Ines marquez chisholm

Computers, Culture, and Learning

There are innumerable interpretations of the word culture, however Hoopes’ and Pusch’s broad definition of culture (in Pusch, 1979) best fits the present discussion:

Culture is the sum total ways of living: including values, beliefs, esthetic

standards, linguistic expression, patterns of thinking, behavioral norms,

and styles of communication which a group of people has developed to

assure its survival in a particular physical and human environment (p. 3)

From this perspective, teaching in culturally diverse classrooms requires consideration of numerous factors, including cultural preferences in behavior, thinking and learning. This comprehensive task presents educators with a formidable challenge. Nevertheless, equitable opportunities for academic success will not be achieved until cultural accommodation becomes a valued and accepted widespread practice. For example, Native American children who tend to prefer private practice before public demonstration of learning, may avoid working on the computer if the computer monitor is visible to other students. This mismatch between the learner’s cultural preference and the physical environment can result in diminished learning opportunities.

The successful infusion of computers into the culturally diverse classroom requires awareness of cultural differences and their possible effect on learning with computers. Given that cultural differences influence classroom behavior and learning, “then the school curriculum and teaching strategies must be revised to be more consistent with the cognitive and life styles of ethnic group pupils” (Singh, 1988, p. 360). Within the context of educational computing, this revision of curriculum and teaching should accommodate the learner’s and teacher’s cultural and individual preferences. Thus flexibility and variety become central to the curriculum and teaching practices used in culturally diverse classrooms wherein students and teachers exhibit a range of preferences.

Can computers be pedagogically effective with culturally diverse populations? A meta-analytic review by Robyler, Castine, and King (1988) found several consistent trends in educational computing including a reduction in learning time and improved attitude towards school learning, subject matter, and towards computer use. Although Robyler, Castine & King (1988) failed to find a significant advantage to using CAI with Spanish-speaking students in the studies reviewed, they found indication of students wanting to write more and having more positive attitudes towards writing. Furthermore, Dunkel (1987) notes that educational computing has the potential for improving the self-confidence of limited English proficient students. If, as Johnson (1985) maintains, limited English proficient students have more to learn, i.e. language and subject matter, then access to computers may help them learn more in less time. It appears then that culturally and linguistically diverse students can benefit academically from this technology (Gifford, 1991).

Although research findings are few and inconclusive, there is some evidence that computer use with a variety of cultural groups and age levels is successful for the development of a variety of skills. For example, the use of word processing improved elaboration and fluency in written English among Native Americans at the Yakima Tribal School (Diessner, Rousculp & Walker, 1985). Similarly, Spanish-speaking first graders using a word processing program for story writing gained greater self-confidence, increased their participation and initiation of learning, developed more positive attitudes towards writing, began developing a sense of audience, and began reading for meaning (Brisk, 1985). A study of 40 eighth grade students in an Anglo-Chinese School in Hong Kong found that word processing resulted in longer and better essays (Li Nim-Yu, 1990). Observing two secondary ESL students using the computer as a tool for graphic design in authentic problem-solving, McCahill (1983) noted that the computer served as a springboard for peer oral communication. Distance learning programs seem particularly successful for women because of the opportunity to express oneself freely without interruption or being ignored and for the handicapped because physical handicaps are invisible in telecommunications (Arias, Jr. & Bellman, 1990, pp. 236-237).

Do cultural differences mediate the effectiveness of computer assisted instruction? How cultural preferences mediate in CAI is as yet unclear and mainly unexplored. There are, however, some indications of how cultural differences mediate learning. Banks (1981) reminds us that disparities between teaching styles and cultural preferences in learning may result in “an environment wherein successful teaching and learning are virtually impossible” (p. 49). Conceivably, then, culture mediates the effective use of computers in culturally diverse classrooms. The contention that educational computing is culturally partial and that it directly transforms experience is germane to multicultural education. According to Bowers (1988), though the computer magnifies the sense of objectivity, it obscures the fact that the data represent the conceptual categories and perspective of the programmer-compiler. Even supposedly generic and culturally neutral software, such as databases and word processing programs, are culturally infused. A database reflects an analytic organization of the world that categorizes and compartmentalizes information. Similarly, word processing menus, icons, templates, thesauruses, and help screens reflect the world view and epistemology of their programmers. What seems to be a logical organization of content within menus, an unequivocal synonym in the thesaurus, or an obvious link between an icon and its represented command, reflects a specific socio-cultural organizational perspective of the world. Ultimately, interaction with the computer involves communication between the learner and the software programmer. As in any communicative act, each participant, i.e. the learner and the programmer, brings to the transaction his or her own cultural assumptions and epistemological perspective. Thus the computer harbors a tacit cultural encounter that generally goes unrecognized by teachers, students, and computer programmers.

The computer, Bowers (1988) indicates, reduces knowledge into explicit, discrete data, thereby eliminating the communication of “tacit-heuristic” forms of communication. In short, the computer may separate the parts from the whole and may remove the content from its context By its very nature, the computer often encourages linear, analytical thinking. Although computer programs are diverse, they often demand a high degree of precision, whereas humans generally learn through an active, integrative process (D’Andrade, 1981). Bowers (1988) cautions that “the nature of the content and the manner in which it is learned will have an impact on their [i.e. the learner’s] thought process and their growth in communicative competence” (p. 100).

Recognizing the significant role that cultural and personal cognitive styles play in learning, this decontextualized, fragmented, linear nature is of some concern. The literature suggests that many minority group students, such as Afro Americans, Native Americans, and Mexican Americans, tend to be global, holistic learners (Cooper, 1989; Kaufman & Kaufman, 1983, pp. 152-154; Shade, 1989a, 1989b). Holistic learners may be at a distinct disadvantage in using courseware that presents or manipulates information as discrete elements. Although analytic thinkers can benefit from this type of program, they also need to discern how the individual bits of information fit together and how other elements shape and define each piece. Clearly, knowing the constituent parts of an engine does not ensure an understanding of how they interact to produce energy. What this assertion dictates is that teachers supplement and expand the computer content to provide a global perspective. For example, teachers might provide students with an overview of a program and explain what the students are expected to produce or do before they begin using the software.

Bowers (1988) warns that computers intensify the impression that individual autonomy is highly commendable. Terms such as student-initiated and individualization in referring to courseware reflect this viewpoint Although American culture values autonomy and individuality, these are not universally accepted values. Many cultures, such as some Native Americans and Mexican Americans, regard cooperation, collaboration, and group participation as desirable behaviors (Kagan & Madsen, 1971; Philips, 1983; Shade, 1989a). Challenging courseware that provides interaction among students complements field sensitive, cooperative learning.

Adapting instruction to cultural and individual preferences calls for careful planning of learning tasks and interactional modes. Learning tasks in culturally diverse classrooms must provide flexibility and choice within an educational framework that empowers students to select tasks which meet their learning style needs and personal interests. Although the educational goals may be the same across learners, the activities leading towards those goals can vary between learners. Visual learners may prepare an interactive slide show on whales, small groups of field-sensitive learners may use the computer to create a whale identification game, and field-independent learners may use word processing to write up an individual library report on whales.

Likewise, in culturally diverse classrooms the instructional modes, i.e. how the tasks are completed, must provide for learning style differences through adaptability and variety. Providing opportunities for group and individual work at the computer, encouraging students to work collaboratively in problem-solving, giving students the freedom to move from computer stations to other areas as heeded, offering affective feedback as children work at the computer, and allowing students privacy for saving face, demonstrate respect and acceptance of differences.