–
128 KB – 22 Pages
PAGE – 1 ============
64 Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE April 2008 ISSN 1302-6488 Volume: 9 Number: 2 Article 2 AN INCLUSIVE APPROACH TO ONLINE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS: Models and Resources Aline Germain-RUTHERFORD Barbara KERR University of Ottawa CANADA ABSTRACT The impact of ever-increasing numbers of online courses on the demographic composition of classes has meant that the notions of diversity, multiculturality and globalization are now key aspects of curricu lum planning. With the internationalization and globalization of education, and faced with rising needs for an increasingly educated and more adequately trained workforce, universities are offering more flexible programs, assisted by new educ ational and communications technologies. Faced with this diversity of populations and needs, many instructors are becoming aware of the importance of addressing the notions of multiculturality and interculturality in the design of online ho wever this raises many questions. For example, how do we integrate and address th is multicultural dimension in a distance education course aimed at students who live in diverse cultural environments? How do the challenges of intercultural communication in an online environment affect online teaching and learning? What are the characterist ics of an online course that is inclusive of all types of diversity, and what are the gu iding principles for designing such courses? We will attempt to answer some of these qu estions by first exploring the concepts of culture and learning cultures. This will help us to characterize the impact on online learning of particular cultural dimensions . We will then present and discuss different online instructional design models that are culturally inclusive, and conclude with the description of a mediated instructional tr aining module on the management of the cultural dimension of online teaching and le arning. This module is mainly addressed to teachers and designers of online courses. Keywords: Online learning, globalisation, cross-cultural, diversity, instructional design INTRODUCTION Distance learning is one of the fastest growing areas in education (Moore & Tait, 2002) and developments in computer science and information and communications technologies have spurred this growth. Th e impact of ever-increasing numbers of online courses on the demographic composit ion of classes has meant that the notions of diversity, multiculturality and globaliz ation are now key aspects of curriculum planning. “In recent years, the two DsŠdiversity and distance educationŠhave been gathering momentum in higher and continuing education” (Bo-Yuen Ngai 2003, p. 157).
PAGE – 2 ============
65 In a working paper on the globalization of education written for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Marginson and van der Wende (2007) trace the new landscape in which post-secondary institutions are evolving: Economic and cultural globalisation has ushered in a new era in higher education. . . In global knowledge econ omies, higher education institutions are more important than ever as mediums for a wide range of cross-border relationships and continuous global flow s of people, information, knowledge, technologies, products and financial capital. Even as they share in the reinvention of the world around them, higher education institutions, and the policies that produce and support them, are also being reinvented (Marginson & van der Wende 2007, p. 3). The International Association of Universitie s (IAU), which is affiliated with UNESCO and was created in 1950 to encourage cooperation among higher learning institutions worldwide, has in recent years observed intensified and more complex cross-border exchanges and cooperation among academic institutions: Recent years have seen a tremendous expansion of the ways in which higher education goes ‚international.™ As well, international trends and developments taking place beyond national bound aries impact more easily on higher education policy at institutional and nati onal levels, thus creating additional inter-connections between various changes. Consequently, it is not only difficult to keep track of the various concepts and terms used to describe new processes in the international aspects of higher educ ation, it is also difficult to capture these interconnections. An additional challenge comes from the fact that innovations and changes are on-going and thus the field is evolving constantly” (International Association of Universities [IAU] 2006, p. 1). With the internationalization and globalizat ion of education, and faced with rising needs for an increasingly educated and more adequately trained workforce (Gunawardena & McIsaac, 1996), universities are offering more flexible programs, assisted by new educational and communicati ons technologies. This greater flexibility is manifested as much in terms of format, content, goals, expressed needs and developed skills as in the modes and ti mes of delivery (Collis & Moonen, 2001). Moreover, in a knowledge-based society, th e key components of which are universally- accessible education and lifelong learning (Brown, 2002; Smith, 2002), higher learning institutions, in distance education and on-c ampus courses, are receiving an expanding and increasingly heterogeneous student po pulation. The traditional 18- 21-year-old student cohort is now much more diversif ied, with many adults in continuing professional development programs (Gunawardena & McIsaac, 1996) and part-time students (Smith, 2002). The globalization of learningŠa phenomenon amplified by increasingly accessible online and distan ce coursesŠwhile facilitating a broader circulation of ideas and thinking across the planet, is promoting the emergence of increasingly multicultural teaching and learning environments (Mason, 2002; 2003). Faced with this diversity of populations and needs, many instructors are becoming aware of the importance of addressing the notions of multiculturality and interculturality 1 in the design of online courses and selection of technological tools for developing these courses and training pr ograms (Dunn & Marinetti, 2002; McGee, 2002; Moore, Shattuck & Al-Harthi, 2006).
