AND LEARNING STYLES IN THE ONLINE ENVIRONMENT

Jennifer Tylee 

BA (Macquarie), MLitt (UNE), PhD (Newcastle), BPrimEdStud (CSU)

July 2001

[Back to Publications]

The cultural issues associated with the online environment revolve around the compatibility between culturally determined approaches to learning and perceptions of the online world and how the online environment is presented and learning styles that it requires or favours. This is a complex and challenging area with few guidelines. One useful work is by Marcus and Gould 2000 who present the dimensions of culture as analysed by Geet Hofstede and consider how they might effect user interface design. Hofstede's 1997 works can be used to begin to examine the cultural perceptions of the accessibility of online materials. They can also be related to literature that deals with adult learning styles and the approaches to learning that are being deemed appropriate for developing in online courses.

The technologies and approaches to learning espoused as being appropriate for online courses have arisen from a particular cultural base. There is then a cultural bias in views about the appropriateness of using the online environment for learning and in the views about what should be developed for online learning. This paper presents a beginning point for analysing the cultural issues surrounding learning styles and access perceptions in the online environment.

Cultural dimensions

Trompenaars 1993 considers that culture is the way in which a group of people solve problems and that problems that people regularly solve disappear from consciousness and becomes a basic assumption, an underlying premise. Hofstede 1997 suggested that cultures varied in essential patterns of thinking, feeling and acting and that the patterns were established in childhood and relatively stable over time. Marcus and Gould 2000 note that it is difficult to establish absolute criteria for what is noble and what is disgusting and that some cultural relativism is necessary. However cultural bias is inescapable as all people develop values based on their environment and upbringing. The trends or tendencies that are presented below are not to be viewed as defective or used to create negative stereotypes, but are to be recognised as different patterns of thought and values.

Hofstede 1997 identified five cultural dimensions. The indexes for various countries that have been derived for these cultural dimensions are included as Appendix 1. Hofstede's cultural dimensions are as follows:

• Power - distance 
• Collectivism versus individualism 
• Femininity versus masculinity 
• Uncertainty avoidance 
• Long-term versus short-term time orientation

The cultural dimensions and perceptions of the accessibility of online environments

The dimensions described by Hofstede will be used as the base for considering the links between culture and online access perceptions. (The works by Trompenaars^[1] 1993 or Hall^[2] 1990 or others could be the framework used.) Each of Hofstede's dimensions will be outlined and then related to online access perceptions. This section draws upon the work of Marcus and Gould 2000 who link Hofstede's cultural dimensions to perceptions about the accessibility of the user interface. Their ideas have been extended to include how the different cultural dimensions would influence perceptions about the general accessibility of the online environment.

Online access perceptions relate to two main areas:

• the cultural perceptions of online technology as a way of learning and the correctness or rightness for all members or particular members of the culture to use this approach to learning; and

• if the first access perception barriers either do not exist or are overcome then whether or not a culturally appropriate interface is used. Members of cultural groups will see a culturally appropriate interface as reflecting their values and beliefs and therefore not presenting a barrier to their accessing the online environment for learning.

Power - distance

Power-distance refers to the extent to which less powerful members expect and accept unequal power distribution within a culture.

High power-distance cultures have a tendency towards centralised power with hierarchies in organisations and large differences in salaries and status between individuals. Subordinates in the organisation are expected to do as they are told and teachers are viewed as possessing wisdom and are automatically held in high esteem.

Low power distance cultures view subordinates and managers as being closer together with flatter hierarchies in organisations and less difference in salaries and status. Teachers and students view themselves as equals (though not as identical).

It is possible to surmise that this dimension will influence perceptions about the appropriateness of online technology as a way of learning and who has the right to access information. It will influence therefore how frequently people from low power-distance cultures compared to high power-distance cultures would access online learning. If this access perception barrier is overcome then how the online site presents itself will be important. For the user interface to facilitate access and not present barriers designers need to consider:

• how it focuses on expertise, authority, certifications, logos and so forth;

• the prominence given to the university 'leaders' compared to the students;

• the importance given to restrictions or barriers to access to online information with the high power distance cultures wanting to see explicit, enforced and frequent restrictions to users and the low power distance cultures wanting to see transparent access and implicit freedom to move about the site; and

• the social roles that are used to organise the information contained on the site with high power-distance cultures wanting to see that the staff section is sealed off from the students' section.

