Download to read offline
![References
Alder, N. 2000. Teaching Diverse Students [electronic version]. Multicultural Perspectives, 2(3), 28-31.
Alfred, M. V. 2003. Sociocultural Contexts and learning: Anglophone Caribbean immigrant women in US postsecondary
education [electronic version]. Adult Education Quarterly, 53(4), 242-260.
Anast Seguin, C., & Ambrosio, A. L. 2002. Multicultural vignettes for teacher preparation [electronic version]. Multicultural
Perspectives, 4(4), 10-16.
Arrias, A. A., Jr. 2000. Agile learning, new media, and technological infusement at a new university: Serving
underreprented students. ED 444 801.
Bolloju, N., & Davison, R. 2003. Learning through asynchronous discussions: Experiences from using a discussion board
in a large undergraduate class in Hong Kong. eLearn Magazine, 2003(6), Retrieved May 1, 2004 from http://
www.elearnmag.org/subpage/sub_page.cfm?section=2004&list_item=2012&page=2001.
Bosley, D. S. 200). Global contexts. Case studies in international technical communication. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Bowe, F. G. 200). Universal Design in education: Teaching nontraditional studetns. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Branch, R. 1997. Educational technology frameworks that facilitate culturally pluralistic instruction [electronic version].
Educational Technology, 37, 38-41.
Brislin, R. W. 198). Cross-cultural research in psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 34, 363-400.
Bruch, P. L., Jehangir, R. R., Jacobs, W. R., & Ghere, D. L. 2004. Enabling Access: Toward Multicultural Developmental
Curricula [electronic version]. Journal of Developmental Education, 27(3), 12--16.
Bruns, D., & Corso, R. M. 2001. Working with culturally & linguistically diverse families. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 455 972).
Cagiltay, K. 200). Culture and its effects on human-computer interaction. Paper presented at the Ed-Media. Retrieved July
15, 2004 from http://php.indiana.edu/~kursat/ed-media/ed-media.html.
Chaney, D. C. 2001. From ways of life to lifestyle: Rethinking culture as ideology and sensibility. In J. Lull (Ed.), Culture in
the Communication Age (pp. 75-88). NY: Routledge.
Chang, W.-W. 2004. A cross-cultural case study of a multinational training program in the United States and Taiwan
[electronic version]. Adult Education Quarterly, 54(3), 174-192.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/multiculture2-101121071138-phpapp01/85/Multiculture2-32-320.jpg)
![Chen, A., Mashhadi, A., Ang, D., & Harkrider, N. 1999. Cultural issues in the design of technology-enhanced learning systems
[electronic version]. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(3), 217-230.
Clark, R. C., & Lyons, C. 2004. Graphics for learning: Proven guidelines for planning, designing, and evaluating visuals in training
materials. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. 2003. e-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of
Multimedia Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
Cochran-Smith, M. 2003. Standing at the crossroads: Multicultural teacher education at the beginning of the 21st century [electronic
version]. Multicultural Perspectives, 5(3), 3-11.
Davies, T., & Elmer, R. 2001. Learning in design and technology: The impact of social and cultural influences on modelling
[electronic version]. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 11, 163-180.
DeBry, D. P. 2001. Globalizing instructional materials: Guidelines for higher education. Tech Trends, 45(6), 41-45. Retrieved
October 24, 2002 from WilsonSelectPlus.
Ess, C. 2001. Introduction: What's culture got to do with it? Cultural collisions in yher electronic global villager, creative
interferences, and the rise of culturally-mediated computing? In C. Ess (Ed.), Culture, technology, communication: Towards an
Intercultural global village (pp. 1-50). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Fay, R., & Hill, M. 2003. Educating language teachers through distance learning: The need for culturally-appropriate DL
methodology [electronic version]. Open Learning, 18(1), 9-27.
Feenberg, A. 1999. Distance learning: Promise or threat? USDLA Journal, 12(1), Retrieved July 14, 2002 from
http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/DEC2099_Issue/dl.htm.
Feinberg, M., & Vinaja, R. 2002. Faculty perceptions of bi-national distance education between the U.S and Mexico: An empirical
analysis. USDLA Journal, 16(9), Retrieved July 15, 2004 from http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/SEP2002_Issue/article2006.html.
Fernandez, S. E. W. 1999. Toward Understanding the study experience of culturally sensitive graduate students in American
distance education. Unpublished dissertation, Florida International University, Miami.
Fink, D., & Laupase, R. 2000. Perceptions of Web site design characteristics: A Malaysian/Australian comparison [electronic
version]. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications andPolicy, 10(1), 44-55.
Garcia, E. 1999. Student cultural diversity: Understanding and meeting the challenge (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Gay, G. 2000. Culturally responsive teaching : Theory, research, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Goodfellow, R., Lea, M., Gonzalez, F., & Mason, R. 2001. Opportunity and e-quality: Intercultural and linguistic issues in global
online learning. Distance Education, 22(1), 65-84.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/multiculture2-101121071138-phpapp01/85/Multiculture2-33-320.jpg)
![Gorski, P. 1999. Toward a multicultural approach for evaluating educational Web sites. Multicultural Perspectives,
2(3), Retrieved July 15, 2004 from http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/net/comps/eval.html.
Gunawardena, C. N., Nolla, A. C., Wilson, P. L., Lopez-Islas, J. R., Ramires-Angel, N., & Megchun-Alpizar, R. M.
2001. A cross-cultural study of group process and development in online conferences. Distance Education, 22(1),
85-121.
Hallak, J. 2000. Global connections, expanding partnerships, and new challenges. USDLA Journal, 14(9), Retrieved
July 14, 2002 from http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/SEP2000_Issue/story2002.
Harris, D. A., Pehrson, B., Jin, Y., & Jonsson, A. 2000. Distributed Learning on a Global Scale. USDLA Journal,
14(6), Retrieved July 15, 2004 from
http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/FEB2000_Issue/distributed%2020learningnew.htm.
Haulmark, M. 2002. Accommodating cultural differences in a Web-based distance education course: A case study.
Paper presented at the 9th Annual International Distance Education Conference, Retrieved November 27, 2003 from
http://www.cdlr.tamu.edu/dec_proceedings/dec%202002/Haulmark.pdf.
Heid, L. S., & Parish, M. T. 1998. Relating authentically in a global community: a process of personal transformation.
ED 439 374. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the International Conference on Counseling in the 21st Century
CG 029 900.
Henderson, L. 1996. Instructional design of interactive multimedia: A cultural critique. Educational Technology,
Research, and Development, 44, 85-104.
Hodge, S. 2000. Global smarts: the art of communicating and deal making anywhere in the world. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Hofstede, G. 2003. Culture's consequences : Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across
nations (2nd ed.): Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G., & McCrae, R. R. 2004. Personality and culture revisited: Linking traits and dimensions of culture
[electronic version]. Cross-Cultural Research, 38(1).
Hoft, N. L. 1995. International technical communication: How to export information about high technology. New York:](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/multiculture2-101121071138-phpapp01/85/Multiculture2-34-320.jpg)
![Huang, Z. 1996. Making training friendly to other cultures. Training and Development, 50, 13-14.
Jeevanantham, L. S. 2001. A new focus for multicultural education [electronic version]. Multicultural Perspectives, 3(2),
8-12.
Jenkins, S. 1997. Cultural and pragmatic miscues: a case study of international teaching assistant and academic faculty
miscommunication. ED411684. University of Cincinnati, Ohio.
Jones, H. 2004. A research-based approach on teaching to diversity. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31(1), 12-19.
Kato, K. 2001. Exploring 'cultures of learning': a case of Japanese and Australian classrooms [electronic version]. Journal
of Intercultural Studies, 22(1), 51-66.
Kekkonen–Moneta, S., & Moneta, G. B. 2002. E–learning in Hong Kong: comparing learning outcomes in online
multimedia and lecture versions of an introductory computing course [electronic version]. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 33(4), 423-433.
