cultural influences on student learning

hr. J. E&ucaimzaiDevel~~lopmenr, Vol. 7. No. 4, pp. 219-225.1987 0738-0593187 53.00+ .OO

Printed in Great Britain @ 1987 Per&wnon hurttats Ltd.

CULTURAL INFLUENCES ON STUDENT LEARNING

JOHN COWAN and DEREK FORDYCE

Department of civi! Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, U.K.

Abstract-The writers report tentative studies of patterns of student learning and study behaviour in Aleppo, Syria, and Edinburgh, Scotland, involving mainfy but not exclusively students of engineering. These enquiries suggest that there may be appreciable differences in perceptions of learning, habits of study and problem solving in the two universities concerned, which otherwise appear to have similar educational goals.

The writers discuss their findings, and consider the implications if their pilot studies should be confirmed as a generalised distinction, following further research.

They speculate that cultural differences may arise, perhaps more subtly, because of differences other than those which reflect merely national or religious cultures. They therefore volunteer these exploratory thoughts and experiences to stimulate further consideration of the whote issue of cultural influences on learning in higher education.

QUESTIONS

How signi~~ant are cultural influences on student learning ? Are we justified, for example, in suspecting that students (and staff) in Aleppo and Edinburgh view learning in different ways- and learn differently in consequence? What implications would it have, on a wider front, if this suspicion were confirmed?

These are the questions which were in our minds as we compiled this account of a thought- provoking experience in the Middle East which led us to carry out comparative enquiries in our own University.

BACKGROUND

fn May 1985 we spent two weeks in Aleppo University in Syria. Our purpose was to study patterns of student learning in the faculties of Engineering. These enquiries were undertaken because one of us had observed the behaviour of Aleppan students in lectures and laboratory classes during an earlier visit, and had noted several features which seemed to differ from his experiences in Edinburgh, in Scotland.

Over the two visits we carried out detailed illuminative evaluations (Parlett and Hamil- ton, 1972) of seven lectures and 14 laboratory classes. These were chosen for us almost at random, from what was conveniently available during our visits. We also questioned 53 undergraduate students, in a series of struc-

tured interviews. These students, although predominantly from faculties of engineering, were chosen by us from those circulating in the departments or (in the evening) at the student residences.

THE CONTRASTS

We were interested in the study habits of the Aleppan students, their perceptions of their professors, and the concepts of learning that were held by both the students and their professors. We have since confirmed that these differ from the results we obtain when we carry out similar enquiries amongst those of our own students who are of European origin.

We confronted the Aleppan students with qualitative problem-solving tasks demanding analytical reasoning; and we recorded their strategies and reasoning in that situation. Again the outcomes were unfamiliar to us, contrasting strikingly with our research findings in this area (see Brohn and Cowan, 1977; Cowan et al., 1980; Cowan, 1983; Cowan, 1986).

We were thus led to suspect that there may be differences in the knowledge structures on which Aleppan and Heriot-Watt students depend. These differences, ifconfirmed, would involve the character of the knowledge structures, their influence on subsequent learning and particularly, of course, their influence on problem-solving.

219

220 JOHN COWAN and DEREK FORDYCE

OUR CONCERN

It is unfortunate that many twentieth century European educationists tend to regard non- Europeans as peoples who, in the main, have still to develop to the European standard. We do not share that view, nor can we identify with the ‘intellectual imperialism’ which presumes that European methods in higher education will be the best route to follow when educational development is planned for a developing country.

lecture were observed in an Aleppan lecture of the same duration, on a similar topic.

We prefer meantime to approach curriculum development in a developing country by assuming that:

The amount of notetaking within the Aleppan class groups was distinctly variable, ranging from notetaking beyond that which was ‘presented’ by the professor (including those comments where he signalled that he was dictating) to almost empty note-books. In our analyses of notes from our own students, relatively little difference in coverage was found, and most covered only what the lecturer presented.

