OMDE 610 Teaching and Learning in Online Distance Education
An exploration of the online teaching and learning dynamic, including its theoretical foundation and best practices. The themes that shape the online teaching/learning relationship are addressed through individual and collaborative projects. Topics include philosophical frameworks; instructional, social and cognitive presence; interaction, collaboration and participation; community and engagement; and administration and management.
Course Attendance: Fall Semester 2007 (September - December)
Professor: Susan Ko
Final Grade: A
Papers: Self Reflection of personal teaching philosophy
Student learning effectiveness within a multi-cultural online learning environment
Professor: Susan Ko
Final Grade: A
Papers: Self Reflection of personal teaching philosophy
Student learning effectiveness within a multi-cultural online learning environment
Self Reflection of Personal Teaching Philosophy September 28th 2007
IntroductionThis paper is a self reflection of my teaching philosophy. This has been an interesting personal experience, as at the start of this journey I would not have been able to articulate this philosophy. Through the guidance of academic literature, this paper first examines how my student experiences in three different countries have molded my teaching philosophy. Secondly examines how this teaching philosophy has shaped my online teaching practices. Finally reviews my personal strengths and weakness and their impact on the teaching effectiveness of my online classroom.
Educational Philosophy
Gabriel (2007) cites Palmer (1998) who suggests that “We teach who we are. Teaching, like any truly human activity, emerges from one’s inwardness, for better or worse” (p.2). In accordance with this perspective, I believe that in order to reflect on my teaching philosophy one first has to explore my experiences and preferences as a student. As my teaching philosophy is a reflection of my preferences as a student.
Student Experiences
My education from primary school to achieving an undergraduate school was in Britain. The British educational system, at least during my tenure, had a strong basis towards a “transmission perspective……A transmission approach emphasizes the importance of the content and suggests that instructors are subject matter experts who transfer their knowledge to their student” (Gabriel, 2007, p.177). The teacher lectured, the students took notes, memorized the facts and regurgitated these facts in assignments, tests and final examinations. The system also used a behaviorism approach as good behavior was rewarded with gold stars and preferential class seating (Kirschener, Martens, & Strijbos, 2004). I thrived in this environment having a good memory and competitive for those gold stars and class status. However when I left the educational system and started my career as an electronics engineer I realized that while I knew a lot of facts I hadn’t learnt to think. This realization was many years before Morrison (2007) and other educators argued that the education system needs to “move away from surface or shallow approaches to learning – emphasis on memorization, simple recall of facts – to a form of deep learning where learners construct and integrate complex representation of knowledge into patters that are personally meaningful”(p.106).
The next experience with an educational system was in Canada doing an MBA. The educational philosophy was a combination of transmission and developmental perspective. As well as lectures, the instructors tended “to look for student understanding and ability to reason using new knowledge constructed through active learning” (Gabriel 2007, p.178); this was achieved by “using case studies and real life examples”(p.179). This teaching philosophy was a positive experience as it combined my experience in the transmission educational system with a pragmatic deeper thinking approach.
My next experience with an educational system was twenty-five years later at UMUC doing a Doctor of Management, in both a face-to-face and for the first time an online environment. In the face-to-face classes the teaching philosophy that was generally used was what Kirshner et al. (2004) term social construction of shared perspectives where “concepts are developed through fine tuning involving interaction with others” (p.7); the philosophy being that class interaction “exposes the learner to multiple perspectives about a theme” (p.7). I was frustrated in this educational environment as my expectation in going to a classroom is to learn from an expert and not listen to the opinions of my fellow students who were as equally ignorant of the subject matter as me.
In the online environment I experienced the full range of teaching philosophies: transmission, developmental, apprenticeship, nurturing and social reform perspectives. While I found the online experience more challenging than face-to-face, I also found it to be more rewarding and enjoyable. This was largely due to the different roles of the teacher and student in the online environment supporting Collins & Berge (1996) assertion that there is “a radical shift in the power and interaction structures in the classroom as the students must accept the responsibility for their own knowledge creation, and the instructor must relinquish a certain amount of control over the process” (p.6). Taking ownership of my own knowledge creation meant that I increased my interaction with the course material and learning activities. My expectation of the instructor also shifted from the expert to developer of assignments and activities that stimulated my active learning of the subject matter. I found that taking charge of my knowledge construction both refreshing and rewarding.
Teaching
Educational Philosophy My student experiences had a strong influence on my teaching philosophy first with the recognition that my philosophy needed to be different in a face-to-face and an online environment.
In my undergraduate face-to-face teaching environment I utilize my Canadian experience of combining a transmission and developmental perspective. I feel it is important for me to transmit my expert knowledge and share my ‘real world’ business experience with the students. However I believe it is equally important for them to construct and reflect on this knowledge using ‘real world’ case studies or activities relating to their area of interest or business environment. The face-to-face environment enables me to blend these perspectives in an open and supportive environment.
In the online environment, I strongly recognize the need to shift from expert to facilitator and use the nurturing teaching philosophy. In this context, I focus on providing a stimulating course guide and developing a positive learning environment “providing high levels of instructor support and ensuring that every e-learner will succeed”(Gabriel, 2007, p.180). I utilize this philosophy as I recognize that online students are typically adults and are strongly motivated to succeed (Peters 2001). They are also firmly in control of their learning construction, thus my role as an online teacher is to guide the learning process, stimulate interest in creating student relevant critical thinking assignments, and providing positive ‘real-time’ support. In summary my philosophy revolves around the perspective that I “expect students to learn and [ I ] provide whatever support and guidance is required for this to occur” (Gabriel, 2007, p.180)
Learning & Teaching Framework
Collins & Berg (1996) framework of instructional roles required in successful online instruction – pedagogical, social, managerial and technical – provides an excellent platform to discuss the online teaching framework which I adopt.
Pedagogical The first key role I try to accomplish is to align with the course goals and objectives with a rational flow of reading from the course text, course modules and supplementary articles. The sequencing is based on a scaffolding approach to help the students construct knowledge of increasingly complex concepts in weekly manageable chunk. My special knowledge and insight is reflected in developing pragmatic “real-world” assignments to reinforce the concepts in a number of forums: individual weekly homework, probing questions or case studies in class wide online asynchronous conferences, and group projects. This role I primarily focus on before the semester starts and in a review of the course strengths and weaknesses when the course has completed.
Social
My personal interaction with both the class and individual students is the most import role I focus on during the semester, as it is the essence of my nurturing teaching philosophy. First and foremost, I really focus on ensuring that the tone of my writing is friendly, positive and supportive in all communication with students: announcements, instructions, answering questions, and assignment feedback. This can be hard in some cases when a student’s question is irritating or the result of their laziness, however if I feel angry or irritated I always wait before responding. I firmly believe with Gabriel (2007) that key teaching practices are to encourage questions and then provide prompt feedback. In giving feedback I always try to give positive feedback before negative, communicate high expectations and offer support and encouragement. As a further support mechanism I advise students of other services that UMUC offers such as the writing center and library assistance.
While I have firm and regular deadlines I try to be responsive to students’ time constraints who are trying to balance their careers, family and education by allowing extensions if I am informed ahead of time.
