CROSSING CULTURES

(Storti, 2001)

INTRODUCTIONCulture and teaching

In order to participate successfully in transnational teaching programs staff must have

an understanding of culture as well as teaching; the two are inseparable. To

understand a culture is to understand how to teach successfully in that culture. Only

with such understanding can teaching practice be informed, sensitive, respectful and

contextually relevant. Yet this is no easy task. Culture is, by its very nature, implicit.

Those observable features of culture (e.g. dress, food) tend to be stereotypical cultural

representations only. Much remains hidden from view. This is why culture is often

defined as being analogous with an iceberg.

This section is designed to highlight a number of defining characteristics of culture,

insight into which will help create pathways of understanding into some of the more

hidden aspects of culture – the part of the cultural iceberg below the surface. The

anticipated result of such cultural insights will be improved educational outcomes in

trnasnational settings.

Cultural frameworks

People’s attitudes, beliefs and behaviours are a reflection not only of their individual

personalities but also their culture (Ballard & Clanchy, 1997). Culture shapes

knowledge, attitudes and behaviour. This is why understanding a culture will help

transnational staff understand their students and local staff better. Suddenly some

beliefs and ways of behaving might not seem so odd when viewed in light of the

larger cultural framework. It is important to remember that all behaviour has an

internal logic to the people in that culture (Storti, 2001). The key is, as an outsider,

trying to understand what that logic is. Of course the students and local staff are going

to think and behave like Indonesians/Malaysians/Chinese because they are

Indonesians/Malaysians/Chinese! “Becoming culturally effective does not mean

becoming a local; it means trying to see the world the way the locals do and trying to

imagine how they see you” (Storti, 2001, p.95).

Identifying our own cultural frameworks

It seems not such a hard task to identify the ways in which other cultures’ beliefs and

concomitant behaviours are shaped. It seems a much harder task to identify the ways

in which our own attitudes and behaviours are shaped by our socialisation processes

and culture. This is because our own view of the world is filtered through our own

culturally constructed lens. Consider the following example:

Once upon a time a marmoset decided to leave the forest and explore the great, wide

world. He travelled to the city and saw many strange and wonderful things but finally

he decided to return home. Back in the forest, his friends and relatives crowded

round. “Well,” they cried, “what did you see?” “I saw buildings made of concrete

and glass. Buildings so high that they touched the sky,” said the marmoset. And all

his friends and relatives imagined glass branches scratching the sky. “The buildings

were full of people walking on two legs and carrying briefcases,” said the marmoset.

And his friends and relatives could almost see the people running along the branches

with their tails wrapped firmly around their briefcases.

(Brick, 2004, p.1)

The danger of viewing the world solely through our own lens is that we can come to

believe that our way of knowing and being is the only way, the right way, the best

way – ethnocentrism. Many assumptions are made. Examining the basis of those

assumptions is essential for effective cross-cultural interactions.

Participating in another culture can be a humbling experience. Osland (1995)

highlights Schutz’s claim that this is what many people working in cross-cultural

settings find particularly confronting - being forced to examine the often taken-for-

granted superiority of their own culture. Ironically, people usually discover their own

culture for the first time when they leave it (Weaver, 1994). Only then do distance and

an alternative frame of reference allow people to see their culture more ‘objectively’.

Hall & Hall (1974) describe this change in perception thus: what people once

perceived as “mind” they come to recognize as “internalised culture” (p.10). It is

likely that staff teaching transnationally, along with their students and local staff, will

examine the basis of their own identity as they are compelled to confront their own

pre-existing cultural values and knowledge bases.

Culture and identity

One’s identity is very much tied to one’s culture. It is common for people to

experience an identity crisis when they move between cultures. Adler claims that

what “begins with the encounter of another culture…evolves into the encounter with

self” (1975, p.18). As teachers, it is important to realise that engaging students and

local staff in a different culture of learning does have the potential to challenge their

identity. The significance of this shouldn’t be underestimated. It is not a simple thing

that transnational students and local staff are being asked to do when they engage in a

Western education system. They are likely to experience a form of culture shock.

Those ways of behaving that have hitherto brought them success, such as “following

the master” (Ryan, 2000, p.16), could be the cause of their undoing in another culture.