(1) Undergraduates in a non-European culture may have a significantly different perception of learning from that which is prevalent in Western Europe. That perception could lead them to approach learning tasks in ways which are radically different from those favoured by their European counterparts.

(2) Where the eventual educational aims are the same and the initial knowledge structures are intrinsically different, it may therefore be necessary to adopt different strategies for teaching - and for learning.

In some cases an Aleppan student left a significant and to us surprising time gap between the writing of the notes on the blackboard by the professor, and the copying of these notes by the student into his own note- book. In Edinburgh, whether the notes are written on a blackboard or shown on an overhead projector, we observe note-taking to proceed almost simultaneously with the presentation.

This brief article represents no more than a first step in the search for information about cultural influences on learning-in an area where there is a dearth of data. But the thinking which it summarises has already led us to adopt different approaches to our first year Middle Eastern undergraduates in Edinburgh, with encouraging results.

We interviewed some of the Aleppan students who followed this ‘delayed notetaking process’ immediately after the event. They explained that it was a deliberate strategy, arising from their need to compre- hend before they committed their understanding to paper.

DIFFERENCES IN BEHAVIOUR DURING LECTURES

We sat in on lectures and, apparently unobtrusively, made notes of the behaviour of ten students during the lecture, ‘sweeping’ regularly across the sample, and then making a quick entry in a page of rough notes which actually contained the hidden framework of a table for observations.

The Aleppan students all possessed a text- book written by the professor especially for the course, and covering the subject matter in virtually the same order as the lecture. A small minority referred extensively to this paperback during the lectures; but often only a minority of the class members had brought the text- book with them. In Edinburgh the existence of such a text-book (with close relation to the lecture presentation) is the exception rather then the rule; and it is rare to find students referring to text-books at any length during the course of a lecture.

DIFFERENCES IN BEHAVIOUR DURING LABORATORY ACTIVITIES

We noted that the Aleppan students of The laboratories which we observed in engineering made fewer notes per 50 minutes Aleppo involved straightforward experiments than their Edinburgh counterparts, perhaps according to a carefully designed schedule, and because Aleppan professors displayed fewer were for students in the earlier years of their notes than lecturers in Heriot-Watt Univer- course but not in the first year. They differed sity. Less then half the average display of markedly from laboratory work in Edinburgh, notes, formulae and diagrams in an Edinburgh although the overall course aims appeared

CULTURAL INFLUENCES ON STUDENT LEARNING 221

similar to those of a comparable class in Edinburgh.

Typically the Aleppan laboratory periods involved a stay in the lab of about two hours duration. The students worked in groups of between five and ten, under the close supervision of a demonstrator or ‘graduate assistant’ who generally attended to only one group. Much of the available time was taken up with a lengthy introduction to the experiment by the graduate assistant, including an explanation of the theory and of the equipment. Relatively little time (generally less than 20 minutes) was devoted to practical working with the apparatus or equipment; and even then it was noted that the graduate assistant often carried out all, or almost all, of the practical operations -leaving the students only to observe.

After the practical working had been completed, the students were required to carry out some of the calculations associated with the experiment, or to draft conclusions. Usually this activity was also strictly supervised by the graduate assistant; but in some cases the students were left on their own for much of the time, to follow through a procedure which had already been explained to them.

In civil engineering at Heriot-Watt, a high proportion of the first laboratory activities are totally open-ended. They require the students to determine their own aims, to work out their own procedures, and to carry out experiments which will hence differ significantly from group to group. The staff are available to explain the use of the equipment, or to assist with managerial problems which involve the laboratory technicians or the preparation of speci- mens. But otherwise the groups are expected to be relatively independent, and to take charge of their work-especially during the later stages.

Where laboratory work in Edinburgh follows a scheduled procedure, the instructions are set out on a printed handout and are only briefly introduced by a demonstrator who may well be supervising the work of several groups, which will each consist of four to six students. The undergraduates are left almost on their own to carry out the experimentation and to take the necessary readings. They will not refer back to the demonstrator unless they en- counter difficulties; and they are expected to work on their own when the calculations are

being carried out, graphs are plotted and conclusions reached.

