Cultural factors and learning styles are important in education. These become especially important in Distance education where typically the instructors, fellow students and the learner are separated. This paper examines the issues and suggests some approaches to ease difficulties.

Shyamala Iyer

OMDE 608

Section: 9040

Date: 10th November 2002

Title: Cultural differences and learning styles: Implications for
student support in distance education.



Overview

In this paper I address the dual issues of cultural factors and learning
styles and relate them to student support in distance education. I show
that cultural diversity is relevant to distance education, and explore
the links between cultural factors and learning styles. I then make a
set of recommendations that can be practically applied to enhance
support in distance education for students with diverse cultural
backgrounds and learning styles.



Is cultural diversity relevant to distance education?

Technological advances are causing dramatic transformations in the field
of education especially distance education. Technologies like
computer-mediated communications have done away with the constraints of
distance and time and enhanced borderless communications among diverse
groups of people.



The globalization of distance education is evident from international
educational ventures where institutions across the world have
collaborated to offer courses to students anywhere. Examples include
the Singapore-MIT Alliance, and the Duke University’s Global Executive
program. According to Ziguras (1999) of Australia (Monash Center for
Research in International education), “multi-campus universities have
become the norm, as it is now much easier for universities to establish
numerous disbursed campuses that remain integrated into a single
institution by umbilical cords of optic fibre cables.”



In addition to these developments, the US is witnessing a rise in the
numbers of minority communities, resulting in an increase in the number
of students from multicultural backgrounds. Hodgkinson (1985) notes that
by the year 2010, the current minority populations will be majority
populations in certain sections of the country. New immigrants
(predominantly from Latin America, Asia, and the Middle East, unlike the
primarily European immigrants of the 1900s) are not as willing to
assimilate and give up their unique cultures (Hodgkinson, 1985). Sanchez
and Gunawardena (1998) believe that “the increase in ethnic minority
populations is having an impact on two major American institutions
namely the work force and the educational system.” They emphasize that
“… there will be other related differences that will emerge across
diverse groups of learners that will need to be carefully considered as
educators design and deliver distance education” (Sanchez and
Gunawardena, 1998). In this regard, Ziguras (1998) has identified
cultural issues that arise in the new learning spaces (online learning)
under three groupings as learning styles, cross-cultural interaction,
and international curriculum.





How are cultural factors and learning styles linked?



Cultures differ in the ways in which education is imparted and received.
Thinking, gathering information, peer interactions, exchange of ideas,
and questioning authority are all influenced by learning and teaching
methods specific to a particular culture. Learned patterns of thinking,
knowing, behaving, and communicating can go unchallenged until
individuals leave their cultural groups and experience different
cultures. Dunn and Griggs (1995) observe that cultural values influence
the socialization practices of all ethnic groups, which in turn affect
how individuals prefer to learn.



When people of different cultures get clustered together in environments
different from what they are used to, many effects may emerge. These
include culture shock, inhibition in communications, and feelings of
alienation. In distance education, these effects may compound the
isolation of the students resulting in negative learning experiences.
Hofstede (1986) describes cross-cultural situations as those that
involve “teacher/student pairs in which the partners were born, raised
and eventually programmed in different cultures prior to their
integration in school” (p.302). According to Hofstede (1986),
cross-cultural learning situations are potentially problematic because
of differences in the following areas: social positions of teachers and
students, relevance of the curriculum (training content), profiles of
cognitive abilities between the populations from which teacher and
student are drawn, expected patterns of student/teacher and
teacher/student interactions (p.303).



It is of interest to understand various characteristics of culture
differences. Anderson (1988) suggests that those in the dominant Western
worldview include Euro-Americans (primarily males) and minorities with a
high degree of acculturation. Many Euro-American women and a vast
majority of other cultural groups in the U.S. would be categorized as
sharing a Non-Western worldview. The fundamental dimension of
Non-Western and Western worldviews and those who share aspects of that
world view are seen in the following table:



Non-WesternWestern

Emphasize group cooperation



Achievement as it reflects group



Value harmony with nature



Time is relative



Accept affective expression



Extended family



Holistic thinking



Religion permeates culture



Accept world views of other cultures



Socially oriented





Emphasize individual competition



Achievement for the individual



Must master and control nature



Adhere to rigid time schedule



Limit affective expression



Nuclear family



Dualistic thinking



Religion is distinct from other parts of culture

Feel their world view is superior



Task oriented

Table 1: Some fundamental dimensions of Non-western versus Western World
View



Anderson (1988), after an extensive survey of literature, has juxtaposed
learning styles and cultural grouping comparisons as seen in the
following table:



Field-dependent

Relational/Holistic

Affective



Characteristics



1. Perceive elements as part of a total picture.

2. Do best on verbal tasks.

3. Learn material which has a human social element and which is
characterized by fantasy and humor.

4. Performance influenced by authorizing figure’s expression of
confidence or doubt.



5. Style conflicts with traditional school
environment.Field-independent

Analytic

Non-affective



Characteristics



1. Perceive elements as discrete from the background.

2. Do best on analytic task.

3. Learn material that is inanimate and impersonal more easily.



4. Performance not greatly affected by the opinions of others.



5. Style matches up with most school environments.

Table 2: Cognitive style comparison.



Anderson (1988) has further noted that though one style is not better
than the other, the Euro-American style, characterized by
field-independence and analytic thinking with limited affective
thinking, is often most valued in the American higher education
settings.



As per Sanchez and Gunawardena (1998), the assessment of learning styles
and the impact of matching teaching styles to learning styles has been
the focus of many studies. They quote the work of Dunn et al, and find
Dunn to have noted that in all groups of learners –gifted, average or
high achievers –there are statistically significant differences among
and between groups of culturally different students.