Engagement in a different culture of learning, therefore, must be seen and presented

to students and staff as an alternative rather than a replacement for their ways of

knowing and being. It is not necessary, nor is it appropriate to expect transnational

students and local staff to ‘forget’ their own culture. To expect so could be described

as a form of cultural imperialism.

In particular, transnational teachers need to be cognisant of the ways in which their

own cultural traditions have shaped their attitudes to knowledge and learning as well

as the ways in which other cultures’ attitudes to knowledge and learning have been

shaped by their traditions. It is the ‘Western’ teachers, rather than the transnational

students and local staff, who are in the best position to be proactive in attempts to

bridge the epistemological gap that characteristically exists in transnational settings

(Ballard & Clanchy, 1997). The AVCC (2002) Code of Practice specifies that

trnasnational staff should be “sensitive to the culture and customs of the country they

are visiting, and/or the students they are teaching, and aware of its historical and

political background and educational systems” (p.3).

DIFFERING CULTURES OF LEARNINGIntroduction

Ryan (2000) suggests that there are three main ways that cultures differ in higher

education.

Relationships in the learning environment

Learning styles and approaches to learning

Attitudes to knowledge and learning

Each of these areas will be explored in greater detail below. Examples will be given

from Western cultures and other cultures.

*** The points made below are generalisations only. All cultures are different and

individuals behave differently within each culture.

Relationships in the learning environment

Western cultures

Generally,

Teachers expect students to be independent, to take control of their own

learning and to take responsibility for their own success.

There is an expectation that students will initiate conversation.

Teachers and students have an informal way of relating to each other.

Teachers are not always automatically respected. They earn respect from

students.

Students can question and challenge teachers and their classmates, and can be

challenged in return

Other cultures

Generally,

Teachers take control of the teaching and learning process (Teacher as

‘Master, or ‘guru’).

Students are used to high levels of personal support and assistance from their

teachers, both in class and with assignments.

Teachers and students have a formal way of relating to each other.

Students show great respect for their teachers.

Students do not refer to their teachers by their first name.

Students do not question or challenge their teachers or their classmates.

There is an emphasis on a single text, rote learning and or memory

Learning styles and approaches to learning

Western cultures

Generally,

Learning is student-centred.

Students are expected to work independently on assignments.

Students are expected to engage in critical thinking. This means that students

should do more than reproduce knowledge; they should question and

challenge the ideas of others and forward their own opinions and ideas.

The role of the student is to understand, think deeply about and make sense of

information.

Teachers will not tell students the ‘correct answer’. Many different ‘answers’

might be provided by the teacher and students are expected to reach their own

conclusions.

Many different forms of assessment are used.

Being a successful student means being able to think critically about others’

ideas and be creative and original in constructing new ways of thinking.

The approach to learning that is expected of Western students is often called

‘deep learning’.

Other cultures

Generally,

Learning is teacher-centred.

Students tend to rely on teachers to transmit information. (They often have

few skills in research or information synthesis)

Students are used to teachers telling them the ‘correct answer’.

The role of students is to accumulate knowledge.

Students tend to rely on memorising information ( often from a single text)

Students tend to reproduce the information and knowledge that has been

passed on to them by their teachers.

Students work collectively in study groups.

Students believe that they will be successful if they work hard.

Exams and tests usually form a major part of the assessment.

The result or product of learning is often considered more important than the

experience of learning.

Attitudes to knowledge and learning

Western cultures

Generally,

Ideas can be owned. This is called intellectual property.

The ideas of others need to be acknowledged. If the source of ideas is not

acknowledged it is considered a form of academic dishonesty.

The primary function of learning is considered to be the extension of

knowledge (see Figure 1)

Other cultures

Generally,

No-one can ‘own’ knowledge. Knowledge is owned collectively.

Students are free to reproduce, in their assignments, the ideas of their teachers

and the ideas found in sacred writings without acknowledgement.

It is considered disrespectful to acknowledge the source of ideas. It is

expected that teachers already know this.

The primary function of learning is considered to be the conservation of

knowledge (see Figure 1)

(Based on Ballard & Clanchy, 1997, Cortazzi & Jin, 1997 and Ryan, 2000).

‘Conserving’ vs ‘Extending’ knowledge

Insight into the alternate approaches adopted by cultures in regard to knowledge (also

referred to as ‘convergent’ and ‘divergent’ approaches [Ryan, 2000, p.15]) will

inform teaching practice in transnational settings.