Kim, K.-J., & Bonk, C. J. 2002. Cross-cultural comparisons of online collaboration. Journal of Computer Mediated
Communication, 8(1), Retrieved May 1, 2004 from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol2008/issue2001/kimandbonk.html.
Kuskis, A. 2003. Barriers to international faculty in global online learning. Global Educator, Retrieved July 15, 2004 from
http://www.globaled.com/articles/KuskisAlex2003.pdf.
Lankbeck, R., & Mugler, F. 2000. Distance learners of the South Pacific: Study strategies, learning conditions, and
consequences for course design. Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), Retrieved July 15, 2004 from
http://cade.athabascau.ca/vol2015.2001/landbeck.html.
LeBaron, J., Pulkkinen, J., & Scollin, P. 2000. Promoting cross-border communication in an international Web-based
graduate course. Interactive Multimedia Electronic Journal of Computer-Enhanced Learning., 2(1), Retrieved July 15,
2004 from http://imej.wfu.edu/articles/2000/2002/2001/index.asp.
Lewis, R. D. 2000. When cultures collide. Managing successfully across cultures. A major new edition of the global
guide. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/multiculture2-101121071138-phpapp01/85/Multiculture2-35-320.jpg)
![Loring, L. A. 2002. Six steps to preparing instruction for a worldwide audience. Journal of Interactive Instruction
Development, 14(24-29).
Lustig, M. W., & Koester, J. 2003. Intercultural competence: Interpersonal communication across cultures (4th ed.).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Marina, S. T. 2001. Facing the challenges: Getting the right way with distance learning. USDLA Journal, 15(3),
Retrieved July 14, 2002 from http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/MAR2001_Issue/article2003.html.
Marshall, P. L. 2001. Multicultural education and technology: Perfect pair or odd couple? : (ERIC Document
Reproduction Services No. ED 460 129).
McGee, P. 2002. Web-based learning design: Planning for diversity. USDLA Journal, 16(3), Retrieved July 15, 2004
from http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/MAR2002_Issue/article2003.html.
McLoughlin, C. 2001. Inclusivity and alignment: Principles of pedagogy, task and assessment design for effective
cross-cultural online learning. Distance Education, 22(1), 7-29.
McLoughlin, C., & Oliver, R. 1999. Instructional design for cultural difference: A case Study of the indigenous online
learning in a tertiary context. Retrieved July 15, 2004 from http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/398593.html.
Moore, R. 1996. Creating a culture of learning for diverse student populations. ED 396 043. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Reading Association of Kansas.
Morse, K. 2003. Does one size fit all? Exploring asynchronous learning in a multicultural environment. JALN, 7(1),
37-55.
Neo, K. T. K., & Neo, M. 2002. Problem-solving on the Internet using web-based authoring tools: A Malaysian
Experience. e-JIST, 5(2), Retrieved July 15, 2004 from
http://www.usq.edu.au/electpub/e-jist/docs/Vol2005_No2002/neo_frame.html.
Ng, K. 2001. Using e-mail to foster collaboration in distance education [electronic version]. Using E-mail to Foster
Collaboration in Distance Education, 16(2), 191-200.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/multiculture2-101121071138-phpapp01/85/Multiculture2-36-320.jpg)
![Nikolova, I., & Collis, B. 1998. Flexible learning and design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Technology, 29,
59-72.
Nishiyama, K. 2000. Doing business with Japan : Successful strategies for intercultural communication. Honolulu:
Honolulu University of Hawaii Press.
Odendaal, A. 2001. The development of interactive online learning for distance education: A South African case study.
Paper presented at the 3rd Annual Conference on World Wide Web Applications, Retrieved May 15, 2004 from
http://general.rau.ac.za/infosci/www2001/abstracts/odendaal.htm.
Olcott, J., D. 2001. Book review: Leadership for 21st century learning: global perspectives from educational innovators.
Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 2(Retrieved June 25, 2002 from
http://www.irrodl.org/content/v2.1/olcott.html).
Parchoma, G. 2003. Learner-centered instructional design and development: Two examples of success [electronic
version]. Journal of Distance Education, 18(2), 35-60.
Petegem, P. V., Loght, T. D., & Shortridge, A. M. 2004. Powerful learning is interactive: A cross-cultural perspective. e-
Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 7(1), Retrieved May 1, 2004 from http://www.usq.edu.au/electpub/e-
jist/docs/Vol2007_No2001/FullPapers/Powerful_learning.htm.
Pincas, A. 2001. Culture, cognition and communication in global education. Distance Education, 22, 30-51.
Plueddemann, J. n. d). Cross-cultural teaching and learning: Sudan Interior Mission. Retrieved July 15, 2004 from
http://www.sim.org/categorylist.asp?fun=6&sid=190.
Primo, H. 2001. Digital Oceana: The Internet, distance learning, and sustainable human development in the Pacific
Islands. USDLA Journal, 15(3), Retrieved July 14, 2002 from
http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/MAR2001_Issue/article2002.html.
Rattanapian, V. 2002. Cross-cultural comparison of online learning delivery approaches used in Western and Thai online
learning programs. International Journal of Educational Technology, 3(1), Retrieved May 18, 2003 from
http://www.ao.uiuc.edu/ijet/v2003n2001/rattanapian/index.html.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/multiculture2-101121071138-phpapp01/85/Multiculture2-37-320.jpg)
![Robbins, N., & Craven, A. 2003. Cultural influences on student learning. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 7(3), 214-217.
Retrieved February 223, 2004 from InfoTrac OneFile.
Rogers, E. M., Hart, W. B., & Mike, Y. 2002. Edward T. Hall and the history of intercultural communication: The United
States and Japan [electronic version]. Keio Communication Review, 25, 3-26. Retrieved July 15, 2004 from
http://www.mediacom.keio.ac.jp/publication/pdf2002/review2024/2002.pdf.
Rudney, G. L., & Marxen, C. E. 2001. Preservice Multicultural Education: Graduates Remember, Reflect, and Respond
[electronic version]. Multicultural Perspectives, 3(1), 36-38.
Rumble, G. 2000. The globalisation of open and flexible learning considerations for planners and managers. The Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 3, Retrieved June 24, 2002 from
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall2033/rumble2033.html.
Schniedewind, N. 2001. Embracing the rainbow: An integrated approach to diversity education [electronic version].
Multicultural Perspectives, 3(1), 23-27.
Sleeter, C. E., & Grant, C. A. 2003. Making choices for multicultural education. Five approaches to race, class, and
gender. (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Smagorinsky, P. 1995. The social construction of data: Methodological problems investigating the zone of proximal
development [electronic version]. Review of Education Research, 65(3), 191-212.
Smith, D. D. 2004. Introduction to special education: Teaching in an age of opportunity (5th ed.). New York: Pearson.
Smith, P. J., & Smith, S. N. 1999. Differences between Chinese and Australian students: Some implications for distance
education [electronic version]. Distance Education, 20(1), 64-80.
Smith, S. N., & Smith, P. J. 2000. Implications for distance education in the study approaches of different Chinese
national groups. Journal of Distance Education, 15(2), Retrieved July 15, 2004 from
http://cade.athabascau.ca/vol2015.2002/smithsmith.html.
Stewart, C. M., Shields, S. F., & Sen, N. 2001. Diversity in on-line discussions: A study of cultural and gender differences
in listservs. In C. Ess (Ed.), Culture, technology, communication: Towards an Intercultural global village (pp. 161-186).
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/multiculture2-101121071138-phpapp01/85/Multiculture2-38-320.jpg)
![.
Stewart, E. 2001. Culture of the mind: On the origins of meaning and emotion. In J. Lull (Ed.), Culture in the
Communication Age (pp. 9-30). NY: Routledge.
Swan, K. 2001. Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous
online courses. Distance Education, 22, 306-331.