Marcus and Gould 2000 illustrate the power-distance differences by providing examples of web sites from two countries.^[3] The first example is from the Universiti Utara Malaysia (www.uum.edu.my) located in Malaysia. Malaysia is the country with the highest power-distance rating in Hofstede's analysis.

The second example is from the Ichthus Hogeschool (www.tue.nl) located in the Netherlands. The Netherlands has a low power-distance rating in Hofstede's analysis.

Collectivism versus individualism

Collectivism in a culture means that people are integrated from birth into a strong, cohesive group that provides protection. In exchange for the protection the group expects loyalty. Individualism in a culture means that the ties to others are loose and that everyone is expected to look after themselves or their immediate family.

Collectivist cultures value harmony more than truth, silence more than speaking, and there is a striving for the maintenance of 'face'. Shame is used to achieve the behaviour that is desired. In the workplace these cultures value training, skills and the intrinsic rewards of mastery. In society the emphasis is placed on collective socio-economic interests over the interests of the individual.

Individualistic cultures value freedom and personal time, challenge and material rewards as motivators for work. The families value honesty and truth, maintaining self-respect and using guilt to achieve the behaviour desired. In society the emphasis is placed on individual socio-economic goals over those of the group. There is a restraint on the power of the state and an emphasis on the political power of voters and freedom of the press.

It is possible to surmise that this dimension will influence perceptions about:

• the rights of the individual compared to the rights of the group to have access to online information and therefore the idea that if it is not available to all then maybe it should not be made available to any;

• the willingness to provide information such as personal data that will single a person out as an individual and that person would therefore be differentiated from the group;

• accessing information and learning that will set the individual apart from the group;

• what is new and unique compared to traditions and history;

• the prominence given to youth and action compared to experienced, wise leaders and states of being;

• motivation based on personal achievement;

• the appropriateness of the writing style and whether the controversial and extreme arguments are tolerated compared to an official position; and

• whether the interface emphasises truth or relationships.

Femininity versus masculinity

Femininity and masculinity refers to the traditional assignment of gender roles and not physical characteristics, that is, the feminine roles of orientation to the home, children, people and tenderness and the masculine roles of assertiveness, competition, and toughness.

In masculine cultures the traditional distinction between the roles are maintained while feminine cultures tend to collapse the distinctions. In feminine cultures both men and women can exhibit caring and tenderness and concern for the quality of life and material success.

It is possible to surmise that high masculine cultures will influence the perceptions about accessing online information based on the:

• perceived measure of exploration possible and control obtained;

• importance of online learning for achieving traditional work tasks;

• amount of competition associated with the online environment; and

• graphics, sound and animation are used for utilitarian purposes.

It is possible to surmise that feminine cultures will influence perceptions about the:

• amount of cooperation, exchange and support that is available; and

• utilisation of the medium for the blurring of gender roles.

Uncertainty avoidance

Cultures vary in their avoidance of uncertainty or unknown matters creating different rituals and having different approaches to formality, legal and religious requirements and tolerance for ambiguity.

In cultures with high uncertainty avoidance businesses have more formal rules and require longer career commitments. They expect structure in organisations, institutions and relationships to help make events interpretable and predictable. Teachers are expected to be the experts who know the answers and it is expected that the teachers will sometimes speak in cryptic language that excludes beginners to a field.

In cultures with low uncertainty avoidance needs business may be more informal and focus on long-range strategic matters. Teachers are allowed not to know all the answers (or there can be more than one answer), are able to run open-ended classes and discussions and are expected to speak in plain understandable language.

It is possible to surmise that this dimension will influence perceptions about:

• predicability or otherwise of the online medium;

• the amount of choice available;

• attempts to reveal or forecast the results or implications of actions before users act; and

• the use of clues such as colour, typography and sound to reduce ambiguity, especially in navigation.

