Research Proposal- Cultural Implications on Course Design: Accounting for Cultural Values and Learning Preferences

With a growth rate of 9% in 2013 in the United States, online learning is growing at a rapid rate with the proportion of students taking at least one online course at an all-time high of 32% (Allen & Seaman, 2013). At the same time the number of international students in higher education in the United States has been seeing consistent increases each year having reached 764,495, 3.7% of total student population, in the 2011-2012 school year. However, many of these students face challenges integrating into American learning environments due to a lack of language proficiency and cultural differences in group-forming (Seo, Miller, Schmidt, & Sowa, 2008 October; Tokunaga, 2009), collaboration, and communication (Barbera, 2011; Dong & Lee, 2008; Huang, 2012; Hwang, 2012; Kim & Bonk, 2002; Liu, Liu, Lee, & Magjuka; Nguyen, Terlouw, & Pilot; Wiggins, 2013). Online course instructors need to be aware of cultural differences and the impact these differences can have on international student participation and performance in their courses. With awareness of cultural differences, instructors can adapt their courses so as to accommodate diversity while also supporting international students in developing strategies to be more effective in an American cultural learning environment.

According to Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov’s (2010) national culture values research, the United States is the most individualist culture in the world with an index score of 91 (p. 95). In contrast half of the international students coming to study in the United States come from Confucian heritage cultures, which are characterized by high collectivism, including: China, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Vietnam, and Hong Kong (Institute of International Education, 2012). When including other cultures measured as collectivistic on the Hofstede et al. scale, more than 90% come from cultures with values that contrast with the individualism value-construct that marks the United States. Moreover, collectivist cultures are strongly correlated with large power-distance, a value that stresses rigid social structures with vertical hierarchies (Chiou, 2001; Hornik, & Tupchiy, 2006). In other words, “large-power-distance countries are also likely to be more collectivist, and small-power-distance countries to be more individualist” (Hofstede et al., 2010, p. 103). 

Design of online learning in the United States is heavily influenced by socio-constructivist learning theory which stresses the formation of communities of practice in which learners form strong relationships with instructors and peers and collaborate and interact as equals in knowledge forming (Cerniglia, 2011; Chiong, Jovanovic, & Gill, 2012; Snyder, 2009). While people from most cultures hold such values, the ways in which they are operationalized vary considerably. For example, while both types of cultures would claim to believe that students should form opinions, in a collectivist culture students would speak up in class only when sanctioned by the group or directed by the teacher while in an individualist society they would be expected to individually speak up in class of their own initiative (Hofstede et al., 2010, p. 124). 

Already faced with relationship-building, collaboration and communication difficulties, online learning can further exasperate the challenges collectivist students face due to limited non-verbal communication cues such as facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice and context which are communication strategies associated with collectivist cultures (Kim & Bonk, 2002; Lee, Becker, & Nobre, 2012; Parrish & Linder-VanBerschot; Wiggins, 2013).

In order for teachers to be more effective educators they must be aware of their own cultural values and beliefs (Bain & McNaught, 2006) that they bring to their instruction as well as those that their students bring. This research study will further explore challenges online instructors and students from different cultures face when learning online as well as ways in which those differences can be accommodated and leveraged for improved learning and cross-cultural understanding.
   

References

Allen, I.E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group. Retrieved from http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/changingcourse.pdf

Bain, J. D., & McNaught, C. (2006). How academics use technology in teaching and learning: Understanding the relationship between beliefs and practice. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(2), 99–113. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00163.x

Barbera, E.V. (2011). Systemic multicultural model for online education: Tracing connections among learner inputs, instructional processes, and outcomes. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 12(3), 167–180.

Cerniglia, E. G. (2011). Modeling best practice through online learning: Building relationships. YC: Young Children, 66(3), 54–59.

Chiong, R., Jovanovic, J., & Gill, T. G. (2012). Collaborative learning in online study groups: An evolutionary game theory perspective. Journal of Information Technology Education, 11, 81–101.

Chiou, J. S. (2001). Horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism among college students in the United States, Taiwan, and Argentina. The Journal of Social Psychology, 141(5), 667–678. doi:10.1080/00224540109600580

Dong, Y., Lee, K. P. (2008). A cross-cultural comparative study of users' perceptions of a webpage: With a focus on the cognitive styles of Chinese, Koreans and Americans. International Journal of Design, 2(2), 19-30.