PAGE – 3 ============
66 How do we integrate and address this multicultural dimension in a distance education course aimed at students who live in diverse cultural environments? How do we facilitate interaction and dial ogue among individuals of widely differi ng cultural influences? How do the challenges of intercultural communication in an online environment affect online teaching and learning? What are the characteristics of an online course that is inclusive of all typ es of diversity, and what are the guiding principles for designing such courses? These are some of the important questions that more and more instructors and e-learning de signers are asking themselves. It would seem, however, that few studies have systematically examined the link between cultural variables and the principles of onli ne instructional design (Mason, 2003; Morse, 2003; Seufert, 2002): Learners study collaboratively in multicultural teams. Instructors from different nations teach and facilitate students from all over the world. What could be the possible influence of cultural difference s on the acceptance and use of online learning environments? Despite these potentials of Web-based education and the importance of cultural factors, there is a paucity of research that systematically analyzes culture-related variables to suggest design guidelines for culture-related, flexible, online learni ng environments (Seufert, 2002, p. 2). We will attempt to answer some of these qu estions by first exploring the concepts of culture and learning cultures. This will help us to characterize the impact on online learning of particular cultural dimensions . We will then present and discuss different online instructional design models that are culturally inclusive, and conclude with the description of a mediated instructional tr aining module on the management of the cultural dimension of online teaching and learning. This module, of which the research and development were funded by the Agence universitaire de la francophonie (AUF), is mainly addressed to teachers and designers of online courses. EXPLORING THE CONCEPTS What Is Culture? It is important to clarify the concept of ‚cultu re™ to better situate it in the context of an online multicultural teaching and learning environment. This is not an easy task, however, because there are multiple definitions of this term. As early as 1952, the U.S. anthropologists Kroeber and Kluckhohn had li sted 164 definitions of culture, before proposing a definition that synt hesized the common elements: Culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit, of and for behavior, acquired and transmitted by symbols constituting the distinctive achievement of human groups, including their embodiment in ar tifacts; the essential core of culture consists of traditional (i.e., histor ically derived and selected) ideas and especially their attached values; cult ure systems may, on the one hand, be considered as products of action, on the other as conditioning elements of further action (Agar, 2002, p. 115). Tylor, one of the first to define this concep t, proposed the following definition in 1871: “Culture is that complex whole which incl udes knowledge, belief, art, law, morals, custom, and any other capabilities and habi ts acquired by man as a member of society.” (Tylor, 1924 [orig.1871]).
