Cultural Considerations in Online Learning

ebertsk

2 Cultural Considerations in Online Learning

Chapter Overview

In chapter two, faculty take a deeper dive into the specific challenges international students face in online learning environments. This chapter provides faculty with cultural dimension frameworks to help them identify how various cultural factors can impact learning in online classes.

Language considerations

One of the most evident barriers for international students studying in the U.S. is language. However, in online learning, language barriers can be even more challenging. According to a study conducted by Kumi-Yeboah (2018), instructors shared that language barriers impacted their interactions with international students due to the non-verbal communication that occurs in online courses. Students find online courses can magnify communication challenges because of the delayed communication and difficulty of asynchronous classroom communication in conveying meaning and personality (Liu et al., 2010). Even though most universities require English test scores for admission, international students still feel that language barriers are one of the biggest challenges when taking online classes (Liu et al., 2010). Learners even express that they have to spend triple the amount of time reading in English than in their first language. Participants in Wang and Reeves (2007) study also confirmed communication as the biggest issue due to a lack of facial expressions which would help international students to better understand their peers and instructors.

One advantage of online learning for international students is the ability to edit discussions until they are mostly free of grammatical errors. In face-to-face classes, live interactions would not have this same benefit. Another benefit, as shared by a student participant in Liu et al. (2010) study, is that asynchronous discussions can be helpful because the misunderstandings that can arise from accents are non-existent. While there can be benefits to communication for international learners in online learning environments, Wang and Reeves (2007) share that if language was not a barrier more than half of the learners’ challenges in online classes would have diminished. Although language barriers are more difficult to overcome, online instructors can become aware of the language barrier facing international students and try to use strategies to decrease this barrier. Strategies to overcome language and communication barriers will be discussed further in Chapter 5: Online Communication Across Cultures.

Cultural Dimensions

Geert Hofstede’s (2011) proposes a Cultural Dimensions Theory with six dimensions that influence cultural variations: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism versus collectivism, masculinity versus femininity, long-term versus short-term orientation, and indulgence versus restraint. These dimensions significantly impact educational settings. For instance, instructors in Western cultures are less likely to assume a dominant role, favoring learner-centered approaches (Sadykova & Meskill, 2019).

These educational differences can cause stress for learners adapting to a new culture while balancing their own cultural preferences (Chen et al., 2008). The consideration of how learners from diverse cultures will adapt to potentially unfamiliar education systems is essential to the success and satisfaction of the international student population.

Green et al. (2022) break down Hofstede’s 6 Dimensions into more detail. Let’s explore them.

01. Power Distance

Power is a normal feature of any relationship or society. How power is perceived, however, varies among cultures. In high power-distance cultures, the members accept some having more power and some having less power, and accept that this power distribution is natural and normal. Those with power are assumed to deserve it, and likewise, those without power are assumed to be in their proper place. In such a culture, there will be a rigid adherence to the use of titles, “Sir,” “Ma’am,” “Officer,” “Reverend,” and so on. The directives of those with higher power are to be obeyed, with little question.

In low power-distance cultures, the distribution of power is considered far more arbitrary and viewed as a result of luck, money, heritage, or other external variables. Those in power are far more likely to be challenged in a low power-distance culture than they would in a high power-distance culture. A wealthy person is typically seen as more powerful in western cultures. Elected officials, like United States Senators, will be seen as powerful since they had to win their office by receiving majority support. However, individuals who attempt to assert power are often faced with those who stand up to them, question them, ignore them, or otherwise refuse to acknowledge their power. While some titles may be used, they will be used far less than in high power-distance culture. For example, in colleges and universities in the U.S., it is far more common for students to address their instructors on a first-name basis, and engage in casual conversation on personal topics. In contrast, in a high power-distance culture like Japan, the students rise and bow as the teacher enters the room, address them formally at all times, and rarely engage in any personal conversation.

02. Uncertainty Avoidance

This index shows the degree to which people accept or avoid something that is strange, unexpected, or different from the status quo.