Thomas, M., Mitchell, M., & Joseph, R. 2002. The third dimension of ADDIE: A cultural embrace. Tech Trends, 46(2), 40-
45. Retrieved October 24, 2002 from WilsonSelectPlus.
Tongdeelert, P. 2004. A proposed collaborative computer network-based learning model for undergraduate students with
different learning styles. e-JIST, 7(1), Retrieved July 15, 2004 from http://www.usq.edu.au/electpub/e-
jist/html/melting_pot.htm.
Toyoda, E., & Harrison, R. 2002. Categorization of text chat communication between learners and native speakers of
Japanese [electronic version]. Language Learning & Technology, 6(1), 82-99. Retrieved April 85, 2004 from
http://llt.msu.edu/vol2006num2001/pdf/toyoda.pdf.
Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. 2000a. Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural diversity in business.
London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. 2000b. When two worlds collide: Intercultural Management Consulting.
Retrieved October 5, 2004 from http://www.7d-culture.nl/index1.html.
Tu, C.-H. 2001. How Chinese perceive social presence: An examination of interaction in online learning environment
[electronic version]. Education Media International, 38(1), 45-60.
Walsh, S. I., Gregory, E., Lake, Y., & Gunawardena, C. N. 2003. Self-construal, facework, and conflict styles among
cultures in online learning environments [electronic version]. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 51(4),
113-112.
Weller, M. 2000. Implementing a CMC tutor group for an existing distance education course. [Electronic Version. Journal
of Computer Assisted Learning, 16, 178-183.
Williams, S. W., Watkins, K., Daley, B., Courtenay, B., Davis, M., & Dymock, D. 2001. Facilitating cross-cultural online
discussion groups: Implications for practice. Distance Education, 22(1), 151-156.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/multiculture2-101121071138-phpapp01/85/Multiculture2-39-320.jpg)
![Wilson, M. S. 1999. Cultural discontinuities between West African adult learns and print-based distance instructional
materials. Unpublished dissertation, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma.
Wilson, M. S. 2001. Cultural considerations in online instruction and learning. Distance Education, 22(1), 52-64.
Young, R. L., & Tran, M. T. 2001. What do you do when your students say "I don't believe in multicultural education"?
[electronic version]. Multicultural Perspectives, 3(3), 9-14.
Yuen, A. 2003. Fostering learning communities in classrooms: A case study of Hong Kong schools. Education Media
International, 40(1/2), 153-162.
Zahir, S., Dobing, B., & Hunter, M. G. 2002. Cross-cultural dimensions of Internet portals [electronic version]. Internet
Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, 12(3), 210-220.
Zhao, W., Massey, B. L., Murphy, J., & Fang, L. 2003. Cultural dimensions of Website design and content [electronic
version]. Prometheus, 21(1), 75-84.
Ziegahn, L. 2001a. Considering culture in the selection of teaching approaches for adults. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 459 325).
Ziegahn, L. 2001b. 'Talk' about culture online: The potential for transformation. Distance Education, 22(1), 144-150.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/multiculture2-101121071138-phpapp01/85/Multiculture2-40-320.jpg)
Uploaded byLinda Loring
Multiculture2
This document discusses considerations for teaching online audiences from multiple cultures. It begins by noting the increasing diversity in the US and how globalization leads to more culturally diverse online learners. It then reviews several cultural theorists and their dimensions of culture. Research studies on distance learning and multi-cultural audiences are examined. Guidelines are provided for developing culturally inclusive online content, including accounting for differences in communication style, interaction style, authority, and goal of learning across high- and low-context cultures. The document concludes by emphasizing the need to consider how culture influences thinking, learning and teaching when designing online learning.
Multiculture2
- 1. Considering the Needsof an Audience from Multiple Cultures When Teaching Online Linda A. Loring
- 2. The population inthe United States is becoming more diverse each year. Globalization increases the probability online learners come from different cultures.
- 3. Differing Expectations DifferingEmotions Differing amounts of control over social interactions People from Different Cultures Can Lead to Miscommunication
- 4.
- 5. Results of OnlineResearch Studies Aspects of Cultural Theory Cultural Influences on Communication Conclusion 11 22 33 44 Considerations & Recommendation Presentation
- 6. Your Text here Trompenaars &Hampden- Turner High/Low Context Dimensions Differences HofstedeHall Major Theorists
- 7. Low Context Strives topreserve one’s own indepen- dence through face restoration and to include one’s self through face assertion High Context Strive to preserve the others autonomy through face- saving and include the other through face-giving Hall
- 8.
- 9.
- 10. IndividualismIndividualism Dimensions of Culture Uncertainty AvoidanceUncertaintyAvoidance Power DistancePower Distance MasculinityMasculinity OrientationOrientation Hofstede
- 11. PeoplePeople TimeTime EnvironmentEnvironment internal and external sequential or synchronic UniversalismVs Particularism Individualism Vs Communitarianism Neutral Vs Emotional Specific Vs Diffuse Achievement Vs Ascription Trompenaars & Hampden- Turner 7 Differences in Cultures
- 12. Religion, Race Language, tradition,customs Political social culture Economic Technical Culture Procedural Culture Surface Culture Stewart’s Social Organization Behavior Timed Activities Deep Culture Ethnicity, Region Interpersonal culture Cultural Trilogy
- 13. “No single currenttheory satisfactorily accounts for or predicts what happens as CMC technologies are taken up in diverse cultural contexts” (Ess, 2001, p. 4) No one particular cultural pattern can be generalized to a specific individual Personalities of individuals vary greatly Title Fallacies Assump- tions
- 14. Engagement Interactivity Collaboration Social Presence Community Presence Flexibility GoodOnline Practices Research Studies Multi- cultural Audiences Distance Learning
- 15. Differences high- &low- context cultures evident online environment • communication style, interaction style, and writing style • authority, leadership style, and role of learner • and for the goal of learning, active engagement, social context, and importance of community
- 16. Culture & ThinkingCulture& Thinking Culture & LearningCulture & Learning Culture & TeachingCulture & Teaching Impact of Cultural Considerations
- 17. Culture & Thinking Cultural Factors HighContext Teaching and Learning Low Context Teaching and Learning Cognitive Style Field Dependent Synergetic Field Independent Analytic Cognitive Function Concrete Operational Formal Operational
- 18. Culture & Learning Cultural Factors HighContext Teaching & Learning Low Context Teaching & Learning Time Polychronic: Multiple activities simultaneously, all interrelated with each other. Interpersonal relationships and completion of transactions are more important than schedules Monochronic: Activities happen according to predetermined times; classes begin and end as scheduled, proceeding in an orderly format. Interpersonal relationships are subordinate to schedules. Communi- cation Indirect, non-verbal message significant. Context communicates message, with inflection, body language, & facial features having group meaning. Communication is circular, personal. Direct, explicit meaning in the words. Concept of prime importance. Personal feelings are inconsequential. Communication is linear, procedural, even confrontational. Authority Social roles, position respected. Rank and age honored. Formal credentials must be present and are respected. Individual effort earns respect, which is contingent upon continued performance. Performance is respected more than credentials Leadership Style Highly controlling; group harmony and conformity mandatory. Loyalty to the group must be maintained. Individuals have input into group decision-making and can question ideas presented; individual initiative rewarded. Conflict Resolution Avoidance preferred; resolutions sought through friends; body language important Speaking the truth directly, with face-to-face contact emphasized. Interaction Style Harmony, cooperation and conformity valued. Individuals tend to build dense, intersecting networks and long-term relationships. They have strong boundaries and tend to focus more on relationships than on tasks in their communication. Individuality highly valued; people claim “ownership” of ideas. Individuals tend to have loose, wide networks, and shorter-term, compartmentalized relationships. They tend to place greater importance on task than relationships
- 19. Culture & Teaching Cultural Factors HighContext Teaching & Learning Low Context Teaching & Learning learner Learner is more passive; receives input from instructor as authority figure; parameters of class set by syllabus; non-confrontational, cooperative with group Learner is more active, in control of own learning; teacher is a facilitator and guides; informal relationship with teacher; competitive Goal Straight content; less independent thinking. Individual transferable skills not emphasized. Individuals try to accommodate environment. Tends to be holistic, appreciate process. Deeper, more critical understanding; independent thinking encouraged. Outcomes-based, and knowledge transfer; Seeks control over environment Bottom line, action oriented Assessment Frequent; reason for learning; same for all participants. Portfolios, collections of extended essays, and documentation that describe learning in relation to criteria Feedback tool; variety of techniques employed Problem-solving Highly social activity, involving establishing personal connections; set the stage with inter-actors; collaborative and negotiated; process oriented Factual, task oriented Study habits Small groups, sharing of meaning Relationship focus More individualistic Task focus Organization Topic associative or topic-chaining: episodic, anecdotal, thematic, integrative Topic-centered: One issue at a time in linear order, clarity of description Writing Verbose, exaggerated, conversational; circular Succinct and to the point, linear Lecture Presentation needs to be implicit Presentation needs to be explicit Projects Value group effort, harmony; process oriented Competitive, goal oriented Facilitator Honor and respect of elders and experienced leaders Youth and change valued; not inappropriate to question teacher
- 20. Record personal expectations Withthat of program Negotiate personal Expectations with program Identify expectation of program culture Compare cultural expectations with that of program Identify personal expectations Title Managing Cultural Complexity Faye & Hill, 2003, p. 22 Help Learners
- 21.
