Champagne, 1979).

The PSI provides a means of characterizing one's preferred learning style with respect to four dimensions: extroversion-introversion, sensing-intuition, thinking-feeling, and judging-perceiving. Each dimension is present to some degree in all learners. Additionally, the inventory is designed to determine if individuals demonstrate a balance among the four dimensions or if they have slight, definite, or considerable strengths and weaknesses in the dimensions (Hogan & Champagne, 1979).

(8)

Objectives of the Study

Compared with hospitality programsin Taiwan,theUnited States’hospitality programs are mature and progressive based on a well-established hospitality program tradition and history. In addition, U.S. students have more freedom in selecting their majors. American students tend to select their majors based on their understandings of the study fields and knowing whether it fits their personality types and learning styles. On the contrary, hospitality students in Taiwan tend to have their majors selected for them based on the match of their University Joint Entrance Examination (UJEE) outcomes and program admission standards, and usually do not know the nature of the hospitality careers.

It is hypothesized that the personality types and learning styles distributions of the hospitality students in Taiwan might differ from their U.S. counterparts. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to identify and compare the learning style preferences and personality type distributions of Taiwanese hospitality students and their American counterparts.

Methodology

Samples and Sampling Procedures

Undergraduate students majoring in hospitality comprised the sample for this study. There were 294 hospitality undergraduate students enrolled in a hospitality program at a large, well-established southwestern university in the United States and 497 hospitality undergraduate students enrolled in two hospitality programs in comparable-sized universities in Taiwan.

The samples were selected by non-probability sampling in May 2002. In Taiwan, the questionnaires were distributed to all students attending hospitality classes in both universities since students admitted at the same time usually are enrolled in the same class. In the United States, students were socilited from required hospitality courses from freshman to senior levels.

Research Instrument

The three-section questionnaire included demographic items, Kolb's Learning Style Inventory (LSI-II), and the Personal Style Inventory (PSI). The demographic section includes questions asking respondents’gender,age,academicinformation,

(9)

119

and work experiences. These questions were developed to describe the respondents and to study the relationships between demographic variables and students’ learning styles and/or personality types.

The LSI consists of a twelve-sentence stem form with a choice of four endings for each stem (Kolb, 1993), Each ending describes a preference of learning a new idea, concrete experience (CE), reflective observation (RO), abstract conceptualization (AC), and active experimentation (AE). Participants are asked to rank the choice endings for 1 through 4 in a manner that best describes the way they like to learn (1 = least likely, and 4 = most likely to be the way one likes to learn). Responses are added together to construct four scores to show the respondent’sextentofeach learning preference. Each learning preference ranges from 12-48 and the total scores should be 120 points for the four learning stages. Thesescoresmeasuretheemphasisarespondentplaceson each stageofKolb’s learning cycle. The four scores are then plotted onto a grid to construct the individual’slearning profile.

The four scores produced from the LSI are further used to create two learning dimension mean scores ranging from +48 to -48 (Kolb, 1993). Each score is then plotted onto the intersecting learning style type grid (LTG). The two polar opposite axes of the LTG are labeled AC-CE and AE-RO. These two axes represent the skills that Kolb believed to be the required skills for learning. The first product of these two scores is obtained by subtracting the CE score from the AC (AC-CE) score. The product of AC-CE is then plotted onto the vertical axis, which indicates the learning style preference of the individual in the concrete-abstract dimension. The second score is obtained by subtracting the RO score from the AE score (AE-RO). The product is then plotted onto the horizontal axis, which indicates one’slearning stylepreferencein theactive-reflective dimension. Information from Kolb’sLSIwasused to determinemean stagescores,learning dimension scores, and a preferred learning style for each respondent.

The PSI is a 20-item questionnaire (Jewler & Gardner, 1993). Each question has two stems. The respondents were asked to allocate a total of 5 points between the two stems based on their personal preferences from 0, (least likely) to 5 (most likely). However, the total scores of the two stems could not exceed 5.

(10)

The corresponding scores obtained from the PSI are added to construct four 5-question dimension scores. The combined score of each dimension should be 25. The scores of each component (column) of the dimension ranged between 0 and 25. The total scores in each column indicate relative strengths and balances in the four dimensions (for example, E and I is one dimension).