Hofstede, G. H., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind: Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hornik, S., & Tupchiy, A. (2006). Culture’s impact on technology mediated learning: The role of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Global Information Management, 14(4), 31–56.

Huang, Y. (2012). Transitioning challenges faced by Chinese graduate students. Adult Learning, 23(3), 138–147. doi:10.1177/1045159512452861


Hwang, Y. (2012). Understanding moderating effects of collectivist cultural orientation on the knowledge sharing attitude by email. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2169–2174. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.023

Institute of International Education. (2012). Open doors data. [Data file]. Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/Research-and-Publications/Open-Doors/Data

Kim, K.-J., & Bonk, C. J. (2002). Cross-cultural comparisons of online collaboration. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 8(1). Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2002.tb00163.x/full

Lee, J. W., Becker, K., & Nobre, H. (2012). Impact of culture on online management education. Cross Cultural Management, 19(3), 399–420. doi:10.1108/13527601211247116

Liu, X., Liu, S., Lee, S.H., & Magjuka, R. J. (2010). Cultural differences in online learning: International student perceptions. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 177–188.

Nguyen, P.-M., Terlouw, C., & Pilot, A. (2005). Cooperative learning vs Confucian heritage culture’s collectivism: Confrontation to reveal some cultural conflicts and mismatch. Asia Europe Journal, 3(3), 403–419.

Parrish, P., & Linder-VanBerschot, J. A. (2010). Cultural dimensions of learning: Addressing the challenges of multicultural instruction. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 11(2), 1–19.

Seo, K. K., Miller, P. C., Schmidt, C., & Sowa, P. (2008, October). Creating synergy between collectivism and individualism in cyberspace: A comparison of online communication patterns between Hong Kong and U.S. students. Journal of Intercultural Communication,18. Retrieved from http://www.immi.se/intercultural/nr18/kay.htm

Snyder, M. M. (2009). Instructional-design theory to guide the creation of online learning communities for adults. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 53(1), 45–57. doi:10.1007/s11528-009-0237-2

Tokunaga, R. S. (2009). High-speed internet access to the other: The influence of cultural orientations on self-disclosures in offline and online relationships. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 38(3), 133–147. doi:10.1080/17475759.2009.505058

Wiggins, B. E. (2013). Flexible coherence: Re-thinking e-learning design principles for linguistically and culturally diverse students. Contemporary Educational Technology, 4(1), 30–49.

Cultural Implications on Course Design: Accommodating Cultural Values and Learning Preferences

In my position as a manager in charge of developing cultural training for my company Hyundai Motor Group, I develop learning modules for both online and offline instruction to be rolled out globally across more than 30 different countries. I have discovered first-hand that there are differences in learning preferences based on national culture. For instance, an online module I recently created received a 4.5 rating on a 5.0 Likert scale in India but only a 2.3 rating in Slovakia. Moreover, in delivering classroom-based trainings I have discovered that students from some countries such as the U.S., India and Australia are much more open to group discussion while people from places such as Korea, Russia and Czech are generally silent during group discussion. In order to accommodate the learning styles of students from various cultures, I’ve begun to research how to design training that integrates diverse cultural values and beliefs.

The article I’ve chosen to review for this assignment is Cultural Dimensions of Learning: Addressing the Challenges of Multicultural Instruction (Parrish & Linder-VanBerschot, 2010). The article begins by discussing the globalizing nature of business and education. Parrish and Linder-VanBerschot pointed out, as Ghemawat (2011) has done, that Thomas Friedman’s (2007) description of the world being flat as a result of globalization is exaggerated and that to the contrary cultural diversity is still apparent and strong due to deeply ingrained differences in cultural values and beliefs  (Parrish & Linder-VanBerschot, 2010, p. 2).  A study which demonstrates this was done by Dong and Lee (2008) of American, Chinese and Korean webpage users. The experiment tracked their eye-movements across a webpage and found that Americans viewed the page sequentially, consistent with an analytically-minded culture while the Chinese and Koreans tended to scan the whole page first consistent with a holistic-minded culture.