Managerial
Another factor which I consider key to a successful online class is having a clear, well organized classroom. In my experience, most important area that students initially focus on is how they are going to be evaluated. The next item is what they need to do, where they need to do it, and by when. It is my contention that a student who is confused about the evaluation or course logistics will not focus on the pedagogical content. Good organization starts with the clarity and comprehensiveness of the syllabus, so I spend a lot of time revising and refining this document especially in areas where they were questions in previous classes. Throughout the semester I always have weekly conferences in which the first sub-conference is a check list of what needs to be done that week (a duplicate of the syllabus). I use weekly announcements to praise the work of the previous week, identify key upcoming events and relate personal activities. Finally in all areas of communication I encourage the students to ask questions in they are not clear on the process or content.
Technical
Having a technology background, I feel at ease in the online (Webtycho) environment. This capability enables me to make full use of the editing environment – color, tables, links etc, which enables the classroom to be not only organized but pleasing to the eye. In addition I can help new students to navigate Webtycho without having to send them off to Webtycho support; all part of the nurturing service. The area which I have not addressed but feel that I should is the utilization of audio technology to augment my connection with students with voice messages, and trying to set up synchronous audio chat sessions.
Personal Strengths and WeaknessesPersonal strengths include:
- I like teaching and I like students; I think students recognize that I am trying to help them and genuinely want them to succeed, and respond accordingly.
- I am a very organized person this helps in creating a well structured online classroom, and in my efficiency in handle students with different needs.
- I have high expectations for myself and the class; in most cases these expectation are met.
- I have a lot of business experience which students appreciate as it makes my classes “real”.
- I am humble enough to know that I don’t know everything and can learn from my students, fellow teachers and education professionals.
Weaknesses include:
- My teaching philosophy and techniques are based on a “learning by doing” approach; no formal training. This especially leads me to question the quality of my pedagogy.
- My expectation of high standards and belief that adult students want to learn leaves me frustrated with unmotivated students. I have limited success in changing these students’ motivation levels.
- Lack of creativity in developing relevant and simulating assignments.
- Balancing personal time against teaching effectiveness. While student feedback to my teaching philosophy is positive it takes a lot of time. This is becoming a major issue with UMUC’s shift to larger class size; how can I be as effective in the new environment with only 24 hours in a day?
- I struggle both as a teacher and learner with group activities both in terms of relevancy and fairness.
Conclusion
As teacher not trained in education and who has developed his teaching philosophy through “trail and error” this reflective paper has been an interesting and useful experience. In the context that “we teach who we are” the reflection has been an interesting journey of understanding how my student experiences and personal preferences have molded my teaching philosophy. The readings have been very useful in providing clarity of my thought process in defining both my experiences and philosophy.
Reference
Barr, R.B., Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, 27 (6), 13-25.
Collins, M. & Berge, Z. (1996). Facilitating interaction in computer mediated onlinecourses. Available at: http://www.emoderators.com/moderators/flcc.html
Gabriel, M. (2007). Toward Effective Instruction in E-learning Environments. In Bullen,M and Janes, D. Making the transition to E-learning. Information Science Publishing.
Gunawardena, C. N., (1992). Changing faculty roles for audiographics and online teaching. American Journal of Distance Education, 6(3), 58-71.
Kirschner, P.A., Martens, R.L., & Strijbos, J.W. (2004). CSCL in higher education? a framework for designing multiple collaborative environments. In What we know about CSCL and implementing it in higher education, (pp. 3-30). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Morrison, D. (2007). E-learning in higher education: The need for a new pedagogy. In Bullen, M and Janes, D. Making the transition to E-learning. Information Science Publishing.
Peters, O. (2001). Learning and Teaching in distance education. London: Routledge
Palmer, P. (1998). The courage to teach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pratt, D.D. & Associates. (1998). Five perspectives on teaching adults and higher education. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing.
Educational Philosophy
Gabriel (2007) cites Palmer (1998) who suggests that “We teach who we are. Teaching, like any truly human activity, emerges from one’s inwardness, for better or worse” (p.2). In accordance with this perspective, I believe that in order to reflect on my teaching philosophy one first has to explore my experiences and preferences as a student. As my teaching philosophy is a reflection of my preferences as a student.
Student Experiences
My education from primary school to achieving an undergraduate school was in Britain. The British educational system, at least during my tenure, had a strong basis towards a “transmission perspective……A transmission approach emphasizes the importance of the content and suggests that instructors are subject matter experts who transfer their knowledge to their student” (Gabriel, 2007, p.177). The teacher lectured, the students took notes, memorized the facts and regurgitated these facts in assignments, tests and final examinations. The system also used a behaviorism approach as good behavior was rewarded with gold stars and preferential class seating (Kirschener, Martens, & Strijbos, 2004). I thrived in this environment having a good memory and competitive for those gold stars and class status. However when I left the educational system and started my career as an electronics engineer I realized that while I knew a lot of facts I hadn’t learnt to think. This realization was many years before Morrison (2007) and other educators argued that the education system needs to “move away from surface or shallow approaches to learning – emphasis on memorization, simple recall of facts – to a form of deep learning where learners construct and integrate complex representation of knowledge into patters that are personally meaningful”(p.106).
The next experience with an educational system was in Canada doing an MBA. The educational philosophy was a combination of transmission and developmental perspective. As well as lectures, the instructors tended “to look for student understanding and ability to reason using new knowledge constructed through active learning” (Gabriel 2007, p.178); this was achieved by “using case studies and real life examples”(p.179). This teaching philosophy was a positive experience as it combined my experience in the transmission educational system with a pragmatic deeper thinking approach.
My next experience with an educational system was twenty-five years later at UMUC doing a Doctor of Management, in both a face-to-face and for the first time an online environment. In the face-to-face classes the teaching philosophy that was generally used was what Kirshner et al. (2004) term social construction of shared perspectives where “concepts are developed through fine tuning involving interaction with others” (p.7); the philosophy being that class interaction “exposes the learner to multiple perspectives about a theme” (p.7). I was frustrated in this educational environment as my expectation in going to a classroom is to learn from an expert and not listen to the opinions of my fellow students who were as equally ignorant of the subject matter as me.
In the online environment I experienced the full range of teaching philosophies: transmission, developmental, apprenticeship, nurturing and social reform perspectives. While I found the online experience more challenging than face-to-face, I also found it to be more rewarding and enjoyable. This was largely due to the different roles of the teacher and student in the online environment supporting Collins & Berge (1996) assertion that there is “a radical shift in the power and interaction structures in the classroom as the students must accept the responsibility for their own knowledge creation, and the instructor must relinquish a certain amount of control over the process” (p.6). Taking ownership of my own knowledge creation meant that I increased my interaction with the course material and learning activities. My expectation of the instructor also shifted from the expert to developer of assignments and activities that stimulated my active learning of the subject matter. I found that taking charge of my knowledge construction both refreshing and rewarding.
Teaching
Educational Philosophy My student experiences had a strong influence on my teaching philosophy first with the recognition that my philosophy needed to be different in a face-to-face and an online environment.