The meaning of the outcome of each dimension score is explained as:

1. Column scores of 12 or 13 suggest a balance in the two components of the dimension.

2. Column scores of 14 or 15 suggest slight imbalance; the dimension component with the higher score is slightly stronger than the other component.

3. Column scores between 16 and 19 suggest a definite imbalance; the dimension component with the higher score is definitely stronger than the other component.

4. Column scores between 20 and 25 suggest a considerable imbalance; the dimension component with the higher score is considerably stronger than the other component.

An individual's personality style type is identified by combining the four columns with scores of 14 or greater. Column scores of 12 or 13 reflect a balance between the two characteristics (Jewler & Gardner, 1993, p. 54).

Pilot Test

According to Fink (1995), a pilot test of a survey should have ten or more participants. In this study, 12 international students and scholars from Taiwan were asked to test the demographic information, learning style inventory, and personal style inventory in both the English and Chinese versions. After completing the questions, they were asked to comment on the accuracy of translation and clarity of language. The feedback was used to revise the instrument.

Sampling and Data Collection

The study was conducted in a 4-year degree-granting hospitality program in a southwestern university in the United States in the fall semester of 2002 and two compatible size universities in Taiwan in May 2002. Faculty in the hospitality programsoftheselected institutionswereasked to identify students’learning styles

(11)

REFERENCES

Armstrong, N. (1981). The relationship between learning preference and student evaluation of teaching.

Journal of the Association for the Study of Perception, 16 (1), 27-30.

Bagdan, P. J., & Boger, C. A. Jr. (2000). Learning style inventory and the demographics of hospitality students. Journal of hospitality & Tourism Education, 12(1), 10-15.

Barrows, C. W. (1999). Introduction to hospitality education. In C. W. Barrows & R. H, Bosselman (Eds.),

Hospitality management education (pp. 1-20). New York: The Haworth Hospitality Press.

Berger, F. (1983). Disparate learning styles of hospitality students, professors, and mangers. International

Journal of Hospitality Management, 2 (1), 15-23.

Canfield, A. A. (1988). Learning styles inventory manual. Los Angles, CA: Western Psychological Service. Clark-Thayer, S. (1987). The relationship of the knowledge of student perceived learning style preferences,

and study habit and attitudes to achievement of college freshmen in a small urban university. (Doctoral dissertation, Boston University, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts International, 48, 872A.

College Entrance and Examination Center. (2010). The Multi-Channel Admission System. Retrieved June 9, 2010, form http://www.jbcrc.edu.tw/left-32.htm.

Cornett, C. E. (1983). What you should know about teaching and learning styles. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Foundation.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.

Dunn, R., Beaudey, J., & Klavas, A. (1989). Survey of research on learning styles. Educational Leadership, 46, 7.

Fink, A. (1995). How to sample in surveys. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publication, Inc.

Fung, Y. H., Ho, A. S. P., & Kwan, K .P. (1993). Reliability and validity of the learning style questionnaire.

British Journal of Educational Technology, 24 (1), 12—21.

Geary W. T., & Sims, R. R. (1995). Adapting faculty and student learning styles: Implications for accounting education. In R. D. Sims & S. J. Sims (Eds.), The importance of learning styles:

understanding the implications for learning, course design, and education (pp. 117-127). Westport, CT:

Greenwood Press.

Graves, N. S. (1996). Personality trait of successful managers as perceived by food and beverage human resource executives and recruiters. Hospitality Research Journal, 20 (2), 95-112.

Hogan, R. C., & Champagne, D. W. (1979). Supervisory and management skills: a competency based training

program for middle managers of educational systems. Privately published by Hogan & Champagne.

Hsu, C. H. C. (1999). Learning styles of hospitality students: Nature or nurture? Hospitality Management, 18, 17-30.

Hsu, C. H. C. (2002). The curriculum reform and trends of hospitality higher education development in the United States. Proceedings of 2002 Hospitality Education International Conference, Taiwan, 41 –67. Hsu, C. H. C., Smith, F. M., & Finley, D. H., (1991). Restaurant managers’ learning styles and their

implications. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 10 (1), 81-93.

