Literature Review - Multicultural Perceptions

When we consider multicultural barriers, we must endeavour to see that many of these barriers are due to the perceptions of multicultural practices and even to go so far as to say that these perceptions can themselves be, or at the very least lead to barriers. One such belief is that culture has been overly focused on to the detriment of other needs (Benders, 2010). Benders states in his literature analysis that the issue is that we overstate the need for diversity acceptance in education and are fundamentally under prepared to incorporate the levels of diversity needed in our instructional design. This is in direct contrast to the beliefs of Parrish and Linder-VanBerschot and of Guirdham. 

Yet if we consider the work of Whitfield, Klug and Whitney where there was a lack of willingness to cater to each individual could be because of a lack of preparation towards the needs of the teacher. Benders’ paper indicated that an effort to infuse the system with sensitivity for cultural diversity needs to begin with teacher education. He states that in order to overcome some of the achievement gaps that we must concern ourselves with individuals rather than classes or content. The perception being that the greatest barrier we face in the multicultural scenario is our lack of understanding of it.

The work of Benders is further substantiated by that of Blumenfeld who notes the general lack of inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) in the inclusion of planning towards multicultural planning (Blumenfeld, 2010). That is not to say an individual from and LGBT culture would need special attention, but rather that individuals from a culture without an LGBT culture could possibly introduce an element of heterosexism/homophobia/biphobia/transphobia to the learning environment. The primary argument put forward by multiple papers and discussed in Blumenfeld’s study is does LGBT have a place in the concept of multiculturalism, the tendency would appear to be to think of it as something more exclusive, than have it under the mantle of multiculturalism. Blumenfeld believes that the only way to overcome bigotry and stereotyping is to allow for full inclusion of LGBT issues under the umbrella of multiculturalism. Which brings about a perception that is yet to be considered, what do people not consider to be a culture? 

Literature Review - Multicultural Definitions

In understanding the barriers to multicultural training we must understand the multicultural environment in itself. Investigation into the current academic and professional literature on the multicultural environments currently would appear to trend into the direction of two key research areas, communication and management. There is a limited supply of research into the effect of cross-cultural or multi-cultural learning and what is there is for immigrants and youth orientated learning.

Culture itself has many definitions. A basic definition of the term would be a historically transmitted system of symbols, meanings and norms (Guirdham, 1999). Whilst Kendall and Wickham explain culture in the following way:

Refers to the way of life of a group, including the meanings, the transmissions communication and alteration of those meanings (Kendall and Wickham, 2001).

Guirdham gives us a definition that is very broad in its scope and view, Kendall and Wickham can be seen to describe for us that culture is not an abstract entity but rather as a basic part of our everyday social interactions. This gives us a more tangible definition and understanding of the term in itself. Kendall and Wickham also go forward to describe how that culture is one of the names given to the different ways people go about ordering the world. Initially the term culture can be hard to lay down with a strict definition but from the similarities between these definitions we see that it can be an outline for understanding an individual’s personal experiences in life.

So in understanding culture as a definition, it has been explained as the realm of symbol and meanings (Berger, 1991). This is to say it is a collection of signs, symbols and meaning and we can therefore describe multicultural settings as a scenario where these elements may vary between all the participants. Newspapers have been used as an example of culture as a system of symbolic representation. They are not only different in terms of how and what news is reported, but also in terms of the papers values, standards, approaches to social and so on (McQuail, 2000).

Although the general consensus towards multiculturalism in education is about bringing in people together and appreciating the individualism of all participants it has been argued on occasion that prevalent forms of multicultural education are separatist and divisive in nature, irrational, inequitable, and can cause conflict (Peariso, 2010). Peariso goes on to say that “a unifying brand of multicultural education is offered as an alternative which builds on commonalities, can alleviate conflict, fosters academic achievement for all students, and is built on Christian principles” however. This is to say that Peariso does not assume to say Multiculturalism does not work but rather that it is not always effective in how it is currently applied. Peariso found in prior research that when teachers endeavour to learn about culture in the company of diverse colleagues, minority races and ethnicities were assumed to be cultural experts. This in turn he believes limits the ability of those involved to communicate naturally and inhibits the overall group learning experience, it is claimed in critical race theory that the only way to end this discrimination in the educational setting, is to dispute and displace the prevalent culture. So to truly have a multicultural environment there must not be a singular culture used as a base or starting place for all to explain their own culture around.