DIFFERENCES IN STUDY HABITS

Our interviews with students in Aleppo were of at least one hour duration. In some cases we selected for interviews students whose behaviour we had unobtrusively recorded in detail during a lecture or laboratory period preceding the interview. Generally, however, we selected students by approaching them as they walked around. And, since we encoun- tered virtually no refusals, we have no reason to believe that the sample was unrepresentative.

In all interviews we followed a standard procedure, with a standard list of questions- and we allowed ourselves to ask supplementary questions only in clarification of points raised by the students in their answers. We sought accounts of what the students did in lectures, in other classes and in private study time. We cross-checked their general statements with the detailed accounts which they gave us of what they had done in the previous week; and we also checked by inviting the students to show us their work, and to explain how they had done it. In about a third of the interviews we were both present, and compared our data and our interpretations subsequently to ensure consistent methods of enquiry.

We found that, perhaps like undergraduates everywhere, the Aleppan students tended to overestimate the time which they spent in private study. But our concern was with their priorities in private study, rather than with the aggregate time. We asked them to identify these, and confirmed the accuracy of what we were told from our accounts of their study habits and our observations of their behaviour. We had some difficulties in reconcil- ing estimates of study time with the realities of behaviour, as we observed it. Otherwise we found it pleasantly easy to obtain information in what appeared to us to be a very open culture.

Almost all of the Aleppan students whom we interviewed spend the greatest part of their study time (whatever it is) in creating a rewritten set of completely revised lecture notes. In this effort they draw on their original notes (which are often extremely sparse), their memories of the lecture (which tend to be more extensive than those of their Edinburgh


counterparts), notes taken by close friends, DIFFERENCES IN THE USE text-books, and (occasionally) the professor OF PROBLEMS himself.

The resulting process, as they almost all Heriot-Watt students are regularly given

independently described it to us, is {in our problem sheets (or lists of questions) by their

terms) a two-stage activity. In the first stage lecturers, in virtually ail numerate subjects and

they strive to acquire what the Gothenburg in some descriptive subjects as well. More than

group describe as deep appreciation or 75% of them spend much of their private study

understanding of the topic (see Marton et a&, time attempting these tutorial questions; and

1984). They identify that this is their ideal; they they will consult their classmates about their

may try to achieve this by reading and listening difficulties as they fail to make progress, or as

rather than by writing; they certainly see no they identify mistakes, or when they seek

place for problem-solving or problem con- model (or at least correct) solutions. In some

sideration at this time. In the second stage they cases the student’s effort on a particular

go on to prepare their final notes, which are an question only goes as far as identifying that he

expression of the understanding which they has made enough progress to provide promise

feel they have now gained. These notes that the answer would eventually be correct or

consequently often bear relatively little simi- satisfactory, But in most instances the students

larity to the original notes, or to the attempt to work through their solutions to a

presentation given by the lecturer. At no time, satisfactory conclusion. Private study time is

however, is there any element of critical devoted mainly to this type of working, in

appraisal claimed for this rewriting. addition to the mandatory coursework which

When we returned to Edinburgh, we asked has to be submitted during the session.

the same leading questions of our own first Aleppan students are given few, if any,

year students (N = 54) in workshop situations problems beyond those which the professor or

wherein small groups generated data indi- assistant presents for solution during the

vidually and then analysed it together. This ‘practical’ classes. A small minority of students

was an activity with which they were familiar, indicated that sometimes they looked for

being required to carry it out as a routine part suitable problems in text-books, and attempted

of some first year activities. We also inter- these on their own initiative. However they

viewed I4 of our students taken from later found difficulty in differentiating between

years of the course, and again selected using an problems which they should be able to solve,

opportunity sample. We find that few (cer- and problems which went beyond the scope of

tainly less then half) of our undergraduates in their lecture course. Some told us that the

