Influence of Culture on the design process of online
learning environments
Debayan Dhar1, Pradeep Yammiyavar2
1,2
Department of Design, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati
Guwahati, Assam-781039
1
debayan@iitg.ernet.in
2
pradeep@iitg.ernet.in
Abstract— Culture is a critical influential factor in online
learning environments. In the present scenario a designer from a
particular cultural background conceptualizes a globalized
educational product to be delivered across geographical
boundaries through the online medium. Design of such products
is influenced by the designer’s pre-suppositions about how he /
she visualizes the reality and conceptualizes the system. Similarly
the end users visualize the system according to their own pre-
suppositions. In this paper, we discuss the role played by culture
in the design of cross cultural educational products and how it
influences the acceptance and usability of a globalized online
learning environment. For this study 17 publications have been
selected based on how various layers of cultural meta-models can
be related to design morphology, to understand whether levels of
culture affects learning systems in the same way in which it
influences other online systems and to analyze whether subjective
cultural issues should be preferred more by user interface
designers over the objective cultural issues or its the vice-versa,
while designing cross-cultural online learning systems. In this
paper a framework has been prepared which relates layers of
cultural meta-models to various design morphologies. The review
indicates that learning systems are complex due to various levels
of communication and group behaviors between the students and
their tutors which are influenced by cultural dimensions. Hence
the authors suggest that although objective culture should be
considered but subjective culture should be given prime
importance. The review is intended to help user interface
designers understand cultural dimensions that affect various
levels of the learning system and identify variables that can be
used while designing a cross cultural online learning system.
Keywords— Online learning environment, cultural meta-models,
design morphology, cultural dimensions.
I. INTRODUCTION
Culture and Globalization are intertwined. One affects the
other. Learning systems and their design are also affected by
cultural aspects which could be local or global. Globalization
and technological change—processes that have accelerated in
tandem over the past fifteen years, have created a new global
economy ―powered by technology, fuelled by information
and driven by knowledge [1]. Much of its credit goes to
personal computers and the World Wide Web which have
played a pivotal role in connecting the entire world together.
While spreading geographically, modern technology is also
penetrating deeper into everyday life and helping us in
performing our day to day activities. Rapid technological
innovations in Information Communication Technology (ICT)
Authorized licensed use limited to: Purdue University. Downloaded on February 21,2022 at 04:41:54 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
products have made our life easier and now we rely on them
more heavily than ever before for performing our day to day
activities in the areas of communication, entertainment,
commerce, healthcare and of course Education.
Education has been recognized as one of the main keys to
economic development and improvements in human welfare.
21st century is characterized with the emergence of
knowledge based society wherein ICT plays a pivotal role.
ICT products in the educational domain have brought the
modern day classroom to our home. We can access various
course materials, can attend distant educational programs &
can even give online examinations. In a way it is playing a
significant role in bridging the literary divide in our society
that existed so far.
Online education have played a major role in extending
educational opportunities, to scattered and rural populations,
groups traditionally excluded from education due to cultural
or social reasons such as ethnic minorities, girls and women,
persons with disabilities, and the elderly, as well as others
who for reasons of cost or because of time constraints are
unable to enroll on campus. The extent of reach of online
education has now crossed national and cultural boundaries
(Albritton, 2006; Rogers, 2006)[2][3].
The most important contribution of online learning is its
contribution in asynchronous learning or learning
characterized by a time lag between the delivery of instruction
and its reception by learners. Online course materials, for
example, may be accessed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The
online learning environment has aptly replaced the traditional
classrooms, which posed a major challenge in the
dissemination of knowledge due to time and geographical
constraints by networking students with their instructors more
closely than ever before.