What are the implications on student support in distance education?



Effective educational decisions and practices should evolve out of an
understanding of the ways in which individuals learn. Consequently,
knowing each student, especially his or her culture, is essential
preparation for facilitating, structuring, and validating successful
learning for all students (Guild, 1994).



An important recommendation for practice arises out of a case study by
Haulmark (2002) on Thai students grouped with American students in a
computer mediated course. The author observes that “Orienting students
to the culture of distance education and American higher education
through a packet of supplemental materials sent prior to the class or
presented through online tutorials might have better prepared Thai
students” (Haulmark, 2002). She has further noted that “Instructors,
if the content allows, should communicate to students that autonomy is
strongly encouraged and that the learning process is just as valuable as
the actual product.” This observation is especially relevant to Asian
cultures where the teacher is regarded as expert and dependence on
teacher provided inputs take precedence over self-exploration and
independent thinking.



However, awareness of individual learning styles should complement
consideration of diverse cultural factors. Guild (1994) points out an
observation made by Griggs and Dunn that ‘in both observational and
data based research on cultures, one consistent finding is that, within
a group, the variations among individuals are as great as their
commonalities. Therefore, no one should automatically attribute a
particular learning style to all individuals within a group’ (Griggs
and Dunn 1989). As Brindley (October 20, 2002, Conference posting)
points out,



By learning more about our individual learning preferences, we can
probably become more effective learners – both because we understand
why some subjects or methods of presentation present greater challenges
for us, and because we can stretch ourselves to become more diverse in
our ways of responding. In other words, we may have a preference for
certain ways of learning (I love films, demonstrations, talking), but I
can compensate once I know this (by thinking of illustrations, examples,
or pictures as I read). This is meta-cognition – that is, being aware
of how we are learning as we learn, and is one of the higher order
skills that help us to become more independent learners.”



It is thus clear that diverse cultural factors and learning styles need
to be addressed for better outcomes in distance education. Therefore the
following recommendations for student support are suggested:



1. Include a learning style inventory to help students assess their
predominant learning styles when students first approach distance
education programs.

2. Make students aware that it is possible to stretch their learning
styles by using other learning strategies.

3. Make useful suggestions to students to enhance their learning.
Consider a course that uses predominantly text and printed material. A
suggestion to auditory learners would be to read aloud the reading
materials, and record them to tape.

4. Include informative material about the technology used in the
distance education program. If courses use multiple media (as may be the
case with open universities) include information about the learning
styles supported by the various media.

5. Review pre-prepared homogenous materials for courses in the light of
diverse cultural factors and learning styles.

6. Reduce alienation of the diverse student by making clear the
expectations of the parent institution where the courses are developed.

7. Educate and sensitize faculty and course developers to the needs of
culturally diverse students.

Note: A website article
(http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/Preparingstudents.htm) based on
discussions on elearning describes in detail other aspects of
accommodating learning styles in online courses.



Conclusion

As distance education becomes mainstream in a world where globalization
of education is increasing, and the population of the US becomes more
multicultural, effects of diverse cultural factors and learning styles
have become more relevant.

The implication for distance educators is a definite need to create
awareness about learning styles and cultural diversity among all
associated with student support in distance education programs. There is
also a need for establishing guidelines on how student support should be
approached to accommodate the learning and cultural needs of the distant
students. Finally, a strong thrust is required for research addressing
the effects of accommodating diverse cultural factors and learning
styles on lifelong learning. Otherwise, as Anderson (1988) says
“…education will continue to stagnate in the dark ages and educators
will provide lip service rather than action to the egalitarian values
associated with pluralism and multiculturism…”



References:

Anderson, J.A. (1988). Cognitive styles and multicultural populations.
Journal of Teacher Education, 22, 3-9.



Brindley, J.E. (2002). Re: Learning Styles, Culture, and Women 10/20
[msg 3]. Message posted to
http://tychousa1.umuc.edu/OMDE608/0209/9040/class.nsf/Menu?OpenFrameSet&
Login



Dunn, R and Griggs, S.A. (1995). Multiculturism and learning style:
Teaching and counseling adolescents. Westport, CT: Praeger.



Griggs, S. A., and R. Dunn.(1989). The Learning Styles of Multicultural
Groups and Counseling Implications. Journal of Multicultural Counseling
and Development, 17, 146-155.



Guild, P. (1994). The culture/learning style connection. Educational
leadership, 51(8), 16-21. Retrieved October 16, 2002, from the Expanded
Academic Index database.



Haulmark, M. (2002, January 24). Accommodating cultural differences in a
Web-based distance education course: A case study. Paper presented at
the 9th Annual International Distance Education Conference. Retrieved
October 15, 2002, from
http://www.cdlr.tamu.edu/dec_proceedings/dec%202002/Haulmark.pdf



Hodgkinson, H.L. (1985). Demographics and the economy: Understanding a
changing marketplace [Special issue on Adult Recruitment] The Admissions
Strategist: Recruiting for the 1980’s. New York,NY: The College Board.



Hofstede, G (1986). Cultural differences in teaching and learning.
International journal of intercultural relation, 10, 301-320.



Sanchez, I and Gunawardena, C.N. (1998). Understanding and supporting
the culturally diverse distance learner. In C.C. Gibson, (Ed.), Distance
learners in higher education (pp. 47-64). Madison, WI: Atwood
Publishing.



Ziguras, C. (1999). Cultural diversity and transnational flexibility
delivery. Paper presented at ASCILITE 99. Retrieved October 15, 2002,
from
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/brisbane99/papers/ziguras.pdf