Being aware of cultural differences and knowing how to deal with related differences is critical for the success of online learning and training that involves learners from multiple countries and cultures. This study examines the perceived differences of participants from two different cultures on (1) students' participation behaviors; (2) students' communication styles; and (3) the impact of cultural differences on their participation, communication, and learning in an online course. Results suggest that the two groups participated equally but communicated differently in asynchronous online discussions. In addition, the overall points gained by the two groups from their weekly online discussions differed significantly which may be a result of communication styles and participation behaviors. This study has implications for designing and implementing effective online learning environments in an increasingly globalized world of online learning for researchers, instructors, designers, and students.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AnagnostopoulosD.BasmadjianK.G., & McCroryR. S. (2005). The decentered teacher and the construction of social space in the virtual classroom. Teacher College Record, 107(8), 1699–1729.
BasharinaO. A. (2007). Activity theory perspective on student-reported tensions in international telecollaboration. Language Learning and Technology, 11(2), 82–103.
BloomB., & KrathwohlD. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, by a committee of college and university examiners, Handbook 1: Cognitive domain.New York: Longmans.
7.
CherryholmesC. H. (1992). Notes on pragmatism and scientific realism. Educational Researcher, 14, 13–17.
8.
CifuentesL., & ShihY. C. D. (2001). Teaching and learning online: A collaboration between U.S. and Taiwanese students. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33, 456–474.
9.
CreswellJ. W. (2009). Research design: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods approaches. Designing and conducting mixed methods research.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
DriscollM. P. (1994). Psychology of learning for instruction.Needham, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
11.
ErtmerP. A.RichardsonJ. C.BellandB.CaminD.ConnollyP.CoulthardG. (2007). Using peer feedback to enhance the quality of student online postings: An exploratory study. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(2), article 4. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue2/ertmer.html
GunawardenaC.WilsonP., & NollaA. (2003). Culture and online education. In MooreM. & AndersonW. (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 753–775). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14.
JohnsonR. K., & LeeP. L. M. (1987). Modes of instruction: Teaching strategies and student responses. In LordR. & ChengH. N. L. (Eds.), Language and education in Hong Kong (pp. 99–121). Hong Kong: The Chinese University.
15.
JohnsonR. B., & OnwuegbuzieA. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33, 14–26.
16.
KimK. J., & BonkC. J. (2002). Cross-cultural comparisons of online collaboration. Journal of computer-mediated communication, 8. Retrieved May 3, 2006, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol8/issue1/kimandbonk.html
17.
LaveJ., & WengerE. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity.Cambridge: Cambridge University.
LiangA., & McQueenR. J. (1999). Computer assisted adult learning in a multi-cultural environment. Adult Learning, 11, 26–29.
20.
NeuliepJ. W. (2003). Intercultural communication: A contextual approach (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
21.
NgE., & DetenberB. (2005). The impact of synchronicity and civility in online political discussions on perceptions and intentions to participate. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(3). Retrieved September 4, 2007, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue3/ng.html
22.
PaganL. (2005). Teaching for diversity and globalization in online and web-based learning environments. Retrieved July 20, 2008, from http://www.formatex.org/micte2005/225.pdf
23.
PanyametheekulS., & HerringS. C. (2003). Gender and turn allocation in a Thai chat room. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 9(1). Retrieved October 6, 2007, from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol9/issue1/panya_herring.html
24.
PattonM. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
RamirezM., & Price-WilliamsD. R. (1974). Cognitive styles of children of three ethnic groups in the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 5, 212–219.
27.
ReederK.MacfadyenL. P.RocheJ., & ChaseM. (2004). Negotiating cultures in cyberspace: Participation patterns and problematics. Language Learning & Technology, 8(2), 88–105.
28.
ShihY. D., & CifuentesL. (2003). Taiwanese intercultural phenomena and issues in a United States-Taiwan telecommunications partnership. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(3), 82–90.
29.
St.AmantK. (2007). Online education in an age of globalization: Foundational perspectives and practices for technical communication instructors and trainers. Technical Communication Quarterly, 16(1), 13–30.
30.
TuC. H. (2001). How Chinese perceive social presence: An examination of interaction in online learning environment. Education Media International, 38, 45–60.
31.
VygotskyL. (1986). Thought and language.Cambridge: MIT Press.
32.
WertschJ. V. (1995). The need for action in sociocultural research. In WertschJ.Del RioP., & AlvarezA. (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 56–74). New York: Cambridge University.
33.
YangD.OlesovaL., & RichardsonJ. C. (2008). The impact of cross-cultural differences on learner participation and communication in asynchronous discussions. In McFerrinK. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp. 825–829). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
