Quality Enhancement Plan

10/2/08

Global Teaching

by Alfred P. Rovai, Ph.D.

As part of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) re-affirmation process, Regent University is developing a Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) as a university-wide initiative to improve student learning. The purpose of our QEP is to develop globally competent students. Additionally, the University’s new strategic plan includes the following strategic goal: “Goal 3. Global Competence: Globally competent faculty, staff, and students.”

Much has been written about adding a global dimension to curricula in order to produce globally competent students. Major themes related to the global learning movement include peace and conflict, human rights and social justice, cultural diversity, interdependence, environmental education, sustainable futures, and the role of religion. These are important themes for us to consider as we identify global content for our academic programs. However, what I want to focus on in this brief article is the impact of our global reach on teaching methods. In particular, consider the following University strategic objective “3.5 Objective: Recruit and retain a culturally and globally diverse faculty and student body.” What is the impact on teaching as a result of a more culturally and globally diverse University community?

The major challenge is how best to foster learning communities that are validating and supportive of culturally diverse students. Intercultural competence is central to teach effectively in a culturally diverse environment. As various cultures come together in the global classroom, teachers must mediate learning diversity through a multicultural teaching and learning strategy. Culture influences communication, which, in turn, affects social presence, cognitive presence, and sense of community, which ultimately influences learner satisfaction, persistence, and achievement.

For example, take Edward T. Hall’s Theory of High and Low Context Cultures, which addresses the manner in which individuals communicate within the same setting. In a high context culture, many things are left unspoken, letting the culture and nonverbal communication fill in the blanks. Assuming a computer-mediated communication setting, students from high context/low content cultures prefer communication tools that facilitate the transmission of nonverbal cues, e.g., video teleconferencing and podcasting, whereas students from low context/high content cultures are more satisfied with text-based communication. A high context student is also more likely to ask questions than attempt to work out a solution independently. Nations with high context/low content tendencies are China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Arab nations, people from other Middle Eastern and Mediterranean-based nations, Africans, and Latin Americans. Nations with low context/high content tendencies include Germany, Switzerland, the United States, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, and Canada.

Learners from collectivist cultures, e.g., many Latin American and Asian cultures, are more group oriented and support group identity over individual identity. They will likely prefer collaborative work and will avoid challenging or engaging in debates with other students as fulfilling social obligations and protecting face are important considerations. Students from individualistic cultures, e.g., the United States, Australia, Great Britain, and Canada, on the other hand, will more likely prefer to work alone and challenge and debate other students. Members of individualistic cultures also tend to be candid and task-related issues take priority over relationship-related issues. Individualism implies that social behavior is established by personal goals and does not take precedence over the goals of the group. During discussions between members of an individualistic culture, views are expressed frankly and individuals, regardless of status, resist influence attempts by others.

Gender roles are sharply differentiated in masculine cultures and masculinity leads to a preference for achievement, heroism, assertiveness, material success, and the belief that men and women have different roles in society. Male students from masculine cultures, e.g., Japan, Austria, Venezuela, Italy, Switzerland, Mexico and the United States, will likely be sensitive to loosing face to a woman, whether it is another student or the teacher. In feminine cultures, gender roles are less sharply distinguished and little differentiation is made between men and women in the same job. Women in feminine cultures tend to be more assertive and competitive then they are in masculine cultures. The strongest nations with the femininity characteristic are Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Chile, Thailand, Peru, Spain, France, and Taiwan.

Cultures with strong uncertainty avoidance have low tolerance for ambiguous situations and are more likely to be emotional, security seeking, intolerant of ambiguity, and view different as dangerous. If members of high uncertainty avoidance cultures are enrolled in a distance education program, they expect the course design and all assignments to be clearly organized. Formal structure provides greater stability; less structure introduces uncertainty and anxiety. Students from high uncertainty avoidance cultures, e.g., Greece, Portugal, Belgium, Japan, Peru, and France, will likely require precise instructions and detailed guidance on assignments and precise deadlines and timetables. Compared to high uncertainty avoidance cultures, innovations and new ideas are more appreciated by low uncertainty avoidance cultures where there are fewer rules. Additionally, members of low uncertainty cultures are more tolerant of opinions different from what they are used to and are comfortable with open-ended situations. Nations with the lowest uncertainty avoidance are Singapore, Denmark, Sweden, Ireland, Great Britain, India, the Philippines, and the United States.

However, the learning preference of individual students is not something teachers can predict with certainty. National culture characteristics represent averages that can vary greatly between individuals who are members of the same culture. Teachers can improve the quality of learning in a multicultural student environment if they adapt their teaching styles to accommodate multiple learning styles and are sensitive to communication and learning style differences represented by different cultural groups. Although the prospect of addressing multiple learning styles simultaneously in a single course might seem daunting, this approach is not to determine each student’s learning style and then to individualize teaching to each student’s preference. The idea is to design courses and to adapt teaching to address multiple learning styles and to provide students with a degree of choice whenever possible, e.g., providing students with text-based lecture notes for each major topic in addition to video or audio podcasts or allowing the student a choice in how he or she can demonstrate content mastery. If this balance can be achieved, all students will be taught in a manner that sometimes matches their learning styles, thereby promoting effective learning and positive attitudes toward learning, while at other times compelling students to exercise and strengthen their less developed abilities, ultimately making them better scholars. Additionally, to be effective in cross-cultural communication, the teacher must anticipate student expectations, behaviors, and communication patterns, which can be known only through the study of different cultures. Audience awareness is not a new topic in teacher communication; when communicating with other cultures, audience awareness becomes decisive.

Fred Rovai is Professor of Education and teaches online statistics, strategic planning, and program evaluation courses. The material for this article is from his book titled “The Internet and Higher Education: Achieving Global Reach,” which is scheduled for release early next year by Chandos Publishing (Oxford, UK) Limited. Much of the content of this article is based on Geert Hofstede’s research in national cultures.