Long-term versus short-term time orientation

Long-term time orientations seem to be influential in cultures where philosophies are many thousands of years old. For example, the Asian cultures influenced by Confucian philosophy. These long-term time orientations share the beliefs that older people have more authority than younger people. It also means that in work people should try to acquire skills and an education, be hard working, frugal, patient and persevering.

Hofstede and Bond (cited in Marcus and Gould 2000) found that long-term time orientation cancelled out some of the effects of femininity/masculinity and uncertainty avoidance. They concluded that the Asian cultures are more likely to be oriented towards "practice and the search for virtuous behaviour" while the Western cultures are more likely to be oriented to "belief and truth" (p.19).

It is possible to surmise that this dimension will influence perceptions about:

• content of the site with the long-term time orientation focusing on practice and practical value;

• the online environment being a source of information and learning rather than relationships;

• rules being the source of information; and

• the desire for results and the achievement of goals.

The analysis presented of the cultural dimension's influence on access perceptions has focused on individual cultural dimensions. However an analysis of groups of dimensions might assist to further clarify the cultural barriers to online access perceptions. For example, certain members of cultures that display high power-distance and are collectivist, masculine and uncertainty avoiding will have difficulty perceiving that it is appropriate for them to access online learning. This is especially so when compared to members of cultures that display low power-distance and are individualistic, feminine and not uncertainty avoiding. To extend the analysis to groups of cultural dimensions would be a useful undertaking in the endeavour to understand the cultural issues in access perceptions in the online environment.

Cultural aspects of learning styles

Litzinger and Osif 1992 describe learning styles as the different ways in which people think and learn. Each person develops a preferred and consistent set of behaviours and approaches to learning. There have been many attempts to 'categorise' the range of learning styles. Two have been Kolb's theory of learning styles and Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences. It is reasonable to assume that different cultures will have preferences for the way that knowledge is acquired and processed (Blackmore 1996). There will be different ways of accessing and processing information, for example different cultural groups might prefer learning by seeing and hearing, reflecting and acting, reasoning logically and intuitively, analysing and visualising and so forth.

Much of the literature relating to adult learning styles has been written from a particular cultural perspective. For example, Cantor 1992 and Cranton 1992 suggest that Knowle's 1970 theory of adult learning is based on the assumptions that adults are, among other things:

• assertive, autonomous, self directed and self achieving;

• goal oriented with the need to know why they are learning something; and

• practical and problem solvers.

These assumptions would seem to be based in the cultural perspectives of low power-distance, individualistic and low uncertainty avoidance culture. How then does this relate to the learning styles of an adult from a culture that emphasises high power-distance and is collectivistic with high uncertainty avoidance? It is possible to surmise that the learning styles would be different with learning in this cultural group revolving around:

• relationships and the importance of social roles;

• a certainty about what is to come with links to the past and tradition; and

• an acceptance of group opinion.

Kearsley 1996 suggests that instruction for adult learners needs to focus more on process and less on content and that lecturers need to adopt the role of facilitator or resource person rather than lecturer or grader. When these suggestions are adopted members of some cultural groups are disadvantaged because the base assumptions are culturally biased. Much of the literature about what counts as sound educational practice for both the face-to-face and the online environments presents a form of cultural bias. This can be seen in relation to online material when the philosophy stressed by course developers emphasises student interaction and dialogue, and student-staff collaboration (Bullen1998). Further there is the sense, as Butler 2000 termed it, that in the online learning environment a 'one-size-fits-all' approach has been used. This can make an online learning environment inequitable for some cultural group members.

Consider, for example, the following:

• What if the student is from a culture that emphasises relationships or the 'context' (Rodrigues 1998) of the learning, that is, in Hofstede's terms displaying high collectivistic and feminine dimensions? Bauman 2001 suggests that students' academic success is in some way dependent on their being able to become integrated into the academic community. Social or contextual learners like to 'understand' or in some way to 'know' the person who is delivering the information and the relationship that is established is as important as, or more important than, the content that is delivered. This understanding is more difficult in the online environment where the 'personal' is frequently removed and the user interface is what is seen.