Societies with high uncertainty avoidance choose strict rules, guidelines, and behavior codes. They usually depend on absolute truths or the idea that only one truth decides all proper conduct. High uncertainty avoidance cultures limit change and place a very high value on history, doing things as they have been done in the past, and honoring stable cultural norms.

Low uncertainty avoidance cultures see change as inevitable and normal. These cultures are more accepting of contrasting opinions or beliefs. Society is less strict and lack of certainty is more acceptable. In a low uncertainty avoidance culture, innovation in all areas is valued. Businesses in the U.S. that can change rapidly, innovate quickly, and respond immediately to market and social pressures are seen as far more successful. Even though the U.S. is generally low in uncertainty avoidance, we can see some evidence of a degree of higher uncertainty avoidance related to certain social issues. As society changes, there are many who will decry the changes as they are “forgetting the past,” “dishonoring our forebears,” or “abandoning sacred traditions.” In the controversy over same-sex marriage, the phrase “traditional marriage” is used to refer to a two person, heterosexual marriage, suggesting same-sex marriage is a violation of tradition. Changing social norms creates uncertainty, and for many changes are very unsettling.

03. Individualism and Collectivism

Put simply, you can think of an individualistic culture as an “I” culture where members are able to make choices based on personal preference with little regard for others, except for close family or significant relationships. They can pursue their own wants and needs free from concerns about meeting social expectations. The United States is a highly individualistic culture. While we value the role of certain aspects of collectivism such as government and social organizations, at our core we strongly believe it is up to each person to find and follow his or her path in life.

In a highly collectivistic culture, a “we” culture, just the opposite is true. It is the role of individuals to fulfill their place in the overall social order. Personal wants and needs are secondary to the needs of society at large. There is immense pressure to adhere to social norms and those who fail to conform risk social isolation, disconnection from family, and perhaps some form of banishment. China is typically considered a highly collectivistic culture. In China, multigenerational homes are common, and tradition calls for the oldest son to care for his parents as they age.

04. Masculinity versus Femininity

Expectations for gender roles are a core component of any culture. All cultures have some sense of what it means to be a “man” or a “woman.” Masculine cultures are traditionally seen as more aggressive and domineering, while feminine cultures are traditionally seen as more nurturing and caring.

In a masculine culture, such as the U.S., winning is highly valued. We respect and honor those who demonstrate power and high degrees of competence. Consider the role of competitive sports such as football, basketball, or baseball, and how the rituals of identifying the best are significant events. The 2017 Super Bowl had 111 million viewers, (Huddleston, 2017) and the World Series regularly receives high ratings, with the final game in 2016 ending at the highest rating in ten years (Perez, 2016).

More feminine societies, such as those in the Scandinavian countries, will certainly have their sporting moments. However, the culture is far more structured to provide aid and support to citizens, focusing their energies on providing a reasonable quality of life for all (Hofstede, 2012b).

05. Long-Term Orientation and Short-Term Orientation

People and cultures view time in different ways. For some, the “here and now” is paramount, and for others, “saving for a rainy day” is the dominant view.

In a long-term culture, significant emphasis is placed on planning for the future. For example, the savings rates in France and Germany are 2-4 times greater than in the U.S., suggesting cultures with more of a “plan ahead” mentality (Pasquali & Aridas, 2012). These long-term cultures see change and social evolution are normal, integral parts of the human condition.

In a short-term culture, emphasis is placed far more on the “here and now.” Immediate needs and desires are paramount, with longer-term issues left for another day. The U.S. falls more into this type. Legislation tends to be passed to handle immediate problems, and it can be challenging for lawmakers to convince voters of the need to look at issues from a long-term perspective. With the fairly easy access to credit, consumers are encouraged to buy now versus waiting. We see evidence of the need to establish “absolute truth” in our political arena on issues such as same-sex marriage, abortion, and gun control. Our culture does not tend to favor middle grounds in which truth is not clear-cut.

06. Indulgence and Restraint

A more recent addition to Hofstede’s dimensions of culture, the indulgence/restraint continuum addresses the degree of rigidity of social norms of behavior. He states:

Indulgence stands for a society that allows relatively free gratification of basic and natural human drives related to enjoying life and having fun. Restraint stands for a society that suppresses gratification of needs and regulates it by means of strict social norms (Hofstede, 2012a).

