Introduction
Globalization makes cultural diversity a pertinent factor in e-learning, as distributed learning teams with mixed cultural backgrounds become commonplace in most e-learning programs, which can be study-based (schools and universities) or work-based (training units) (Zhang & Zhou, 2003). In these programs, collaborative learning is supported via computer-mediated communication technologies and instructional technologies. The primary goal of enhancing learning with technology aids, aligning with the goal of education at all levels, is to engage students in meaningful learning activities, which require learners to construct knowledge by actively interpreting, acquiring, and analyzing their experience (Alavi, Marakas, & Yoo, 2002). In accordance, meaningful learning requires knowledge to be constructed by the learners but not by the teachers. In this regard, collaborative learning, an activity where two or more people work together to create meaning, explore a topic, or improve skills, is considered superior to other individualistic instructional methods (Lerouge, Blanton, & Kittner, 2004). The basic premise underlying this is the socio-learning theory, which advocates that learning and development occur during cooperative socialization among peers and emerge through shared understandings (Leidner & Jarvenpaa, 1995). This highlights the criticality of the communication and collaboration pertaining to an individual's learning process. Since culture reflects the way one learns (Hofstede, 1997; Vygotsky, 1978), group members' cultural backgrounds play a significant role in affecting the collaborative learning process (Chang & Lim, 2005). Language, cognitive style, and learning style are some aspects of culture that concern collaborative learning in the short term.
Groups which have members of different cultural backgrounds are expected to be availed a wider variety of skills, information, and experiences that could potentially improve the quality of collaborative learning (Rich, 1997). In contrast, a group comprising members of similar backgrounds is vulnerable to the "groupthink" syndrome; when the syndrome operates, members could ignore alternatives, resulting in a deterioration of efficiency in making a group decision (Janis, 1982). Accordingly, it is conceivable that groups formed by members of different cultural backgrounds are inherently less prone to the "groupthink" syndrome. However, the advantages of cultural diversity in achieving meaningful collaborative learning are not easily realized, as the basic modes of communication may vary among different cultures and, in consequence, communication distortion often occurs (Chidambaram, 1992). Collaborative learning systems (CLS) are being increasingly researched owing to their potential capabilities and the associated new opportunities in supporting collaborative learning, in particular for distributed groups involving members of different cultural backgrounds (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). Collaborative learning systems provide the necessary medium to support interaction among learners, and therefore modify the nature and the efficiency of the collaborative learning activities (Mandryk, Inkepn, Bilezikjian, Klemmer, & Landay, 2001). The current article looks into how collaborative learning systems may better accommodate cultural diversity in e-learning groups. In addition, this article discusses pertinent issues regarding the role of a leader in building the common ground among learners in order to maximize the potential of collaborative learning systems when cultural diversity is present.
background
Collaborative learning is superior to individualistic instruction in terms of increase in individual achievement, positive changes in social attitudes, and general enhancement of motivation to learn, among other positive outcomes (Slavin, 1990). Learners tend to generate higher-level reasoning strategies, a greater diversity of ideas and procedures, more critical thinking, more creative responses, and better long-term retention when they are actively learning in collaborative learning groups than when they are learning individually or competitively (Schlechter, 1990). Growing interest in supporting the needs of collaborative learning, boosted by concurrent improvements in both computer mediated communication (CMC) and group support systems (GSS), has led to the emergence of the instructional technology known as collaborative learning systems. These are systems implemented to provide computer-supported environments which facilitate collaborative learning. The importance of these systems lies fundamentally in their being a medium through which learners can cooperate with others.
Technology shapes the communication among users in terms of five media characteristics: symbol variety, parallelism, rehearsability, reprocessability, and immediacy of feedback (Dennis & Valacich, 1999). Symbol variety refers to the bandwidth that information can be communicated; parallelism is the number of concurrent conversations that a medium can support; rehearsability is the capability enabling users to modify a message before sending; reprocessability refers to the extent to which messages sent can be reprocessed during the communication; immediacy of feedback indicates whether a medium supports spontaneous feedback. In comparing collaborative learning systems and face-to-face setting in terms of three media characteristics—parallelism, rehearsability and reprocessability—the former outperforms the latter by embedding anonymity, text recording, and multiple access features; in terms of the other two media characteristics, symbol variety and immediacy of feedback, the situation is reversed (Dennis & Valacich, 1999).
Feather (1999) suggests that individuals will prefer learning in the virtual environment if they require more time to think about a question before answering, find it hard to speak out in a traditional class albeit possessing contributions, or like some degree of anonymity. Empirical evidence demonstrates that computer-mediated cooperative learning tended to have positive impacts on learners' performance and autonomy in controlling their learning pace (Salovaara, 2005; Yu, 2001).