Edinburgh rewrite most of their notes, professors were willing to recommend ques-

although many devoted time to this in their tions appropriate to the taught syllabus, if they

first term, and -with hindsight-found that were approached by the better students in the

it was unproductive. When Heriot-Watt class. But apparently the professors did not

students of engineering do rewrite, it tends have the time (or perhaps the inclination) to do

to be a much briefer activity than it is for the this for all the members of the extremely large

Aleppan students. We have examined such classes (approximately 300 per section) which

rewritten notes, and find that the new product exist in Aleppo.

is closely related to the original notes, or to Even Aleppan students whose academic the students’ impression of what the lecturer achievement was high relative to the class

intended the original notes to be. The layout norm only claimed to devote a small propor-

is perhaps improved; some poorly eompre- tion of their private study time to problem

hended points are expanded; mistakes and solving* omissions are corrected; and frequently indi- cations of emphasis are added. But the final product still closely resembles the original paperwork, in both content and sequence; and DIFFERENCES WHEN CONFRONTED

relatively little that is radically new has been WITH TEST PROBLEMS

added, whether from text-books or from other In our studies of problem-solving we have sources. made considerable use (see Cowan, 1986) of


questions which ask students to rate in acending order of magnitude of one named variable, a series of similar and familiar diagrams from which it is not possible to calculate precise values for the named variable -because values are not given. In other words, to take an absurdly simple example, students might be given a variety of shapes and asked to arrange them, if possible, in ascending order of area -but without calculating the precise values of the areas of the given shapes. They are also required to justify the order which they have chosen.

Such problems must be solved by using fundamental concepts, consciously or uncons- ciously, in order to develop the components of a suitable strategy. This is in contrast to numerical versions of the same problems, where it is possible for a student merely to follow a familiar and memorised algorithm in order to obtain a quantitative solution (see Cowan, 1986).

In Heriot-Watt, the student who is confronted with an unfamiliar problem provides us with a protocol (see Cowan et al., 1980) which centres a successful solution on the problem itself. S/he will either grope her or his way forward by trial and error to the solution or, less commonly, will analyse the problem and synthesise appropriate components of strategy on that basis, for that particular problem. In Aleppo, the students who solved our problems successfully produced protocols in which they began by identifying the concepts which were relevant to this type of problem, and then built on these concepts to analyse -and then to solve -the problem accord- ingly. In some cases the Aleppan students showed an ability to make a cross-disciplinary leap and solve a problem in fluid mechanics using concepts which they had learnt, for instance, in electronics. Such cross-disciplinary leaps were more rare in our experience of Edinburgh students, who could often be thwarted in their attempts to solve that type of problem.

In both locations the unsuccessful students ended up by either running round the problems-solving map in circles, or encoun- tering a brick wall which completely stopped further progress. But, when this happened, the Heriot-Watt students tended to be concen- trating on parts of the map which related directly to the problem, whereas the Aleppan

students were in those parts of the map which related to the basic concepts.

DIFFERENCES IN STATED PERCEPTIONS OF ACADEMIC STAFF

The Aleppan students were clear and forceful when asked to explain their perception of their professors. With two exceptions (radical students with extremely outspoken views about what they discerned as weaknesses in the system) the students whom we interviewed firmly described their professors in similar terms. They saw them as authorities who have mastered the appropriate part of the curriculum, and now offer part of that mastery as something on which students can found their own learning and understanding. The students were aware that their professors sometimes made mistakes; but when this happened, they described it as an act of carelessness rather than as an indication of incompetence.

The Heriot-Watt students, in contrast, described their lecturers (including the writers) less as authorities than as agents who attempt to convey their own (sometimes imperfect) assimilation of the fundamentals of the subject to the learners. Student opinions of individual lecturers were freely expressed, almost in terms of ratings of competence; and there was a clear indication of critical consideration of the expertise of the lecturers. No similar criticism of professional competence was volunteered by Aleppan students in our discussions with them; and when we aired such a possibility, they seemed somewhat horrified that we could suspect their professors of being less than authorities.

