A Cross—Culture Perspective on Teaching

开篇：润墨网以专业的文秘视角，为您筛选了一篇A Cross—Culture Perspective on Teaching范文，如需获取更多写作素材，在线客服老师一对一协助。欢迎您的阅读与分享！

Abstract：During the past decades，educators have been searching the effective approaches to improve their teaching by looking towards the Western counties.Interestingly，many of their Western counterparts are also looking towards the East for similar inspiration.The main purpose of this research is to avoid danger of direct transplant of certain approaches by comparing societal cultural background which affects teaching and learning.

Key words：cross-culture；perspective；teaching

中图分类号：G640 文献标志码：A 文章编号：1674-9324（2013）15-0182-05

Introduction：

There are countless researches dealing with teaching approaches and cultures of the East and West separately. Unfortunately，studies concerning cross-culture perspective on teaching and learning are inadequate.At the IT age， learning is global wide.People are traveling and learning from each other.This does not mean one can simply transplant the ideas，policies and practices from one system to another.

The desire to develop the economy and society has forced a realization that China’s futures increasingly depend on workforces with skills based on technology，information and creativity，skills and abilities which have not been sufficiently emphasized in the past.Western counties，on the other hand，are increasingly concerned about the continued failure of their Asian counterparts on the international tests.As each looks towards the other，the likehood that comparisons might be ill-informed and superficial，failing to appreciate deep-seated cultural differences and to contextualize each country’s practices within its unique culture，is very real.This paper begins by noting some of Hofstede’s conclusions in relation to teaching and learning in different cultures. It then moves on to look at other research evidence relating to cross-cultural differences as they affect teaching and learning.

1 Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions and their Implications for Teaching and Learning

Hofstede’s （1980，1991）concludes five cultural dimensions in his research. According to his first dimension—power distance （PD）—most Asian societies are high. That is they have an unequal distribution of power，most of which is concentrated in the hands of few. Inequalities of power distribution are expected and accepted in the family，in school and in the workplace. Thus in the home，children are educated towards obedience to parents，whose authority is rarely questioned.In school，teachers are respected，learning is conceived as passed on by the wisdom of the teacher and teacher-centred methods tend to be employed.By contrast， families in low PD societies encourage children to have a will of their own and to treat parents as equals.In school，more student-centred methods are used.teachers enjoy less respect and learning is viewed as impersonalized truth.

According to Hofstede’s second dimension—individualism-collectivism.Most Western societies are individualist whereas most Asian societies are collectivist.In individualist societies，people are driven by an ‘I’consciousness and obligations to the self，including self-interest，self-actualization and self-guilt. In the school，emphasis is placed on permanent education and learning how to learn.Thus lifelong learning fits the individualist culture.In collectivist societies，by contrast，family members are brought up with a ‘we’consciousness，opinions are predetermined by the group，and strong obligations to the family emphasize harmony，respect and shame. At school，learning is viewed as an activity primarily for the young （hence lifelong learning is not valued），and focuses on how to do things and on factual knowledge.

On Hofstede’s third dimension-masculinity—femininity -there is much less of a divide between Western and Asian societies.Most Asian and Anglo-American society veer towards the masculine end of the spectrum.In more masculine or competitive societies，family values stress achievement， competition and resolution of conflict by power and assertiveness；at school，norms are set by the best students，the system rewards academic achievement and failure at school is seen as serious；By contrast，in feminine societies the family places emphasis on relationship，solidarity and resolution of conflicts by compromise and negotiation；at school，norms tend to be set by the average students，system rewards reflect students’social adaptation and failure at school is taken as merely unfortunate.

In the case of Hofstede’s fourth dimension-uncertainty avoidance（UA）-most Asian and Western societies rank low. The validity of this dimension for education is questionable. By the nature of their task，schools are organizations where abundant rules and regulations are necessary，a generic characteristic which seems to cut across even the sharpest of differences in societal culture.This presents a contradiction： schools displaying characteristics of high uncertainty in societies may be classified as low uncertainty.

Finally，in the case of the fifth dimension-long-term short-term-Chinese societies rank extremely high on long-term orientation compared with Anglo-American societies.It can be posited that cultures with a long-term orientation are more conducive to academic achievement， since students are more likely to forego short term pleasure and gains for the benefits that eventually follow from study.

In spite of the acknowledged shortcomings of Hofstede’s work. it has highlighted significant differences between societies in their attitudes towards education.Although some of these differences are measured by degrees，they are still noteworthy. Cultural connections between the family，home and workplace are central to Hofstede’s argument，and this seems an important feature. For example，in small power distance societies，such as the USA，UK and Australia，children are brought up to have a will of their own and parents are accorded less respect；this lack of respect is repeated for teachers in schools，and as a reflection of the culture，student-centred methods are more prominent By contrast，in large power distance societies，such as those of East Asia，children are educated towards obedience to parents，who are treated as superiors；this spills over into school，where teachers are accorded more respect，teacher-centred method prevail，and the teachers’role is to pass on their knowledge to the young.

