Defining Culture-Bound User Characteristics as a Starting-Point
for the Design of Adaptive Learning Systems
Elisabeth Kamentz
(University of Hildesheim, Germany
ekam0028@rz.uni-hildesheim.de)
Christa Womser-Hacker
(University of Hildesheim, Germany
womser@rz.uni-hildesheim.de)
Abstract: In our study we set the goal to consider culture as
a crucial factor of learning system design. This culture oriented approach
is put in concrete terms by comparing US-American and German learning programs
on four different levels: layout, interaction and navigation, presentation
of content, and the didactic approach. The results of a questioning on
culturally specific approaches to computers complete this investigation.
Keywords: academic style, adaptivity, cultural dimensions, discourse
structures, evaluation, HCI-usability, learning style, learning software,
user modeling
Categories: K.3.1, H.5.4
1 Introduction
In developing multimedia learning systems questions concerning content
and functionality of these applications are given priority. However, even
the integration of HCI - design guidelines will not be sufficient as the
adequacy of the didactic concept plays an important role in the context
of learning.
The development of educational multimedia systems for an international
audience requires the consideration of additional questions concerning
culturally specific design elements. In order to meet the individual preferences
of users from various cultures we take into account culture-bound differences
in learning behavior, the concept of interactive learning systems (i.e.
in the areas of layout, navigation or teaching method) as well as the characteristics
of intellectual styles and discourse structures. These two factors influence
the learning style and the design preferences of an individual user and
therefore have an impact on the effectiveness of the learning process.
This hypothesis sets a starting-point for our research.
The study described in this paper forms a basis for the concept and
realization of a user modeling component to be integrated in a learning
environment developed at the University of Hildesheim in the SELIM project
(Software Ergonomics for Learning Systems In Multimedia Context). The aim
of our work is to add adaptation functions that would enable the system
to meet the individual needs of learners from different cultures [Kamentz&Schudnagis,
02].
2 Conceptual background
2.1 Adaptivity of hypermedia learning systems
Adaptation techniques in hypermedia learning systems are implemented
by using a learner modeling component. Its function is to enable the system
to adapt its performance to the characteristics of the user such as level
of knowledge, interests, preferences, or goals by means of continuous monitoring
of his/ her interaction behavior [Kobsa&Wahlster,
89]. Among the relevant user actions that can be recorded are the selection
of a link, the navigation sequence, scrolling, page viewing time, or bookmarking.
The user modeling component can support system adaptation basically
on two different levels: flexible presentation of the page content (content-level-adaptation),
and adaptive navigation support (link-level-adaptation) [Brusilovsky,
98]. Research in the field of user modeling has focused primarily on
implementing adaptation concepts that allow adaptation to user's knowledge
and learning goals. In view of today's global and (consequently) cross-cultural
communication opportunities there is a need of adapting the layout and
the performance of interactive learning systems to the layout preferences,
thinking patterns and learning styles of students from different cultural
backgrounds.
2.2 Cultural differences in academic style and
learning strategy
The area of cultural anthropology comprises a very broad field of research.
In the context of educational hypermedia design not only those general
cultural values are relevant, that are described in the various models
of culture [Hofstede, 93; Trompenaars,
93; Hall&Hall 90]. Aspects of culture which
are placed even deeper below the surface such as differences in academic
styles (especially with regard to discourse structures) or the characteristics
of learning situations, need to be considered as well.
Based on his analysis of culture-bound variables in the area of science
Galtung [Galtung, 81] contrasts four intellectual
styles as models of thought and behavior shown principally by intellectuals,
which also help to explain the different discourse structures dominant
in various cultures. He distinguishes between one oriental and three western
cultural areas characterized by relatively homogeneous methods of conveying
and presenting knowledge, for example regarding the structuring or sequencing
of information. According to his definition the following countries can
be classified as belonging to the four academic styles:
- "Saxonic Style": Countries of the Commonwealth, USA
- "Teutonic Style": German speaking countries, countries of
Eastern Europe, Russia
- "Gallic Style": France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, South America
- "Nipponic Style": Japan (having no periphery beyond itself)1
1Due to
ignorance Galtung excludes the Indic, Sinic and Arabic style out of this
classification and hopes for an extension of his exploration in these cultural
areas.