MAIN THRUST OF THE ARTICLE
potential of collaborative Learning system in Accommodating cultural Diversity
Culture is defined as the collective programming of the mind which makes the inhabitants of one country distinguishable from another (Hofstede, 1997). A heterogeneous group is one whose members are of different (national) cultural backgrounds while a homogeneous group has members of the same (national) cultural background. Hofstede (1997) has suggested four main cultural dimensions: individualism-collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity-femininity. Hofstede's theory entails major cultural dimensions and seeks to explain the underlying causes of dissimilar behaviors in communication; indeed, different group behaviors are noted between heterogeneous and homogeneous groups (Stephan & Stephan, 2001). Members in an individualistic culture generally prefer loose ties with other peers during the collaboration process. In contrast, members in a collectivistic culture are typically more concerned with the common goal of the group and tend to prefer to work together.
Apotential benefit of the collaborative learning systems is the support of diverse learning styles (Wang, Hinn, & Kanfer, 2001). Functions embedded in collaborative learning systems can enable more effective collaborative learning activities in heterogeneous groups by smoothing the communication process. In the face-to-face setting without technology aid, learners may feel the need to wait for others to express their ideas, by which time they may have either forgotten their own ideas or become less confident with these ideas; this phenomenon is called production blocking. Through embedding concurrent inputs by multiple users, collaborative learning systems offer a unique opportunity to eliminate production blocking, particularly as group size increases (Valacich, Jessup, Dennis, & Nunamaker, 1992). Moreover, text-based communication in these systems offers important features for communication that are radically different from the face-to-face setting. Group members' comments are recorded as text and they can be revisited repeatedly; such a feature is expected to enhance learning effectiveness as compared to oral communication, especially for non-native speakers, since no speaking has to take place (Herring, 1999). The communication support in collaborative learning systems has been suggested to be an effective tool in dealing with the lack of peer interaction in the classroom (Li, 2002). The underlying reason is that participation becomes more evenly distributed among members with computer-mediated interaction, while status and hierarchical structures become less important (Laughlin, Chandler, Shupe, Magley, & Hulbert, 1995).
Besides the communication difficulty mentioned previously, learners' uncertainty and anxiety form another challenge posted by cultural diversity in the face-to-face setting. In the absence of technological aid, when team members interact in the course of collaboration, uncertainty and anxiety of being in a heterogeneous group are likely to affect learners' communication with one another (Gudykunst, 1995), thus decreasing their performance. However, owing to the differences in communication process (as compared to face-to-face interaction), the rehearsability and the relatively lower degree of social presence embedded in collaborative learning systems are able to help the communication process in heterogeneous groups by lowering members' uncertainty and anxiety (Young, 2003). Therefore, the negative effects of cultural differences are reduced if not altogether eliminated by computer-aided systems, as learners of different cultures gain more accurate understanding of one another. Notwithstanding this, the diversity in terms of cultural values and experiences, earlier argued to be a strength, is not eroded. Also, the systems do not take the heterogeneous groups back to the "groupthink" situation which is more commonly present in homogeneous groups. Thus, with the aid of collaborative learning systems, the potential strengths of heterogeneity can be optimized and cause the learners in heterogeneous groups to outperform those in homogenous groups. Yet, as far as satisfaction with the process is concerned, the heterogeneous groups and the homogeneous groups are not likely to differ; this is attributable to the overwhelming effect of collaborative learning systems which pervades the communication process, as well as minimizes the prominence of cultural diversity (Lim & Zhong, 2004).
Furthermore, learners in heterogeneous groups will conceivably have a more positive attitude toward collaborative learning systems usage as the systems make it easier for them to communicate with members of different cultural backgrounds—in comparison with their previous experience in face-to-face settings. The underlying reason is that learners in heterogeneous groups are more likely to be apprehensive toward oral communication; correspondingly, they perceive the text-based collaborative learning systems to be a more comfortable communication medium, an alternative to oral communication (Brown, Fuller, & Vician, 2004). Since members of homogeneous groups would not suffer communication barriers even in a face-to-face setting, they would not appreciate the benefits of collaborative learning systems to the extent their counterparts in heterogeneous groups would, relatively speaking.
Building common Ground in collaborative Learning Systems through Leadership
Collaborative learning systems have the potential to deal with the challenges introduced by cultural diversity; however, a mere focus on technology alone cannot guarantee an enhanced learning experience. Effective communication in collaborative learning systems hinges on establishing a common ground among members of a learning group (Cramton, 2002); common ground refers to the mutual understanding of the knowledge constructed during the learning process. Such mutual understanding is composed of not only the specific pieces of information but also the awareness that other members know the information. When common ground is achieved in a group, collaborative learning is more likely to be effective.