In my undergraduate face-to-face teaching environment I utilize my Canadian experience of combining a transmission and developmental perspective. I feel it is important for me to transmit my expert knowledge and share my ‘real world’ business experience with the students. However I believe it is equally important for them to construct and reflect on this knowledge using ‘real world’ case studies or activities relating to their area of interest or business environment. The face-to-face environment enables me to blend these perspectives in an open and supportive environment.
In the online environment, I strongly recognize the need to shift from expert to facilitator and use the nurturing teaching philosophy. In this context, I focus on providing a stimulating course guide and developing a positive learning environment “providing high levels of instructor support and ensuring that every e-learner will succeed”(Gabriel, 2007, p.180). I utilize this philosophy as I recognize that online students are typically adults and are strongly motivated to succeed (Peters 2001). They are also firmly in control of their learning construction, thus my role as an online teacher is to guide the learning process, stimulate interest in creating student relevant critical thinking assignments, and providing positive ‘real-time’ support. In summary my philosophy revolves around the perspective that I “expect students to learn and [ I ] provide whatever support and guidance is required for this to occur” (Gabriel, 2007, p.180)
Learning & Teaching Framework
Collins & Berg (1996) framework of instructional roles required in successful online instruction – pedagogical, social, managerial and technical – provides an excellent platform to discuss the online teaching framework which I adopt.
Pedagogical The first key role I try to accomplish is to align with the course goals and objectives with a rational flow of reading from the course text, course modules and supplementary articles. The sequencing is based on a scaffolding approach to help the students construct knowledge of increasingly complex concepts in weekly manageable chunk. My special knowledge and insight is reflected in developing pragmatic “real-world” assignments to reinforce the concepts in a number of forums: individual weekly homework, probing questions or case studies in class wide online asynchronous conferences, and group projects. This role I primarily focus on before the semester starts and in a review of the course strengths and weaknesses when the course has completed.
Social
My personal interaction with both the class and individual students is the most import role I focus on during the semester, as it is the essence of my nurturing teaching philosophy. First and foremost, I really focus on ensuring that the tone of my writing is friendly, positive and supportive in all communication with students: announcements, instructions, answering questions, and assignment feedback. This can be hard in some cases when a student’s question is irritating or the result of their laziness, however if I feel angry or irritated I always wait before responding. I firmly believe with Gabriel (2007) that key teaching practices are to encourage questions and then provide prompt feedback. In giving feedback I always try to give positive feedback before negative, communicate high expectations and offer support and encouragement. As a further support mechanism I advise students of other services that UMUC offers such as the writing center and library assistance.
While I have firm and regular deadlines I try to be responsive to students’ time constraints who are trying to balance their careers, family and education by allowing extensions if I am informed ahead of time.
Managerial
Another factor which I consider key to a successful online class is having a clear, well organized classroom. In my experience, most important area that students initially focus on is how they are going to be evaluated. The next item is what they need to do, where they need to do it, and by when. It is my contention that a student who is confused about the evaluation or course logistics will not focus on the pedagogical content. Good organization starts with the clarity and comprehensiveness of the syllabus, so I spend a lot of time revising and refining this document especially in areas where they were questions in previous classes. Throughout the semester I always have weekly conferences in which the first sub-conference is a check list of what needs to be done that week (a duplicate of the syllabus). I use weekly announcements to praise the work of the previous week, identify key upcoming events and relate personal activities. Finally in all areas of communication I encourage the students to ask questions in they are not clear on the process or content.
Technical
Having a technology background, I feel at ease in the online (Webtycho) environment. This capability enables me to make full use of the editing environment – color, tables, links etc, which enables the classroom to be not only organized but pleasing to the eye. In addition I can help new students to navigate Webtycho without having to send them off to Webtycho support; all part of the nurturing service. The area which I have not addressed but feel that I should is the utilization of audio technology to augment my connection with students with voice messages, and trying to set up synchronous audio chat sessions.
Personal Strengths and WeaknessesPersonal strengths include:
- I like teaching and I like students; I think students recognize that I am trying to help them and genuinely want them to succeed, and respond accordingly.
- I am a very organized person this helps in creating a well structured online classroom, and in my efficiency in handle students with different needs.
- I have high expectations for myself and the class; in most cases these expectation are met.
- I have a lot of business experience which students appreciate as it makes my classes “real”.
- I am humble enough to know that I don’t know everything and can learn from my students, fellow teachers and education professionals.
Weaknesses include:
- My teaching philosophy and techniques are based on a “learning by doing” approach; no formal training. This especially leads me to question the quality of my pedagogy.
- My expectation of high standards and belief that adult students want to learn leaves me frustrated with unmotivated students. I have limited success in changing these students’ motivation levels.
- Lack of creativity in developing relevant and simulating assignments.
- Balancing personal time against teaching effectiveness. While student feedback to my teaching philosophy is positive it takes a lot of time. This is becoming a major issue with UMUC’s shift to larger class size; how can I be as effective in the new environment with only 24 hours in a day?
- I struggle both as a teacher and learner with group activities both in terms of relevancy and fairness.
Conclusion
As teacher not trained in education and who has developed his teaching philosophy through “trail and error” this reflective paper has been an interesting and useful experience. In the context that “we teach who we are” the reflection has been an interesting journey of understanding how my student experiences and personal preferences have molded my teaching philosophy. The readings have been very useful in providing clarity of my thought process in defining both my experiences and philosophy.
Reference
Barr, R.B., Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, 27 (6), 13-25.
Collins, M. & Berge, Z. (1996). Facilitating interaction in computer mediated onlinecourses. Available at: http://www.emoderators.com/moderators/flcc.html
Gabriel, M. (2007). Toward Effective Instruction in E-learning Environments. In Bullen,M and Janes, D. Making the transition to E-learning. Information Science Publishing.
Gunawardena, C. N., (1992). Changing faculty roles for audiographics and online teaching. American Journal of Distance Education, 6(3), 58-71.
Kirschner, P.A., Martens, R.L., & Strijbos, J.W. (2004). CSCL in higher education? a framework for designing multiple collaborative environments. In What we know about CSCL and implementing it in higher education, (pp. 3-30). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Morrison, D. (2007). E-learning in higher education: The need for a new pedagogy. In Bullen, M and Janes, D. Making the transition to E-learning. Information Science Publishing.
Peters, O. (2001). Learning and Teaching in distance education. London: Routledge
Palmer, P. (1998). The courage to teach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pratt, D.D. & Associates. (1998). Five perspectives on teaching adults and higher education. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing.
Student Effectiveness within a multi-cultural online learning environment December 10th 2007
Introduction
Online education facilitates the ability for students from vastly different cultural backgrounds to be peers in a single class. However, cultural differences have a significant impact on how students learn and thus greatly influences online course instructional design and teaching practices. Ghaoui (2004) suggests that there are three potential solutions to incorporate different cultures in an online environment:
1. Design and teach to a culture-less online pedagogy standard to be used across different cultures. (Globalization)
2. Design and teach from a single context culture but incorporate cultural considerations that broaden the global target audience (Internalization).
3. Modularize the instructional course design such that local adaptation can be made to accommodate different cultural markets (Localization).
