Cultural, Disciplinary and Temporal Contexts of e-Learning and English as a Foreign Language
Introduction: Analyzing the Contexts of EFL and e-Learning
Working abroad in a very different culture can help expand one's awareness of the default contexts behind everyday practices, including education, that are often taken for granted. A more familiar scenario that also calls attention to the context of educational practices, is the increasing number of foreign students appearing in classes evidently with different assumptions and customary learning styles. Differing contexts are the reason that practices do or should adjust according to the situation. In e-learning as in other fields, one size does not fit all. The various contexts and periods of time in which a learning opportunity is embedded need to be analyzed. This article aims to shed light on some important contexts at the interface of technology and pedagogy.
Whereas English as a Second Language or ESL refers to foreign students in an English-medium environment such as the U.K. or the U.S., English as a Foreign Language (EFL) refers to teaching in a country where the linguistic environment is not primarily English. The case this article focuses on is EFL teachers in the cultural context of East Asia.
First I propose a general analytical approach to understand the cultural, disciplinary, and temporal contexts behind any specialized field or concept. I then review Japanese and other Asian learning styles to illustrate the cultural context, particularly when utilizing e-learning with non-native users of English. I also examine the universality or limitations of the Western e-learning paradigm when transplanted into a non-Western culture. Discourse on e-learning among EFL teaching practitioners in East Asia illustrates disciplinary and temporal contexts, as these dimensions bring order to e-learning concepts defined variously on the Web. An actual graduate school course on online education in Japan also demonstrates how the cultural context must be considered for learning to be transformative.
Overall, e-learning concepts will be distinguished in the fuller dimensionality of their cultural, disciplinary, and temporal contexts. Applied to other fields as well, this analytical approach may shed light on the limitations of dictionaries and the whole problem of definitions.
An Analytical Approach to Fuller Understanding of Fields and Concepts
This article addresses questions as far-reaching as why dictionary definitions seem inadequate, circular, or two-dimensional, and why every professional source offers a different definition of concepts, particularly in a new field such as e-learning that has not yet crystallized into established disciplines. Evidently an analytical approach is needed to provide a more multidimensional understanding of any subject or concept. The approach suggested here is to systematically fill in the cultural, disciplinary, and temporal contexts of a phenomenon. This article applies the analytical approach to the two fields, e-learning and teaching EFL, especially where they intersect. This approach acts a tool for understanding if the reader can apply it to his or her own area of study.
Such an approach should go beyond surface meanings and fixed or absolutistic definitions to approach the complete picture of disciplinary, cultural, temporal, and other contexts in which specialized fields and concepts are embedded. In education there is a cultural context in all scenes of instruction making each unique. There is also a disciplinary context: how a new field of study develops a canon of research findings and practices. Moreover, the disciplinary and cultural contexts evolve over time, so there is a temporal dimension of time or era running through the other contexts. These considerations do or should affect choices of technology and pedagogy while differentiating a fuller range of learning opportunities. As the approach is applied, it should be seen as less abstract and more of a practical tool for understanding, educational decision-making, and action.
Cultural Contexts of e-Learning where English is a Foreign Language
One dimension that makes each scene of instruction unique and argues against a one-size-fits-all approach is the cultural context. One could suppose role play, simulation, or case-studies approaches would be ideal, matching males with females, only to accept a position in Saudi Arabia and find that male teachers cannot even enter a classroom with females.
Teppo Turkki [2] finds that the Internet infrastructure of Finland, South Korea, and Japan is roughly the same, but there are some differences. Koreans use it for games and Fins see it more as a practical tool. Japanese, on the other hand, use information technology (IT) to enter a fantasy world... the anonymity that many Japanese seek in the real world, for example, has its counterpart in the virtual world, where Japanese prefer aliases. There one can live his or her inner feelings much more deeply... Not so in Korea, where people use their real names. And the emotional attachment to IT that Asians show more broadly is not seen in Finland.