- 22. Guidelines Rules & Expressions •ApplyColor Wisely •Produce Sounds Judiciously •Represent Process in Icon •Use Images Cautiously •Use short, concise statements •Avoid slang, idioms •Be Aware of order of words •Structure information correctly •Position Words appropriately •Leave room translations Loring, 2002, p. 27-28
- 23. Educational Postulates •Collaborative •Community •Social Presence •Problem-based •Active Engagement •LearningPreferences •Principles of Multimedia Theories •Communication •CMC Theories •Cultural Theories •Distance Education •Androgogy •Contextual Design •Usability Theory Online Learning
- 24. Low prior knowledge Morevisuals Graphics Provide Visual Support Learning Styles Not affect Display Visuals Synchronized R. C. Clark & Lyons, 2004, p. 193 High prior knowledge One channel Encourage to process effectively Graphics for Learning
- 25. Flexible Simple All Users Least Effort Size Space Effectively Communicate Minimize Seven Principlesof Universal Design Accessible for ALL Users
- 26. Guidelines for International Web-basedCourse Developers • Course designers and teachers should familiarize themselves with particular cross-border cultural and policy peculiarities before any academic offering is launched, and scale expectations accordingly, • Instructors and tutors must be able and willing to meet the substantial time demands of constant, supportive involvement. • The continuing presence of active, empowered tutorial support within each participating nation is critical to success. LeBaron et al., 2000, para 34
- 27. Guidelines (continued) • A spiritof openness, encouragement and humor should suffuse the instructional team membership at all times. • Specific activities and assignments to help "break the cross-border ice" are important, especially in the early stages of a course. • International course environments should encourage and enable first-language communication and multi-media expression, at least within national groupings, but preferably across them. LeBaron et al., 2000, para 34
- 28. Guidelines (continued) • Quantity ofstudent talk is less important than quality and distribution across a wide student base . • Orientation training is needed for students having had little or no prior experience in online learning. • No effort should be spared to humanize contact (e.g., via video conferences, audio clips, e-mail, other media and, where feasible, face-to-face communication). • The technical interface must be reliable, "bug free," and appropriately aligned to the speed, power and connectivity of client workstations. LeBaron et al., 2000, para 34
- 29. Analyze Desig n Develop ImplementEvaluate Special emphasis culture in thinking, learning and teaching CME (Cultural Matter Expert Reconstruct Web design and Web portal with cultural preferences Consider accessibility needs and usability in targeted population Sensitive Cultural context Sequencing Audio,Graphics Cultural Summaries, Learning Styles, chunk scaffold Gear the feedback to evaluate how the distance- learning situation met needs of people from different cultures Explicit, skills, alternative assessment feedback, social learning, flexible, community, social presence Cultural Consideration in the ADDIE Model of Instructional Design
- 30. Learning Needs of MultipleCultural Audience Guidelines Research Studies Cultural Influences Summary Cultural Theories
- 32. References Alder, N. 2000.Teaching Diverse Students [electronic version]. Multicultural Perspectives, 2(3), 28-31. Alfred, M. V. 2003. Sociocultural Contexts and learning: Anglophone Caribbean immigrant women in US postsecondary education [electronic version]. Adult Education Quarterly, 53(4), 242-260. Anast Seguin, C., & Ambrosio, A. L. 2002. Multicultural vignettes for teacher preparation [electronic version]. Multicultural Perspectives, 4(4), 10-16. Arrias, A. A., Jr. 2000. Agile learning, new media, and technological infusement at a new university: Serving underreprented students. ED 444 801. Bolloju, N., & Davison, R. 2003. Learning through asynchronous discussions: Experiences from using a discussion board in a large undergraduate class in Hong Kong. eLearn Magazine, 2003(6), Retrieved May 1, 2004 from http:// www.elearnmag.org/subpage/sub_page.cfm?section=2004&list_item=2012&page=2001. Bosley, D. S. 200). Global contexts. Case studies in international technical communication. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Bowe, F. G. 200). Universal Design in education: Teaching nontraditional studetns. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. Branch, R. 1997. Educational technology frameworks that facilitate culturally pluralistic instruction [electronic version]. Educational Technology, 37, 38-41. Brislin, R. W. 198). Cross-cultural research in psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 34, 363-400. Bruch, P. L., Jehangir, R. R., Jacobs, W. R., & Ghere, D. L. 2004. Enabling Access: Toward Multicultural Developmental Curricula [electronic version]. Journal of Developmental Education, 27(3), 12--16. Bruns, D., & Corso, R. M. 2001. Working with culturally & linguistically diverse families. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 455 972). Cagiltay, K. 200). Culture and its effects on human-computer interaction. Paper presented at the Ed-Media. Retrieved July 15, 2004 from http://php.indiana.edu/~kursat/ed-media/ed-media.html. Chaney, D. C. 2001. From ways of life to lifestyle: Rethinking culture as ideology and sensibility. In J. Lull (Ed.), Culture in the Communication Age (pp. 75-88). NY: Routledge. Chang, W.-W. 2004. A cross-cultural case study of a multinational training program in the United States and Taiwan [electronic version]. Adult Education Quarterly, 54(3), 174-192.
- 33. Chen, A., Mashhadi,A., Ang, D., & Harkrider, N. 1999. Cultural issues in the design of technology-enhanced learning systems [electronic version]. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(3), 217-230. Clark, R. C., & Lyons, C. 2004. Graphics for learning: Proven guidelines for planning, designing, and evaluating visuals in training materials. San Francisco: Pfeiffer. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. 2003. e-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer. Cochran-Smith, M. 2003. Standing at the crossroads: Multicultural teacher education at the beginning of the 21st century [electronic version]. Multicultural Perspectives, 5(3), 3-11. Davies, T., & Elmer, R. 2001. Learning in design and technology: The impact of social and cultural influences on modelling [electronic version]. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 11, 163-180. DeBry, D. P. 2001. Globalizing instructional materials: Guidelines for higher education. Tech Trends, 45(6), 41-45. Retrieved October 24, 2002 from WilsonSelectPlus. Ess, C. 2001. Introduction: What's culture got to do with it? Cultural collisions in yher electronic global villager, creative interferences, and the rise of culturally-mediated computing? In C. Ess (Ed.), Culture, technology, communication: Towards an Intercultural global village (pp. 1-50). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Fay, R., & Hill, M. 2003. Educating language teachers through distance learning: The need for culturally-appropriate DL methodology [electronic version]. Open Learning, 18(1), 9-27. Feenberg, A. 1999. Distance learning: Promise or threat? USDLA Journal, 12(1), Retrieved July 14, 2002 from http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/DEC2099_Issue/dl.htm. Feinberg, M., & Vinaja, R. 2002. Faculty perceptions of bi-national distance education between the U.S and Mexico: An empirical analysis. USDLA Journal, 16(9), Retrieved July 15, 2004 from http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/SEP2002_Issue/article2006.html. Fernandez, S. E. W. 1999. Toward Understanding the study experience of culturally sensitive graduate students in American distance education. Unpublished dissertation, Florida International University, Miami. Fink, D., & Laupase, R. 2000. Perceptions of Web site design characteristics: A Malaysian/Australian comparison [electronic version]. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications andPolicy, 10(1), 44-55. Garcia, E. 1999. Student cultural diversity: Understanding and meeting the challenge (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Gay, G. 2000. Culturally responsive teaching : Theory, research, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Goodfellow, R., Lea, M., Gonzalez, F., & Mason, R. 2001. Opportunity and e-quality: Intercultural and linguistic issues in global online learning. Distance Education, 22(1), 65-84.
