{"id":3284,"date":"2020-10-05T09:00:29","date_gmt":"2020-10-05T16:00:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.oregonstate.edu\/inspire\/?p=3284"},"modified":"2021-02-19T15:11:50","modified_gmt":"2021-02-19T23:11:50","slug":"creating-a-culturally-inclusive-online-classroom","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.oregonstate.edu\/inspire\/2020\/10\/05\/creating-a-culturally-inclusive-online-classroom\/","title":{"rendered":"Creating a Culturally Inclusive Online Classroom"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Christine Scott and Elisabeth McBrien<\/p>\n

In recent years, there has been an increasing focus on how cultural background has a deep impact on overall classroom experience. This is true in the physical classroom, and it is no less true online. Cultural experiences not only affect how students navigate meaning in learning contexts, but these experiences also play a role in motivation and satisfaction in a course.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Various comparative studies in the larger educational context have demonstrated the need for consideration of cultural differences in the delivery and design of instruction in the physical classroom. Likewise, in order to improve learner experience for diverse student groups in the online environment, it is important to examine the unique landscape of the virtual classroom.<\/span><\/p>\n

Communication Frameworks<\/span><\/h2>\n

Frameworks for understanding various cultures, such as Hofstede\u2019s Cultural Dimensions, are frequently relied upon for increasing cultural competence in the workplace or classroom. One particularly relevant type of cultural difference framework is referred to as \u201cHigh-Context\u201d \u201cLow-Context\u201d (Hall, 1976). In high-context cultures, people rely on nonverbal cues as well relationship building as the backdrop for information exchange (Bai, 2016). In low-context cultures, however, information exchange matters more than relationship building, and nonverbal cues as well as social hierarchy can largely be ignored. Low-context communication is expected to be explicit and highly verbal. Context such as body language and facial expressions are nice in a low-context environment, but they are not a required element of communication and not necessary for receiving the full intended message, as they might be in a high-context culture. Furthermore, expressing personal views in a low-context culture is expected and does not automatically threaten one\u2019s relationships with friends or colleagues who might hold differing opinions.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cIn high-context culture, people tend to personalize their disagreement with others. To show one\u2019s disagreement and anger in public is tantamount to admitting loss of control and face, because what is being said is taken personally which may have an influence on interpersonal relationships. Therefore, they will keep their emotions inside or just remain silent to avoid trouble. In this way, they can maintain social harmony and intimate bonds with each other. In the eyes of people from low-context culture, this kind of repression is totally unreasonable. Everyone has their own rights to express opinions, and this explicit criticism has nothing to do with their interpersonal relationships\u201d (p. 22, <\/span>Bai<\/span><\/a>, 2016).<\/span><\/p>\n

Because communication norms can be so distinct between cultures, consider their impact on the learning environment. For example, in the physical classroom, communication and meaning rely on multiple forms of interaction. While some communication relies on written language in a face-to-face class, the majority of exchanges are driven by speech. Participants have multiple strategies at their disposal: verbal feedback, social cues, confirmation checks, body language, and even the physical arrangement of the classroom itself. Instructors can have students work in pairs or groups, sit in a circle or rows, and so on. All of these forms of input combined with students\u2019 background knowledge about how various classroom configurations function help students negotiate meaning.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

However, in the asynchronous online classroom, the majority of communication relies on written language. Instructors typically use tools within the learning management system (LMS) to provide written feedback and grading. Student interactions take place via discussion forums, blogs, structured peer-review assignments, and other text-driven means of communication. While text-based communication has some advantages for English language learners (ELL)\u00a0 in particular (e.g. opportunities for revision and low-stakes rehearsal), written language is open to interpretation and lacks the visual and physical cues of verbal language. This can be tricky for learners from high-context cultures where communication relies heavily on implicit and contextual cues, such as body language and tone of voice. In fact, one study found that learners from these language and cultural backgrounds tend to misinterpret intent or look for hidden meaning in instructor feedback and discussion posts (Hyland, 2013).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

All this is to say, which student would be most comfortable in a setting where nearly all non-verbal cues are absent, direct text-based information is exchanged, and disagreement among peers is encouraged? Students from low-context cultures may feel at home in this environment, but students from the high-context cultures may feel they – as well as the instructor – are regularly violating norms and expectations. This is important for faculty to understand because it affects whether students see themselves and others as active participants who contribute in a meaningful way, which has a direct impact on the learning community in the course.<\/span><\/p>\n

Tips for Cultural Inclusivity<\/span><\/h2>\n