Although online learning has been instrumental in the
dissemination of knowledge, the extent to which such a
medium is accepted among different cultural and ethnic
groups is a major area of research today. For globalized
learning systems, it becomes absolutely necessary for a
product to address the local issues/factors to enhance the
acceptability of these products because according to Allwood
(1990) [4] the cultural environment in which people live in is
assumed to have a strong effect on how they conceptualize
reality and as such culture is a critical influence factor on the
acceptance and use of learning systems [5]. Culture has an
Fig. 1: Proposed Relation between the cultural meta-models and the universal design methodology. (Figure on the left is adopted from Van-Roosmalen‘s
Universal Design Methodology)
influence in the way people interact with each other and
hence it will also influence how people of a particular
culture will interact with computers to perform tasks using
an interactive system. Therefore for a successful online
learning system, the attributes of the system should give its
users an essence of their own culture rather than a foreign
one and in the coming years addressing these factors will
receive a bigger acceptance among the online learning
industry. A designer while conceptualizing such a cross
cultural product should understand his/her cultural biasness
because it will influence his mental model of the visualized
product. For a successful design the mental model of the
designer should match the mental model of the end users
and such integration is only possible when the designer
considers the critical influential factors such as culture
during the conceptualization phase of a learning system. In
this paper we analyse various cultural meta-models and
how they can be related to the design morphology. We
analyse whether cultural levels affect online learning
systems in the same way it influences other online systems
and finally we try to figure out which among subjective
cultural issues and objective cultural issues should be
preferred by a user interface designer while
conceptualizing a cross cultural online learning system.
II. CULTURAL META-MODELS
In general Culture can be defined as the patterns of
behavior that identifies a group of people [6]. Geert
Hofstede defined culture as―the collective programming
of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group
or category of people from another [7].
Although there are many definitions of culture in the
literature, but there is no agreement on a specific definition
of culture [8, 9]. Hence Van Peurssen in 1991 went on to
say that culture is a complex concept that cannot just be
described, it has to be interpreted. Most definitions refer to
culture as the one which influences the way in which
communication takes place. Using the computer to perform
Authorized licensed use limited to: Purdue University. Downloaded on February 21,2022 at 04:41:54 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
tasks requires communication between the user and the
system, particularly when using an interactive system. So it
makes more sense to identify the significant differences
between the communication patterns of users with their
systems from different cultures which can result in overall
acceptance of the interactive system. Literatures suggest
various meta-models that use international variables or
dimensions of culture to identify issues involved in this
complex problem. Hoft in 1996 defined these international
variables as categories that organize cultural data.
A culture model helps to identify levels of issues being
involved in this complex problem by using international
variables, or dimensions of culture [10]. International
variables are categories that organize cultural data [Hoft,
1996]. That means these international variables are in fact
the constructs of cultures whose manifestations are
different in different cultures. Literatures in culture studies
suggest four meta-models of culture that gives us a glimpse
of the philosophies surrounding the concept of culture.
Onion Model, Pyramid model, the Iceberg model and the
Objective-Subjective model are the models that are
specifically known widely as cultural meta-model. These
four models gives us an over view of the various constructs
that has been identified and associated with culture. The
onion model was developed by Dr. Fons Trompenaars,
who defined culture in three layers the outer layer, middle
layer and the inner layer. The outer layer refers to explicit
products and artifacts of the culture such as language,
foods, cloths etc. The middle layer consists of norms and
values of the community and the core layer consists of
people‘s basic assumptions on human existence [11].
The pyramid model was developed by Hofstede in 1995
and comprises of Personality as the top level, culture as the
middle level and human nature as the bottom level [12].
Hofstede through this model highlighted that ―personality
is attributed to an individual and is both learned and
inherited, culture is specific to a group of people and is
learned not inherited and human nature is common to all
Fig. 2: Proposed association of the Pyramid model with the design morphology.
human beings. It is inherited and not learned [11].The
iceberg model developed by Hoft in 1996 also comprises
of 3 layers, the surface layer which consists of the visible
and obvious characters like number currency and time
format. The second layer contains the unspoken rules
where rules are determined by the specific context of a
situation and the third layer consisting of the unconscious
rules which are more difficult to reason as a person is not
consciously aware of it [11].
Among the four models stated above the objective and
the subjective cultural model developed by Stuart and
Bennett [8], identifies only two layers of culture, objective
culture and subjective culture. Objective culture is the
institutions and artifacts of a culture, such as its economic
system, social customs, political structures and processes,
arts, crafts and literature [8, p 43]. In contrast, subjective
culture is the psychological features of a culture, including
assumptions, values, and patterns of thinking [8, p 43].