• What if the student is from a cultural group that emphasises an oral tradition in leaning and they are auditory learners? In the face-to-face situation it is rare for a student to have to rely upon the written word in order to perform in the course. The instructions even if delivered on paper are almost always accompanied by verbal explanations. Even if the students are asked to read material the lecturer will often go over the main points verbally or class discussions about the readings will take place. Except in rare situations, students who do very little of the reading for the course will likely still be able to pass the course. This is not the case for online learning. When the information comes to the students via text, they need to be proficient in reading those texts for meaning and then be able to use the information they read in another context. The students need to do this without the auditory clues being present. This kind of reading is demanding in a different way than the kinds of reading students frequently do in face-to-face classes. It requires considerably more commitment than the students may be used to giving to their reading. Not much in the traditional classroom prepares the students for such active learning (Bauman 2001).

• What if the student is from a culture where there is high uncertainty avoidance and they become uncertain of their understanding of material? In the face-to-face situation several back and forward exchanges with the instructor can happen before confusion is clarified. In the online environment the students need to be willing to write back and forth in order to get their question answered. This needs to happen over a period of time. In the online environment the students also need to be particularly alert to those moments when they sense that they do not comprehend something and be willing to ask immediately if they are confused. In the face-to-face situation the students are more able to wait for others to ask the questions and have the situation clarified. This then also requires an adjustment to the way that students may learn and to what the student expects from the learning environment.   The student needs to be able to handle the ambiguity of the situation and wait for what may be an uncertain outcome.

• What if the student is from a culture that learns by observing the actions of others or developing observations about their own experiences? In the face-to-face situation much meaningful interaction takes place outside class time, or they happen on the 'edge' of the class time. The interactions work iteratively to create the 'class climate' to convey the lecturer's and the student's expectations and to develop attitudes about the course, the material covered, the lecturer and the university. Much of this learning occurs by observing the interactions of others. If a student asks the lecturer a question in the edge to class time this student and other students watch and listen. They see how the lecturer handles the questions - does the lecturer think the question is 'dumb'?   Should the student have already known the answer? Is the question treated with respect? Is the answer curt? The students determine the appropriateness of the question and the answer and by extension, develop opinions about the questioner and the lecturer.

Students from cultures that emphasise learning via observation are disadvantaged in the move to the online environment. There are no longer the type of interactions described above that can be observed and learnt from.

Conclusion

Cultural perceptions of online technology as a way of learning and the correctness or rightness for all members or particular members of a culture to use this approach to learning can be seen as one barrier for members of certain cultural groups. If the first access perception barrier either does not exist or is overcome then whether or not a culturally appropriate interface is used presents a second potential barrier to accessing online learning.

In order for the interface not to present a barrier for cultural groups then the following issues need to be considered.

• How rewarding or personally interacting should the environment be?

• What motivational aspects should be included?

• How will group opinion be weighted against individual opinion?

• How will the need for certainty and limited ambiguity be catered for?

• Does the objective of distance learning change what can be learned in individualistic compared to collectivistic cultures? Should these sites focus on tradition or skills or expertise or earning power?

• Should the online educator act as a friend or guru?

• Should separate sites be developed to cater for men and women in different cultures?

• Would the emphasis on truth as opposed to virtue require different web procedures for different cultural audiences?

Once the interface issues have been addressed then the approach to the learning that occurs online needs to be addressed. Some of the issues to be considered here include:

• Is the learning going to emphasise individual or collegial work?

• How are the social or contextual dimensions going to be addressed?

• Is the nature of the work going to be critical and unconventional or conservative?

• Will there be didactic teaching or an emphasis on interaction and action by the students?

• How will the needs of the auditory, social, kinaesthetic, individual or spatial learner from various cultural traditions be catered for?

Some of the questions that then need to be considered are:

• Do we develop different web interfaces and courses for different cultural groups?

• Do we offer different approaches to learning so that all styles can be considered?

• Do we provide choice in the forms of assessment that students need to undertake so that they can undertake assessment appropriate to their learning style?