- 34. Gorski, P. 1999. Toward a multicultural approach for evaluating educational Web sites. Multicultural Perspectives, 2(3), Retrieved July 15, 2004 from http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/net/comps/eval.html. Gunawardena, C. N., Nolla, A. C., Wilson, P. L., Lopez-Islas, J. R., Ramires-Angel, N., & Megchun-Alpizar, R. M. 2001. A cross-cultural study of group process and development in online conferences. Distance Education,22(1), 85-121. Hallak, J. 2000. Global connections, expanding partnerships, and new challenges. USDLA Journal, 14(9), Retrieved July 14, 2002 from http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/SEP2000_Issue/story2002. Harris, D. A., Pehrson, B., Jin, Y., & Jonsson, A. 2000. Distributed Learning on a Global Scale. USDLA Journal, 14(6), Retrieved July 15, 2004 from http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/FEB2000_Issue/distributed%2020learningnew.htm. Haulmark, M. 2002. Accommodating cultural differences in a Web-based distance education course: A case study. Paper presented at the 9th Annual International Distance Education Conference, Retrieved November 27, 2003 from http://www.cdlr.tamu.edu/dec_proceedings/dec%202002/Haulmark.pdf. Heid, L. S., & Parish, M. T. 1998. Relating authentically in a global community: a process of personal transformation. ED 439 374. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the International Conference on Counseling in the 21st Century CG 029 900. Henderson, L. 1996. Instructional design of interactive multimedia: A cultural critique. Educational Technology, Research, and Development, 44, 85-104. Hodge, S. 2000. Global smarts: the art of communicating and deal making anywhere in the world. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Hofstede, G. 2003. Culture's consequences : Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.): Sage Publications. Hofstede, G., & McCrae, R. R. 2004. Personality and culture revisited: Linking traits and dimensions of culture [electronic version]. Cross-Cultural Research, 38(1). Hoft, N. L. 1995. International technical communication: How to export information about high technology. New York:
- 35. Huang, Z. 1996. Making training friendly to other cultures. Training and Development,50, 13-14. Jeevanantham, L. S. 2001. A new focus for multicultural education [electronic version]. Multicultural Perspectives, 3(2), 8-12. Jenkins, S. 1997. Cultural and pragmatic miscues: a case study of international teaching assistant and academic faculty miscommunication. ED411684. University of Cincinnati, Ohio. Jones, H. 2004. A research-based approach on teaching to diversity. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31(1), 12-19. Kato, K. 2001. Exploring 'cultures of learning': a case of Japanese and Australian classrooms [electronic version]. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 22(1), 51-66. Kekkonen–Moneta, S., & Moneta, G. B. 2002. E–learning in Hong Kong: comparing learning outcomes in online multimedia and lecture versions of an introductory computing course [electronic version]. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(4), 423-433. Kim, K.-J., & Bonk, C. J. 2002. Cross-cultural comparisons of online collaboration. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 8(1), Retrieved May 1, 2004 from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol2008/issue2001/kimandbonk.html. Kuskis, A. 2003. Barriers to international faculty in global online learning. Global Educator, Retrieved July 15, 2004 from http://www.globaled.com/articles/KuskisAlex2003.pdf. Lankbeck, R., & Mugler, F. 2000. Distance learners of the South Pacific: Study strategies, learning conditions, and consequences for course design. Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), Retrieved July 15, 2004 from http://cade.athabascau.ca/vol2015.2001/landbeck.html. LeBaron, J., Pulkkinen, J., & Scollin, P. 2000. Promoting cross-border communication in an international Web-based graduate course. Interactive Multimedia Electronic Journal of Computer-Enhanced Learning., 2(1), Retrieved July 15, 2004 from http://imej.wfu.edu/articles/2000/2002/2001/index.asp. Lewis, R. D. 2000. When cultures collide. Managing successfully across cultures. A major new edition of the global guide. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
- 36. Loring, L. A. 2002. Six steps to preparing instruction for a worldwide audience. Journal of InteractiveInstruction Development, 14(24-29). Lustig, M. W., & Koester, J. 2003. Intercultural competence: Interpersonal communication across cultures (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Marina, S. T. 2001. Facing the challenges: Getting the right way with distance learning. USDLA Journal, 15(3), Retrieved July 14, 2002 from http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/MAR2001_Issue/article2003.html. Marshall, P. L. 2001. Multicultural education and technology: Perfect pair or odd couple? : (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 460 129). McGee, P. 2002. Web-based learning design: Planning for diversity. USDLA Journal, 16(3), Retrieved July 15, 2004 from http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/MAR2002_Issue/article2003.html. McLoughlin, C. 2001. Inclusivity and alignment: Principles of pedagogy, task and assessment design for effective cross-cultural online learning. Distance Education, 22(1), 7-29. McLoughlin, C., & Oliver, R. 1999. Instructional design for cultural difference: A case Study of the indigenous online learning in a tertiary context. Retrieved July 15, 2004 from http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/398593.html. Moore, R. 1996. Creating a culture of learning for diverse student populations. ED 396 043. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Reading Association of Kansas. Morse, K. 2003. Does one size fit all? Exploring asynchronous learning in a multicultural environment. JALN, 7(1), 37-55. Neo, K. T. K., & Neo, M. 2002. Problem-solving on the Internet using web-based authoring tools: A Malaysian Experience. e-JIST, 5(2), Retrieved July 15, 2004 from http://www.usq.edu.au/electpub/e-jist/docs/Vol2005_No2002/neo_frame.html. Ng, K. 2001. Using e-mail to foster collaboration in distance education [electronic version]. Using E-mail to Foster Collaboration in Distance Education, 16(2), 191-200.
- 37. Nikolova, I., & Collis, B. 1998. Flexible learning and design of instruction. British Journal ofEducational Technology, 29, 59-72. Nishiyama, K. 2000. Doing business with Japan : Successful strategies for intercultural communication. Honolulu: Honolulu University of Hawaii Press. Odendaal, A. 2001. The development of interactive online learning for distance education: A South African case study. Paper presented at the 3rd Annual Conference on World Wide Web Applications, Retrieved May 15, 2004 from http://general.rau.ac.za/infosci/www2001/abstracts/odendaal.htm. Olcott, J., D. 2001. Book review: Leadership for 21st century learning: global perspectives from educational innovators. Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 2(Retrieved June 25, 2002 from http://www.irrodl.org/content/v2.1/olcott.html). Parchoma, G. 2003. Learner-centered instructional design and development: Two examples of success [electronic version]. Journal of Distance Education, 18(2), 35-60. Petegem, P. V., Loght, T. D., & Shortridge, A. M. 2004. Powerful learning is interactive: A cross-cultural perspective. e- Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 7(1), Retrieved May 1, 2004 from http://www.usq.edu.au/electpub/e- jist/docs/Vol2007_No2001/FullPapers/Powerful_learning.htm. Pincas, A. 2001. Culture, cognition and communication in global education. Distance Education, 22, 30-51. Plueddemann, J. n. d). Cross-cultural teaching and learning: Sudan Interior Mission. Retrieved July 15, 2004 from http://www.sim.org/categorylist.asp?fun=6&sid=190. Primo, H. 2001. Digital Oceana: The Internet, distance learning, and sustainable human development in the Pacific Islands. USDLA Journal, 15(3), Retrieved July 14, 2002 from http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/MAR2001_Issue/article2002.html. Rattanapian, V. 2002. Cross-cultural comparison of online learning delivery approaches used in Western and Thai online learning programs. International Journal of Educational Technology, 3(1), Retrieved May 18, 2003 from http://www.ao.uiuc.edu/ijet/v2003n2001/rattanapian/index.html.