Objective culture (such as the scripts and fonts people use,
date formats, and the like) is abstract, because it is an
externalization of subjective culture. Subjective culture
(such as how people react to color, the busyness of a
website, and so forth) is what is real and concrete.
However, objective culture tends to be treated as more real
and concrete than its source, subjective culture [8].
All these meta-models present the essence of culture
from two different perspectives, one that has manifested
and the one which is the cause of this manifestation. The
manifestation can be in terms of artifacts, products,
customs which are more visible in nature and behavior
which is little subtle in nature. But the cause of all these
vivid manifestations can be associated to the core belief
and values that a community or a group clings to. The
meta-models that are described in literatures have
identified various layers which describe the variables of
cultures in terms of their manifestations and the core
consciousness which influences these manifestations.
While the meta-models of culture uses various
terminologies to identify the dimensions of culture, their
central assumption remains the same, to identify variables
Authorized licensed use limited to: Purdue University. Downloaded on February 21,2022 at 04:41:54 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
which captures the visible and subtle attributes that
manifests as culture. For a designer, engaged in designing
cross cultural products, identifying these factors plays an
important role in the success of the product among the
users. The designer has to understand the dimensions of
culture which are critical influential factors effecting the
morphology of design. This review paper attempts to
address this issue by proposing a framework which
identifies the dimensions of culture that affects the
universal design methodology [Van-Roosmalen].
The universal design methodology enlists three major
phases which elaborates the design process as analytical
phase, creative phase and the executive phase. In the
analytical phase a designer tries to identify the users and
understand their needs through observations and surveys to
optimize the product requirements. The next phase that
follows the analytical phase is the creative phase where the
designer generates ideas and prepare his/her initial
conceptual designs. In the last stage, which is known as the
executive phase the conceptualized product goes for
prototyping. User testing is done after this to evaluate the
product and finally it goes for manufacturing.
The steps mentioned in the universal design
methodology highlight three critical points where users are
considered by the designer. The first step is observation;
here the designer looks for cues through which he gets a
firsthand impression of the user. While conceptualizing a
cross cultural product, manifestations that are more visible
e.g., artifacts, rituals etc. and little subtle manifestations
like the behavior of the user is taken into consideration by
the designer in a particular context to understand users
more closely. In an online cross cultural learning system,
probably this phase will help the designers in identifying
the graphical elements, to design the task flow that suits
their behavior, to decide the information architecture and
create a suitable interaction pattern. The second step is the
creative phase, here the designer has to let go his pre
suppositions that are influenced by his/her cultural biasness
and understand the source of the manifestations such as the
core beliefs and assumptions of his/her user along with the
visible manifestations to visualize various use cases and
design accordingly.
Fig. 1 describes this proposed relation of design
morphology with the cultural meta-models which can help
them in identifying the dimensions of culture that will
influence design decisions. The pyramid model is
intentionally left out as it differentiates between personality,
human nature and culture from each other rather than
highlighting the dimensions of culture. But the pyramid
model can be used by a designer with respect to the
interface elements in order to capture the essence of each
variable from the perspective of culture.
The elements of Hofstede‘s pyramid model of culture
(1980) can be associated to the design morphology of
online cross cultural learning system. Fig. 2 shows how the
three layers of the pyramid model can be associated. The
designer identifies the physiological and the cognitive
limits of human nature which are universal elements, then
categorizing these specifications in terms of the personality
traits which are individual elements. Finally these elements
are understood in the way, they manifest themselves
through a particular community or group. The cultural
elements thus can be used as cues during the
conceptualizing phase of a cross cultural online learning
system. Apart from the cultural meta-models described
above literatures highlight various researches which
highlighted the subjective parameters of culture that
influence the acceptance of cross cultural information
systems, most prominent among them is Fitzgerald
(2004)[13] who presents a review on the various models
related to cross cultural web design that have been carried
out to identify the subjective aspects of cultural dimensions.