PAGE – 4 ============
67 The U.S. anthropologist Linton saw culture as “the configuration of learned behaviours and their results, the components of which are shared and transmitted by the members of a given society” (Linton, 1945, trans. by Lyotard, 1977, p. 59 and retranslated here). Closer to home, in relation to intercultural training programs for the business world, Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998) described culture as a spectrum of behaviours generated and adopted by a grou p of individuals to resolve problems and dilemmas. 2 Also in the context of the professi onal world, G.H. Hofstede and G.J. Hofstede (2005) offered the notion of culture as a collective programming of the mind that distinguishes members of one group or category from people in other groups. 3 While there are numerous definitions, they a ll refer to four fundamental properties of culture: It is fiholisticfl because it encompasses all the elements characterizing the life of a group; it is fisharedfl because individuals in a social group adhere to a set of values and standards in response to the problems posed by their environment; it is fitransmittablefl from one generation to the next to ensure continuity of the culture through time; and last, it is “evolving” rather than static, enabling it to adapt to the surrounding world. To paraphrase the title of an article by Street (1993), culture is not a noun; it is a “verb”; the title clearly refers to the dynamic process of a culture that is constantly constructing itself. In a study of the concept of cyberculture in an e-learning context, Reeder, Macfayden, Roche and Chase (2004) referred to a culture th at is finegotiatedfl rather than figiven,fl in the online discussions of students of vari ous backgrounds with their instructors; this characterization resembles Hall’s de finition of culture in his book, The Silent Language, where he establishes a link of near-synon ymity between culture and communication: “Culture is communication and communication is culture” (Hall, 1990, p. 186). This indissociable link between communication and culture is clearly made by another U.S. anthropologist, Agar, in a study of drug addicts in the U.S.: When I landed at a hospital for narcotics addicts in the late sixties, I watched a young Black addict from one city meet an older White addict from another city, watched them meet for the first time and talk immediately about several things in a way I couldn™t make any sense out of. Here were native speakers of American English I couldn™t understand, and the difference between me and them, I knew right away, had something to do with culture, too (Agar, 2002, p. 118). For Agar, as for Hall, the concept of culture can only be understood in relation to communication: “Culture grew up as a concept to cover the description of isolated communities. Now I want to use it to describe why two people who are different in some way have trouble communicating and what they can do about it. Culture needs to be hooked on to language. If the concept is to have a chance; it has to be changed too” (Agar, 2002, p. 122). According to this line of thought, and cont rasting with the traditional anthropological perspective, culture is not a static and spatia lly defined object that can be exhaustively described. Culture is defined gradually th rough experience and dialogue with the Other, and by assembling the differences betw een two cultural realities into a coherent whole: The trick is to find out how the difference is related to other differences, to assemble a coherent picture of how they all fit together to make up a
PAGE – 5 ============
68 grand difference between you and them, a difference that leads to a different way of seeing and doing thin gs.. . . Culture isn™t something a group of people have; it™s something you make up to fill in the spaces between them and you Culture is something you create, a coherent connection of differences (Agar, 2002, pp. 127-128). We will adopt this dynamic definition of a culture in constant construction because it applies particularly well to our context: on line education in which students of varied cultural and linguistic backgrounds are communi cating and interacting. It is in this multicultural interaction and “interstitial space between similarity and difference” (Zarate, 1993, p. 11) that students will gradually compare, revise, and reassess their cultural values and standards and together develop new ones, generating new cultural behaviours and creating what some refer to as a “third culture” in constant evolution (Bhabha, 1992; Hewling, 2004; Holec, 1988; Kramsch, 1996; Raybourn, 2003). Hewling powerfully illustrates this notion of an evol ving third culture with the famous image of two faces seen in profile, revealing, in the “interstitial space,” a vase or goblet: The space in the middleŠis it really a goblet?Šperhaps it is just a space, which happens to resemble a goblet, but which is in fact the ongoing product of participant joint endeavour . . . Could it be the manifestat ion of evolving understanding, a way of finding beliefs, behaviours and norms; a way of generating something that some might call culture? (Hewling, 2004, p. 3). Learning Cultures and Cultural Dimensions The manner and the educational system in which we learn are culturally defined. This is why it is often difficult to export educational systems and policies to other countries that do not share the same values and standards (Hall, 1990). 