These four intellectual styles are characterized along four dimensions,
which are all present to some extent in every style category:
Paradigm analysis
Descriptions
Theory formation
Commentary on the work of other intellectuals
When composing teaching materials and developing learning software for
an international audience different writing conventions also need to be
observed. In the context of cross-cultural research on discourse structures
Clyne [Clyne, 94] compared English and German essay
writing. He defined several categories in which different composing rules
were particularly apparent. These include:
- Linearity vs. Digressiveness
- Form orientation vs. Content orientation
- Textual symmetry
- Data integration
- Use and presentation of definitions
- Use of advance organizers
Cultural variations in the areas of academic style in general and discourse
structures at a more specific level can be deduced from cultural value
systems such as those investigated by Hofstede [Hofstede,
93]. In particular three of his cultural dimensions may have influenced
the development of intellectual style profiles: individualism vs. collectivism,
power distance, and uncertainty avoidance. The following descriptions of
these categories focus on their impact in the area of instructional practice,
taking into account aspects such as teaching strategies or the relation
between teacher and student [Hofstede, 86].
1. Individualism vs. Collectivism
This value orientation focuses on the intensity of ties among individuals
in a society. Differences in the context of learning refer primarily to
the definition of a general learning goal. Students in individualist societies
expect to learn "how to learn", whereas collectivist learners
focus on learning "how to do". Another difference can be observed
in area of communication and debate. In collectivist societies students
will only speak up when asked personally by the teacher and usually agree
with collectively approved opinions, as formal harmony has to be maintained.
On the contrary, individualist learners will not be embarrassed to speak
up in class in response to a general invitation by the teacher, and to
express their personal views, as controversal discussions and pluralism
of opinions are fostered. According to Hofstede's analysis English-speaking
countries and the whole of Northern Europe rank high on individualism,
whereas most Asian, Middle Eastern, and Latin American cultures (with the
exception of Brazil) count as collectivist societies.
2. Power Distance
Power Distance measures the extent to which subordinates (employees,
students) accept inequality in power and authority distribution. In the
context of learning teachers in small power distance societies are in the
position of an expert ("primus inter pares"), who conveys impersonal
(neutral) "truth" and who expects his students to initiate communication.
In large power distance cultures teachers present knowledge as their personal
"wisdom". As an authority they are expected to outline learning
paths to follow. Small power distance can be found in cultures such as
Germany, USA, Canada or Scandinavian countries. France, Spain, Belgium,
Arab countries, most Latin American cultures (except for Argentina) and
East and Southeast Asia are found in the large power distance category.
3. Uncertainty Avoidance
Uncertainty Avoidance describes the extent to which individuals feel
threatened by uncertain or unknown situations. Cultures with a weak uncertainty
avoidance such as English-speaking and Southeast Asian countries are characterized
by acceptance of risks and ambiguous or new situations as a part of everyday
life. Transferred to the context of learning this attitude will make students
feel comfortable in unstructured (open-end) learning situations with vague
objectives and broad assignments. In societies with strong uncertainty
avoidance, i.e. Latin, Islamic, German-speaking, and some Asian cultures
students will prefer structured learning situations with precise objectives
and detailed assignments.
At this point it becomes necessary to analyse the impact of cultural
dimensions and the resulting characteristics of the respective academic
style on the design of learning programs. For instance, if one compares
the principles of behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism as the three
learning theories commonly applied in the field of learning software [Schulmeister,
97], an interesting analogy to the cultural dimensions of individulism
vs. collectivism and power distance can be identified. With the transition
from behaviorism to constructivism the focus continuously moves from teacher
(or system)-centered to student-centered learning. A similar transition
takes place when proceeding from a collectivist to an individualist orientation
and from large to small power distance. In collectivist societies and/
or in cultures with large power distance the teacher stands in a position
of authority and dominates the whole process of learning. In individualist
and/ or small power distance cultures the focus is placed on learner-centered
education. The individual student is granted more personal freedom and
control of the learning process. However, further investigation is required
on the question, whether a learning model corresponds with a particular
culture.
3 Goals of research and methodology
3.1 Goals of research
The primary goal of research in this part of the SELIM project is to
investigate the effects of cultural values in the areas of academic style
and learning on the design of learning programs from different cultures,
in particular concerning layout, navigation, content presentation and the
didactic approach.
The second goal of this study is to examine whether cultural value orientations
lead to differences in learning style and approach to computers. As a next
step we plan to set up culture dependent profiles of learning program design
principles based on the results of the research presented in this paper.
These profiles are supposed to form a starting-point for the concept of
an integrated user modeling component enabling the SELIM learning system
to adapt automatically to the characteristics of learners from different
cultures. The evaluation of the adaptive learning environment is supposed
to be performed within the evolutionary approach of a rapid prototyping
process which involves cross-cultural usability testing with students from
multiple cultures.