Attitudes to Knowledge Conserving Extending

LearningApproaches Reproductive Analytical Speculative

TeachingStrategies

Role ofTeacher

Almost exclusive source of- knowledge- direction/guidance- assessment

co-ordinator of learning resources

questioner, critical guide, gadfly principal source of assessment

more experienced colleague and collaborator

preliminary critic and adviser patron

Characteristic Activities

transmission of information and demonstration of skills

overt moral and social training

analysis of information and ideas within interpretive frameworks

modelling of/demand for critical approach to knowledge and conventions

discussion/advice on ideas and methods on individual basis

modelling of hypothetical and creative thinking

collaborative search for new ideas

Assessment

tests of memory recall and practical demonstration of skills

emphasis on replication geared to ranking

assignments/exams requiring critical analysis and problem solving

emphasis on:- originality- quality of interpretation

Independent research-thesis and papers of publishable quality

‘contribution to the field of knowledge’

Aim

simple (‘unreconstructed’)

transfer of knowledge and skills

independent and critical styles of thinking`

development of capacity for theory and abstraction

development of speculative, critical intelligence

expansion of knowledge base (theory, data, techniques)

LearningStrategies

Type memorisation and imitation

analytical and critical thinking

speculating, hypothesing

Activities

summarising, describing, identifying, and applying formulae and information

questioning, judging, and recombining ideas and information into an argument

research design, implementation and reporting

deliberate search for new ideas, data, explanations

Characteristic Questions

what? why? how? how valid? how important?

what if?

Aim ‘correctness’ ‘simple originality, reshaping material into a different pattern

‘creative’ originality, totally new approach/new knowledge

Figure 1. Influence of cultural attitudes to knowledge on teaching and learning

strategies

(Ballard & Clanchy, 1997, p.12)

Implications

A number of implications for teaching and learning arise from the existence of

varying cultural attitudes to knowledge and learning. The first relates to cultural

ignorance. Barker (1997) purports that the difficulties typically experienced in cross-

cultural teaching and learning situations do not arise from “institutional policy” or

from “personal malice” (p.123). Rather they arise from ignorance of alternative

cultural perspectives. Understanding that attitudes to knowledge and learning are

culturally based, rather than ‘learning deficiency’ based is crucial.

Some cultures’ focus on conservation of knowledge helps explain, for example, the

particular difficulties that many students and local staff from such cultures experience

with the concepts of plagiarism and critical thinking. (Please see the Student

Induction Resources for guidelines on helping students to understand plagiarism and

critical thinking, and the Teaching and Learning website- Guide to Academic

Integrity for Staff http://www.utas.edu.au/tl/supporting/resources/booklets.html)

Being able to recite the works of sages is considered a sign of respect; to question and

challenge and offer an alternative perspective is considered disrespectful.

It is important to remember that many Western students also experience difficulties

meeting the expectations of the Western higher education system. Concepts such as

plagiarism and critical thinking are new to many students when they enter higher

education for the first time. Biggs (2003) cautions teachers against attributing

difficulties in these areas solely to cultural differences. Working with transnational

students increases the extent of the problem, not the nature of the problem. As will be

discussed in the section titled ‘The Art of Teaching’, attention to improved teaching

practice will help minimise the extent of these problems, for both domestic and

transnational students.

Tradition, too, plays a fundamental role in reinforcing culturally constructed attitudes

towards knowledge and learning. Consider the potential influence on transnational

students and local staff of the following:

The Taoist saying “A good man does not argue.”

The Islamic tradition of recognising scholarship based on an ability to recite

the Koran

Confucius’s assertion “I do not invent, but merely transmit.”

(Ballard & Clanchy, 1997, p.14).

It is recognition of the fact that students’ ‘problems’ are more representative of

“manifestations of cultural differences in beliefs about the construction of knowledge”

(Todd, 1997, p.174) than personal inadequacies, that will ultimately lead to the

improved provision of quality teaching and learning in transnational settings.

One outcome of the cultural ignorance described above is the potential for

stereotyping to occur. As an example, Brick (1991) claims that it is common for

teachers to complain of Chinese students’ inability to form and express opinions. Yet,

there are myriad examples from Chinese history that testify to the existence of

strongly held and expressed opinions. Chinese do hold and do express opinions.