POSSIBLE DIFFERENCES IN KNOWLEDGE STRUCI’URES

Our discussions with students, and later with staff, in Aleppo were characterised by open- ness, willingness to help and considerable interest in the purpose of our enquiries. We found it impossible to avoid responding to data almost as we gathered it in; and we quickly began to formulate opinions which we have since seen no reason to change (perhaps because we were subsequently not seeking such reasons with sufficient diligence). We


tested out all our conclusions about the Aleppan situation on a number of professors in the faculty, to whom we spoke individually. With some very minor amendments, they assured us that the account we have sum- marised here is an accurate one.

We can therefore report with some confi- dence that:

(1) Knowledge structures in Aleppo are described by students and staff as something derived from academic authority and passed on to the learner. The learner’s main contribution is the effort required to assimilate that knowledge in a personally meaningful but otherwise unchanged form.

In contrast knowledge structures are described by students and staff in Edinburgh in terms of a personal search in which content, interpretation and ultimate meaning are pri- marily the responsibility of the individual learner.

(2) In Aleppo the learners approach subsequent learning by seeking an authority (in person or in text) who will provide guidance, in one form or another; in Edinburgh the maturing learners aspire to increasing au- tonomy and self-direction, even in the first year of their studies.

(3) Problem-solving is described in Aleppo as the purposeful application of knowledge structures which have been studied, compre- hended and mastered. In contrast, students in Heriot-Watt expect problem-solving to be derived from an analysis by them of the problem, followed by the selection by them of an appropriate strategy which they migYPt have to formulate for themselves, if the problem is truly new to them.

COMMENT

In Aleppo we met people who identified their eventual educational aims in terms very much the same as our own. The differences which we have described are therefore rather like those to be observed between two parties which set out to climb a high mountain by alternative routes. At any point in time they will be at different positions-not because one position is higher than the other (in the way that Camp 5 is above Camp 3), but because

they are following different routes to the same goal, by appropriate methods.

Hence, if there is any truth in our suspicions and in our interpretations of them, then it must be clear that the teaching and learning strategies which would be appropriate to further and to develop the education of Heriot-Watt undergraduates are not those which would be appropriate for Aleppan undergraduates- and vice versa. Indeed it may be necessary not only to follow different curricula, but perhaps also to adopt different pedagogical philosophies.

INTERIM CONCLUSION

Marton et al. (1984) rated the competence of a teacher in terms of the extent to which s/he understands the ways in which his/her students think about the subject matter. Our priority at present is to improve that aspect of our competence, in respect of the extent to which educational situations may be influenced by prevailing cultures. Although in this instance we have dealt with two national cultures which we have been fortunate enough to be able to compare briefly, it is in our minds that such influences need not necessarily be either national or religious. They may arise because of the difference between rural and industrial cultures, a culture of a strong family life compared with that of a single parent family, or the cultures of schools which implicitly emphasise different priorities in their programmes.

Our enquiries in Aleppo, and our subsequent enquiries in Edinburgh, have obviously disturbed us-because they have revealed the possible existence of an important factor in education which has not so far received sufficient consideration from us. We rather hope you share our concern.

REFERENCES Brohn, D. M. and Cowan, J. (1977) Teaching towards an

understanding of structural behaviour. Srrucrural Engi- neer 55.9-17.

Cowan, J. (1983) How engineers understand. Engineering Education 73, 301-304.


Cowan, J. (1986) Are we neglecting real analytical skills in Marton, F., Hounsell, D. J. and Entwistle, N. J. (1984) Engineering Education? European Journal of Engi- The Experience of Learning. Scottish Academic Press, neering Education 11,67-73. Edinburgh.

Cowan, J., Lowley, K. and Bingham, E. G. (1980) Self Parlett, M. R. and Hamilton, D. (1972) Evaluation as analysis in problem solving studies. Bulletin of Educa- illumination. Occasional Paper No. 9, University of tional Research, Newcastle Polytechnic. pp. 17-26. Edinburgh.

cultural influences on student learning

Documents