Further research describes being culturally competent as frequently discussing at length and with consistency how to engage, educate, understand and lead multicultural populations (Johnson, 2010). Johnson begins by realising multiculturalism can mean different things to different people, yet to develop our understanding of it there must be a commonality of how we approach and talk about it. In the research Johnson claims that, multicultural educators and the professionals trained to teach diversity would face these same challenges in creating consensus by trying to define what multicultural education means in a learning environment. Johnson for her research takes a singular definition to use for the discussion, an excerpt from the National Association for Multicultural Education (NAME):

Cultural Competence 4 Multicultural education is a philosophical concept built on the ideals of freedom, justice, equality, equity, and human dignity. Multicultural education is a process that means to ensure the highest levels of academic achievement for all students while developing a positive self- concept from knowledge about the histories, cultures, and contributions of diverse groups for their responsibilities in an interdependent world (NAME, 2003).

Further on Johnson also references Hanley who claims that multicultural education has the capacity to address the educational needs of a society that continues to struggle witah the realization it is not monocultural in any aspect (Hanley, 1999). This can be perceived to contrast quite strongly with the definition from NAME and it is a much more pessimistic view of multiculturalism. NAME sees multiculturalism as an endeavour and development, whilst Hanley interprets multiculturalism as something that people have already failed at and needs to be improved.

In the study of multiculturalism, cultural competencies are an important view of how the teacher’s skills are perceived in relation to multicultural learning. Cultural competencies relate to the characteristics currently perceived as being necessary for a teacher to manage in a multicultural environment. These characteristics can include awareness, knowledge, and skills (Leighton, 2010). Leighton’s study goes to say that as the diversity of students within school populations continues to grow, so does the need for teachers to provide cultural competence in their programming. The importance of cultural competence for the teachers is ever increasing as an essential part in the delivery of information. This study is one of the closest found to relate to the teachers perspective on how they manage in a multicultural environment. However the stand point of the research is to address the necessary skills for the teacher to have to facilitate the class’s multicultural nature, without taking into account the need to accommodate to the teachers perspective. The view of, if the skills are present there should be no barriers to the trainer, seems to be a predominant theme in the literature, but this involves an assumption that the skills are the only barrier to the training for the person delivering it. The research recognises the limitations however as even though Leighton managed to survey 120 teachers she says “the results are limited by the participant’s responses” and goes on to say Future research could use more advanced sub-categories to focus on the particular type and duration of cultural competency workshops. This relates to the plan of our research to focus on a smaller target audience with particular attention to the answers of the interviewee. 

What are the barriers facing the Trainer in the multicultural business training environment?

The discussions of multicultural barriers are an immense and broad topic of discussion in the worlds of both education and business. The term multicultural in its self is so all encompassing that it in fact not as clearly defined as it would initially appear. When we say multicultural the majority of people consider this to mean multinational, which is of course a major principle and consideration of multicultural principles and especially for training purposes, yet multicultural education and research has been seen to go so far as to encompass considerations towards economic backgrounds, social status and even sexual orientation on occasion.

When considering a realistic view of a trainer or teacher in modern business environments, they will not have knowledge or even access to information about an individual’s economic background or sexual orientation for both professional courtesy and legal reasons. However if considering multicultural needs they will predominantly focus on the multinational aspect and approaches. It is important to define this perception now as this is to be the key element of the research area and how individuals possibly perceive multiculturalism. The goal of multiculturalism is to appreciate and accept multiple cultures in a specific place or organization. In this sense multiculturalism is a means towards respect for diversity, which means for a trainer that all individual approaches and ideals from training participants must be taken into consideration. 

This can make a huge difference to the needs of the individuals in training when we consider aspects like, did the participant come from a background of teacher-centric or student-centric learning?, or are they more accustomed to active participation compared to others who prefer lecturing scenarios? We also must consider the more obvious barriers to the class of language skills and usage, accents of the person delivering the training and colloquialisms that can be used by the trainer themselves.

The current research undertaken into multiculturalism and multicultural barriers would lean towards a view centred on student perceptions and challenges. These types of research tend to be, what are the challenges that a specific ethic group may face in a learning scenario? The details also seem to be taken from an American or English perspective towards education, or at least from a native English speaking perspective with a western educational view towards learning. What about the trainers themselves in this type of learning scenario? What do the trainers perceive to be the challenges and barriers to the delivery of their training? If we look at trainers who are themselves of multicultural backgrounds are there similarities in the challenges they face? We will consider these aspects whilst also looking into a various multinational views on this research.