However, it is the context that determines when and how such opinion is expressed. It

will not be expressed, for example, in a teaching and learning situation where students

characteristically feel in a position of deference to their teachers. It requires explicit

and sensitive induction into alternative teaching and learning situations before such

opinions will be forwarded. This example illustrates the imperative for teachers to be

culturally aware rather than judgemental.

In a similar vein, Biggs (2003) cautions teachers against adopting the stereotypical

perspective that the ‘rote’ learning style characteristically employed by many students

from non-Western cultures is ineffective as a learning strategy. Rather, he suggests

that rote learning can be used as a path to deeper understanding.

A further implication of varying cultural attitudes to knowledge and learning relates to

the implicit nature of academic culture. Academic cultures are implicitly understood

by teachers, but are rarely made explicit to students. This is because culture is

implicit. It is something that is known subconsciously; it is not something that has to

be consciously thought about. It happens automatically. It is not until students expect

something else (such as is the case with transnational students) that teachers become

more consciously aware of the cultural basis of teaching and learning contexts and the

consequent need to explicitly teach that to students (Cortazzi & Jin, 1997).

Understanding the cultural basis of attitudes to knowledge and learning empowers

teachers in a number of ways. First, it reduces the perceived need that many teachers

have to ‘fix’ their students’ ‘learning problems’. Rather, it helps teachers understand

why their transnational students find many of the Western ways of teaching and

learning particularly challenging. Second, it provides an opportunity for teachers to

identify ways of subsequently empowering their transnational students – ‘letting the

students in on the secret’ – explicitly teaching Western ways of thinking and writing

rather than simply expecting the students to either know this already or work it out for

themselves.

SOME DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS OF CULTURESIntroduction

Hofstede is a widely acknowledged expert in cross-cultural studies. In a seminal study

in 1980 Hofstede identified “four main dimensions on which… cultures differ” (1980,

p.11). Those dimensions are: Individualism-Collectivism, Power Distance,

Uncertainty Avoidance and Masculinity-Femininity. Rather than being discrete

dimensions, each is influenced by and impacts upon the others. Although Hofstede’s

research has its basis in business, the outcomes are applicable to a range of cultural

contexts. They have been used by many writers in the field as a basis of comparison

between cultures (e.g. Ward, Bochner & Furnham, 2001; Ryan, 2000; O’Sullivan,

1994). Each of the four cultural dimensions identified above, for example, impacts

directly upon teaching and learning. They each provide a continuum between

extremes, with cultures placed at points between these extremes.

Individualist vs Collectivist Cultures

Of the four cultural dimensions identified by Hofstede (1980), the one of greatest

significance is arguably Individualism-Collectivism. Individualism and collectivism

are terms that refer to the extent to which one defines and locates self in relation to

others (Hofstede, 1984).

Individualist cultures are characterized by competition. The interests of the individual

primarily take precedence over group needs. Self-concept is usually separate from

group relationships. Identity is based around individual qualities such as patience,

determination and so on (Triandis, 1990). Diversity, independence and uniqueness are

all encouraged. “Face-consciousness is weak” (Hofstede, 1980, cited in Barker, 1997,

p.114). Individualism is characteristic of Western cultures.

In collectivist cultures, on the other hand, the focus is on co-operation rather than

competition and the interests of the group normally take precedence over individual

needs. Self-concept is inseparable from group relationships. People tend to define

themselves in role as ‘mother’, ‘brother’, ‘teacher’ and so on (Triandis, 1990). Group

harmony is maintained at all costs. Social cohesion takes precedence over diversity of

behaviour and attitudes. The maintenance of ‘face’ “reign(s) supreme” (Hofstede,

1980, cited in Barker, 1997, p.114). Collectivism is characteristic of many Asian

cultures.

The concepts of individualism and collectivism provide pathways of understanding

for transnational staff. Much student behaviour can be explained and understood in

light of these concepts, as indeed can teachers’ behaviour and expectations!

Understanding the concept of collectivism helps explain, for example, many Asian

students’ preference for syndication. It explains why, generally, many students from

individualist cultures are more likely to feel comfortable ‘standing out’ in class,

challenging and debating, expressing independent opinions. It explains why,

generally, students from collectivist cultures are likely to feel more comfortable

‘fitting in’, not asking questions or challenging.

