In Module 3, we read eight articles that are part of a special issue of TechTrends that focuses on culture, learning, and technology. In other words, these eight articles were deliberately chosen by the editors because they discussed those topics.
For this assignment, I was to write a 4-5 page literature review that connects all seven articles with a focus on one theme. You will need to clearly identify the theme that you have chosen and then focus on the salient points of the articles that illustrate that theme. The theme can be as broad as culture or as specific as collaboration.
I needed to read the articles very carefully and highlight the sections that were relevant to my theme. Then, I needed to connect the articles in my discussion. was to do some outlining and organizing to ensure that I was fully synthesizing and connecting the articles. At times, the connection might be a point of contrast, while at other times, I might be identifying similarities. Both are valid methods of connection.
I was to focus in-depth on at least three of the articles, but I needed to reference all articles, even if I just mention one of them in a clause.
This assignment is designed to help practice the “art” of the literature review, which is a central part of my dissertation. In my dissertation, I will be finding my own articles, so this special issue of TechTrends has already accomplished that task for me.
My task was to accomplish the synthesis and analysis that comes into play when writing the literature review.
4-5 pages double-spaced, excluding title page, abstract, and references.
Cultural Sensitivity in Online Course Design
Frank Jamison
The Chicago School of Professional Psychology
EP746: Culture’s Place in Learning and Technology
Dr. Kate Green
November 13, 2022
We’ve all heard the saying, “It takes a village…” when it comes to education, but with the advent of the Internet and the increasing accessibility of technology in all walks of life, that village is now a global population consisting of a myriad of different cultures. These cultures may be defined by several characteristics based on demographics (age, race, gender, ethnicity, marital status, socio-economic status, education, and employment) as well as organizational, group, and learning environment cultures, etc. (Benson, 2018). Indeed, Sulecio de Alvarez & Dickson-Deane (2018) suggest that “cultural perspectives of learning may be contextually diverse, even while conforming to the social structure and the value system that guides governance of the community.” Hence, we need to design our online courses with cultural sensitivity in mind.
Dennen & Bong (2018) point out that even though technology unites us globally for communication purposes, unless we share intersecting factors such as a common language, shared norms, and/or outlooks, we cannot communicate in a meaningful and effective manner. They go on to point out that while online courses provide spaces for learners across the world to interact, “there is no guarantee that cross-cultural learning will occur or that learners from different national and organizational cultures will have similar experiences and perceptions of the course learning environment and activities,” however, the technology that we use certainly impacts how learning activities are manifested in a community setting (Sulecio de Alvarez & Dickson-Deane, 2018).
In one study of a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) conducted by Dennen & Bong (2018), there appeared to be a distinct difference in the expectations of students from Caucasion-dominated countries compared to students from China. The significant factors in these differences are best categorizedusing Hofstede’s (1983) work on national cultural dimensions, specifically those of individualism-collectivism, power distance, and uncertainty avoidance. Using these dimensions, China appears to be a more collectivist culture with strong power distance and high uncertainty avoidance, while the United States appears to have an individualist culture, with weak power distance and low uncertainty avoidance.
Dennen & Bong (2018) noted in their study that their Chinese students preferred relationships of a social nature, such as networking with their professor, over completing their learning tasks; and observed that they desired to take instruction from the instructor rather than collaboratively with them. They hesitated to offer solutions because they were not experts in the field. Another problem the Chinese students in this course had been with accessing the social media tools. Owing to the restrictions imposed by their government, they lacked the digital equity to participate with their peers in the course.
Students from South America and Asia were the least active participants on the discussion boards, report Dennen & Bong (2018). They have theorized that these students may be experiencing othering, defined as “being treated in ways that marginalize or downplay their experiences and beliefs,” and state that students from national cultures that diverge from the main population of the class may silence themselves or do things to obscure their differences.