Indeed, although there are traditional East Asian commonalities, Koreans and Japanese have visibly diverged or accentuated their differences in lifestyle. A South Korean newspaper also reported the following cultural attitude to technology diverging from other countries:
The email era is coming to an end because replacement-communication means such as Internet messengers, mini-home pages (dubbed "one-man media"), and SMS are wielding their power… Leading the big change, unprecedented in the world, are our teens and those in their 20s. The perception that "email is an old and formal communication means" is rapidly spreading among them [7].
Yoshimi Komiyama, formerly with the World Bank, researched online Japanese learning styles at the University of British Columbia in Canada. She has submitted a chapter to the forthcoming Asia-Pacific Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) volume on online technology and pedagogy [3]. Looking for published views that reflected her own, her review of the literature drew heavily upon my online library (Bilingualism and Japanology Intersection: www.waoe.org/steve/epublist.html So her approach will represent a non-Western perspective on the cultural context vis-à-vis online learning in consensus with my own.
Komiyama first describes Japan's English-learning situation and its history of educational technology. Though Japan is second in the overall number of Web sites, its people are not taking much advantage of the English Web due to language and cultural-value barriers. They intellectually know that in a knowledge-based society, English ability and computer skills are both necessary for the nation's economic success. Yet English education remains mired in a grammar-translation pedagogical tradition reinforced by paper exams, so in most schools, for EFL it will be a long road to cross-cultural communication and content-based learning through English.
With Japan's wealth and technical advancement, computers have been considered tools for learning and expression since the mid-'80s. However, the culture and skills of teachers have left computers underutilized, along with institutional culture and other societal factors surrounding the teachers. Moreover, self-expression itself, including composition even in Japanese, has found scant space in the curriculum because of a wider cultural emphasis on social harmony through obedience, self-abnegation, and cooperation. Furthermore, the very advancement of ubiquitous mobile phone use has tended to stunt the growth of computer skills and Web use.
Komiyama then investigates learning styles, which differ according to cultures as well as individuals. Those teaching English abroad or teaching international students are cautioned about unconscious assumptions of sameness; that is, to be aware of cultural and linguistic differences. Knowing how the peer-group orientation of the Japanese shapes their learning behavior could help match teaching styles to learning styles. Komiyama states that Japanese people have tended to sacrifice their own interests and show loyalty in exchange for the protection of a group. Japanese people are generally judged based on relations in a group rather than on individual qualities, which makes the objective evaluation of student work difficult aside from tests of the multiple-choice sort. Japan is also a finely tuned credentialistic society, a modern continuation of hierarchical tendencies from Chinese Confucianism. Whereas not questioning the teacher even when not understanding or not agreeing actually indicates respect, it could easily be misunderstood as passivity or worse.
While in individualistic Western cultures an "I-You" stance shows mutual respect and equal status, Asian cultures tend to be hierarchical based on age and social status as determiners of what is appropriate behavior. In East Asia and Southeast Asia, a "We-They" stance became the societal norm perhaps because of a collective agricultural tradition owing to the demands of rice cultivation. Such people may not be comfortable expressing their opinion in classrooms, because they understand public statements as representing their group or culture. They are concerned about losing the approval of their group, which does not correspond at all to how good the opinion is to the teacher.
Komiyama details Japanese learning styles, which are very different from other groups who have been researched: Westerners need to at least see the consistency and positive purposiveness in what they do. Appearances deceive, and Japanese people may even come to believe stereotypes about themselves (such as that they are quiet), especially in an alien environment. In Japan peer groups of all ages are raucous-they are simply reserved with people of differing status. How could other-oriented people be introverted? Cross-cultural literacy, tolerance, and communication present a profound challenge when diverse cultures and languages are involved.
A paradigm shift in pedagogy has accompanied computer technology in North America, which relies on independent learning, adding to the difficulties for students whose educational cultures were teacher-centered. They may not readily jump to metacognitive skills with the teacher as a facilitator of discussion and project work, because of differing assumptions. Komiyama writes that Japanese students tend to lack the characteristics that predict success in online learning. But even dependent learners can be successful with computers if the course is mixed or blended mode, with the teacher providing clear instructions and closely monitoring student progress. While these points may be of diagnostic value, educators should be cautious about stereotyping students based on nation of origin or a static notion of culture.