Asking students from a collectivist culture to suddenly begin operating in ways more

akin to an individualist culture is a direct challenge to their sense of self – their

identity. Teachers need to be sensitive and supportive in guiding students towards an

understanding of alternative ways of knowing and being. It is sometimes helpful to

place yourself in the students’ shoes. How would it feel, as a staff member, to be

suddenly expected to teach in a way that is totally anathema to everything you know

and believe to be ‘right’?

Power Distance

“Power distance refers to the extent to which there is general acceptance of status

inequality” (Ward, Bochner & Furnham, 2001, p.55). Generally, collectivist cultures

are high power distance cultures – there is a high level of respect for those in

authority. Roles are clearly defined and there is little mobility within that power

differential. Individualist cultures, on the other hand, tend to be low power distance

cultures – there is often a deliberate attempt to ‘de-institutionalise’ the power

differential between people in society. Role definition is generally more fluid and able

to be transgressed.

Implications for teaching and learning relationships are clear. Students and staff from

high power distance cultures expect and are motivated to maintain formal and distant

relationships with those in authority. It helps explain why students from high power

distance cultures are often perceived as having an ‘over-regard’ for their teachers’

authority and why they are consequently reluctant to question their teachers and speak

out in class (Ryan, 2000). It also helps explain why some students ‘defer’ to other

students – through respect for their status.

The potential for stereotyping and misunderstanding is great. A ‘passive’ but attentive

student from a high power distance culture may easily be interpreted as quiet,

withdrawn and disinterested, perhaps even lacking in skill, by a teacher from a low

power distance culture. Yet, these are students who are behaving in a way that is

characteristic of their culture; it is not a ‘deficiency’ or deliberate attempt to

undermine teaching strategies. Such high power distance students are likely to view

the behaviour of students from low power distance cultures – interrupting the teacher,

questioning, challenging – as rude and ill-mannered (Ward, Bochner & Furnham,

2001).

Uncertainty Avoidance

Uncertainty Avoidance refers to the extent to which a culture seeks - and attempts to

maintain - stability and predictability. All cultures adapt to uncertainty differently.

Generally, cultures with a high uncertainty avoidance dislike and fear change, are

likely to be intolerant of differences and ambiguity, and are reluctant to take risks or

disrupt the status quo (Hofstede, 1980). The effect of this dimension of culture on

teaching and learning is clear. Students from high uncertainty avoidance cultures are

more likely to feel challenged by teaching and learning situations where outcomes are

unpredictable and where acceptance of and tolerance for different viewpoints are

encouraged and valued. They may feel uncomfortable with unclear answers, a range

of correct responses or ‘shades of grey’.

Masculinity-Feminity

The Masculinity-Femininity dimension of culture refers to the extent to which cultures

exhibit those patterns of gender socialisation (such as men being more assertive, with

a focus on achievement and advancement, and women being more nurturing, with a

focus on maintenance of relationships) that tend to dominate, world-wide (Hofstede,

1980). In high masculinity cultures the focus is on clearly defined, hierarchical

relationships where males assume a more authoritative role. Females, for example,

tend to teach younger age groups while males teach at university level. In masculine

cultures the “best” students are considered the norm; “failing in school is a disaster in

a masculine culture” (Hofstede, 1994, pp.90-91). The exaggerated difficulties likely

to be experienced by males from a masculine culture, for example, either failing a

subject or participating in university classes with female lecturers are clear. This may

lead to the relative anonymity of online and distance education being an advantage for

both female staff and female students. Many collectivist cultures are masculine

cultures, but not all. Germany, for example, scores highly on the masculinity scale

(Hofstede, 1980).

Conclusion

Transnational student and staff attitudes and behaviour can be more effectively

understood in light of the four cultural dimensions forwarded by Hofstede (1980).

Students from a collectivist, high power distance, high uncertainty avoidance,

masculine society are, quite understandably, likely to be challenged by a teaching and

learning situation that expects them to call their teacher by the first name, stay seated

when the teacher enters the room, question the word of ‘experts’ and work

autonomously. Local staff will experience similar difficulties adjusting. Staff working

transnationally must acknowledge the huge ‘cultural leap’ - for students and local

staff - involved in moving from one education system to another. The intensity of this

cultural challenge for local staff and students is not something over which they have a

great degree of personal control; it is a challenge imposed upon them by their cultural

conditioning. Empathic support and guidance from staff is crucial.