- 38. Robbins, N., & Craven, A. 2003. Cultural influences on student learning. Academic Exchange Quarterly,7(3), 214-217. Retrieved February 223, 2004 from InfoTrac OneFile. Rogers, E. M., Hart, W. B., & Mike, Y. 2002. Edward T. Hall and the history of intercultural communication: The United States and Japan [electronic version]. Keio Communication Review, 25, 3-26. Retrieved July 15, 2004 from http://www.mediacom.keio.ac.jp/publication/pdf2002/review2024/2002.pdf. Rudney, G. L., & Marxen, C. E. 2001. Preservice Multicultural Education: Graduates Remember, Reflect, and Respond [electronic version]. Multicultural Perspectives, 3(1), 36-38. Rumble, G. 2000. The globalisation of open and flexible learning considerations for planners and managers. The Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 3, Retrieved June 24, 2002 from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall2033/rumble2033.html. Schniedewind, N. 2001. Embracing the rainbow: An integrated approach to diversity education [electronic version]. Multicultural Perspectives, 3(1), 23-27. Sleeter, C. E., & Grant, C. A. 2003. Making choices for multicultural education. Five approaches to race, class, and gender. (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Smagorinsky, P. 1995. The social construction of data: Methodological problems investigating the zone of proximal development [electronic version]. Review of Education Research, 65(3), 191-212. Smith, D. D. 2004. Introduction to special education: Teaching in an age of opportunity (5th ed.). New York: Pearson. Smith, P. J., & Smith, S. N. 1999. Differences between Chinese and Australian students: Some implications for distance education [electronic version]. Distance Education, 20(1), 64-80. Smith, S. N., & Smith, P. J. 2000. Implications for distance education in the study approaches of different Chinese national groups. Journal of Distance Education, 15(2), Retrieved July 15, 2004 from http://cade.athabascau.ca/vol2015.2002/smithsmith.html. Stewart, C. M., Shields, S. F., & Sen, N. 2001. Diversity in on-line discussions: A study of cultural and gender differences in listservs. In C. Ess (Ed.), Culture, technology, communication: Towards an Intercultural global village (pp. 161-186). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
- 39. . Stewart, E. 2001. Culture of the mind: On the origins of meaning and emotion. In J. Lull (Ed.), Culture in the CommunicationAge (pp. 9-30). NY: Routledge. Swan, K. 2001. Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22, 306-331. Thomas, M., Mitchell, M., & Joseph, R. 2002. The third dimension of ADDIE: A cultural embrace. Tech Trends, 46(2), 40- 45. Retrieved October 24, 2002 from WilsonSelectPlus. Tongdeelert, P. 2004. A proposed collaborative computer network-based learning model for undergraduate students with different learning styles. e-JIST, 7(1), Retrieved July 15, 2004 from http://www.usq.edu.au/electpub/e- jist/html/melting_pot.htm. Toyoda, E., & Harrison, R. 2002. Categorization of text chat communication between learners and native speakers of Japanese [electronic version]. Language Learning & Technology, 6(1), 82-99. Retrieved April 85, 2004 from http://llt.msu.edu/vol2006num2001/pdf/toyoda.pdf. Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. 2000a. Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural diversity in business. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing. Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. 2000b. When two worlds collide: Intercultural Management Consulting. Retrieved October 5, 2004 from http://www.7d-culture.nl/index1.html. Tu, C.-H. 2001. How Chinese perceive social presence: An examination of interaction in online learning environment [electronic version]. Education Media International, 38(1), 45-60. Walsh, S. I., Gregory, E., Lake, Y., & Gunawardena, C. N. 2003. Self-construal, facework, and conflict styles among cultures in online learning environments [electronic version]. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 51(4), 113-112. Weller, M. 2000. Implementing a CMC tutor group for an existing distance education course. [Electronic Version. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16, 178-183. Williams, S. W., Watkins, K., Daley, B., Courtenay, B., Davis, M., & Dymock, D. 2001. Facilitating cross-cultural online discussion groups: Implications for practice. Distance Education, 22(1), 151-156.
- 40. Wilson, M. S. 1999. Cultural discontinuities betweenWest African adult learns and print-based distance instructional materials. Unpublished dissertation, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma. Wilson, M. S. 2001. Cultural considerations in online instruction and learning. Distance Education, 22(1), 52-64. Young, R. L., & Tran, M. T. 2001. What do you do when your students say "I don't believe in multicultural education"? [electronic version]. Multicultural Perspectives, 3(3), 9-14. Yuen, A. 2003. Fostering learning communities in classrooms: A case study of Hong Kong schools. Education Media International, 40(1/2), 153-162. Zahir, S., Dobing, B., & Hunter, M. G. 2002. Cross-cultural dimensions of Internet portals [electronic version]. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, 12(3), 210-220. Zhao, W., Massey, B. L., Murphy, J., & Fang, L. 2003. Cultural dimensions of Website design and content [electronic version]. Prometheus, 21(1), 75-84. Ziegahn, L. 2001a. Considering culture in the selection of teaching approaches for adults. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 459 325). Ziegahn, L. 2001b. 'Talk' about culture online: The potential for transformation. Distance Education, 22(1), 144-150.
Editor's Notes
- #2 GCU, family
- #3 Robin Mason has said, “Much of the promise of the globalisation movement in education depends on how successfully cultural differences are addressed, once the first wave of enthusiasts give way to mass adopters” (Mason, 1998, p. x). Gay has said, “Communication is the “quintessential way in which humans make meaningful connections with each other, whether as caring, sharing, loving, teaching, or learning” (Gay, 2000, p. 80). And it is exactly this communication in the online environment that I want to address this morning.
- #5 Learning theory has not developed to the point where scholars recognize that cultural experiences play a significant role in thinking processes (Garcia, 1999, p. 215), but rather in what is perceived as relevant. “The learner’s social and cultural context, according to Bruner (1986, 1990), influences how, when, and what learning becomes knowledge” (McGee, 2002, Learner Differences, para 2). Moore pointed out that according to Vygotsky’s theory, classes that are more sensitive to differences among students and to the importance of the social context will help students learn at a higher mental level by internalizing the social context (Moore, 1996, p. 7). The individual might not even be aware of the cultural impact on his/her own learning (McGee, 2002, Learner differences, para 2). According to neo-Vygotskian theory, learning takes place at the zone of proximal development. Effective learning requires some awareness of cultural values and patterns so communication can be effective and learning take place (Sleeter & Grant, 2003, p. 30). After studying the zone of proximal development, Smagorinsky offered a more detailed explanation: Psychological tools provide the means through which an individual internalizes the higher mental processes central to social transactions in particular cultures… These tools take on value according to the types of problems presented to societies by their environments, and the way in which members of the societies have learned to solve those problems. Mediational tools not only abet the development of higher mental processes but are themselves a fundamental part of those processes. Social transactions are necessarily mediated by some sort of cultural tool, such as speech, that follows specific social conventions. These cultural or psychological tools themselves are central to human thought and development; they are the means through which children internalize cultural knowledge and exercise their own mentation. Because these tools are central to thinking and are social in origin, they are necessarily part of culturally rooted cognitive development. (Smagorinsky, 1995, p. 207)
- #6 Nishiyama, who has written an excellent book on communicating with the Japanese, has stated: Culture will have a strong influence on the individual's perception, communication behavior, and physical activities. The culture teaches appropriate ways of living and of interacting with others. Cultural knowledge includes experiences, beliefs, values, attitudes, meanings, hierarchies, religion, self-concept, role expectations, use of space, concept of time, and material objects. (Nishiyama, 2000, p. 14). McGee says, “cultural orientations for heterogeneous populations may be evidenced by conflicts in values, interpersonal interactions, communication patterns, time orientation and scheduling, rules of activity and engagement, cognitive processes, and processes of problem solving” (McGee, 2002, Learner differences, para 3). This makes it even more important to address student diversity in on-line learning (Feenberg, 1999).