Hurley, M. R. (2002). Is there a correlation between type A personality and choice of a college major?

Undergraduate Journal of Psychology, 15, 27-31.

Hutton, L. (1997). U.S. education for hospitality careers. The Advising Quarterly, 42, 1 - 22.

Jewler, A. J., & Gardner, J. N. (1993). Your college experience (Concise ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Jung C. C. (1971). Psychological type. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, Bollingen Series

(12)

Jung, C. G. (1923). Psychological types or psychology of individuation. (H. Godwin Baynes, Treans.). New York: Pamtheon.

Katz, N. (1990). Problem-solving and time: Function of learning style and teaching methods. The

Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 10 (4), 221-236.

Keppel, G. (1991). Design & analysis, a researcher’s handbook(3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Kindsvater, R., Wilen, W., & Ishler, M. (1996). Dynamics of effective teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Longman Publisher.

Kluckhohn, C., & Murray. H. (1967). Personality in nature, society and culture. New York: Knopf. Kolb, D. A. (1976). Learning style inventory: Technical manual. Boston: McBer & Co.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as a source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kolb, D. A. (1985). Learning style inventory (Rev. ed.). Boston, MA: McBer & Co.

Kolb, D. A. (1986). Learning style inventory: Technical manual (Rev. ed.). Boston, MA: McBer & Company.

Kolb, D. A. (1993). Learning style inventory. Boston: TRG Hay/McBer Training Resources Group. Kolb, D. A. (2000).Facilitator’sguideto learning.Boston, MA: McBer and Company.

Levine, D. M., Berenson, M. L., & Stephan, D. (1999). Statistics for Managers Using Microsoft Excel. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Lockhard, D., & Schmeck, R. R (1983). Learning styles and classroom evaluation methods: Different strokes run different folks. College Students Journal, 17 (1), 94-100.

Moody, R. (1989). Personality preferences and forcing language learning. Modern Language Journal, 72 (4), 389-410.

Murray, G. L. (1984). Improving advising through the use of cognitive style. NACADA Journal, 4 (l), 17-22. Myers, I. B. (1993). Introduction to type (5thed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc. Myers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. H. (1985a). A Guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs type

indicators. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Myers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. H. (1985b). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the

Myers-Briggs type indicators. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Nelson, B., Dunn, B., Griggs, S. A., Primavera, L., Fitzpatric, M., & Miller, R. (1993). Effects of learning style intervention on college students' retention and achievement. Journal of College Student

Development, 34, 364-369.

Piaget, J. (1966). The psychology of intelligence. Totowa, NJ: Little & Adams.

Prosser-Gelwick, B. (1985). Cognitive development of women. In Evan, N. J., (Ed). Facilitating

Development of Women (pp. 29-44). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

R.O.C. Ministry of Education. (2000). Reforms in higher education. Council of Academic Reviewal and Evaluation. Retrieved December 15, 2000, form http://www.high.edu.tw/ch1.htm

R.O.C. Ministry of Education. (2001). White paper on higher education. Council of Academic Reviewal and Evaluation. Retrieved January 3, 2001, form http://www.high.edu.tw/ch1.htm

R.O.C. Ministry of Education. (2002a). White paper on higher education. Council of Academic Reviewal and Evaluation. Retrieved December 3, 2002, from http://www.high.edu.tw/white_paper/indexc.htm R.O.C. Ministry of Education. (2002b). Ministry of Education, Department of Higher Education, The

(13)

Taipei, Taiwan.

R.O.C. Tourism Bureau. (2002). Tourism Bureau, Ministry of Transportation and Communication, Republic

of China. Retrieved December 3, 2002, from http://www.tbroc.gov.tw/admn_info/user/mp9.htm.

R.O.C. Tourism Bureau. (2003). Tourism Bureau, Ministry of Transportation and Communication, Republic

of China. Retrieved January 12, 2003, from http://202.39.225.136/indexc.asp

Reading-Brown, M. & Hayden, R. (1989). Learning styles - liberal arts and technical training: what's the difference? Psychological Reports, 64, 507-518.