Understanding the impact of cultural dimensions on access perceptions and learning styles in the online environment is a complex and challenging area. There is a great deal that is not known about these issues and much of what has been outlined in this paper is based on conjecture and is designed to stimulate thinking and debate rather than to provide definitive answers.

Notes

[1] Trompenaars 1993 has developed seven fundamental dimensions of culture. There is an overlap with those developed by Hofstede but Trompenaars explores some additional aspects. Trompenaars’ seven fundamental dimensions of culture are as follows:

• Universalism versus particularism
• Individualism versus collectivism
• neutral versus emotional
• specific versus diffuse
• achievement versus diffuse
• different attitudes towards time
• different attitudes towards the environment

Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars 1993 used seven value dilemmas based on Trompenaars 1993 work to illustrate the differences between twelve countries. A summary of these finding has been included as Appendix 2 so the reader can make comparisons between the indexes from Hofstede’s work and those found by Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars 1993. Back

[2] Hall 1990 considers that the important cultural differences are time, context and space. Back

[3] Marcus and Gould provide web site examples for all the cultural dimensions - only two have been reproduced in this paper. Back

References

Bauman, M. 2001, Online learning communities. Writing Program, University of Michigan-Dearborn.

Blackmore, J. 1996, Pedagogy: Learning styles. Telecommunications for remote work and learning. http://cyg.net/~jblackmo/diglib/styl-a.html

Bullen, M. 1998, Intor IT: Online learning at UBC. http://www.itservices.ubc.ca/newscentre/intro_it/fall98/online.shtml

Butler, P. 2000, KNOWLEDGEPOOL: KnowledgePool offers online learning style evaluation system; First e-learning provider to offer Insights Evaluator to online students. M2 Presswire, Coventry.

Cantor, J. 1992, Delivering instruction to adult learners. Wall and Emmerson, Toronto.

Cranton, P. 1992, Working with adult learners. Wall and Emmerson, Toronto.

Hall, E. 1990, Understanding cultural differences. Intercultural Press, Yarmouth.

Hampden-Turner, C. &Trompenaars, F. 1993, in The Seven Cultures of Capitalism, London, Piatkus, 1993,

Hofstede, Geert, 1991, Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind: Intercultural Cooperation and its Importance for Survival, McGraw Hill, New York.

Kearsley, G. 1996, Andragogy. George Washington University. http://gwis2.circ.gwn.edu:80/~kearsley/knowles.html

Knowles, M.S 1970, The modern practice of adult education: Andragogy vs. pedagogy. Association press, New York,

Litzinger, M. & Osif, B. 1993, Accommodating diverse learning styles: Designing instruction for electronic information sources. In Shirato, L. & Abor, A. (eds). What is good instruction now? Library instruction for the 90s. Pieran Press, Miami.

Marcus, A. & Gould, E. 2000, Cultural dimensions and global web user-interface design: What? So what? Now what? http://www.tri.sbc.com/hfweb/marcus/hfweb00_marcus.html

Rodrigues, C. 1998, International management: A cultural approach. West Publishing, Minneapolis.

Trompenaars, F. 1993, Riding the waves of culture. Nicholas Brealy, London.

Appendix 1

Indexes from: Hofstede, Geert, 1991, Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind: Intercultural Cooperation and its Importance for Survival, McGraw Hill, New York.

PDI: Power distance index
IDV: Individualism index
MAS: Masculinity index
UAI: Uncertainty avoidance index
LTO: Long-term orientation index

Back

Appendix 2

Hampden-Turner, C. and Trompenaars, F. 1993, use seven value dilemmas to illustrate the cultural differences in twelve countries.

Instead of using a questionnaire to identify these differences, they described a set of scenarios that occur in business and asked people participating in their research to put themselves on one of the two sides of the dilemma.

The 12 countries

     A summary of the findings     

<-- universalism versus particularism -->

<-- analysis versus integration -->

<-- individualism versus communitarianism -->

<-- inner directed versus outer directed -->

<-- achieved status versus ascribed status -->

<--Equality (the flat triangle) versus hierarchy (the tall triangle)-->

<-- time as sequence versus time as synchronization -->

Back

[Back to Publications]