- #7 I will also mention one more scholar who has a very good cultural theory that relates to learning
- #10 US
- #11 Hofstede spent considerable time researching cultures and initially observed four, and later five dimensions of culture: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism, masculinity, and long-term orientation (Hofstede, 2003, p. 1). Power distance is the way people expect power to be unequally distributed. “Uncertainty avoidance deals with a society’s tolerance to ambiguity” (Hofstede & McCrae, 2004, p. 62). Individualism deals with how integrated people are into groups. Masculinity deals with how assertive, competitive, or nurturing a culture is (Hofstede & McCrae, 2004, p. 63).Long-term orientation refers to thrift and perseverance, and short-term orientation with “respect for tradition, fulfilling social obligations, and protecting one’s ‘face’.” (Hofstede & McCrae, 2004, p. 65).
- #12 Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner have identified seven differences in cultures, five related to relationships with people, one with time, and the last with the environment. They are Universalism Versus Particularism Individualism Versus Communitarianism Neutral Versus Emotional Specific Versus Diffuse Achievement Versus Ascription Attitudes to Time Attitudes to the Environment (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2000a, pp. 8-10) “Universalist cultures tend to feel that general rules and obligations are a strong source of moral reference;” whereas particularist cultures feel the specific situation guides the decision-making process (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2000b, p. 4). Under the second difference of relationships with people, the point is whether the shared good of the community or the individual is more important. The third set of individual relationships deals with the affective domain. Usually when one’s approach is highly emotional, an emotional reaction is expected. Cultures differ in the use of the affective domain (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2000b, pp. 8-10). Explaining the specific versus diffuse involvement in relationships, they observe: Closely related to whether we show emotions in dealing with other people is the degree to which we engage others in specific areas of life and single levels of personality, or diffusely in multiple areas of our lives and at several levels of personality at the same time. In specific-oriented cultures a manager segregates out the task relationship she or he has with a subordinate and isolates this from other dealings. But in some countries every life space and every level of personality tends to permeate all others. (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2000b, p. 11) Achieved status regards performance as important; whereas ascription relates to being, reputation is regardless of task or function. Attitudes of time relate to the sequential versus synchronous view of time different cultures have. “Important is whether our view of time is sequential, a series of passing events, or whether it is synchronic, with past, present and future all interrelated so that ideas about the future and memories of the past both shape present action” (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2000b, p. 13). Key terms related to attitude toward the environment are internal and external: In cultures in which an organic view of nature dominates, and in which the assumptions are shared that man is subjugated to nature, individuals appear to orient their actions towards others. People become "other directed" in order to survive, their focus is on the environment rather than themselves, known external control. Conversely, it has been determined that people who have a mechanic view of nature, in addition to the belief that man can dominate nature, usually take themselves as the point of departure for determining the right action. The "inner-directedness" of this part of the world, is also reflected through the current fashion of customer-orientation. (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2000b, p. 14)
- #13 Stewart proposes a cultural trilogy composed of “individual analysis of behavior,” “time-factored activities in social environments,” and “primordial sentiments in social organization of culture.” The first part consists of surface culture, deep culture, and procedural culture. The second part consists of interpersonal culture, economic-technical culture, and political-social culture. The last part includes language, tradition and customs, ethnicity, region, religion, and race (E. Stewart, 2001, pp. 28-29).
- #16 communication style, interaction style, and writing style (Bolloju & Davison, 2003; Chen et al., 1999; Fernandez, 1999; Gunawardena et al., 2001; Kim & Bonk, 2002; Morse, 2003; Ng, 2001; Tu, 2001; Walsh et al., 2003; Zhao et al., 2003) Bolloju & Davison: Communication of standards of expectation for participation in discussion board is important. Facilitator must monitor and control discussion threads, sending out praise publicly and warning privately. Facilitator should summarize thread Chen Social and cultural understandings need to be explicit and up-front before participants are able to build the on-line networks of trust upon which effective communication, and learning, is based. Fernandez : Culture played an important role in cross-cultural communication in terms of identifying whether students’ study needs were being met. Cultural differences combined with transactional distance could affect short-term success in distance education programs. Excellent communication skills were cited as a necessity, and assessment was a sensitive issue due to cultural differences in expectations. Gunawardena Country difference rather than age and gender accounted for differences in perception of the group process and development. Mexicans tended to show greater agreement with the collectivist group values. Each group varied on their view of power distance, aggressive-nurture, and context of communication, for the most part concurring with Hall’s and Hofstede’s proposals Kim and Bonk: American and Korean students completed assignments individually, and Finnish students worked in pairs or small teams. Korean students showed the highest level of interaction. Finnish students evidenced deeper thought and more reflection. Finnish students also included more culturally sensitive explanatory information for the reader than did the others. Ng: Need to teach online learning skills and explicitly state interaction requirements; importance of establishing community Tu: Face-saving techniques came across in online environment. Expression of emotion important to Chinese students Walsh: Most groups wanted to present a positive face and a positive image, in addition to projecting an independent self-construal. Since most participants had lived in the United States for several years, they had probably adopted many Western values and attitudes, so this study did not significantly support cultural differences Zhao: (Web sites) American sites were more personalized, and Chinese sites more historically oriented. Although the Web-based tools are culturally neutral, the individuals using them are not. “Communication—whether it is mass mediated, interpersonal, or nonverbal—is inseparable from culture, each shapes and is shaped by the other” (p. 81). Web-based communication is not neutral to culture” (p. 82). for authority, leadership style, and role of learner (Haulmark, 2002; Morse, 2003; P. J. Smith & Smith, 1999; S. N. Smith & Smith, 2000; Tu, 2001) Haulmark Thai students missed seeing the professor’s face and hearing his/her voice. Disappointment could be reduced by using a Web-cam for delivery of some of the course. Thai students also had to independently look for answers to their own questions outside the class. This type of learning experience was new to them. Working collaboratively was a positive experience for them. The Thais did state they had to change their learning styles slightly to learn online Kim and Bonk: Explicit instruction in set-up of experience helps reduce stress by increasing understanding of requirements. Online help and tips on communication differences between cultures could help Morse: Low context students were concerned about what others thought, and high context students concentrated on what they thought (not to lose face). Low context liked the ASN because individual opinions did not interrupt others, whereas high context were forced to read relevant literature for answers. High context were concerned about time to research and think before writing. Low context found some postings rhetorical and missed instant feedback. All appreciated ASN, but would recommend a limit on the length of contributions Smith & Smith 1999: A western instrument employed on eastern students studying in a Westernized nation might yield different results if used on Chinese students studying on mainland. However the results of this study are applicable to designers since they should know differences in study approaches. Not all statistics confirmed cultural differences. Additional student support, sample assessment, and assistance in scaffolding concepts was needed; authors felt a strong need for structure and instructor input. Smith & Smith, 2000 Although all were Chinese students, differences were found. Malaysian-Chinese and the Singaporeans were more dependent, preferred “clear, highly organized, and well-structured learning programs and [we]re inclined to confine their learning to the prescribed readings and to teachers’ instructions and directions.” Hofstede found Malaysians to be higher on power distance than people from Hong Kong, explaining this difference. Language was noted as a barrier for the Malaysian Chinese. Differences can occur among individual national groups Tu: Chinese tended to observe, needed encouragement to interact. and for the goal of learning, active engagement, social