To these ends the use of subject matter experts will be called into use for this research, so as not to be limited to English or American delivery and to compare and contrast the views of trainers who are themselves facing on occasion their own cultural barriers. This will allow for an insight into the actual individuals who work and have experience in these scenarios and how they themselves perceive the barriers to their delivery. It has been said that ‘despite the fact that both learning styles and cross-cultural differences have been important research topics for decades, surprisingly little work has been done on comparisons of learning behaviour across cultures and its impact for teachers working in culturally mixed settings’(Palfreyman & McBride, 2007).

The reasoning for this research is to investigate the real barriers to the trainer, which from the previous research done when amalgamated and reviewed would give the perception that it is not language being the primary barrier but in fact the perception of information depending on how and to whom it is delivered. The idea behind this is that the different people, depending on their cultural setting, would relate to information in different ways and with no adjustment to their culture they could come to different individual interpretations (Kendall and Wickham, 2001). Whilst a trainer will have specific learning objectives of which they wish to have the audience to be able to leave the training with, this for business is even more important as the need for component trained staff is essential to maintain a professional standard and competitive edge.

Stereotypes would also appear to play a predominant part in preparation of these trainings as it is an alleged method of which to meet the needs of an audience without having an actual understanding of the person’s background. In saying this it may not be the best way to actually manage a group like this as it may still isolate individuals who do not conform to these supposed social norms, and also when we consider the general social stigma attached to stereotypes and them being used how can they be deemed as appropriate for educational needs.

Both of these considerations themselves could insinuate that trainers when planning a training scenario may actually deliver the training in a different way than how they conscientiously planned it out. Trainers would appear to be able to adjust to a singular ethic group and consider language to be a barrier in both singular and mixed group scenarios, but resort to use of stereotypes when actually managing the class and the initial approach to the students themselves. Only later during the training can the trainer identify the actual people and their personal needs in the training session. From a trainers perspective which we are taking to be the main focus of this research we are going to consider the barriers including the stereotypes attached to them and how they need to compensate for them. To account for this we will be using a base of multicultural trainers who themselves are of a mixed cultural background.

The trainer needs to identify the needs of the group the question that is proposed is, what are the barriers that prevent the trainer in delivering their training in business environments? and how they perceive these barriers personally. We will see if the different cultures of the trainers themselves bring about any specific challenges or if the challenges presented are of common themes throughout the trainers regardless of personal ethnic backgrounds or business scenario.

The aim is to see how trainers perceive the barriers facing them in providing students with information consistently across multiple cultures in a singular delivery scenario, also to gain possible insight and understanding of how the trainers currently facilitate an integrated learning experience that does not exclude any of the class due to their societal and cultural background as how people learn can be greatly dependent on their prior experience of learning from their own culture, especially in tertiary and adult education, our concern is however the business environment. We will review existing literature on individual and cultural differences among students and how these are currently perceived, how these differences affect students learning and beliefs about education, although our goal is to identify how these differences are barriers to the trainers themselves.

During the research we will search for data on the methods used by the trainers, in addition to how and if the trainers devise learning strategies or personal approaches that address individual differences and that influence the learners experience helping to progress them to the learning objectives intended by the trainer. The research undertaken will assess the recognition from the trainer of cultural differences in learning and how trainers provide a meaningful learning environment for a range of individual and cultural differences. 

Introduction to what are the barriers facing the Trainer in the multicultural business training environment?

What are the barriers facing the Trainer in the multicultural business training environment?

In the formal business training environment it can be a challenge to reach a culturally mixed class, the difficulty is taking into account educational, sociological and environmental backgrounds for each individual and even the most adaptive training will not always reach everyone. There is as yet no key methodology or best practice structure in regular use for the business environment on how to approach this sort of training scenario. Yet this is more of a prominent concern in modern work environments than ever, as with the growth of globalisation and the influence of communication technologies the world can be perceived as becoming a continually smaller place and the physical barriers to mixed culture environments becoming less and less existent. What we appear to see however is that the cultural barriers themselves still seem to remain in the understanding and approaches to learning.

Is it possible that in the world of formal business training we can reach a cross-cultural group, without the need for extreme adaptation towards individuals in the audience or a one to one focus? To see if this is possible we must first identify the recurrent barriers and the needs of the trainer in providing training to these culturally diverse groups.