Regarding EFL, computers and the Web can provide a variety of benefits. But Japanese people do not like to feel isolated, and the origin of computer use as a human-machine interaction has reinforced such a stereotype about learning with computers. They need to find out how computers can promote social interaction and widen one's circle. Interactive and communicative activities need to be stressed for their online learning. If not, some Asian ESL or EFL students may revert to authoritarian assumptions considering the competitive way they were previously graded. As Japanese people are cooperative and prefer collaborative work in a group, Web projects or a learning-management system can be leveraged to foster a sense of community.
East Asian students tend not to be familiar with a democratic educational environment where everyone can freely speak out. Therefore they may not readily appreciate the value of a venue like a discussion board. Self-conscious about how they are perceived by others, their questions and opinions may be geared to building relationships rather than expressing unique ideas. They tend to be reserved with people they do not know well, and they assume a power relationship with the teacher as an authority, so they may avoid the possible offense of even asking questions that they do have. So the Western teacher or conversation partner should not take equal status for granted but take the heritage of non-Westerners into account before encouraging them to feel empowered and free to show their real selves.
Chinese people reportedly rely more on visual cues in a social context to communicate with others, Komiyama continues. As Japanese people are also sensitive to context, virtual learning environments can present a particular challenge to these learners. When their English ability is also limited, this argues for asynchronous over synchronous online activities.
Some Japanese researchers have concluded that technology-supported learning is not working in Japan. A number of cultural attitudes have inhibited the evolution of online learning, such as a tradition-bound institutional culture of instruction, and elaborate face-to-face rituals essential to everyday communication. Japanese teachers tend to view the Internet as only useful for gathering information. But although progress is slow compared to what the available technology can actually accomplish, the teachers are gradually becoming more computer literate and learners will grow accustomed to the new online world.
EFL Educators in East Asia face the Varying Definitions of e-Learning Concepts
A February 2004 JALTTALK discussion (a listserv through which a number of Japan Association for Language Teaching (JALT) members communicate informally with each other), e-learning concepts were being questioned and misconceptions circulated. Like bilingualism, e-learning and online education are not readily grasped by common sense, and dictionary-type definitions cannot cover the disciplinary and cultural contexts involved.
Greg Matheson in Taiwan enquired, "What is the difference between e-learning and CAI? Is it the same as the difference between the NETEACH-L and TESLCA-L?" [4]. CAI is Computer-Assisted Instruction, so, taken literally, it is apparently possible to equate CAI with e-learning (a disciplinary argument against that kind of thinking has been made above). NETEACH-L is an informal discussion list on teaching second or foreign languages utilizing the Internet, while TESLCA-L is a discussion list of the CALL (Computer-Assisted Language Learning) interest group of the worldwide TESOL organization (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages). NETEACH by definition would be for online education, while TESLCA would be for CALL, which has been characterized above as preceding online education but then trying to incorporate it into the discipline. This was necessary for CALL to survive in networked computer labs and to maintain established networks of practitioners. Other discussion lists in this predicament are JALTCALL (Japan) and APACALL (Asia-Pacific), but as mailing lists are virtual networks, they can make a more seamless transition to discussions of online education.
Charles Adamson [1] in Japan answered Greg Matheson's above message: "Try typing 'define: e-learning' in Google. You will get a page of definitions with the citation and they almost all involve networks. If you then type in 'define: CAI' you will get another page of definitions that involve using the power of the computer. The difference is quite clear but with a little fuzzy area of overlap."
I had just included that approach of teaching the Google define function in a graduate course on online education at the national University of Tsukuba near Tokyo. But the resultant entries from glossaries, academic, or business sources could not qualify as definitions since they were all so different. Part of the answer is that e-learning is a new field, and people are looking at their own corner of it. There does not seem to be a consensus about what many of the basic terms mean, or which is the overarching concept, such as e-learning, under which other terms might be presumed to be subsets. Other parts of the answer are discussed in this article in terms of the disciplinary context changing over time. But clearly, the multiplicity of definitions for the same concepts, false synonyms and so forth show that the world of scholarship needs an approach to definitions of sufficient dimensionality.