Following a literature review on global e-learning challenges and potential solutions, this research position paper will take the following position: (1) The challenges of different cultural learning styles prohibit the development of a culture-less online pedagogy standard; (2) Cultural considerations can be incorporated in the instructional design to both broaden the global target audience, and to develop interfaces to accommodate local adaptations.
What is Culture?
Definition of Culture
Culture scholars have compared culture to a computer program that, once activated by a few commands or stimuli, begins to operate automatically and seemingly in an independent manner. “Culture can be likened to a giant, extraordinary complex, subtle computer. Its programs guide the actions and responses of human beings in every walk of life” (Hall, 1990). Hofstede (1980) expanded the computing definition to distinguish cultural groups; he defined culture as “the collective mental programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another. Culture is not a characteristic of individuals; it encompasses a number of people who were conditioned by the same education and life experience” (p.43).
The unconscious nature of culture exhibits a number of attributes. First, once a culture has been programmed it is difficult to change, and if it changes at all, it does so very slowly (Hofstede, 1980). Second, cultural programs will not work if crucial steps are omitted, which happens when people unconsciously apply their own rules to another system (Hall, 1990). An example of this phenomenon is when an instructor violates a key critical value that he or she is not even aware of, and yet no one brings the matter to his or her attention. However, the instructor finds him/herself beginning to experience negative feelings and isolation from the students. Third, instructors and students are all conditioned by cultural influences at many different levels – family, social, geographical regions at a regional and national level, and by the education system in which we operate. In summary, a student’s learning behaviors are based on the experiences, values, and different mental programming of a culture (Nelson, 1995).
Global Cultural Studies
In the literature there are three preeminent cultural researchers, Geert Hofstede, Fons Trompenaars and Edward Hall who have each studied national culture across a number of cultural dimensions. Table 1 provides a summary of their key cultural findings across a number of countries. An overall review of these findings highlight two main conclusions; (1) each country has a unique set of cultural values, (2) the cultural values of the United States which are similar with other Anglo countries such as Britain, Australia & Canada and some of the Northern European countries, differ quite substantially from the Asian, Latin American, Mediterranean and East European countries.
As currently “United States and English speaking countries and institutions dominate the world of online learning” (Macfadyen et al., 2004, p. 42), the differences in cultural values between these countries and the rest of the world raises major challenges for global educators and raises the broader social issue of whether “the Internet is facilitating the dissemination of Western cultural values?”(p.42).
Cultural Issues in Online Teaching and Learning
Language
The language of the class is obviously a critical component of the instructional process and is typically set as the language of the home institution. “Differences in cultural values, mores, and practices are heavily influenced by constructs of their native language” (Bentley et al., 2005, p.119). While English is regarded as the language of business and is often the second language of most global countries, knowing the language is not enough to fully understand the cultural meaning of the message (Bentley et al. 2005, Joo, 1999). Even students from other English speaking countries can have misunderstanding due to the differences and cultural nuances of American English. As such, “instructional designers preparing for a global audience would do well to remember in their needs analysis to choose an appropriate level of English for their needs International courses” (Bentley et al., 2005, p.119).
Instructor to student / student to student communication
Online communication by its very nature is different from face to face communication as it is void of physical cues to help convey the meaning of the message. Edward Hall’s (1990) cultural studies include physical cues and other messaging attributes in a comparison of high-context to low-context communication. High context communication characteristics are used by Japanese, Chinese, Latin American, Mediterranean and Middle East cultures include implicit messages, non-verbal coding, reserved reactions, strong people bonds, and being open and flexible. While low-context communication characteristics used by United States, Canada, UK, Germany and Australia include explicit messages, verbalized details, immediate reactions, fragile people bonds and highly organized time.
The online educational course platforms and email are low-context medium that requires a high rapport between the sender and receiver, focusing on the exact words, prose style, argumentation and line of reasoning, and ideas to gain mutual understanding. (Bentley et al., 2005). These types of mediums are contrary to the “high-context persons who look for nonverbal cues, social standings, and situational contexts to know how to respond appropriately”. (Bentley et al., 2005, p.123)
In addition the norms of communication differ between cultures, horizontal communication between students and vertical communication between the instructor and students can vary considerably between cultures (Lum, 2006). “An instructor or other participant could misinterpret the actions or lack of actions by another. For example, Wong & Trinidad (2004) describe Hong Kong learners as shy, passive, reactive, inarticulate, non-collaborative, and timid whereas western learners are described as proactive, articulate, collaborative, and eager to challenge traditions” (Weeden, 2007, p.29).
Potential cultural communication misunderstandings cause difficulty for both the instructor and students. The instructor has difficulty determining whether student issues are due to the language or a basic lack of understanding of the course material. From the student perspective, miscommunication can significantly impact his or her academic success (Hudson et al. 2006).
Learning Styles
Online instruction requires a shift in the traditional roles of the instructor and students Collins & Berge (1996) asserts that there is “a radical shift in the power and interaction structures in the classroom as the students must accept the responsibility for their own knowledge creation, and the instructor must relinquish a certain amount of control over the process”(p. 4). Thus self-directed learning is an essential element of online learning success however studies suggest that students due to their cultural preferences vary in their abilities in independent learning (Lum, 2006).
Self directed learning invokes a constructivists learning theory which argues that knowledge is not simply received by learners but constructed based upon the learner’s individual mental model (Marienetti & Dunn, 2002). In a study of mental self-government and thinking styles of Hong Kong and American students, Zang & Sternberg (2001) found that Hong Kong students required conformity and a hierarchical style, and associated negatively with styles that allowed self-direction and norm challenging ways of performing tasks. Lim (2004) claims “the Asian culture views the learning process of self perfection by seeking lifelong commitment, diligence, endurance of hardship, persistence and concentration, whereas the Western culture emphases thinking process and learner’s psychological characteristics such as learning styles and intelligence” (p.166).
Potential Solutions to Cultural Inclusivity
Culture-less online pedagogy
The feasibility of designing a culture-less online course has been questioned by many scholars (Macfadyen et al., 2004; Lanham & Zhou, 2003; Marinetti & Dunn, 2002). In fact, the term culture-less is a misnomer as anything that is created or said by a human being is a reflection of that person’s culture. "We teach as we are. Teaching like any truly human activity, emerges from one’s inwardness, for better or worse” (Palmer, 1998, p.2). Instructors will teach based upon their culture and that while they may to try to accommodate students from other cultures, the accommodation will only be within their context.Even the most culturally sensitive instructional designer and instructor will unconsciously make decisions and statement based on his or her own cultural background.
Two fundamental components of an online course are the language of instruction and the technological medium, both of which, as we have discussed earlier, are laden with cultural implications. These observations, in themselves, make the premise of developing a culture-less class an impossible task.
Even if it were possible to have multicultural team develop a course in a universal world language; consider the challenges of developing a course that accommodates the multiple cultural dimensions in Table 1. For example comparing American and French students using Geert Hofstede’s cultural dimensions:
- Americans with a low acceptance of hierarchical power will accept their professor based upon his or her competence – they will feel comfortable questioning and challenging the professor. The French with a high acceptance of hierarchical power will respect the professor as the authority and will not challenge him or her.