Indulgent cultures are comfortable with individuals acting on their more basic human drives. Sexual mores are less restrictive, and one can act more spontaneously than in cultures of restraint. Those in indulgent cultures will tend to communicate fewer messages of judgment and evaluation. Every spring thousands of U.S. college students flock to places like Cancun, Mexico, to engage in a week of fairly indulgent behavior. Feeling free from the social expectations of home, many will engage in some intense partying and fairly limitless behaviors.

Cultures of restraint, such as many Islamic countries, have rigid social expectations of behavior that can be quite narrow. Guidelines on dress, food, drink, and behaviors are rigid and may even be formalized in law. In the U.S., a generally indulgent culture, there are sub-cultures that are more restraint-focused. The Amish are highly restrained by social norms, but so too can be inner-city gangs. Areas of the country, like Utah with its large Mormon culture, or the Deep South with its large evangelical Christian culture, are more restrained than areas such as San Francisco or New York City. Rural areas often have more rigid social norms than do urban areas. Those in more restraint-oriented cultures will identify those not adhering to these norms, placing pressure on them, either openly or subtly, to conform to social expectations.

To learn more about Geert Hofstede’s Six Dimensions including videos on each dimension, you can visit his website.

Considerations

Worthy et al. (2022) states that the cultural value dimensions identified by Hofstede are useful ways to think about culture; however, Hofstede’s theory has also been seriously questioned. Most of the criticism has been directed at the methodology of the study beginning with the original instrument. The questionnaire was not originally designed to measure culture but rather workplace satisfaction (Orr & Hauser, 2008) and many of the conclusions are based on a small number of responses (McSweeney, 2002). Although 117,000 questionnaires were administered, the results from 40 countries were used and only six countries had more than 1000 respondents. Critics also question the representativeness of the original sample.

The study was conducted using employees of a multinational corporation (IBM) who were highly educated, mostly male, who performed what we call ‘white collar’ work (McSweeney, 2002). Hofstede’s theory has also been criticized for promoting a largely static view of culture (Hamden-Turner & Trompenaars, 1997; Orr and Hauser, 2008) that does not respond to changes or influences of other cultures.

Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory has been challenged by some individuals so it is important that faculty recognize the limitations of Hofstede’s theory. The world has changed in many ways since Hofstede’s research began. Faculty should not solely rely on this framework when building their cultural awareness; however, it is still a great resource that faculty can use to begin understanding the various cultural differences that exist not only within our world, but within their classroom. By learning more about these dimensions, faculty can recognize how individuals from different cultures may perceive and approach life differently whether through communication, decision making, or in social interactions.

Hall’s Cultural Variations

Edward T. Hall, an influential researcher in the area of cultural variances and their significance in communication, has also played an important role in understanding intercultural differences. As shared by Green et al. (2021), in addition to the 6 dimensions from Hofstede, Hall identified two more significant cultural variations (Raimo, 2008).

Monochronic and Polychronic

Another aspect of variations in time orientation is the difference between monochronic and polychronic cultures. This refers to how people perceive and value time.

In a monochronic culture, like the U.S., time is viewed as linear, as a sequential set of finite time units. These units are a commodity, much like money, to be managed and used wisely; once the time is gone, it is gone and cannot be retrieved. Consider the language we use to refer to time: spending time; saving time; budgeting time; making time. These are the same terms and concepts we apply to money; time is a resource to be managed thoughtfully. Since we value time so highly, that means:

Punctuality is valued. Since “time is money,” if a person runs late, they are wasting the resource.
Scheduling is valued. Since time is finite, only so much is available, we need to plan how to allocate the resource. Monochronic cultures tend to let the schedule drive activity, much like money dictates what we can and cannot afford to do,
Handling one task at a time is valued. Since time is finite and seen as a resource, monochronic cultures value fulfilling the time budget by doing what was scheduled. Compare this to a financial budget: funds are allocated for different needs, and we assume those funds should be spent on the item budgeted. In a monochronic culture, since time and money are virtually equivalent, adhering to the “time budget” is valued.
Being busy is valued. Since time is a resource, we tend to view those who are busy as “making the most of their time;” they are seen as using their resources wisely.