However, heterogeneous groups are inherently poor in establishing and maintaining such common ground; group members tend not to be able to understand or remember contextual information of others, and this may result in inaccurate understandings. Still worse, users from different cultural backgrounds may deem a certain technology (or a specific function) better suited for a given task. In general, collectivistic cultures, which prefer high-context communication (e.g., Asia), tend to perceive collaborative technologies to be a better fit for conveyance process in communication (e.g., composing messages, providing explanations, and carrying out convergence-oriented communications); on the other hand, individualistic cultures, which are leaning toward low-context communication (e.g., U.S.), tend to perceive collaborative technologies as a more appropriate tool for convergence process (e.g., making a group decision) (Massey, Montoya-Weiss, Hung, & Ramesh, 2001). This is also applicable to the context of collaborative learning systems, as the two primary processes in communication, conveyance and convergence, are inherently relevant in the collaborative learning activities. Conveyance process in collaborative learning refers to the exchange of information among learners; convergence process is the construction of shared meaning for information. In consequence, electronic means of communication embedded in collaborative learning systems may make it difficult to discover and resolve misunderstandings (e.g., uneven distribution of information among members) (Cramton, 2002).
We posit that leadership may facilitate the development and maintenance of common ground in collaborative learning systems. The leader of a learning group takes the responsibility for organizing a group, delegating assignments, coordinating information, and supporting the contributions of others (Hostager, Lester, Ready, & Bergmann, 2003). A leader facilitates group process by allowing varied views to be heard, providing information, probing for more information, and summarizing the progress the group is making toward its goals. The leader has to quickly recognize when a group wanders off and bring the participants back to the issue at hand.
The leaders should gain an adequate appreciation of the different reactions that technologies have evoked among members with different cultural backgrounds. Thereafter, he would be in a position to help facilitate in developing the group norms or guidelines concerning communications in a heterogeneous team. In formulating these rules or guidelines, the leader must recognize the influential role of cultural differences on users' perception. For example, learners of collectivistic cultural backgrounds should utilize features of the asynchronous discussion forum for their collaborative learning activities; these learners may prefer asynchronous groupware which allows more time to compose messages and express themselves. In particular, these rules or guidelines should define how, when, and which technologies should be used, and how the team will deal with conflict and make decisions based on members' perceptions and preferences. By doing so, the fit between the task and technologies used can be achieved, and eventually, this fit would enhance the common ground building among members in collaborative learning systems. All these activities carried out by a leader contribute toward forming a common ground and, in turn, lead to the achievement of meaningful learning.
future trends
The current research has defined cultural diversity exclusively in terms of nationality being either heterogeneous or homogeneous. This approach can be used as a benchmark (or a foundation) for future studies, so as to develop greater conceptual understanding, or even a substantive theoretical model, of cultural diversity. Undoubtedly, there are other aspects that also deserve research attention to study the notion of degree of heterogeneity in groups.
Two examples are time and the type of cultural differences. First, cultural diversity may be affected by the time factor. Although cultural background of a person is mainly inherited from the society where he originates, it can change with time when he moves to a new society. Next, the concept of cultural diversity can be more precisely calibrated in terms of the extent of variety of cultures embedded in a given team. A heterogeneous group consisting of American and European members is in a sense less heterogeneous than one that comprises Japanese and Americans. Consequently, to utilize the potential benefit, collaborative learning systems should be incorporated into the learning process while taking into consideration the degree of heterogeneity.
Additionally, the effect of collaborative learning systems cannot be adequately discussed without considering other pertinent contextual factors that would help realize the potential of these systems in addressing cultural diversity in the context of e-learning. In this connection, leadership, common ground, conveyance process, and convergence process are the contextual factors identified in this article. They deserve to be further researched both in terms of breadth and depth.
conclusion
Globalization and the paradigmatic shifts toward collaborative learning make cultural diversity a pertinent factor in e-learning. To provide meaningful collaborative learning experience to learners, collaborative learning systems facilitate heterogeneous groups by smoothing the communication process; they are, therefore, expected to play an important role in e-learning. This article addresses the conceptual and practical issues in invoking collaborative learning systems to support cultural diversity. By synthesizing the theoretical perspectives regarding cultural issues, the current article identifies the corresponding collaborative learning systems functions in overcoming the challenges alongside the conceptual expositions. In addition, it expounds on the role of leadership in building common ground among learners to utilize the potential of heterogeneous groups in e-learning.
key terms
Collaborative Learning Systems (CLS): Systems implemented to provide computer-supported environments which facilitate collaborative learning. Primarily, these systems serve as a medium through which learners can cooperate with others.
Common Ground in Collaborative Learning Group: The mutual understanding of the knowledge constructed during the learning process. Such mutual understanding is composed of not only the specific pieces of information but also the awareness that other members know the information.
Convergence Process in Collaborative Learning:The construction of shared meaning for information in collaborative learning activities.
Conveyance Process in Collaborative Learning: The exchange of information among learners in collaborative learning activities.
Cultural Diversity: The composition of members' (national) cultural backgrounds in a group. It is defined exclusively in terms of nationality, being either heterogeneous or homogeneous.
Heterogeneous Group: A group whose members are of different (national) cultural backgrounds.
Homogeneous Group: A group whose members are of the same (national) cultural background.