3.2 Methodology
3.2.1 Evaluation of learning programs from different cultures
The main method applied in this preliminary research is the evaluation
of learning software (i.e. learning programs on the internet and on CD-ROM)
from different cultures with regard to aspects such as layout, interaction
and navigation, content presentation and the didactic strategy. For this
purpose we developed a catalogue of over fifty criteria which can be classified
into the following categories:
- General information (e.g. culture of the author, topic, source of the
program)
- Layout (e.g. the use of colors, images, icons, symbols, types of media)
- Interaction and navigation (e.g. menu concept, use of navigation tools
such as list of contents, learning paths, browsing)
- Content (e.g. information structure, types of content such as explanations,
examples, case studies, rules, or strategies, combination and presentation
sequence)
- Didactics (e.g. learning objectives, feedback presentation, different
types of exercises)
3.2.2 Questioning on learning styles and approaches to computers
The second method applied in this study is a questioning of students
from different cultures on learning styles and their approaches toward
computers. The aim of the questioning is to complete and deepen the results
of the learning program evaluation. We believe that the cognitive styles,
i.e. thinking patterns, problem solving strategies, and learning behavior
develop not only on the basis of an individual's personal predisposition
but they also constitute the result of culture-bound influences.
The educational system which primarily determines the development of
certain problem solving and learning techniques can be regarded as a "product"
of a country's particular culture. Therefore, these factors belong to the
range of user characteristics that need to be considered when designing
user oriented learning programs.
In the first part of our questionnaire we follow the idea of the Learning
Style Inventory (LSI) as proposed in [Kolb, 84] in
order to perform a cross-cultural learning style analysis. On the basis
of empirical research Kolb reduced different learning behaviors to four
learning styles: Converger (Pragmatist), Diverger (Reflector), Accomodator
(Activist) and Assimilator (Theorist). These styles can be defined as a
combination of an individual's relative emphasis on two learning dimensions:
- Dimension: concrete vs. abstract perception of new information
- Dimension: active vs. reflective processing of the perceived information
We view this categorization as adequate for investigating cultural differences
in learning styles as the characteristics of these four learning styles
correlate to several of the cultural values we described in section
2.2. The results of this part of the questioning were presented in
detail in [Kamentz&Schudnagis, 02].
The second section of the questionnaire involved questions on access
to computers regarding computer literacy, computer and internet usage behaviour
(e.g. use of applications, handling of problem situations, topics of interest
on the WWW), attitudes toward information technology, previous experiences
with computing classes, and references concerning the design and functionality
of learning software (e.g. types of exercises, user guidance, degree of
user control). Here, we intend to explore whether different approaches
to computers do exist in different cultures and to confront these findings
with the results of the software evaluation.
4 Results
4.1 US-American vs. German learning systems - results of the evaluation
based on our criteria catalogue
The evaluation was based on our criteria catalogue and included four
US-American and four German learning systems. Our results indicate a number
of differences in the areas of layout, interaction and navigation, content
presentation, and didactic approach as being characteristic of US-American
and German learning programs. However, they also can be the result of the
subject attributes. The selected programs dealt with topics from the field
of technology such as data processing, Oracle programing, hypermedia, electrical
engineering and topics from the area of education and social science, i.e.
problem solving skills, negotiating, and soft skills training2.
2German
Institute for Research in Distance Education (1998): HyperDisc: Lehren
und Lernen mit Multimedia und Telematik. University of Tübingen DigitalThink
Showcase Demo: Oracle Programming. http://www.digitalthink.com/
DigitalThink Showcase Demo: Soft-Skills-Training. http://www.digitalthink.com/
Department of Electrical and Information Engineering, TU Ilmenau: Grundlagen
der Elektrotechnik. http://get-20.e-technik.tu-ilmenau.de/founer
Großmann, U. (1996): Datenverarbeitung für Betriebswirte. Interaktiver
mediengestützter Einstieg. München: Hanser Verlag InfoWorld Demo:
Internet Explorer 4.0: A Beginners Guide. http://webtraining.infoworld.com/
InfoWorld Demo: Negotiating: Closing a Deal. http://webtraining.infoworld.com/
Freiburg College on Educational Studies: Einführungskurs in die Psychologie
des Denkens und Problemlösens. http://art.ph-freiburg.de/www/index-d.htm
Some of the program features discovered (see highlighted points) can
be attributed to the influences of the saxonic and the teutonic academic
style, and the culturally specific norms of English and German discourse
presented in [Clyne, 94]. The following list gives
an overview of the explored program features, but we would like to stress
that these are tendencies that might change as we continue our evaluation.