Parrish and Linder-VanBerschot (2010) pointed out that there is a growing desire to preserve diversity as a valuable asset for learning. This claim is supported by a study conducted by Liu, Liu, Lee and Magjuka (2010) which found that students in a culturally diverse online MBA program felt that despite many challenges originating from differences in national cultures, the differences were seen as contributing to richer learning experiences.

One of the most salient points made by Parrish and Linder-VanBerschot (2010) is that when we teach, we are fundamentally teaching culture. They stated:
    Moreover, when we teach, we are passing along not only what we know, but how we come to know it as well as the basis for accepting it as useful knowledge, and the values these represent. Teaching and learning are not only embedded in culture, they are cultural transmission in action – the means to culture. (p. 5)

In order for us to be more effective educators we must be aware of our own cultural values and beliefs. Parrish and Linder-VanBerschot (2010) provided a framework of cultural differences, the Cultural Dimensions of Learning Framework (CDLF) which helps educators and instructional designers to reflect on both their own cultural values and those of their learners. The framework draws on: Hofstede’s (2010) original four cultural dimensions (1) Power-distance, (2) Individualism, (3) Masculinity, and (4) Uncertainty Avoidance;  Nisbett’s dimensions of (5) holistic versus analytic and (6) logical versus reasonable (Nisbett, 2004); and the dimensions of (7) clock time versus event time; and (8) linear time versus cyclical time. 

The framework provides comparative statements that can be used by educators and designers to help them recognize cultural differences that may manifest in learning. It isn’t expected that all of these dimensions need to be considered and addressed for learning situations. However, Parrish and Linder-VanBerschot (2010) have suggested that those working in highly multicultural situations will be able to use them to prepare for potential differences that may be encountered.

In addition to the CDLF, Parrish and Linder-VanBerschot have developed a survey, the CDLF questionnaire (Parrish & Linder-VanBerschot, n.d.) which is based on their framework and includes 36 sets of statements that gauge the cultural learning preference of learners and educators. Tickner and Hunt (2012) have begun studying the validity of the questionnaire and have initially found that most items show high variability with small sample sizes. They concluded that though the validity of the tool has yet to be verified, it may still be useful as an instrument to stimulate reflection and discussion. 

Though it has not yet been determined to be valid, the CDLF framework and questionnaire offer an opportunity for educators to reflect on and discuss differences in values and beliefs and can be used when planning and designing learning. I’ve provided a link to a survey tool based on the CDLF questionnaire that we can use to gauge the average values and beliefs of the students in our class. I will post the results in our Moodle course.
      

                                                                        References

Dong, Y., Lee, K. P. (2008). A cross-cultural comparative study of users' perceptions of a webpage: With a focus on the cognitive styles of Chinese, Koreans and Americans. International Journal of Design, 2(2), 19-30.

Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Ghemawat, P. (2011). World 3.0: Global prosperity and how to achieve it. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.

Hofstede, G. H., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind: Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Liu, X., Liu, S., Lee, S.H., & Magjuka, R. J. (2010). Cultural differences in online learning: International student perceptions. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 177–188.

Nisbett, R. E. (2004). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently-- and why. New York: Free Press.

Parrish, P., & Linder-VanBerschot, J. A. (2010). Cultural dimensions of learning: Addressing the Challenges of Multicultural Instruction. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 11(2), 1–19.

Parrish, P. & Linder-VanBerschot (n.d.). Survey on culturally based learning preferences. [WORD document]. Retrieved from http://tlcommunityunitec.ning.com/profiles/blogs/deanz-2012-cultural-dimensions-of-learning-in-online-teacher-educ

Parrish, P., & Linder-VanBerschot, J. A. (n.d.) Analysis of survey on culturally based learning preferences. [Embeded document]. Retrieved from Learning Ace site: http://www.learningace.com/doc/4420504/538c3e2ef8a40edf40f13f43f00976a8/analysis-of-survey-on-culturally-based-learning-preferences

Tickner, S & Hunt, A. (2012). Online learning preferences: Revealing assumptions and working
with difference. In M. Brown, M. Hartnett & T. Stewart (Eds.), Future challenges, sustainable futures (pp. 915-919). Wellington, NZ: ascilite.

First Post

This is a blog I've created for my Edtech Doctoral studies at Boise State University. I should have started this sooner, but it's better late than never. I plan to document my learning here and include artifacts and reflections on what I learn throughout the program. I will be putting up a post soon on Culture and its implications for course and lesson design.