- In America being tough, aggressive and assertive is an admired quality so being very assertive in making your point, being demanding on the professor for a better grade , or the professor being demanding on students are all well accepted. This is not the case in a French classroom.
- Americans with weak uncertainty avoidance (high risk tolerance) will feel comfortable studying alone or working in a group with somebody they don’t know. The French want to only work in groups with their friends.
Using Edward Hall’s communication attributes:
- Americans like a lot of detail to ensure they understand precisely what are the rules and regulations of the class, and to understand concepts in general. The French are much more comfortable with understanding the concepts and are less interested in the detailed rules.
- Americans want to understand things fast – precisely what they have to know to pass the course (message speed fast, information compartmentalized). The French will more likely read the full text before worrying about what they have to learn (message speed slow, information flow diffused).
- Americans have a drive to focus on one task, complete it quickly and move on to the next (monochromatic). The French are comfortable in doing multiple tasks and have less of a drive to finish them.
The merging of these two widely conflicting cultures into a single course clearly would provide major challenge for instructional designers and instructors.
While developing a culture-less pedagogy may not be viable, a small number of researchers have began to suggest techniques of how instructional designers can accommodate the needs of culturally diverse learners (Macfadyen et al.,2004).
Culturally sensitive to broaden the global target audience.
Collis’ (1999) solution to accommodate different expectations and learner preferences is by designing online courses with maximum flexibility. She offers instructional designers with ten design guidelines for culture-related flexibility:
1. Plan for flexibility.
2. Support a variety of roles for instructors and students, and the ability to easily change in these roles.
3. Let the instructor and students tailor communication and interactivity expectations.
4. Use the web-site to support and supplement the course not to replace the instructor.
5. Emphasis student and instructor input, and use a wide variety of learning resources.
6. Make the technical aspects of using the system as easy as possible
7. Have a minimal amount of fixed text or images so that adaptation to different cultures is anticipated.
8. Let the instructor tailor the communications and interaction approach.
9. Avoid pre-set assumptions about any aspect of the course organization including form of assessment.
10. Be realistic about instructor time and skill levels.
Bentley et al. (2005) offers further specific recommendations to instructional designers both from a low-context county (United States) and high-context countries (China, Japan, France). However, the generic open flexibility approach shifts the responsibility of cultural inclusiveness to the instructor, thus the “instructor’s cultural ecology requires particular attention. But WWW sites and guideline in themselves are not enough for cultural flexibility: sensitivity and appropriate responsiveness remain human activities” (Collis, 1999, p.201).
McLoughlin (1999, 2000) and Edmundson (2004) used Henderson’s (1996) Multiple Cultural Model (MCM) to successfully develop a design model to include a specific cultural target group within a different cultural context. Henderson’s (1996) model identifies thirteen cultural sensitive parameters which instructional designers should pay particular attention to. “The adoption of the multiple cultural model requires the design team to investigate the pedagogical dimensions of the cultures they are providing resources for, and to be aware of the multiple ways in which each culture could interpret instruction” (McLoughlin & Oliver, 2000, p. 64). Based upon this approach, McLoughlin (1999, 2000) succeed in developing a bi-cultural instructional design model which integrated indigenous Australian’s culture into a mainstream Australian course.
Based upon this empirical work, McLoughlin & Oliver (2000) proposed ten instructional design guidelines for incorporating a specific cultural target group into an online course (Table 2).
Edmundson (2004) in her doctorate dissertation research on cross-cultural dimensions of globalized e-learning used a similar adaption of Henderson’s (1996) MCM model to develop a simple low-context course from which learners from a Western (American) and an Eastern (Indian) culture achieved equitable learning outcomes after taking the same western designed e-learning course.
The essential principle for the successful integration of these bi-cultural dimensions into a single course design is for the instructional designers to know their target audiences. Rogers et al. (2007) study of the cultural competencies of twelve experienced instructional designers who have worked with a number of cultures raises questions regarding the level of awareness these practitioners have concerning potential cultural differences that exist among international learners. This leads to another potential solution, modularizing the instructional design based on cultural learning diversity constructs such that the design can be adapted locally for different target audiences.
Modularize the instructional design for local adaptation In a review of the potential approaches to adapt to the challenges of multiple culture Marinetti & Dunn (2002) suggested that instructional designers should follow the global business philosophy of Thinking globally, Act locally that has been adopted by Multinational companies like McDonald, Coca Cola and Nescafe in their sale of global products. “We suggest that the most common strategy that will be used by producers of effective globalized e-learning will be Modularization. Such courses will consist of a large proportion of core content that, while translated and localized, remains the same in most cultures. But key-components – those that address areas that are culturally sensitive – will be largely different” (p.23).
Smith (2004) suggests that there are two types of usability issues in international design: (1) hard issue such as language and format structure; (2) soft issues which are the underpinning of the cultural dimensions. The hard issues are relatively easy to accommodate locally through translation. The challenge for instructional designers is constructing the appropriate interfaces such that the soft cultural issue can be modified locally. While, software tools will facilitate the modular construction, cultural diverse constructs provide appropriate interfaces for modularized. Marinetti & Dunn (2002) suggest that this can be achieve using Hofstedes, Trompenaars or other proven models (Henderson ,1996) to “reveal the components that need to change for different cultural applications”(p.24).
Conclusion
The research literature highlights that cultural differences play a critical role in the effectiveness of teaching and learning in an online environment. While the solutions to address these cultural challenges are in their infancy there is conclusive evidence that developing a culture-less online class to meet the needs of all cultures is not viable. However initial research does suggest by following a set of cultural awareness guidelines instructional designs and instructors can integrate a specific target group into a different cultural context and develop a bi-cultural class. A second viable approach for multiple cultures is to design the online course constructs along global cultural dimensions such that the course is modularize and can be adapted locally to suit the local target audience.
BibliographyBanks, J.A., Cookson, P., Gay, G., Hawley, W.D., Irvine, J.J., Nieto, S., Schofield, J.W., Stephan, W. (2001). Diversity within unity: Essential Principles for teaching and learning in a multicultural society. Phi Delta Kappan, November, p.196-203
Bentley, P.H., Tinney, M.V. Chia, B.H. (2005). Intercultural Internet-Based Learning: Know your audience and what it values. Educational Technology Research & Development. 53 (2), p.117-127.
Collins, M. & Berge, Z. (1996). Facilitating interaction in computer mediated online courses. Retrieved December 2nd 2007 at: http://www.emoderators.com/mod erators/flcc.html
Collis, B. (1999). Designing for differences:cultural issues in the design of WWW-based course-support sites. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30 (3), p. 201-215.
Chen, A-Y., Mashhadi, A., Ang, D., Harkrider, N. (1999). Cultural issues in the design of technology-enhanced learning systems. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30 (3), p. 231-243
Edmundson, A. (2007). Globalized E-learning cultural challenges. Hershey PA: Information Science Publishing.
Edmundson, A (2004). The Cross Cultural Dimensions of Globalized E-Learning. Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation. Retrieved from UMUC Dissertation and Thesis database November 30th 2007.