US-American learning programs |
German learning programs |
Layout |
- About 60% of the screen is left blank, short text lines
- Simple screen design
- Short text paragraphs
- Frequent enumerations, intensive use of multimedia elements
- Images and animations are used as a learning aid as well as a means
of entertainment
- Intensive use of contrasting colors, highlighting of headwords
|
- A single screen is nearly completely filled with content, long text
lines
- Complex, but orderly structured screen design
- Extensive text paragraphs
- Plain text is the main type of media used for content presentation
- Images and animations are used mainly as a learning aid
- Moderate use of colors creating a contrast between individual areas
of the screen such as navigation bar, list of contents, or the working
space.
|
Interaction and Navigation |
- Many interaction possibilities in exercises (simulations, drag &
drop-exercises, multimedia elements as "sample files" or "data
sheets" for case studies)
- A rather small degree of navigational freedom (guided tour, list
of contents, a small number of glossar links)
|
- Partly a high degree of interaction possibilities through intensive
use of simulations, in exercises a rather moderate interactivity (multiple
choice, entering free text), frequent use of pop-up-windows with additional
learning content
- Many navigation possibilities (guided tour, list of contents, browsing,
search tool, display of current position within the learning space, help
tool
|
Table 1: Features of US-American and German learning programs
US-American learning programs |
German learning programs |
Presentation of Content |
|
- Detailed listing of learning objectives at the beginning of each learning
section
- Intensive use of advance organizers
- Types of content mainly comprise facts, examples, case studies, guidelines
and principles (Do's and Don'ts, sequences of steps as a part of a strategy
or procedure)
- Content structure is linear or has the form of a flat hierarchy
- Small chunks of information
- Each learning section exists as an enclosed unit and can be worked
on separately
- Learning material is presented in form of a "personal communication"
between the system and the learner
|
- Detailed introduction to the subject with content overviews of each
section or just a list of content as a preview at the beginning of the
program
- Limited use of advance organizers
- Types of content mainly comprise abstract concepts, ideas and facts
followed by examples with the first section usually dealing with
the historical background of the subject
- Content structure has the form of a deep hierarchy
- Extensive chunks of information
- Each learning section is based on the previous one and therefore cannot
be worked on separately
- Learning content is conveyed in form of an impersonal presentation
|
Didactics |
- Alternation of content and exercises within a section
- Types of exercises: fixed-choice assessments (multiple-choice, true/
false), case studies
- Very detailed exercise instructions concerning proper task solving
- Feedback: "correct"/ "incorrect", additional
explanations and comments
- Values such as learning performance and practical application of knowledge
are stressed (extrinsic motivation)
|
- Exercises are offered at the end of a learning section or as a separate
training module
- Types of exercises: multiple-choice, complex free-text assignments,
simulations as a part of an experimentation module
- Limited exercise instructions concerning proper task solving
- Feedback: "correct"/"incorrect", instruction
to revise content
- Values such as knowledge acquisition, comprehension and fun are stressed
(intrinsic motivation)
|
Table 2: Features of US-American and German learning programs
(continuation)
4.2 Cultural differences in approaching computers and learning programs
- questioning results
The analysis of the questioning on approaches to computers produced
interesting results concerning preferences for specific learning program
features. The results presented here are based on the answers of 74 students
from 14 countries (number of individuals for each culture varies between
4 and 20).
Question 1: "Do you like being guided through the learning
space by a voice or by a virtual person ?"
This question was intended to provide information on preferences of
learners from different cultures concerning the degree of learning process
control while working with an learning program. The results can be used
for the design of an adequate navigation structure within a learning space.
The chart in figure 1 shows the explored differences in the perception
of explicit user guidance.

Figure 1: Perception of explicit user guidance through a
learning space
We assumed, that the preference for explicit user guidance and instruction
can be traced back to a collectivistic and a large power distance orientation
which result in teacher-centered educational concept. As shown in figure
1, especially students from China, France/ Belgium, Countries of the Fomer
Soviet Union, Spain and Cameroon expressed their appreciation of guided
learning. This leads to the conclusion that explicit user guidance is to
be seen primarily as the result of a large power distance, as according
to Hofstede [Hofstede, 93] a correlation between the
two cultural dimensions does not exist in France, Belgium, and Spain. These
cultures can be positioned in the middle of the continuum between the two
poles of collectivism and individualism.3
The results for the South American countries did not confirm our assumption.