The most prominent among these models reviewed by
him are: Cultural dimension (n-factor) models (Hall and
Hall, 1990;Hofstede, 1991; Trompenaars, 1993;
Khaslavsky, 1998), cultural marker models by Badre
(Barber and Badre, 1998), cultural attractors model by
Smith et al. (2004) are the most prominent among them.
A. Cultural Dimensions
Cultural dimension models use a number of cultural
factors to measure and compare different cultures. Hall in
1990 gave a four factor model, Hofstede in 1991 gave a
five factor model, Trompenaars (1993) and
Khaslavsky(1998) gave seven factor and nine factor
models accordingly. But among them the Hofstede‘s (1991)
model is the most extensively cited cultural dimension
model by the researchers. The five factors of cultural
dimensions stated by Hofstede are Power distance,
Uncertainty avoidance, Masculinity vs. Femininity,
Individualism vs. Collectivism and Time orientation
(orientation to past, present and future).
B. Cultural Markers
Cultural markers model a term coined by Badre take a
different approach and identify the various signs and
symbols that people of the culture will prefer as its markers.
Cultural markers are ―interface design elements and
Authorized licensed use limited to: Purdue University. Downloaded on February 21,2022 at 04:41:54 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
features that are prevalent, and possibly preferred, within a
particular cultural group [14]. In his work, Badre (2001)
provides a detailed list of cultural markers corresponding to
web design elements such as colour, spatial organization,
fonts, shapes, icons, metaphors, geography, language, flags,
sounds, motion, preferences for text vs. graphics,
directionality of how language is written (left vs. right),
help features and navigation tools. Sun (2001), in turn, in
his pilot study, focuses on only four major categories of
cultural markers: language, visuals, colors and page layout,
and evaluates these categories for nine localized
commercial websites (Adobe and IBM Lotus software).
[15].
C. Cultural Attractors
Cultural attractor is defined by Smith et al. (2004) [6], as
cultural design elements and then he lists a smaller number
of them: color, combinations, banner adverts, trust signs,
use of metaphor, language cues and navigation controls.
These various studies in the areas of cross cultural web
design shows that culture cannot be simply expressed only
by subjective or objective manifestations. It is an explicit
composition of subjective and objective dimensions. In one
side we have the cultural dimension models that illustrate
cultural differences from subjective dimensions, in the
other side we have the cultural marker and the attractor
models that considers the objective dimensions of culture.
In the context of online cross cultural learning systems
which dimension should we prefer more? This paper
highlights various literatures to understand what
researchers had carried out to seek an answer to this
problem.
D. Influence of Culture on Online Learning Environments
Designs of cross cultural online learning systems are
complex due to their influence on the learning process as
well as on the medium of delivery. In order to address the
issue of whether subjective culture should be preferred
more over objective culture or vice versa; it is posited here
that levels of culture affecting the learning environment
should be understood first. Culture has a critical influence
on the acceptance and use of learning systems by its users
[5]. H.H Adelsbergeret. et al., described two different
perspectives from which the influence of culture on
learning systems can be categorized. The institutional
perspective in which the multinational companies train
their employees through online networks globally,
commercialize web based education and export it to
countries having different cultures and the learning
perspective, a computer mediated online education where
Learners study collaboratively in multicultural teams and
instructors from different nations teach and facilitate
students from all over the world.
The institutional perspective in which the multinational
companies train their employees through online networks
globally, commercialize web based education and export it
to countries having different cultures and the learning
perspective, a computer mediated online education where
Fig. 3 & 4: communication mode in a learning environment; Cultural Profiling both adopted from[5].
Learners study collaboratively in multicultural teams
and instructors from different nations teach and facilitate
students from all over the world.
Influence of culture on online educational paradigm
doesn‘t only influence the usability of such systems but it
also influence the design and development of these systems.
Cultural environment affects online learning environments
from two perspectives: institutional (Design) and learning
(Use) perspectives. During the design and development
phase of any educational system, cultural biasness on a
person developing the system will influence the design of
such systems [5]. As stated by Watson and Raman in 1994
Learning software can't be transferred isolated without its
culture-related roots and the cultural context in which it is
produced. Similarly cultural biasness on the students and
the instructors influences their communication and group
behavior and thereby affecting the acceptance and use of
online learning systems [5].