Ghaoui, C. (2004). E-Education Applications: Human Factors and Innovative Approaches. Hershey PA: Information Science Publishing
Hall, E.T., Hall, M.R. (1990). Understanding Cultural Differences. Maine: Intercultural Press.
Henderson (1996). Instructional design of interactive multimedia: A cultural critique. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44 (4), p.85-104.
Hofestede, G. (1999). The universal and the specific in 21st-century global management.Organizational Dynamics.28 (1), p 34-45.
Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultural constraints in management theories. Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 7 No. 1, p.81-94.
Joo, J-E. (1999). Cultural issues of the Internet in classrooms. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30 (3), p. 245-250
Lanham, E., Zhou, W. (2003). Cultural issues in online learning – Is bleneded learning a possible solution? International Journal of Computer Processing of Oriental Languages, 16 (4), p.275-292.
Lim, D.H. (2004). Cross Cultural difference in online learning motivation. Educational Media International.
Lum, L. (2006). Internationally – educated health professionals: a distance education multiple cultures model. Education & Training, 48 (2/3) p. 112-126.
Macfadyen, L.P.,Roche, J.,Doff, S. (2004). Communicating across cultures in cyberspace. Berlin: LIT Verlag MÜster
McLoughin, C. (1999). Culturally responsive technology use: developing an on-line community of learners. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30 (3), p. 231-243.
McLoughlin, C. & Oliver, R. (2000). Designing learning environments for cultural inclusivity: A case study of indigenous online learning at tertiary level. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 58-72. Retrieved October 11th 2007 from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet16/mcloughlin.html
Marinetti, A., Dunn, P. (2002). The challenge of cultural adaptation. Training Journal, November.
Nelson, C. (1995). Cultural differences in learing styles. In J. Reid, Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, pp. 3-18.
Oubenaissa-Gardina, L., Bhattacharya. (2007). Managing Technological constraints and educational aspiration in a multicultural E-learning environment design. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 18 (1), p.135-144
Rogers, P.C., Graham, C.R., Mayes, C.T. (2007). Cultural competence and instructional design: Exploring research into the delivery of online instruction cross-culturally. Education Technology Research Development, 55, p. 197-217
Selinger, M. (2004). Cultural and pedagogical implications of a global e-learning programme. Cambridge Journal of Education, 34 (2), p. 223-239
Smith, A. (2004). Ensuring usability in International Web-based E-learning systems. In C.Ghaoui. E-Education Applications: Human Factors and Innovative Approaches. Hershey PA: Information Science Publishing
Trompenaars, F. (1994). Riding the waves of culture Understanding diversity in a global business. New York: Irwin.
Weeden, E.M. (2007). International Online Learning Communities. Journal of Instruction Delivery Systems, 20 (3), p.28-33.
Wong, L.F., & Trinidad, S.G. (2004). Using Web-Based Distance Learning to Reduce Cultural Distance.The Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 3 (1) p.1-13. Retrieved December 7th from http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/PDF/3.1.2.pdf
Zang,L., Sternberg, R.J. (2001) Perspectives on thinking, learning and cognitive styles. New Jersey: LEA.
Zorn, I. (2005). Do culture and technology interact? Overcoming technological barriers to intercultural communication in virtual communities. ACM SIGGROUP Bulletin, 25 (2)
Online education facilitates the ability for students from vastly different cultural backgrounds to be peers in a single class. However, cultural differences have a significant impact on how students learn and thus greatly influences online course instructional design and teaching practices. Ghaoui (2004) suggests that there are three potential solutions to incorporate different cultures in an online environment:
1. Design and teach to a culture-less online pedagogy standard to be used across different cultures. (Globalization)
2. Design and teach from a single context culture but incorporate cultural considerations that broaden the global target audience (Internalization).
3. Modularize the instructional course design such that local adaptation can be made to accommodate different cultural markets (Localization).
Following a literature review on global e-learning challenges and potential solutions, this research position paper will take the following position: (1) The challenges of different cultural learning styles prohibit the development of a culture-less online pedagogy standard; (2) Cultural considerations can be incorporated in the instructional design to both broaden the global target audience, and to develop interfaces to accommodate local adaptations.
What is Culture?
Definition of Culture
Culture scholars have compared culture to a computer program that, once activated by a few commands or stimuli, begins to operate automatically and seemingly in an independent manner. “Culture can be likened to a giant, extraordinary complex, subtle computer. Its programs guide the actions and responses of human beings in every walk of life” (Hall, 1990). Hofstede (1980) expanded the computing definition to distinguish cultural groups; he defined culture as “the collective mental programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another. Culture is not a characteristic of individuals; it encompasses a number of people who were conditioned by the same education and life experience” (p.43).
The unconscious nature of culture exhibits a number of attributes. First, once a culture has been programmed it is difficult to change, and if it changes at all, it does so very slowly (Hofstede, 1980). Second, cultural programs will not work if crucial steps are omitted, which happens when people unconsciously apply their own rules to another system (Hall, 1990). An example of this phenomenon is when an instructor violates a key critical value that he or she is not even aware of, and yet no one brings the matter to his or her attention. However, the instructor finds him/herself beginning to experience negative feelings and isolation from the students. Third, instructors and students are all conditioned by cultural influences at many different levels – family, social, geographical regions at a regional and national level, and by the education system in which we operate. In summary, a student’s learning behaviors are based on the experiences, values, and different mental programming of a culture (Nelson, 1995).
Global Cultural Studies
In the literature there are three preeminent cultural researchers, Geert Hofstede, Fons Trompenaars and Edward Hall who have each studied national culture across a number of cultural dimensions. Table 1 provides a summary of their key cultural findings across a number of countries. An overall review of these findings highlight two main conclusions; (1) each country has a unique set of cultural values, (2) the cultural values of the United States which are similar with other Anglo countries such as Britain, Australia & Canada and some of the Northern European countries, differ quite substantially from the Asian, Latin American, Mediterranean and East European countries.
As currently “United States and English speaking countries and institutions dominate the world of online learning” (Macfadyen et al., 2004, p. 42), the differences in cultural values between these countries and the rest of the world raises major challenges for global educators and raises the broader social issue of whether “the Internet is facilitating the dissemination of Western cultural values?”(p.42).
Cultural Issues in Online Teaching and Learning
Language
The language of the class is obviously a critical component of the instructional process and is typically set as the language of the home institution. “Differences in cultural values, mores, and practices are heavily influenced by constructs of their native language” (Bentley et al., 2005, p.119). While English is regarded as the language of business and is often the second language of most global countries, knowing the language is not enough to fully understand the cultural meaning of the message (Bentley et al. 2005, Joo, 1999). Even students from other English speaking countries can have misunderstanding due to the differences and cultural nuances of American English. As such, “instructional designers preparing for a global audience would do well to remember in their needs analysis to choose an appropriate level of English for their needs International courses” (Bentley et al., 2005, p.119).