We can investigate multicultural training using the appropriate principles and terminology and to see if we can identify the principle cultural barriers that a trainer can face which negatively impact the learning and development of individuals in the mixed culture learning environment, with the intention that they can be used to further develop an understanding of how to overcome them going forward. 

Educational Assessment – why bother?

In the realm of education there is a variety of pedagogic strategies and theories, but to substantiate these we must have a proven form of validation to assure both the success of the educational experience itself and verify the learning outcomes of the student themselves. We may find, however, that students and even on occasion educators may not see the point of an assessment as part of a course feeling that merely the participation is enough. So why should we validate their knowledge?

For this matter to be overcome we must justify the validation itself, but from various readings the issue would appear to sometimes arise from the usage of the wrong assessment type (Gibbs & Simpson 2005). The challenge in using these assessments is to find the right assessment to validate the learning experience since the assessments need to match the measurement of the intended outcomes and be an appropriate means of testing for the audience. For instance a validation for a school student may not be appropriate to use in a professional environment.

In an educational setting, assessment is traditionally used as a form of validation of the students’ work and development. We most commonly see this used in an empirical manner where the goal is to assess components of the knowledge, around a rote learning form of strategy. The idea being that the students have memorised and absorbed the information given to them and can regurgitate it in a test environment. This can be seen to relate in its approach to Skinner and his behaviourist theories (Skinner 1979) when the output is that of automated response, or even similar to Gagne on a much deeper level where he describes this in his nine events of instruction (Gagne 1974) with stage 8 – ‘Assess Performance’, to lead from the ability to simply regurgitate the information to ‘Enhance Retention’ of the knowledge itself in his final stage. This is a summative approach to assessment.

However in a higher education learning environments we tend to see the focus of the assessment brought away from the traditional empirical methods and more geared towards an ideal of involvement and participation. This could be due to the fact that school education is education with a purpose of getting you ready to pass a state exam, so development comes secondary to an empirical result. Whilst further and higher educations are mostly aimed at developing you to function in a working environment where continual growth and collaboration are generally most sought after than rote memorisation skills.

With this in mind we can see that the assessment that are created try to be more open in their approach for these higher learning institutes. We see a focus on rationalisation rather than memorisation where the student now needs to research for themselves and develop according to their own interests and the ability to rationalise and discuss their findings is the main area of importance. The assessments can now be varied and a formative approach can be seen to show the students’ knowledge and understanding, using ideas from portfolios and participation based assessments where we can now gain an overview of development or even break it down into increments of development.

In these formative scenarios where we can see development happening through the stages, the idea is that we can assess the quality of the students’ achievements whilst they are still in the process of learning. This is to say that although the students are being tested on their performance, the test itself may be open-ended. In the formative scenario, the student cannot know too much, obviously a limit can be reached in the time frame but the limit is set by the student and their involvement, this is in direct opposition to summative where the goal is to achieve only the designated levels to be tested. This could, in turn, be nearly perceived as putting a cap on the education of the student. e.g. “in learning this course material and that is all you will need to know to pass the exam”. This isn’t to say summative doesn’t have its own benefits, we will touch on later, but it puts to question, how or even do we match our assessment to out desired learning outcomes.

Assessment is by no means limited to the academic environment; in industry there are many valid reasons for us to use assessment on a regular basis, from initial interviewing to progression and development; these again tend to be a mixture of formative and summative assessments dependent on the area needing to be gauged.

A summative assessment in these situations may not just be a knowledge test, for example we can see these being a technical test in applying for a computer job role or a maths skill test for an actuarial position. In some circumstances though we may use a language test to assess an individual’s skill with a language before being brought into work in a multicultural environment; even though an interview scenario may be more beneficial it is not always a feasible solution due to time constraints and location considerations, but in deciding our appropriate assessment method we do consider if they are at an appropriate level for the business? The difference in this sort of scenario is we as a business consider that the assessment is a tool, unlike the academic environment, used not to see the limits of the individual knowledge but to see if they have the skill level required to work in the business, which is why the summative approach is just as effective and in fact more cost and time effective.