4 Collis (1999), studying the impact of the cultural context on onli ne learning, observed that the degree of acceptance and utilization of online courses is greatly influenced by learners’ social, personal, organizational, professional or di scipline-based culture. Learning cultures, with their differences and similarities, mi x with varying degrees of success in multicultural classes. To observe and characterize the similarities and differences among diverse learning cultures, many researchers have chosen the cultural dimensions model that Dutch anthropologist G.H. Hofstede (1980) developed in the late 1970s, based on a study of the cultural values of IBM employees in over 55 countries. The most important contribution of this study, which later continued and now encompasses over 75 countries, was to identify and define four “cultural dimensions” which serve as measurement instruments and facilitate the comparison of certain aspects of different cultures 5 (G.H. Hofstede and G.J. Hofstede 2005). The four dimensions identified by G.H. Hofstede a re the relationship to authority (“small vs. large power distance”); 6 individualism vs. collectivism; 7 masculinity vs. femininity; 8 and tolerance of uncertainty and ambiguity (uncertainty avoidance). 9 His partnership with Michael Harris Bond, of Hong Kong University, allowed him to explore these cultural dimensions more deeply with stud ents and professionals in numerous Asian countries and regions, and to confirm the ex istence of these four dimensions, with a small nuance in regard to the fourth dimension, uncertainty avoidance. In Asian societies, imbued with Confucian thought and philosophy, this was manifested by a clash of values when a future-looking perspective comes up against a perspective rooted in the present and past. G.H. Hofstede therefore added a fifth dimension to his model: long-term versus short-term orientation. 10 In addition to this multidimensional model is Hall’s model (1976, 1990); he proposed to compare cultures according to the extent of their dependence on the context of the message.
PAGE – 6 ============
69 According to this model, “high-context cult ures” depend on non-verbal, situational and contextual elements to reinforce the mean ing of the message. In contrast, “low- context cultures” depend on the explicitness of the verbal message itself for effective communications (Hall, 1976; 1990). THE IMPACT oF CULTURAL DIMENSIONS ON ONLINE TEACHING AND LEARNING In a study of the impact of cultural factors on the behaviour of students in an online course, Morse (2003) identified elements that differentiate high-context learning cultures from low-context learning cultures. Table: 1 Morse (2003, pp. 42-43) Low context learning High context learning Emphasis on learning outcomes (students as contributors to exploration and/or development): student centred learning, active learning Emphasis on teaching inputs (students as recipients and reproducers of material): All materials provided in class Rigid parameters set in course syllabi Identical syllabi for all students Emphasis on attitudinally based fideepfl learning: Development of personal skills, and attitudes toward lifelong learning Content and knowledge based learning: Little emphasis on personal, transferable skills fidiligence overcomes stupidityfl = hard work Wide variety of learning tools and assessment instruments: Assessment as feedback instrument Wide range of assessment/feedback tools (i.e. group assessment, teamwork, evaluation, etc.) Individual and examination-based assessment: Frequent, regular, highly content specific assessment: Assessment is focus of learning Assessment identical for all Informal lecturer/student relationships: Teacher as guide/facilitator/mentor in learning process In herent informality of frequent one-on-one contact Intergenerational differences evident Formal lecturer/student relationships: student performance dependent on teacher knowledge Address by title as a measure of respect (first name a sign of disrespect) Non-confrontational: accept teacher knowledge without question (avoid loss of face) Inherent wisdom in male and/or older persons dominates learning High student numbers/hi gh contact time: Efficient use of teaching resources sought Small group sizes/low contact time: Deep teacher/student relationship sought Of course, the diversity of students’ person al experiences and their learning style will also nuance the two instructional approache s summarized in Table 1. As Collis (1999) reminds us, we all belong to several cultural groups and our individual cultural identities are constructed gradually through the interaction of these different cultural layers. It is conceivable, however, that in an online learning context, students from a high-context culture will expect a certain degree of formality and precise instructions, for example, to search the site for addition al resources that the instructor would then incorporate into the course content. Inversely, students from a low-context culture would probably adapt more easily to an informal style of online interaction and have no problem exploring several information sources and documents on the Web to supplement course content on their own.