Instructor to student / student to student communication
Online communication by its very nature is different from face to face communication as it is void of physical cues to help convey the meaning of the message. Edward Hall’s (1990) cultural studies include physical cues and other messaging attributes in a comparison of high-context to low-context communication. High context communication characteristics are used by Japanese, Chinese, Latin American, Mediterranean and Middle East cultures include implicit messages, non-verbal coding, reserved reactions, strong people bonds, and being open and flexible. While low-context communication characteristics used by United States, Canada, UK, Germany and Australia include explicit messages, verbalized details, immediate reactions, fragile people bonds and highly organized time.
The online educational course platforms and email are low-context medium that requires a high rapport between the sender and receiver, focusing on the exact words, prose style, argumentation and line of reasoning, and ideas to gain mutual understanding. (Bentley et al., 2005). These types of mediums are contrary to the “high-context persons who look for nonverbal cues, social standings, and situational contexts to know how to respond appropriately”. (Bentley et al., 2005, p.123)
In addition the norms of communication differ between cultures, horizontal communication between students and vertical communication between the instructor and students can vary considerably between cultures (Lum, 2006). “An instructor or other participant could misinterpret the actions or lack of actions by another. For example, Wong & Trinidad (2004) describe Hong Kong learners as shy, passive, reactive, inarticulate, non-collaborative, and timid whereas western learners are described as proactive, articulate, collaborative, and eager to challenge traditions” (Weeden, 2007, p.29).
Potential cultural communication misunderstandings cause difficulty for both the instructor and students. The instructor has difficulty determining whether student issues are due to the language or a basic lack of understanding of the course material. From the student perspective, miscommunication can significantly impact his or her academic success (Hudson et al. 2006).
Learning Styles
Online instruction requires a shift in the traditional roles of the instructor and students Collins & Berge (1996) asserts that there is “a radical shift in the power and interaction structures in the classroom as the students must accept the responsibility for their own knowledge creation, and the instructor must relinquish a certain amount of control over the process”(p. 4). Thus self-directed learning is an essential element of online learning success however studies suggest that students due to their cultural preferences vary in their abilities in independent learning (Lum, 2006).
Self directed learning invokes a constructivists learning theory which argues that knowledge is not simply received by learners but constructed based upon the learner’s individual mental model (Marienetti & Dunn, 2002). In a study of mental self-government and thinking styles of Hong Kong and American students, Zang & Sternberg (2001) found that Hong Kong students required conformity and a hierarchical style, and associated negatively with styles that allowed self-direction and norm challenging ways of performing tasks. Lim (2004) claims “the Asian culture views the learning process of self perfection by seeking lifelong commitment, diligence, endurance of hardship, persistence and concentration, whereas the Western culture emphases thinking process and learner’s psychological characteristics such as learning styles and intelligence” (p.166).
Potential Solutions to Cultural Inclusivity
Culture-less online pedagogy
The feasibility of designing a culture-less online course has been questioned by many scholars (Macfadyen et al., 2004; Lanham & Zhou, 2003; Marinetti & Dunn, 2002). In fact, the term culture-less is a misnomer as anything that is created or said by a human being is a reflection of that person’s culture. "We teach as we are. Teaching like any truly human activity, emerges from one’s inwardness, for better or worse” (Palmer, 1998, p.2). Instructors will teach based upon their culture and that while they may to try to accommodate students from other cultures, the accommodation will only be within their context.Even the most culturally sensitive instructional designer and instructor will unconsciously make decisions and statement based on his or her own cultural background.
Two fundamental components of an online course are the language of instruction and the technological medium, both of which, as we have discussed earlier, are laden with cultural implications. These observations, in themselves, make the premise of developing a culture-less class an impossible task.
Even if it were possible to have multicultural team develop a course in a universal world language; consider the challenges of developing a course that accommodates the multiple cultural dimensions in Table 1. For example comparing American and French students using Geert Hofstede’s cultural dimensions:
- Americans with a low acceptance of hierarchical power will accept their professor based upon his or her competence – they will feel comfortable questioning and challenging the professor. The French with a high acceptance of hierarchical power will respect the professor as the authority and will not challenge him or her.
- In America being tough, aggressive and assertive is an admired quality so being very assertive in making your point, being demanding on the professor for a better grade , or the professor being demanding on students are all well accepted. This is not the case in a French classroom.
- Americans with weak uncertainty avoidance (high risk tolerance) will feel comfortable studying alone or working in a group with somebody they don’t know. The French want to only work in groups with their friends.
Using Edward Hall’s communication attributes:
- Americans like a lot of detail to ensure they understand precisely what are the rules and regulations of the class, and to understand concepts in general. The French are much more comfortable with understanding the concepts and are less interested in the detailed rules.
- Americans want to understand things fast – precisely what they have to know to pass the course (message speed fast, information compartmentalized). The French will more likely read the full text before worrying about what they have to learn (message speed slow, information flow diffused).
- Americans have a drive to focus on one task, complete it quickly and move on to the next (monochromatic). The French are comfortable in doing multiple tasks and have less of a drive to finish them.
The merging of these two widely conflicting cultures into a single course clearly would provide major challenge for instructional designers and instructors.
While developing a culture-less pedagogy may not be viable, a small number of researchers have began to suggest techniques of how instructional designers can accommodate the needs of culturally diverse learners (Macfadyen et al.,2004).
Culturally sensitive to broaden the global target audience.
Collis’ (1999) solution to accommodate different expectations and learner preferences is by designing online courses with maximum flexibility. She offers instructional designers with ten design guidelines for culture-related flexibility:
1. Plan for flexibility.
2. Support a variety of roles for instructors and students, and the ability to easily change in these roles.
3. Let the instructor and students tailor communication and interactivity expectations.
4. Use the web-site to support and supplement the course not to replace the instructor.
5. Emphasis student and instructor input, and use a wide variety of learning resources.
6. Make the technical aspects of using the system as easy as possible
7. Have a minimal amount of fixed text or images so that adaptation to different cultures is anticipated.
8. Let the instructor tailor the communications and interaction approach.
9. Avoid pre-set assumptions about any aspect of the course organization including form of assessment.
10. Be realistic about instructor time and skill levels.
Bentley et al. (2005) offers further specific recommendations to instructional designers both from a low-context county (United States) and high-context countries (China, Japan, France). However, the generic open flexibility approach shifts the responsibility of cultural inclusiveness to the instructor, thus the “instructor’s cultural ecology requires particular attention. But WWW sites and guideline in themselves are not enough for cultural flexibility: sensitivity and appropriate responsiveness remain human activities” (Collis, 1999, p.201).
McLoughlin (1999, 2000) and Edmundson (2004) used Henderson’s (1996) Multiple Cultural Model (MCM) to successfully develop a design model to include a specific cultural target group within a different cultural context. Henderson’s (1996) model identifies thirteen cultural sensitive parameters which instructional designers should pay particular attention to. “The adoption of the multiple cultural model requires the design team to investigate the pedagogical dimensions of the cultures they are providing resources for, and to be aware of the multiple ways in which each culture could interpret instruction” (McLoughlin & Oliver, 2000, p. 64). Based upon this approach, McLoughlin (1999, 2000) succeed in developing a bi-cultural instructional design model which integrated indigenous Australian’s culture into a mainstream Australian course.