In a polychronic culture, like Spain, time is far, far more fluid. Schedules are more like rough outlines to be followed, altered, or ignored as events warrant. Relationship development is more important, and schedules do not drive activity. Multi-tasking is far more acceptable, as one can move between various tasks as demands change. In polychronic cultures, people make appointments, but there is more latitude for when they are expected to arrive. David’s appointment may be at 10:15, but as long as he arrives sometime within the 10 o’clock hour, he is on time.

Consider a monochronic person attempting to do business in a polychronic culture. The monochronic person may expect meetings to start promptly on time, stay focused, and for work to be completed in a regimented manner to meet an established deadline. Yet those in a polychronic culture will not bring those same expectations to the encounter, sowing the seeds for some significant intercultural conflict.

High Context and Low Context

The last variation in culture to consider is whether the culture is high context or low context. To establish a little background, consider how we communicate. When we communicate we use a communication package, consisting of all of our verbal and nonverbal communication. As you have learned, our verbal communication refers to our use of language, and our nonverbal communication refers to all other communication variables: body language, vocal traits, and dress.

In low-context cultures, verbal communication is given primary attention. The assumption is that people will say what they mean relatively directly and clearly. Little will be left for the receiver to interpret or imply. In the U.S. if someone does not want something, we expect them to say, “No.” While we certainly use nonverbal communication variables to get a richer sense of the meaning of the person’s message, we consider what they say to be the core, primary message. Those in a high-context culture find the directness of low-context cultures quite disconcerting, to the point of rudeness.

In high-context cultures, nonverbal communication is as important, if not more important, than verbal communication. How something is said is a significant variable in interpreting what is meant. Messages are often implied and delivered quite subtly. Japan is well known for the reluctance of people to use blunt messages, so they have far more subtle ways to indicate disagreement than a low-context culture. Those in low context cultures find these subtle, implied messages frustrating.

Countries rated on high versus low context scale — Source: “High and Low Context” by Jason S Wrench

Navigating Academic Integrity

Another cultural consideration that we as educators need to recognize when teaching diverse learners is the cultural differences regarding academic integrity. We previously discussed different cultural dimensions and variations, and these factors can have an impact on academic misconduct in U.S. higher education. As previously shared, some cultures are known as Collectivist cultures. In Collectivist cultures, ideas of an individual are generally not credited to individuals, but instead acknowledged as collective wisdom. Campbell (2017) shares that “students who grow up with this perspective may not understand why citations at the end of a research paper are important; furthermore, citations might even make them feel uncomfortable, as they recognize individual authors above the community as a whole. It’s important to acknowledge this discomfort as a student adopts the Western model of academic integrity.” We also discussed that in many cultures around the world, memorization is prioritized in learning, unlike in the United States where critical thinking is encouraged. In many countries outside the United States, the emphasis of memorization and direct reproduction of textbook content during exams leaves little room for interpretation or critical thinking. Consequently, students from these backgrounds may struggle with understanding the expectations of paraphrasing and originality in academic writing.

This section on Navigating Academic Integrity in relation to teaching across cultures could be an entire chapter or even a book of its own. Over the years, there have been many studies conducted on this topic as international student enrollment in the United States has climbed (Hayes & Introna, 2005). Whether intentional or unintentional, domestic and international students engaging in academic misconduct is a concern for most educators. However, what is important is for us as educators to understand how we can help students navigate academic integrity.

Here are a few important first steps:

Recognize the different cultural dimensions and variations of your students related to academic integrity in the United States and understand that what might be considered academic misconduct in our culture might be viewed differently in another culture.
Provide clear guidelines, expectations, and instruction on how to maintain academic integrity. If a student, domestic or international, engages in academic misconduct, think about how you can teach them how to avoid plagiarism in the future. Telling students that they failed an assignment due to plagiarism without telling them specifically what they did wrong and how to avoid it in the future lacks a fundamental element of our role as educators: teaching.
Encourage critical thinking through sharing their own opinions and engaging in the course activities and assessments in a meaningful way.
Provide constructive and timely feedback on students’ written work and offer guidance on how to improve academic integrity. We will dive deeper into feedback in a later chapter, but feedback is essential in helping your students navigate academic integrity.
Know the academic support resources that are available for students at your institution. Provide your students with access to these resources regularly throughout the class.
Incorporate case studies or examples of academic misconduct from various cultural perspectives to enhance students’ understanding of the complexities involved.
When you encounter plagiarism, consider approaching it as a teachable moment. Provide specific feedback about expectations and guide students on how to properly paraphrase and cite their work.

