(the author’s name)
(the institutional affiliation)
Summary
Distance education in higher learning institutions requires analysis from an equity perspective since the low-context online learning can lead to difficulties for high-context learners.
The first section of the article reveals a framework for high- and low-context cultures which relies on cross-cultural communication. A lack of nonverbal communication characteristic of the low-context system can translate into cultural clashes in the educational environment.
In the next section, the explorer states dimensions typical of high-context cultures and centers on regulating the group’s harmony via nonverbal means in collectivistic communication. A demand for openness and trust in written discussions can be rejected by high-context cultures.
Literature review on context and distance education is established in another section of the article. The author analyzes social presence and culture to bring forth the importance of interactivity among high-context students. As regards equality and culture, anonymity of online communication enables minority students to be actively involved in online learning.
The last section focuses on implications for online instruction in Christian institutions of higher education. Educators’ cultural expectations allow creating the ecosystem of learning and maintaining social support systems. The efficient use of low-context media and creation of new contexts via online education can help students overcome cultural barriers.
Overall, the article presents considerations about contexts of online learning and focuses on explaining difficulties which learners come across in distance education.
Discussion
The article about global contexts for learning promotes the idea that the online platform benefits students presenting different cultures and races since it relies on writing-based conversations. Although Westbrook presents a comprehensive review of high- and low-context cultures, his analysis still requires further investigation into the topic of context.
The strengths of the article embrace comparison of high- and low-context systems and their contribution to learners’ conduct in an online environment. Moreover, an explicit theoretical framework allows explicating relationships between online learning and types of learners, which emphasize culturally-based impressions as a reason for educational barriers. Additionally, the researcher characterizes six dimensions of culture originally proposed by Hofstede (Westbrook, 2014, pp. 283-284) as the basis of different context cultures.
As regards weaknesses of the article, more extensive review is required as it is insufficient only to juxtapose several articles depicting the two types of context. It means other evidence may show contradictory results and the author acknowledges incongruity in findings about cultural dimensions and software interface usability. In addition, only two studies of American universities are analyzed to find a correlation between equality and culture. More research could have presented more findings on context and online learning. Finally, the best part of the article shows differentiating high- and low-context cultures, while the last section posits implications for Christian institutions of higher education. There is no evident explanation for the choice of the type of establishment to present implications other than the title of the journal.
An interesting point for discussion relates to peculiarities of the high-context system with regard to distance education. The characteristics highlight students’ cross-cultural communication on campus, which mainly requires teachers’ social support.
The high-context system emphasizes verbal and nonverbal communication guided by an awareness of cultural norms. In this respect, the system may sustain justice in the social system due to reliance on the public participation. Alternatively, nonverbal communication is not characteristic of the low-context system, which can produce manipulation. Furthermore, verbal and nonverbal communication leads to individual successes because interactivity among high-context students presents indirect communication and visual anonymity. Still, learners can fail online courses if they are dependent on society’s participation for the most part.
With reference to online education, the author reveals some domains inherent to the high-context system. According to Westbrook (2014), the collectivist culture allows students to restate almost identical themes rather than propose unique insights (p. 284). Also, uncertainty avoidance correlates with perceiving types of instruction: teachers’ clear directives or the choice of flexible assignments. In addition, the cultural variable applies to challenges students experience when they try to find a balance between restrictions and permissions on campus. These aspects stress the idea that high-context learners require teachers’ assistance in overcoming their struggles. In turn, teachers must choose forms of contact to improve communication in the classroom, create new contexts via online education to eliminate the Western-oriented cultural bias, and enhance critical thinking to interpret the world.
References
Alternative Approaches for Studying
1
1
and Barry J. Fishman
and Barry J. Fishman
arge-Scale Science Education Intervention Research We Can Use
Large-Scale Science Education Intervention Research We Can Use
Westbrook, T. P. (2014). Global contexts for learning: Exploring the relationship between low-context online learning and high-context learners. Christian Higher Education, 13(4), 281-294. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15363759.2014.924888
William R. Penuel
William R.
Mumtaz, S. (2000). Factors affecting teachers’ use of information and communications technology: a review of the literature. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 9(3), 319-342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14759390000200096
Penuel