While the above analysis may still hold in general，societal cultures are dynamic，fluid and changing.For example， many of the Asian culture are increasingly permeated by elements of Western culture，brought about by the electronic media，education and increased travel opportunities.Visitors to schools in China，for example，might be surprised by the unruly behavior of many children and the lack of respect for teachers，especially in those schools whose intakes are of lower ability.Moreover，generational gaps are increasingly conspicuous；the older members of Chinese society are staunchly Confucian in their values and customs，while the younger generation are a complex mix of traditional Chinese and more recently grafted Western culture. Another reason is the‘one family one child’policy，the only child easily becomes centre of the family and is treated dearly by his/her parents and grandparents.Consequently value of self-interest and self-actualization is developed.

In the West，too，societal cultures are becoming more difficult to distinguish，as the USA，UK and Australia become even more multicultural than they have been hitherto. In these latter counties，multiculturalism enters the school and classroom，presenting principals and teachers with difficult challenges.

2 Cross-cultural Differences and Teaching：Research Evidence

Recent research has begun to challenge the stereotypical image Westerners have of Asian teachers and students （Biggs，1994；Stevenson and Stigler，1992）.Major differences between teachers in America and China have been explicated by Stevenson and Stigler （1992），who conducted research in scores of elementary classrooms in these countries from 1980 on wards.It is necessary to point out that their research applies only to primary school，and that there are major differences within and between Asian and Western countries. Below is a summary of their conclusions：

（1）Asian teachers have significantly fewer class contact hours than their Western counterparts.In Japan and Taiwan， teachers teach about 60 per cent of the lesson time. In China，a teacher might only teach three or four hours each day. This allows them to plan lessons more carefully，spend more time seeing students who need help，and to discuss teaching technique with their colleagues.This is not the practice，however，throughout Asia；Hong Kong teachers have class contact hours similar to Western teachers，often amounting to 90 per cent of the lesson time.

（2）Asian teachers spend more time working together and helping each other design lessons.This is facilitated by firstly，the existence of a material at about the same time，and secondly，their close proximity in the same work room.America teacher，by contract，lack the time and incentive to engage in such collaboration；they are often following different curricula，they lack the preparation time and their work rooms are often spread out across the school.

（3）Asian teachers come closer to practicing the principle of informed teaching than do their American counterparts.In general，they are well informed and well prepared，guiding their students through the material.Lessons are clearly structured：each lesson starts with a purpose and finishes with a summary.During the lesson，there is interaction and discussion and students are active participants in problem solving.

（4）The technical superiority of Asian teachers is one factor in explaining why Asian students concentrate and pay attention for an average of 80 per cent of the time in class compared to American students’60 per cent. A further reason is that the school day in Asia tends to be punctuated by shorter but more frequent rest and recreation periods，thus students do not have to study for such long continuous periods as in the West.

（5）Asian teachers are observed to give far more corrective feedback than their American counterparts and this serves to motivate the students.In addition，Asian teachers are more inclined to make use of concrete objects and other devices that children find enhance their learning.

（6）Asian teachers are more likely to make subjects more relevant and interesting by relating material to be learned to the children’s everyday lives. In mathematics，word problems often serve this function，turning the lesson into an active problem-solving exercise.

（7）When Beijing teachers were asked to rank the most important attributes of good teaching，they ranked ‘clarity’first，whereas Chicago teachers ranked in first place ‘sensitivity to the needs of individuals’.Beijing teachers ranked ‘enthusiasm’second，while Chicago teachers chose‘patience’. These results suggest that American teachers see their main role as catering to the needs of individual children at the expense of whole class teaching，while Asian teachers devote their attention to the principle and processes of whole class teaching，while still acknowledging the needs of individual children.

（8）Asian teachers tend to stick to the well-known principles of teaching，and have more time and energy to apply them.They incorporate a variety of teaching techniques into a lesson，rely more frequently on discussions rather than lectures，achieve smooth transitions from one activity to another and spend more time on task.

Many of these conclusions sit uncomfortably with the cherished beliefs and stereotypes held by Western educators about Asian education.They also pose challenges for comparisons between East and West. On the surface，there seem to be many contradictions between what we see and believe，and what results and outcomes appear to be indicating. A valid explanation of reality may therefore be much more complex than we have hitherto been willing to acknowledge or accept. In mounting such a complex explanation，it is instructive to turn to the work of Biggs （1994）.