Although the cultures of Peru and Bolivia do show the correlation mentioned
above, the students' answers in which they expressed their preference for
more freedom while navigating through a learning program resembled those
from Germany, which belongs to the individualistic societies. In this case
we could come to the conclusion that the development of teaching methods
in these countries did not follow the general cultural values.
3For the
Countries of the Former Soviet Union Hofstede did not collect any data.
Question: 2: "Which metaphor should be used in a learning
program in order to visualize its structure ?"
In this question we suggested the selection of two metaphors out of
the following: book, room, journey, town, and building. According to our
results students from different cultures do have different expectations
concerning the vizualization of a learning program structure. The first
association which arises when thinking of an interesting and comprehensible
learning program might possibly be viewed as an indicator of the individual's
learning style or even his/ her expectation of a particular navigation
structure.
The majority of the subjects regarded the journey as the most sensible
metaphor to be employed as an orientation aid. This choice could be interpreted
as a preference for a navigation structure in the form of a sequence or
a flat hierarchy whereas the book could be associated with the expectation
of a deep hierarchy. Figure 2 gives an overview of the relative selection
frequencies for the three metaphors with the highest overall ranking in
the various cultures.

Figure 2: Prefered metaphors for visualizing learning program
structure
The frequent selection of the room metaphor by Chinese students can
be viewed as a particularly interesting result, which might be a consequence
of the holistic thought pattern in oriental cultures. The teachings of
Confucius which set out linear problem solving as a virtue also had a great
impact on the Chinese culture. This culturally specific norm might possibly
be used to explain the high value of the journey metaphor for the Chinese
subjects.
5 Conclusion
With learning situations being highly individualized learning systems
should hold an adaptive dialogue with the user and react to his/her respective
levels of knowledge and experience. Designing educational multimedia systems
for an international target group requires the consideration of additional
culture-bound user characteristics which influence the learning process
as a whole. This leads to the necessity of extending the current range
of adaptation methods and techniques in the cross-cultural context.
Our work makes a contribution to the research on cultural variations
in the area of learning program design. In the first step we explored design
features typical of learning programs from different cultures. Secondly,
we performed a cross-cultural learning style analysis and an investigation
of cultural differences in approaches to computers, which were supposed
to complete the results of the system evaluation. The results of this preliminary
study can be used as a starting-point for the implementation of an intelligent
learning system which adapts to the individual needs of learners from various
cultural backgrounds.
References
[Brusilovsky, 98] Brusilovsky, P., Methods and
Techniques of Adaptive Hypermedia. In: Brusilovsky, P.; Kobsa, A.; Vassileva,
J. (Eds.). Adaptive Hypertext and Hypermedia. Boston et al.: Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 1998
[Clyne, 94] Clyne, M., Inter-cultural communication
at work. Cultural values in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1994
[Galtung, 81] Galtung, J., Structure, culture and
intellectual style: An essay comparing saxonic, teutonic, gallic and nipponic
approaches. In: Social Science Formation. London/Beverly Hills: SAGE, 1981
[Hall&Hall, 90] Hall, E. T., Hall. M. R., Understanding
Cultural Differences: Germans, French and Americans. Yarmouth: Intercultural
Press. 1990
[Hofstede, 86] Hofstede, G., Cultural Differences
in Teaching and Learning. In: International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
Vol.10. S. 301-320, 1986
[Hofstede, 93] Hofstede, G., Interkulturelle Zusammenarbeit
- Kulturen, Organisationen, Management. Wiesbaden: Gabler, 1993
[Kamentz&Schudnagis, 02] Kamentz, E.; Schudnagis,
M., Lerntheorie und kultureller Hintergrund - Einflussfaktoren bei der
Gestaltung von Lernsystemen. In: Hammwöhner, R., Wolff, Ch., Womser-Hacker,
Ch. (Hrsg.): Information und Mobilität. Optimierung und Vermeidung
von Mobilität durch Information. Proceedings des 8. Internationalen
Symposiums für Informationswissenschaft (ISI). Konstanz: UVK, 2002
[Kobsa&Wahlster, 89] Kobsa, A.; Wahlster,
W., User Models in Dialog Systems. In: Kobsa, A., Wahlster, W. (Eds.).
User Models in Dialog Systems. Berlin et al.: Springer., 1989
[Kolb, 84] Kolb, D., Experiential Learning. New
York: Prentice Hall, 1984
[Schulmeister, 97] Schulmeister, R., Grundlagen
hypermedialer Lernsysteme. München: Oldenbourg, 1997
[Trompenaars, 93] Trompenaars, F., Handbuch Globales
Managen. Düsseldorf: Econ Verlag, 1993
|