In a developmental direction however we can see in some creative careers how an ongoing portfolio of work is kept to display not just one’s ability but a timeframe over how they have changed. This was commonly seen in an art and design career, but now is used in a technical role, to display a history of software development, for example. Some roles will now go so far as to develop entire training structures to build an individual for a role. In these, from my own experience in the industry, the student keeps an ongoing portfolio of work and development and completes a final testing as well. This shows the potential for development of the individual whilst showing a definitive knowledge of certain areas. All this is aimed to be done within reason of the role; however, in certain areas, an individual would need to know direct from memory, in others they would have time to research. To assure the candidate is properly versed in this the testing must be appropriately matched to the intended skills.

I have mentioned the point of finding the right assessment for matching the learning targets but how do we do this? There seems to be no set instruction on how to approach the matter, but there are noted considerations on how we should broach the subject. For instance a primary concern as mentioned above is to be clear in you targets, a well defined outcome is essential in directing towards the correct assessment. There are two perspectives to this point, the students and the educators. Does the assessment technique benefit the student and consider, does the proposed assessment method actually prove a knowledge or understanding of the topic for the educator to assess them? As noted for some business scenarios an assessment does not necessarily need to be a benefit but rather a method of skill testing. This is also a consideration, why create a portfolio when all you need is to know the person has a basic understanding? It’s of no benefit to either party and creates undue work.

When we say educational assessment – why bother? The simple answer is; how could we not bother? In reflection when we discuss assessment it may not always be apparent, especially to the assessed as to the benefits and reasoning behind the method and approach. This can be mostly overcome by merely explaining the logic behind the practice specific to the given scenario. Each assessment is, or at least should be, there with purpose. In education it is used to develop the student, and in business assessment is a means to assess performance. Without assessment we could not validate skills or knowledge of an individual or group. The challenge though is not when to use assessment but what assessment to use? Each assessment should be well planned out to best fit the desired outcomes, if the assessment is appropriately selected and implemented a better learning experience can be created.

Bibliography

Gagne, R.M. & Briggs,L. J. , 1974, Principles of instructional design, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Texas.

Gibbs & Simpson, 2004, ‘Conditions Under Which Assessment Supports Students’ Learning’  ,Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, Issue 1

Nitko, A.J. & Brookhart., 2006, ‘Educational Assessment in Students’, Pearson, Accessed 22 February 2010, from http://wps.prenhall.com/chet_nitko_education_5/47/12089/3094917.cw/-/t/index.html

Skinner, 1979, The shaping of a behaviourist, Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

Can gaming characteristics be used as a method of overcoming cultural barriers in training?

As an educator there can be many various challenges and barriers to delivering effective Training. One challenge that has become more common in recent years is that of a cultural nature. These vary from the difference in educational approaches dependent on the local educational cultural and the expectations of a student in a classroom scenario, to the less measurable Language, Body Language and even Etiquette skills. The Barriers are even more obvious and abundant in a multi-cultural classroom or training scenario.

The areas mentioned above are aspects of training and education which differ from culture to culture and if there is a lack of synergy between trainer and student or even between students of varying cultural backgrounds it can be hard to create an atmosphere conducive to effective training.

Although we may find that there are many tools and resources available, are we really using all of what’s available to us and are we using them with the right approach in mind? For example, e-learning and multimedia methods of training can be seen to be used at times as merely methods of presenting digital text with no real structure, interaction or presentation design behind them.

                  I believe that the characteristics inherent to simulations and educational games, which can be used to increase learning and motivation in a training scenario, can be used as a bridge to bypass these cultural barriers by allowing the Trainee to progress and develop in a training scenario that can be flexible and can be customized to meet the individual needs of the learners.

There are a number of features that supplement the characteristics of games and simulations. In games there are six structural factors:

·                Rules

·                Goals and Objectives

·                Outcomes and Feedback

·                Conflict / Competition / Challenge / Opposition

·                Interaction

·                Representation or Story

                                                                                          (Prensky 2001)

The use of these factors and characteristics may allow us to accommodate different types of learning styles, also giving Students the advantage of learning at their own pace. Students will learn through a variety of activities that apply to many different learning styles learners have.

So using these gaming characteristics we can apply them to various training methodologies and scenarios to see if appropriately used, can they help overcome or even improve how we handle cultural barriers in training.

Bibliography

Prensky, 2001, Digital Game-Based Learning, McGrawHill, New York.

Benjamin Hamilton, 2007, ‘Game Characteristics’, Learning Design and Performance Improvement, accessed 3 October 2009, from http://hamiltonnotes.blogspot.com/2007/07/game-characteristics.html