The core problem is summarized by Bigg （1994）as follows：there is a high degree of consensus about what constitutes conditions for good teaching and learning （indeed，this is one of the main themes of this present book）；yet，if these condition were to apply in Asian contexts such as Hong Kong，the results would be poor.However，as we know，students from Confucian-heritage culture （CHC）outshine other students on international tests.How，then，to explain this paradox？

Biggs （1994）begins his answer by laying out the conditions for successful learning and teaching which have emanated from Western research：

teaching methods are varied，emphasizing student activity，self regulation，student-centredness，cooperative and group work，with minimal expository teaching；

content is presented in a meaningful context using concepts and familiar examples；

classes are small，a desirable but not sufficient condition for more teacher-student interaction；

classroom climate is warm，firm and structured，but not authoritarian；

assessment addresses high cognitive level outcomes and is nonthreatening，unlike public examinations.

These conditions，it must be remembered are based on Western research findings. How well do they apply to Asian classrooms？

First，most class sizes in Asia are far larger than Western research advises or contemplates.In China，classes rise to 60 or even 70 students.In Hong Kong and elsewhere in East Asia，classes of 40 or 45 are quite commonplace.However，it is not class size that really matters；more important is teacher-student interaction. Second，teachers appear to rely heavily on teacher-centred，expository，authoritarian methods，but again，as we shall see，and as Stevenson and Stigler’s work （ 1992 ）confirms，this is a somewhat misleading picture. Third，East Asian schools，students and parents place inordinately high stress on public examinations，leading many Westerners to suppose that high-level cognitive outcomes cannot be attained.Again，this may be masking the reality.

The Western perception of the Asian student as a rote learner，passive，compliant，failing to speak up，adopting unquestioning attitudes towards their teachers，is well documented.Yet against all of this，their superior performance on international tests，plus the evidence from a number of other studies，reveals that Asian students report a stronger preference for high-level，deep learning strategies than do Western students （Watkins and Biggs，1996）.This leads Biggs （ 1994：26）to assert：

The central paradox is that highly adaptive modes of learning emerge from CHC classrooms，and this does need explaining.Large classes，exam pressure，expository teaching…do not sound like good news…But these feature…are reliably associated with high level outcomes.

How then to explain the high performance？Biggs（1994）constructs his explanation around the following themes：repetitive learning，learning environments，teaching methods and teacher-student relation，and the relationship between school and society.Elaboration on each of these is worthwhile.

2.1 Repetitive learning

Biggs argues that rote learning for students in Confucian-heritage cultures is a form of surface learning which affords economy in achieving examination success.Repetitive learning，on the other hand，is to be contrasted with rote learning，since it is a form of deep learning which enables‘deep-memorization’，itself an aid to understanding and a base for higher level cognitive skills.The Chinese student is inclined towards this form of learning，given the thousands of characters in the Chinese language which have to be mastered. Biggs’s point is that the Chinese student is adept at using and distinguishing between both forms of learning—rote and repetitive—as the situation demands.Rote learning is an efficient means of surface learning for examination success；repetitive learning is a necessary step towards memorization of information，leading to deeper understanding and higher-level cognitive skills.Such distinctions are not as clearly recognized in the West.

2.2 Learning environments

Major differences are noted between Chinese and Western learning environments，well illustrated by examples drawn from music and arts.There are two principal differences. First，Chinese teachers believe that learning is an imitational skill and the task of the teacher is to guide and‘hold the student’s hand’through each stage in order to render a successful performance.Western teachers are more concerned with process than product；exploring and creating are seen as more important than attaining particular skills in order to render a superb performance.Second，the two cultures tend to differ in the sequence of learning.The Chinese believe in mastering the skills first，then applying them in practice；Western teachers encourage exploration first，and then subsequently the development of skills.

2.3 Teaching methods and teacher-student relations

Stigler and Stevenson（1991）highlight the Western misperception of the Asian teacher as an authoritarian transmitter of information and the students as just memorizer. Indeed，they use the term‘constructivist’to describe the hundreds of teachers they observed in China. While the teachers were‘authoritarian’in the sense of insisting on the ‘one right way’and on close supervision，theirs was a far more subtle form of authoritarianism than is normally conceived in the West.

In regard to teacher-student relations，the Western observer tends to focus on the hierarchical ambience，but misses the otherwise warm，caring nature of the interactions.In other words，there are two dimension：hierarchy is evident，but this does not mean the teachers are aloof and cold towards their charges.Stevenson and Stigler（1992）found that despite class sizes of fifty or more，Chinese teachers found more time to interact one-to-one when walking round the class than do their Western countparts，who tend to rely on lower-order questions to the whole class.Lighter teaching loads also enable the Chinese teachers to be better prepared and to assist students out of class time.