PAGE – 8 ============
71 The first group demonstrated a more open and precise communication model, and was more disposed to answering ambiguous me ssages. Kim and Bonk (2002) observed a difference in the communicational behaviours of Western and Asian students, with the first being more direct, explic it and expressive. The authors also remarked that these differences in communicational style had a significant impact on collaboration behaviours during online learning activities. Kramsch & Thorne™s study (2001) offers a good example of how miscommunication in an intercultural asynchronous online dial ogue between American and French language students was caused, not so much by deficien t individual linguistic styles, but mostly by a lack of understanding of ‚cultural gen res™ in each other™s discourse. It appears from their study that students would have been better prepared to deal with ‚global communicative practices™ if they had receive d training in intercultural communication skills, allowing them to critically analyze and appropriately interpret the differences of cultural communication genres they were faced with during their online discussions. This raises the issue that participants of an online multicultural community have to develop, more than linguistic proficiency and accuracy to transmit one™s culture, strong intercultural communicative skills to ne gotiate an emerging cyberculture. To paraphrase Byram (2000), developing intercultural competence would mean developing an attitude of cu riosity and openness, acquirin g knowledge of societal and individual interaction, and developing skills to and critically interpret new cultural knowledge. Table: 2 Cortazzi and Jin (1997, p. 85) Student view of teacher role s Be an authority, expert Be a model: knowing that, how to be a parent, friend know students™ problems give answers, clear guidance: teach us what to do Teacher view of teacher role s be a facilitator, organiser be a model of how to find out be a friendly critic Student view of student roles develop receptivity, collective harmony, apprenticeship, deductive learning respect teacher: learn by listening and reflection learn methods, technical advances focus on product, result Teacher view of student roles develop independence, individuality, creativity, inductive learning participate: engage in dialogue develop critical thinking focus on process of learning, research skills ask if there are problems find own answers should know what to do or work it out In a study comparing the cognitive styles of Asian and Western students, Nisbett (2004) studied five areas that differentiat e the manner of thinking of these two
PAGE – 9 ============
72 populations: sciences and mathematics, at tention and perception, causal inference, knowledge organization and reasoning. According to the author, Western students were more likely to use abstract principles, rules and logic to explain their environment, applying these rules to every situation, while Asian students were more likely to cont extualize their environment, consider the relationships and variables of objects, and to apply rules in a specific manner to each individual case: “To set aside universal rule s in order to accommodate particular cases seems immoral to the Westerner. To insist on the same rules for every case can seem at best obtuse and rigid to the Easterner and at worst cruel” (Nisbett, 2004, p. 65). In a qualitative and quantitative study of the perceptions of a group of Chinese students and instructors regarding the instructional environment, Cortazzi and Jin (1997) showed that in a society that is he avily influenced by Confucian philosophy, knowledge is considered central to learning and the teacher is viewed as possessing this knowledge. Table 2 summarizes the findings of this longitudinal study that was carried out by means of interviews, survey s, filmed class observations, and student work. Kinuthia (2007), citing the work of Semali (1999), showed that differences with regard to the importance of team work, consensus and group participationŠcharacteristics of most African culturesŠmade it imperative to rethink instructional approaches to be more consistent with students’ behaviours and cultural contexts. Looking at Kramsch and Thorne™s study it seems that to successfully interact in the ‚liminal™ space we were describing earlier, participants of an onli ne multicultural community have to develop, more than linguistic proficiency and accuracy to transmit one™s culture, strong intercultural communicative skills to nego tiate an emerging cyberculture. Kramsch and Thorne™s study (2001) offers a good example of how miscommunication in an intercultural asynchronous online dialogue between American and French students was caused, not so much by deficient individual linguistic styles, but mostly by a lack of understanding ‚cultural genres™ in each other™ s discourse. We can conclude from their study that students would have been better prepared to deal with ‚global communicative practices™ if they had receive d training in intercultural communication skills, allowing them to critically analyze and appropriately interpret the differences of cultural communication genres they were faced with during their online discussions. To paraphrase Byram (2000), developing intercultural competence would mean developing an attitude of cu