Cultural Differences in Education
In line with the increasing diversity in educational settings around the world, the study of culture has been espoused as increasingly essential (McInerney & King, 2018). The United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) emphasizes cultural diversity and the need for reflecting it in the educational policy below:
Education should celebrate cultural diversity. Enhanced diversity in education can improve the quality of education by introducing both educators and learners to the diversity of perspectives and the variety of lived worlds. The cultural dimension of education must be stressed… (UNESCO, 2015, p. 67).
Culture shapes students’ learning beliefs (McInerney & King, 2018). McInerney and King (2018) have further emphasized that we need a psychological theory that focuses on both cross-cultural similarities as well as cross-cultural differences, as the majority of the research studies in this area focus on cross-cultural similarities and neglect cross-cultural differences. Dramatic differences in individuals’ learning have been found between Eastern and Western cultures (Herrman et al., 2011; Oettingen,1995; Steel et al., 2014; Trommsdorff, 2009).
Thus, most would agree that culture and education are inseparable and that an understanding of culture is essential. However, the definition of culture remains complicated and varied. Trumbull and Rothstein-Fisch (2011) mention, “Nearly everyone believes it [culture] exists, but few can agree on exactly what it is.” (p. 26). Similarly, King and McInerney (2016) stated, “Numerous scholars have defined culture in different ways” (p. 276). Taras et al. (2016) specify how the definition of culture can be ambiguous in the literature. Taras and his colleagues further mention that 164 different definitions of culture were found by Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952). Thus, researchers have noted the vague and non-universal definition of culture due to its complexity. As a result, different cultural models have been introduced in the literature. For the purposes of the present study, culture will be conceptualized from a subjective perspective that includes values, traditions, and beliefs that mediate the behavior of a particular group (McInerney, 2011; as cited in McInerney & King, 2018).
Hofstede’s cultural model has been considered the most empirically impactful model for more than 40 years, and this cultural model was developed based on our traditional assumption that cultures reside within countries (Taras et al., 2016). That is why it is believed that many cross-cultural researchers equate country and culture because they believe that people’s nationality may act as proxies for their cultural values. The present study was grounded in Hofstede’s (1984) culture model, and it was presumed that Chinese students and American students are two different cultural groups. Hofstede’s dimensions have been used extensively in a variety of research studies (Zainuddin et al., 2018). Hofstede’s model consists of four dimensions that are used to identify what national culture is. Table 1 below summarizes Hofstede’s model from Zainuddin et al. (2018).
Since Hofstede's model has been more utilized in the business setting, there remains a paucity of research espousing whether the model has leverage in the educational environment. Previous research examined how this dichotomous dimension would play a role in self-efficacy (Mahat et al., 2014), self-regulation strategies (Leung et al., 2006; Wu et al., 2020), and resilience (Stutman et al., 2002). Further, prior research offers the dimensions of individualism and collectivism to explain individual learning differences. Specifically, self-efficacy (Mahat et al., 2014) and self-regulation strategies (Leung et al., 2006; Wu et al., 2020) were reported differently in collectivist and individualist cultures. Similarly, students from collectivistic cultures were also different in resilience than their counterparts from individualistic cultures (Stutman et al., 2002). Researchers presumed that this was due to the fact that students in collectivistic cultures care more about others’ opinions, expectations, and evaluations (Oettingen, 1995). Further they tend to focus more on obedience, correspondence of own profits with others, and collectivist goals (Camgoz et al., 2008). In contrast, students from more individualistic cultures emphasize the individual’s moral worth, independence, and self-reliance, and they focus on individual achievement precedence over social groups (Merriam & Mohamad, 2000; Wood, 1972). Thus, the present study used the individualism versus collectivism dimension of Hofstede’s model in the educational settings. Specifically, this chapter focused on students’ cross-cultural differences in self-efficacy, self-regulation, and resilience.
Typically, Western Europe, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand are considered to operate from a more individualistic perspective (Takano & Osaka, 2018). Whereas, South and South-East Asia,and Central Asia are considered to be more collectivistic (Beugelsdijk et al., 2017; Minkov et al., 2017; Welzel, 2013). The authors followed this distinction as a guild. Consequently, the present study compared American college learners who tend to be reflective of a more Western individualistic culture and Chinese college learners as representatives of Eastern collectivist culture.