context, and importance of community (Alfred, 2003; Chen et al., 1999; Fernandez, 1999; Kato, 2001; Kekkonen–Moneta & Moneta, 2002; Lankbeck & Mugler, 2000; Morse, 2003; Neo & Neo, 2002; Tongdeelert, 2004; Tu, 2001; Wilson, 1999; Yuen, 2003; Ziegahn, 2001b) Alfred “Culture and early schooling socialization in the country of origin influence learning experiences in the host country.” “The length of time spent in a new culture, the level of social support inherent in the culture, and the characteristics of the sociocultural environment greatly affect learning among immigrants in postsecondary institutions.” Being knowledgeable about one’s own cultural influences is helpful. Chen “Culturally mediated social interaction and perseverance towards a shared vision is an essential part of the learning process.” Even when the best instructional design is employed, these authors contend the quality of the learning is determined by the individual’s experience of cultures. Social interaction and shared vision, as well as technology are necessary for an online environment in Singapore. Fernandez : The study also points out the relevance of community and social context. Classes that used constructivism and allowed flexibility were more beneficial. Cross-cultural methodologies that were most beneficial focused on quality and whatever it takes to produce quality. CSGS in this study preferred active learning, rather than one-way from the professor. They preferred student-centered assessment with flexibility that many adult learners prefer. They needed explicit directions on requirements. Sharing led to an understanding and tolerance of different cultural views and values. Many said learning experiences were interpreted based on their cultural environment. Kato Relevant findings: student-centered activities were more prevalent in Australian schools; Australian classrooms had more activities, and the Japanese students felt Australian students were more highly valued because they were asked their opinion. The Japanese students felt the Australian teachers were more friendly and enjoyed interacting with the students. Both groups agreed Japanese students tended to be “more quiet and reluctant to participate” (p.60). Confirmed high context, low context. Also confirmed that disappointment in educational system could be detrimental to learning. Importance of incorporating some “culturally appropriate” activities, and educating both student and teacher Kekkonen–Moneta & Moneta: Scores from the online students were comparable to those of the f2f students. Online students performed higher in applied-conceptual learning, suggesting “carefully designed e-learning modules facilitate engaging interactions with the content materials and, in turn, foster higher-order learning outcomes” (p. 432). An interesting aside is the student evaluation of the instructor. She was an extremely popular lecturer, but after her first semester online, her ratings plummeted considerably. After the second semester online they rose, probably indicating students needed orientation to learning environment. Kim and Bonk: Encourage social interaction where anxiety is addressed early Lankbeck & Mugler: Found two types of learners in South Pacific: Pragmatic: do what needs to be done to pass and forget the rest and Sequential: step-by-step, following all instructions. Recommendations needed for deeper critical thinking. Neo & Neo: Active engagement and the constructivist problem-solving approach were appreciated by the Malaysian students. Tongdeelert: Collaboration was viewed as very important in the learning process. A 4-part collaborative computer network-based learning model was developed. The parts were facilitator, learner, content and activities Tu: Community of social presence is extremely important to Chinese students: social context, online communication and interactivity. Wilson: Cultural discontinuities exist in four areas: world views, “culturally specific knowledge, linguistic factors, and cognitive organization associated with largely oral nature of many cultures found in developing nations.” Educating the instructor & modifying materials was recommended.. Yuen: Active engagement through community learning was important. Teachers should spend time building community. Ziegahn: Differentiated between responses that were more non-reflective and responses that were reflective. For transformative learning, the facilitator needed social presence and enough sensitivity to stimulate query; ASN good time for reflection.
- #18 Get definitions of content
- #20 Expounding on the writing style included in the Table 2, Pincas notes earlier research that demonstrated “English rhetorical structures (and their ‘thought patterns’) were expressed in paragraphs that followed a straight line of development, whereas Semitic followed parallel lines, the Oriental tended to follow a circular line, while Spanish and other Romance languages, as well as the Russian included digressions.” (Pincas, 2001, p. 43-44). Alder observed how writing style could be a problem The European American is more likely to use a directive style, which gives most credence to the writer's point of view. In cultures in which consensus is valued, however, a writer organizes material to show less strength of conviction. Professors may misinterpret this difference as being incomplete in making a point, rather than carefully constructed not to come to a point. The directive style can be taught of course, but without the cultural awareness, one may not be aware of the need's basis. (Alder, 2000, p. 29)
- #21 This points out the relevance of intracultural competence, which depends on context and requires knowledge, motivation, and appropriate and effective actions (Lustig & Koester, 2003, pp. 64-71). Fay and Hill have made some suggestions for managing cultural complexity
- #22 Henderson stated “instructional design cannot and does not exist outside of a consideration of culture” (Henderson, 1996, p. 86). She argued for a multiple culture design of interactive multimedia instructional design. I have reproduced her figure here. As can be seen, Henderson believes culture impinges on all aspects of teaching and instructional design. She believes cultural influences can be detected in the epistemology, whether a more objective or constructive approach is taken; for pedagogic philosophy she is referencing whether a more instructivist or constructivist approach is adopted; the underlying psychology would determine a more behavioral or cognitive approach, which is influenced by culture. The goal for the learning session is frequently determined by high- and low-context cultures to be either slightly unfocused, or sharply focused. Other educational factors influenced by culture considerations include instructional sequencing, experiential value, role of the instructor, value of errors, motivation, instruction, accommodation of individual differences, learner control, user activity, and cooperative learning. McLoughlin states “instructional design models include cognitive, social and pedagogical issues, but often do not acknowledge the need for cultural contextuality” (McLoughlin & Oliver, 1999, p. 235). “Cultural variations in interpreting and communicating information also impinge on pedagogical and instructional design decisions, and the cultural dimensions of learning must be constantly problematised and not marginalised” (McLoughlin, 2001, p. 9). McLoughlin recommends a constructive alignment approach that includes the “creation of culturally responsive learning experiences… that build on diversity, and place student needs at the centre of effective cross-cultural learning transactions” (McLoughlin, 2001, p. 25).
- #23 McLoughlin states “instructional design models include cognitive, social and pedagogical issues, but often do not acknowledge the need for cultural contextuality” (McLoughlin & Oliver, 1999, p. 235). “Cultural variations in interpreting and communicating information also impinge on pedagogical and instructional design decisions, and the cultural dimensions of learning must be constantly problematised and not marginalised” (McLoughlin, 2001, p. 9). McLoughlin recommends a constructive alignment approach that includes the “creation of culturally responsive learning experiences… that build on diversity, and place student needs at the centre of effective cross-cultural learning transactions” (McLoughlin, 2001, p. 25).
- #25 Clark and Lyons (2004) have examined the use of graphics in learning and make specific recommendations regarding types of graphics for different learners (Clark & Lyons, 2004). Three types of spatial aptitude influence what individuals learn from graphics. They are spatial span, iconic visualization, and spatial visualization. Learners with low spatial span were not able to remember graphics for long periods of time (pp. 206-207). “Iconic visualizers rely on concrete visual imagery, whereas spatial visualizers can interpret and manipulate spatial information in more abstract manner” (Clark & Lyons, 2004. p. 210). Their recommendations for graphics that accommodate learner differences include: “For low prior knowledge learners, add related visuals to lessen text and use visual design techniques that reduce cognitive load. For high prior knowledge learners, present most content with either text or visual alone; two representations are often redundant. Encourage all learners to process visuals effectively. Visual/verbal learning preferences may not predict the effectiveness of graphics. Minimize demands on spatial ability by displaying visuals in a synchronized rather than a successive manner. For specialized tasks that require spatial skills, provide visual support to enable low spatial ability learners to achieve the instructional goal.” (Clark & Lyons, 2004, p. 193) Clark and Lyons’ text did not include recommendations along cultural lines, but certainly that is something that could be included in the future.