In a study conducted in Antigua and Barbuda, Nelson & Parchoma (2018) research the viability of developing the curriculum of a culturally sensitive library science program for un-credentialed staff by collaboratively working with the staff themselves. Instead of using an either a global or a localized approach, the researchers took a “Third Space” (Bhabha 1994) approach, which combined the relevant aspects of each andpresented them in a way that showed mutual respect and allowed the local approach to be valued. It is Nelson & Parchoma’s (2018) claim that, “This approach is particularly important to these small island states where there is a sense of being overwhelmed by certain aspects of Western culture (for example the arts, religion, language, education, theories, and concepts) which impinge on local culture.”
Digital technologies, as a product of Western culture, have been problematic to integrate into programs for indigenous learners in the past, however this Participatory Action Research study has worked to undermine the negative perceptions of technology held by the local participants. Most Antiguans have never been schooled in the use of the Internet for formal online education and the transtition to this study of online training was a cultural shift for the participants used to in-person instruction.
The participatory process in Nelson & Parchoma’s (2018) research study supported collaborative development of the curriculum for a culturally sensitive library science course for uncredentialed library staff, which included the participants’ needs and allowed them to decide what informed its development. Credentialed librarians’ knowledge of the challenges that indigenous uncredentialed library staff members might face helped to provide clear insights into the required localizing adaptations needed. Nelson & Parchoma’s (2018) postulate that when designing online programs for indigenous learners, not only do you need to meet the international standards of learning, but you also need to consider the participant’s local knowledge and experiences. They state that these items are of utmost importance for a people who have never been exposed to an academic environment, and whose points of view have been deemed irrelevant.
In Boer & Asino’s (2018) study of Namibian school teachers using cultural norms to develop online communities of practice environments, we see culture as an obstacle as well. In Namibian common culture, the concept a headsman that leads a meeting and facilitates communal agreements widely practised. Because of this, the participants in the study were largely inactive on the forum created for them and often displayed behaviors of hesitation. When asked why, a representative response was that they shouldn’t take the lead in the presence of the principal or instructor and felt they had to wait for them to take the lead. Teachers also said that their poor computer literacy skills were the reason for not being able to grasp added software functionalities. Boer & Asino’s (2018) concluded that, “More emphasis should be placed on deeply understanding the impact of cultural norms in decision making regarding digital tools.”
While the above referenced studies showed how technology use was hindered by cultural norms, Ioannou & Constantinou (2018) show how technology can be used to bring people closer together. In their study, students were presented with socially based problems, using a tabletop device, where they had to assume either the role of a victim or an observer of an unexpected event or uncomfortable feeling they were viewing. They were then asked to use personal experience along with the concepts learned in their socio-emotional education course to suggest solutions to social problems. During the 4-week study, children showed significant gains in their social perspective taking abilities.
In a world where technology is rapidly changing, we, the WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic) we, need to consider those cultures that are different than our own. Like the bold D4LS Project at New Zealand’s Otago Polytechnic, as described by Goode et al. (2018), we need to be “consciously designing for learning at both the programme development stage and at the course development stage” in a way that is multi-culturally salient. And while their blended learning style can create uncertainty and trepidation in staff members, expectations around online course development needs to be rethought. Only then can we make significant strides toward student-centered rather than score-centered learning pathways.
References
Benson, A. D. (2018). A typology for conducting research in culture, learning and technology. TechTrends, 62(4), 329–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0267-8
Boer, P. J., & Asino, T. I. (2018). Kopano Virtual Forum: Using cultural norms to develop online communities of Practice Environments. TechTrends, 62(4), 364–374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0287-4
Dennen, V. P., & Bong, J. (2018). Cross-cultural dialogues in an open online course: Navigating national and organizational cultural differences. TechTrends, 62(4), 383–392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0276-7
Goode, C. A., Hegarty, B., & Levy, C. (2018). Collaborative curriculum design and the impact on organisational culture. TechTrends, 62(4), 393–402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0268-7
Nelson, D., & Parchoma, G. (2018). Indigenizing curriculum development and online course design: A caribbean study. TechTrends, 62(4), 375–382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0272-y
Sulecio de Alvarez, M., & Dickson-Deane, C. (2018). Avoiding educational technology pitfalls for inclusion and equity. TechTrends, 62(4), 345–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0270-0
Assignment Grade: 49/50