riosity and openness, acquirin g knowledge of societal and individual interaction, and developing skills to and critically interpret new cultural knowledge. Last, the personal account of Simone Conceição (2002), a young Brazilian woman who decided to study in the United States, provides us with a concrete example of the culture shock felt by some students who are placed in a learning situation in which the pedagogical approach and dynamics differ from the cultural context and values to which they are accustomed. Even though immigrating to the Unit ed States freed me somewhat from traditional female roles, it challenged my assumptions about my learning. I came from a culture where group cooperation was emphasized, time was relative, thinking was holistic, affective expression was evident, extended family was the norm, the worldviews of other cultures were generally accepted, and interactions were socially oriented. In Brazilian culture, I displayed a field-dependent cognitive learning style,
PAGE – 10 ============
73 which is relational, holistic, and highly affective. A cognitive style comprises perception and personality that presents characteristics of being socially dependent, eager to make a good impression, conforming, and sensitive to social surroundings. Conversely, field- independent and analytic thinking with limited affective thinking are characteristics of the Euro-American cognitive learning style. . . . Moving to the United States and joining its higher education system required that I adapt and expand my learning style to accommodate the independent cognitive style of my new environment (Conceiçao 2002, p.38). It seems that to successfully interact in th e ‚liminal™ space we were describing earlier, participants of an online multicultural community have to develop, more than linguistic proficiency and accuracy to transmit one™s culture, strong intercultural communicative skills to negotiate an emerging cybercultu re. Kramsch and Thorne™s study (2001) offers a good example of how miscommunication in an intercultural asynchronous online dialogue between American and Fren ch students was caused, not so much by deficient individual linguistic styles, but mo stly by a lack of understanding ‚cultural genres™ in each other™s discourse. We can conclude from their study that students would have been better prepared to deal wi th ‚global communicative practices™ if they had received training in intercultural communication skills, allowing them to critically analyze and appropriately interpret the diff erences of cultural communication genres they were faced with during their online discussions. To paraphrase Byram (2000), developing intercultural competence would mean developing an attitude of cu riosity and openness, acquirin g knowledge of societal and individual interaction, and developing skills to and critically interpret new cultural knowledge. As we can see, it is not a simp le matter to design a teaching environment that takes into account the impact of cu ltural dimensions on the perceptions of students and teachers. Tylee (2002) explored the impact of cultural dimensions on the perception of online learning environment accessibility. More specifically, she examined the validity of online technology as a learning medium and the role in learning of a culturally appropriate int erface design. Based on the work of G.H. Hofstede (1980) and Marcus and Gould (2000) , she proposed a list of questions for the online course designer: What degree of personal interaction should be developed? What motivational aspect s should be included? What balance should there be betw een group and individual opinions? How will high uncertainty avoidance cult ural groups’ need for certainty be addressed? Will learning emphasize individual or group work? How should social and contextual dimensions be addressed? Does the nature of the work promote a critical, unconventional or conservative perspective? Is the teaching style didactic rather than interactive and participatory? How should the issue of the different learning styles of learners from culturally diverse backgrounds be addressed? Is it preferable to develop separate interfaces and courses for different cultural groups? Should different learning approaches be offered to cater to different learning styles? Should there be a choice of evaluation activities that addresses cultural differences? 11
PAGE – 11 ============
74 A similar series of questions could be posed with regard to software and computer platforms developed in a particular cultural context that are based on the values and standards inherent to this context. For ex ample, Reeder et al. (2004) have revealed the predominance of North American values in the design of communications platforms that promote speed and openness in communications and a level of informality and questioning that may not correspond to other cultures. 12 Figure: 1 Fay & Hill 2003, p. 17 In addition to these cultural layers are th e characteristics of an Internet culture, a cyberculture, which as described by Walton and Vukovic (2003), can greatly influence the type and level of Internet use in online learning. In a study of the website use behaviour of South African students, the auth ors challenged current research findings on website user-friendliness, most of wh ich is based on the observations of
128 KB – 22 Pages