All of this leads Biggs to conclude that large classes， authoritarianism and exam pressure exist，but the teacher in Confucian-heritage societies has developed culturally adaptable ways teaching to circumvent what is regarded in the West as unfavorable conditions. In their own way，they integrate hierarchy with warmth and care；they blend whole-class teaching with student-centredness and group work；they develop a functional mentor-men tee joint responsibility for learning；they push for high-cognitive level outcome；and they plan and cooperate with their colleagues as part of a professional community.

2.4 The relationship between school and society

The final part of the answer to the paradox concerns the harmony between school and society.Hess and Azuma （1991）use the term‘predisposition to learn’to describe Japan children，who are socialized to be obedient，to conform and to persist，all characteristics which schools over the world try to instil in their pupils.There is thus a reinforcing and compatibility effect between home and school. Students are predisposed to accept the conditions for learning in school before they even arrive.This is the case too with the other Confucian-heritage societies，although in Westernized Hong Kong there are semblances of change taking place.In the West，children are often brought up to be assertive，independent，curious and exploratory.They are socialized one way out of school，and another way inside school.Classroom conditions need to be constantly exciting and stimulating，and elaborate system of positive and negative reinforcement are needed，to hold their attention.

As we have seen earlier，Chinese students are motivated in different ways from their Western counterparts.For Chinese students，success is bound up with family and social status； it is more than just individual achievement.This places even more pressure on them to succeed.This leads the CHC student to try harder when faced with failure，while the Western student is more inclined to give up，believing that lack of ability cannot be compensated for.

Two other consequences follow from the effort attribution.First，Asian teachers and students tend to be more task-oriented and to spend more time on tasks-in both class work and homework-than their Western counterparts. Second，as part of their effort strategy，Asian students become adept at cue-seeking，especially in regard to assessment. They work out what is required in order to meet their teachers’expectations. Finally，they are predisposed to collaborate with each other in order to overcome unfamiliar situations.

2.5 Conclusion from research on culture and teaching and learning

Where Asian students are predisposed to being taught， the features of schools in the West which are associated with poor outcomes-large class sizes，low expenditure，expository teaching，emphasis on formal examinations-are of reduced importance.In other words，cultural adaptive and sensitive practices compensate for these otherwise adverse features. Equally，many of the positive features of schooling in the West，which on the surface do not appear to exist in the CHC schools，have in fact been adapted in some culturally equivalent form.

The moral，according to Biggs （1994），is that cultures are systems.This means that it is of little use looking at specific practices or features and trying to identify their presence in another culture.If certain Western features do not seem to be present in Asian settings，it might be that they exist in a disguised or different form，or that they are compensated for by another set of factors.The dynamic interplay between all of the parts，not the presence of any one part，is what makes it all work.In short，culture provides the context within which the parts interact.

There is little doubt that many Asian culture achieve harmony between the school and home environments to a degree that the West should envy. Some of the CHCs have achieved other commendable features，such as decreased teaching loads allowing for better quality preparation；informed teaching practices，such as more wait time and more individual attention within whole-class teaching；more peer interaction and a belief in greater effort when faced with failure. None of these on their own makes a significant difference. Rather，it is the harmony achieved between teaching and learning in the CHC cultures and between the school and society，which matters.

Conclusion：

The research has been conducted by explaining Hofstede’s five cultural dimensions existing in Confucian-heritage and Western societies.Moving from the broad to the particular.Issues relating to teaching and learning are compared within a cross cultural context.

It is noteworthy that Western and Asian systems are currently displaying reciprocal interest in each other’s policies and practices. What transpires is that systems of teaching and learning evolve in ways reflective of cultural norms. If these cultural norms are not well understood，then ill-informed and misleading pronouncements can easily be made， since observers are inclined to make judgements according to their own cultural reference points.

A range of teaching and learning approaches and practices should be applied in the pursuit of successful learning. In reality each society，in response to its own norms and values and to solving its particular conditions for learning，has evolved and shaped a unique combination of elements which go together to make a system of teaching and learning. Thus， taking a single element on its own，rather than looking at the system as a whole，tends to give a distorted picture.

References：

[1]Bechtol，W.M.and Sorenson，J.S.（1993）Restructuring Schooling for Individual Students，Needham Heights，MA：Allyn and Bacon.

[2]Hua，K.T.and Salili，F（1991）‘Structure and semantic differential placement of specific causes：academic causal attributions by Chinese students in Hong Kong’，International Journal of Psychology 26：175-93

[3]Stigler，J.W.and Stevenson，H.W.（1991）‘How Asian teachers polish each other to perfection’，American Education 15 （1）：12-21，43-7.

[4]Watkins，D.A.and Biggs，J.B.（ed）（1996）The Chinese Learner：cultural，Psychological and Contextual Influences，Hong Kong：Comparative Education Research Centre，University of Hong Kong.