Culture Generalizations

Frameworks like Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions and Hall’s Cultural Variances are great starting points for educators seeking to gain more knowledge on broad cultural patters. However, it is important to also recognize that every culture is highly complex and diverse. In this books we discuss “Eastern” or “Western” ideologies, but assumptions should not be assumed that these terms represent every individual within these categories, regions, or countries. No country is culturally homogenous, region, socioeconomics, religion, and personal experiences all contribute to how individuals learn and communicate. Consider the United States. We would not assume that every American feels comfortable speaking up in class or taking the lead on a group project. Educators should use the frameworks discussed throughout this book as a resource for reflection, but not as cultural generalizations.

Your Cultural Identity

Now that you have a better understanding of the cultural considerations we as educators should recognize when teaching diverse student populations, it is time for some self-reflection. By better understanding your own cultural identity, you will be better prepared to recognize the different cultural identities of your students. This will allow you to be more open-minded and aware of their unique challenges when taking online courses in the United States, a culture different from their own.

To help you reflect, here are some questions for you to consider.

How comfortable are you questioning authority figures (instructors) in a classroom?
Do you feel your primary loyalty is to yourself and your immediate family, or to a broader group like your community?
When working on a project, do you value competition and assertiveness, or cooperation and building relationships?
How comfortable are you with ambiguity and uncertainty in new situations?
How much emphasis is placed on nonverbal cues like gestures and facial expressions in your culture to convey meaning?
How will you continue to learn about different cultures throughout your teaching career?
Consider a time when you experienced a misunderstanding with a student or an academic integrity issue. How might what you have learned in this chapter allow you to view the situation differently?

Attributions

This chapter, Cultural Considerations in Online Learning, is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Keirsten Eberts.

This material is adapted from Understanding Cultural Differences by Keith Green, Ruth Fairchild, Bev Knudsen, and Darcy Lease-Gubrud, licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0.

This material is adapted from Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions by L. D. Worthy, Trisha Lavigne, & Fernando Romerod, licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.

References

Campbell, A. (2017, December 20). Cultural Differences in Plagiarism. Turnitin. https://www.turnitin.com/blog/cultural-differences-in-plagiarism
Chen, R. T., Bennett, S., & Maton, K. (2008). The adaptation of Chinese international students to online flexible learning: two case studies. Distance Education, 29(3), 307–323. https://doi-org.proxyiub.uits.iu.edu/10.1080/01587910802395821
Hayes, N., & Introna, L. D. (2005). Cultural values, plagiarism, and fairness: When plagiarism gets in the way of learning. Ethics & Behavior, 15(3), 213–231. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb1503_2
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014
Kumi-Yeboah, A. (2018). Designing a cross-cultural collaborative online learning framework for online instructors. Online Learning, 22(4), 181-201. doi:10.24059/olj.v22i4.1520
Liu, X., Liu, S., Lee, S., & Magjuka, R. J. (2010). Cultural differences in online learning: international student perceptions. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 177–188.
Sadykova, G., & Meskill, C. (2019). Interculturality in online learning: Instructor and student accommodations. Online Learning Journal, 23(1), 5–21. https://doi-org.proxyiub.uits.iu.edu/10.24059/olj.v23i1.1418
Wang, C., & Reeves, T. (2007). Synchronous online learning experiences: the perspectives of international students from Taiwan. Educational Media International, 44(4), 339–356. https://doi-org.proxyiub.uits.iu.edu/10.1080/09523980701680821

License

Icon for the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

Teaching Across Cultures: A Pedagogical Guide for Online Faculty in Higher Education by ebertsk is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.