Based upon this empirical work, McLoughlin & Oliver (2000) proposed ten instructional design guidelines for incorporating a specific cultural target group into an online course (Table 2).
Edmundson (2004) in her doctorate dissertation research on cross-cultural dimensions of globalized e-learning used a similar adaption of Henderson’s (1996) MCM model to develop a simple low-context course from which learners from a Western (American) and an Eastern (Indian) culture achieved equitable learning outcomes after taking the same western designed e-learning course.
The essential principle for the successful integration of these bi-cultural dimensions into a single course design is for the instructional designers to know their target audiences. Rogers et al. (2007) study of the cultural competencies of twelve experienced instructional designers who have worked with a number of cultures raises questions regarding the level of awareness these practitioners have concerning potential cultural differences that exist among international learners. This leads to another potential solution, modularizing the instructional design based on cultural learning diversity constructs such that the design can be adapted locally for different target audiences.
Modularize the instructional design for local adaptation In a review of the potential approaches to adapt to the challenges of multiple culture Marinetti & Dunn (2002) suggested that instructional designers should follow the global business philosophy of Thinking globally, Act locally that has been adopted by Multinational companies like McDonald, Coca Cola and Nescafe in their sale of global products. “We suggest that the most common strategy that will be used by producers of effective globalized e-learning will be Modularization. Such courses will consist of a large proportion of core content that, while translated and localized, remains the same in most cultures. But key-components – those that address areas that are culturally sensitive – will be largely different” (p.23).
Smith (2004) suggests that there are two types of usability issues in international design: (1) hard issue such as language and format structure; (2) soft issues which are the underpinning of the cultural dimensions. The hard issues are relatively easy to accommodate locally through translation. The challenge for instructional designers is constructing the appropriate interfaces such that the soft cultural issue can be modified locally. While, software tools will facilitate the modular construction, cultural diverse constructs provide appropriate interfaces for modularized. Marinetti & Dunn (2002) suggest that this can be achieve using Hofstedes, Trompenaars or other proven models (Henderson ,1996) to “reveal the components that need to change for different cultural applications”(p.24).
Conclusion
The research literature highlights that cultural differences play a critical role in the effectiveness of teaching and learning in an online environment. While the solutions to address these cultural challenges are in their infancy there is conclusive evidence that developing a culture-less online class to meet the needs of all cultures is not viable. However initial research does suggest by following a set of cultural awareness guidelines instructional designs and instructors can integrate a specific target group into a different cultural context and develop a bi-cultural class. A second viable approach for multiple cultures is to design the online course constructs along global cultural dimensions such that the course is modularize and can be adapted locally to suit the local target audience.
BibliographyBanks, J.A., Cookson, P., Gay, G., Hawley, W.D., Irvine, J.J., Nieto, S., Schofield, J.W., Stephan, W. (2001). Diversity within unity: Essential Principles for teaching and learning in a multicultural society. Phi Delta Kappan, November, p.196-203
Bentley, P.H., Tinney, M.V. Chia, B.H. (2005). Intercultural Internet-Based Learning: Know your audience and what it values. Educational Technology Research & Development. 53 (2), p.117-127.
Collins, M. & Berge, Z. (1996). Facilitating interaction in computer mediated online courses. Retrieved December 2nd 2007 at: http://www.emoderators.com/mod erators/flcc.html
Collis, B. (1999). Designing for differences:cultural issues in the design of WWW-based course-support sites. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30 (3), p. 201-215.
Chen, A-Y., Mashhadi, A., Ang, D., Harkrider, N. (1999). Cultural issues in the design of technology-enhanced learning systems. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30 (3), p. 231-243
Edmundson, A. (2007). Globalized E-learning cultural challenges. Hershey PA: Information Science Publishing.
Edmundson, A (2004). The Cross Cultural Dimensions of Globalized E-Learning. Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation. Retrieved from UMUC Dissertation and Thesis database November 30th 2007.
Ghaoui, C. (2004). E-Education Applications: Human Factors and Innovative Approaches. Hershey PA: Information Science Publishing
Hall, E.T., Hall, M.R. (1990). Understanding Cultural Differences. Maine: Intercultural Press.
Henderson (1996). Instructional design of interactive multimedia: A cultural critique. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44 (4), p.85-104.
Hofestede, G. (1999). The universal and the specific in 21st-century global management.Organizational Dynamics.28 (1), p 34-45.
Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultural constraints in management theories. Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 7 No. 1, p.81-94.
Joo, J-E. (1999). Cultural issues of the Internet in classrooms. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30 (3), p. 245-250
Lanham, E., Zhou, W. (2003). Cultural issues in online learning – Is bleneded learning a possible solution? International Journal of Computer Processing of Oriental Languages, 16 (4), p.275-292.
Lim, D.H. (2004). Cross Cultural difference in online learning motivation. Educational Media International.
Lum, L. (2006). Internationally – educated health professionals: a distance education multiple cultures model. Education & Training, 48 (2/3) p. 112-126.
Macfadyen, L.P.,Roche, J.,Doff, S. (2004). Communicating across cultures in cyberspace. Berlin: LIT Verlag MÜster
McLoughin, C. (1999). Culturally responsive technology use: developing an on-line community of learners. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30 (3), p. 231-243.
McLoughlin, C. & Oliver, R. (2000). Designing learning environments for cultural inclusivity: A case study of indigenous online learning at tertiary level. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 58-72. Retrieved October 11th 2007 from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet16/mcloughlin.html
Marinetti, A., Dunn, P. (2002). The challenge of cultural adaptation. Training Journal, November.
Nelson, C. (1995). Cultural differences in learing styles. In J. Reid, Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, pp. 3-18.
Oubenaissa-Gardina, L., Bhattacharya. (2007). Managing Technological constraints and educational aspiration in a multicultural E-learning environment design. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 18 (1), p.135-144
Rogers, P.C., Graham, C.R., Mayes, C.T. (2007). Cultural competence and instructional design: Exploring research into the delivery of online instruction cross-culturally. Education Technology Research Development, 55, p. 197-217
Selinger, M. (2004). Cultural and pedagogical implications of a global e-learning programme. Cambridge Journal of Education, 34 (2), p. 223-239
Smith, A. (2004). Ensuring usability in International Web-based E-learning systems. In C.Ghaoui. E-Education Applications: Human Factors and Innovative Approaches. Hershey PA: Information Science Publishing
Trompenaars, F. (1994). Riding the waves of culture Understanding diversity in a global business. New York: Irwin.
Weeden, E.M. (2007). International Online Learning Communities. Journal of Instruction Delivery Systems, 20 (3), p.28-33.
Wong, L.F., & Trinidad, S.G. (2004). Using Web-Based Distance Learning to Reduce Cultural Distance.The Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 3 (1) p.1-13. Retrieved December 7th from http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/PDF/3.1.2.pdf
Zang,L., Sternberg, R.J. (2001) Perspectives on thinking, learning and cognitive styles. New Jersey: LEA.
Zorn, I. (2005). Do culture and technology interact? Overcoming technological barriers to intercultural communication in virtual communities. ACM SIGGROUP Bulletin, 25 (2)