In the context of learning perspectives in online
education literatures two different approaches on
influences of culture on learning can be found. These are
theories of transactional distance and that of
communication disciplines. Students often feel a
psychological distance from their instructors, this distance
is referred to as the transactional distance. A lot of studies
in the area of transactional distance can be found in the
literatures. Moore‘s theory of transactional distance
emphasizes the role of interdependence and autonomy to
decrease the individual‘s feeling of isolation [16]. In line
with this work, Zhang in 2003 [17] proposed a model of
transactional distance is very significant as it proposes four
dimensions: Transactional Distance between student and
student (TDSS), Transactional Distance between student
and teacher(s) (TDST), Transactional Distance between
student and content (TDSC), and Transactional Distance
between student and interface (TDSI). These four
dimensions are particularly applicable when cultural
influences are added.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Purdue University. Downloaded on February 21,2022 at 04:41:54 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
From the communication discipline approach,
communication can be differentiated as individual (teacher-
student) and group level interaction with the online
educational system. The communication behavior in such
collaborative learning networks on the Web can be stated
in two ways:
1. Computer-mediated communication that focuses on the
specifics of online communication via synchronous and
asynchronous communication channels.
2. Cross-cultural communication that investigates the
possible cross-culture differences in communication
behaviors. Hofstede‘s work in this regard is very crucial as
his data base confirmed that national culture had a major
impact on employees' work-related values and attitudes
(more than age, sex, profession, or position in the
organization).[5] There is a paucity of research in cross
cultural- computer mediated communication. The
communication mode in learning environments can be
classified into: cultural context, interaction mode and
communication for as depicted in Fig. 3[5]. Although we
know that cultures affects learning systems but there is a
paucity of research that systematically analyses culture-
related guidelines for the development and design of web-
based learning systems.
The Pedagogic Models of interactive learning systems
extended by cultural dimensions seems to answer few such
queries. In literature, these Models of interactive
instructional design consisting of different dimensions
which should be considered for the instructional design of
a system can be noted (Collis, 1999). From collis (1997) 19
dimension model to Reeves (Reeves, 1992) 14 dimension
models all these models tends to identify dimensions of
culture that affects the learning systems. Henderson‘s
pedagogical model in 1996 presented the most
comprehensive analysis based on Reeve‘s 14 dimensions
and added the idea of cultural profiling and of integrating
multiple cultural perspectives (Henderson, 1996), so that
various cultures preserve their identities and can adapt the
system to their cultural environment and not vice versa [5].
Figure 4 (adopted from [5]) presents contrary endpoints of
the dimensions that could be appropriate for different
cultural groups. It may happen that cultural profile may
also vary within the timeline of an instructional setting
itself, for example in the beginning when the student is
novice, an instructivist approach is chosen as the course
progresses and the student also gets experienced enough a
constructivist pedagogy is adopted. This change in the style
of pedagogy can be attributed to the various learning theory
paradigms: From cognitive behaviorism towards the
adoption of various features of constructivism [5].
Therefore in the case of design of a cross cultural online
learning system, not only cultural influences on the
interface elements should be considered but cultural
influences on the communication that takes place between
the student and the online system, the transactional
distances that student feels, instructional sequencing,
motivation, learner control etc. (listed in Fig. 4) also should
be considered because these dimensions influence the
learning process itself.
III. CONCLUSIONS
Literatures in cross cultural studies suggest many
cultural models that highlight various cultural dimensions.
The depth of integration of these cultural dimensions with
the design morphology depends on the context of the
product for which it is build. As for a cross cultural online
learning system, cultural issues identified are not only
limited to symbols and rituals of different cultures but their
impact go beyond icon use and interface layout issues to
learning variables that can change from one culture to the
other. And if these variables are not addressed by the
designer then the learning process itself can get affected.