Riegel, C. D., & Dallas, M. (2002). Hospitalityand tourism:careersin world’slargestindustry.A Guideto College Programs in Culinary Arts, Hospitality, and Tourism (7thed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Severiens, S. E., & Ten Dam, G. T. M. (1994). Gender differences in learning styles: A narrative review and

quantitative meta-analysis. Higher Education 27, 487-501.

Sims, R. D., & Sims, S. J. (1995). The importance of learning styles: understanding the implications for

learning, course design, and education. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Smith, D. M. & Kolb, D. A. (1985). User’sguideforthelearning-style inventory: A manual for teachers and trainers. Boston, MA: Hay/McBer Training Resource Group.

Stuart, P. (1992). Learning-style theories. Personnel Journal, 71 (9), 91.

The College Entrance Examination Center (2010). Basic Scholastic Ability Test. Retrieved June 9, 2010, from http://www.ceec.edu.tw/AbilityExam/AbilityExamProfile.htm.

Tross, S. A., Harper, J. P., Osher, L. W., & Kneidinger, L. M. (2000). Not just the usual cast of characteristics: Using personality to predict college performance and retention. Journal of College

Student Development, 41, 323-334.

Vernon-Gerstenfeld, S. (1989). Serendipity? Are there gender different in the adoption of computers. Sex

Roles: A Journal of Research, 21 (3-4), 161-173.

(14)

臺灣與美國餐飲系學生學習型態與人格特質之比較

吳志康

國立高雄應用科技大學觀光管理系助理教授

賴宏昇

銘傳大學餐旅系助理教授

餐飲管理的經理人必須具備抽象思考的能力以設定經營方針,同 時又需要立即執行方案與解決問題的力,以處理包括了生產、銷售、 克服管理、及一般產業的。美國的研究指出餐飲業的經理人主要屬於 能運用抽象思考與主動驗證的「聚歛型Converger」學習型態為主。美 國的餐飲教育成功的培育了餐飲業所需要的經理人才,臺灣的餐飲教 育有蓬勃的發展,然而,因為教育系統的差異,臺灣和美國餐旅科系 學生的入學方式不同,是否對兩地學生人格特質與學習型態的分布造 成差異,則有探討的必要。因此,本研究的運用科博氏學習型態(Kolb’ Learning Style)與類似 MBTI (Personality Type)的人格特質量表比較臺 灣和美國餐飲科系學生的學習型態和人格特質的異同。四百九十七位 臺灣普通大學、與294 位美國西南部一所旗艦大學主修餐旅科系的學 生,各自填寫了一份包含了科博氏學習型態、人格特質量表、以及個 人基本資料的雙語問卷量表。結果顯示,42.7%臺灣普通大學(高教體 系)餐旅系學生 屬於 運用「以記憶 、思 考、及抽象觀 察的 同化型 (Assimilator)」學習型態學習,這比率顯著的(z=9.44, p< .000)高於運用 這種學習型態美國餐飲學生(32.3%)。同時,只有 5.6%臺灣學生屬於 運用「直覺、付諸行動的擴散型(Accommodator)」的學習型態,顯著 的(z=9.44, p< .000)比美國學生(15.6%) 低。 關鍵辭:學習型態、人格特質、跨文化研究、MBTI、跨文化研究

參考文獻

相關文件

Wang, Solving pseudomonotone variational inequalities and pseudocon- vex optimization problems using the projection neural network, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks 17

Define instead the imaginary.. potential, magnetic field, lattice…) Dirac-BdG Hamiltonian:. with small, and matrix

Basing on the observation and assessment results, this study analyzes and discusses the effects and problems of learning the polynomial derivatives on different level students

A majority of the secondary schools adopted project learning to develop students’ language development strategies and generic skills but this was only evident in a small number of

DVDs, Podcasts, language teaching software, video games, and even foreign- language music and music videos can provide positive and fun associations with the language for

Microphone and 600 ohm line conduits shall be mechanically and electrically connected to receptacle boxes and electrically grounded to the audio system ground point.. Lines in

The aim of this study is to develop and investigate the integration of the dynamic geometry software GeoGebra (GGB) into eleventh grade students’.. learning of geometric concepts

Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate the hospitality students’ entrepreneurial intentions based on theory of planned behavior and also determine the moderating