So for a cross cultural online learning system while
objective cultures plays a significant role in the acceptance
of the interface elements among the users, subjective
culture plays more important role in the acceptance of the
system as a whole. So the argument whether subjective
culture or objective culture should be preferred over the
other according to the authors depends on the context for
which the product is being build.
The integration of culture in the design of cross-cultural
online educational system will require novel ways of
engaging the design process. It may require developing
both specialized designs, incorporating cultural variations
tailored to learners, focusing on cultural research specific
to learning strategies and contexts; considering the cultural
demographics of learners. Such integration will not only
enable great innovation in the design cross-cultural online
Authorized licensed use limited to: Purdue University. Downloaded on February 21,2022 at 04:41:54 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
educational systems but also meet the technological needs
of a globalized world.
REFERENCES
[1] US Department of Labor (1999), Future work–Trends and Challenges
for Work in the 21st Century. Quoted in EnGauge―21 st Century Skills,
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory; available:
http://www.ncrel.org/engauge/skills/21skills.
[2] Albritton, Frank P., The Challenges of Culture in Global Online
Learning (October 25, 2006). Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=940024
[3] Rogers, P. Clint and Minjuan Wang. "Cross-Cultural Issues in Online
Learning." Encyclopedia of Distance Learning, Second Edition. IGI
Global, 2009. 527-536. Web. 4 Dec. 2011. doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-198-
8.ch077S.
[4] Allwood, C. & Wang, Z-M. (1990). Conceptions of computers among
students in China and Sweden.Computers in Human Behaviour 6, 185-
199.
[5] Adelsberger, H.H.; Collis, B., Pawlowski, J.M., (Eds.). Cultural
Perspectives. Handbook of Information Technologies for Education and
Training, Berlin et. al.: Springer, in print)
[6] Smith, A. & Yetim, F. (2004) Editorial: Global human-computer
systems: cultural determinants of usability Interacting with Computers, 16
, 1-5.
[7] Hofstede, G. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind,
Intercultural Cooperation and its Importance for Survival. McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY, 1997.
[8] Hoft, N.: Developing a Cultural Model. In: Del Galdo, E., Nielson, J.
(eds.): InternationalUser Interfaces. John Wiley and Sons, New York
(1996).
[9] Ciborowski, T.J.: Cross-Cultural aspects of Cognitive Functioning:
Culture and Knowledge.In: Marsella, A.J., Tharp, R.G., Ciborowski, T.J.
(eds): Perspectives on Cross-Cultural Psychology. Academic Press Inc.,
New York (1979).
[10] Evers, V.: Cultural Aspects of User Interface Understanding: An
Empirical Evaluation of an E-Learning Website by International User
Groups. University of Amsterdam (2001).
[11] Van Biljon J.A., A model for representing the motivational & cultural
factors that influence mobile phone usage variety, Doctoral thesis,
University of South Africa, Nov. 2006.
[12] Hofstede Geert, Hofstede Geert H., Hofstede Gert Jan; Cultures and
organizations: software of the mind; McGraw-Hill, 2005.
[13] Fitzgerald, W. (2004). Models for cross cultural communications for
cross-cultural website design. NRC/ERB-1108. April 6,2004. 11 pages.
NRC Publication Number: NRC 46563. http://iit-iti.nrc-
cnrc.gc.ca/publications/nrc-46563_e.html.
[14] Badre, A. (2000). The Effects of Cross Cultural Interface Design
Orientation on World Wide Web User Performance. GVU Tech
Reports,http://www.cc.gatech.edu/gvu/reports/2001/
[15] Kondratova, Irina; Goldfarb, Ilia. Cultural Visual Interface Design.
NRC Publications Archive (NPArC). http://nparc.cisti-icist.nrc-
cnrc.gc.ca/npsi/ctrl?action=rtdoc&an=8914209&lang=en
[16] Moore, Michael G. (1994). "Is there a Cultural Problem in
International Distance Education?" Conference on Internationalism in
Distance Education. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University.
[17] Zhang, A. (2003). Transactional distance in web-based college
learning environments: Toward measurement and theory construction,
Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Commonwealth University.