View
222
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
The Potential Role of Individualistic versus
Collectivistic Values on Students’
Engagement in the Classroom
37th Annual EAIR Forum
Track 2
Kjera Seregi, Institutional Research, Kent State University
Maureen Blankemeyer, Education, Health and Human Services,
Kent State University
Culture
• “A shared meaning system, found among those who speak a particular language dialect, during a specific historic period, and in a definable geographic region. It functions to improve the adaptation of members of the culture to a particular ecology, and it includes the knowledge that people need to have in order to function effectively in their social environment”. (Triandis, 2002, p. 16)
• Cultural Dimensions (Hofstede, 2001; Hofstede et al., 2010)
– Individualism versus Collectivism (IDV)
– Power Distance (PDI)
– Masculinity versus Femininity (MAS)
– Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI)
– Long-Term versus Short-Term Orientation (LTO)
– Indulgence versus Restraint (IND)
Individualism-Collectivism
(IDV Dimension)
“Individualism stands for a society in which the ties between individuals are loose: Everyone is expected to look after him/herself and her/his immediate family only. Collectivism stands for a society in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, which throughout people’s lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty”
-Hofstede, 2001, p. 225
Attributes Associated with Individualism
or Collectivism (Triandis, 1994)
Individualism
• Goals to fit personal needs
• Self-enhancing
• Internal attributes
• Hedonism, self-direction
• State verbs
• Language requires I/you
• Display social loafing
• Perceive individuals- refugees’
stories
• Individual rewards
• Productivity, competition, self-
gain
Collectivism
• Attention to others’ needs
• Modest
• Letters of recommendation
• Tradition and Conformity
• Action verbs (context)
• Language doesn’t need I/you
• Dedicated to group goals
• Perceive situations, groups,
relationships – what’s happening
• Group based compensation
• Solidarity, harmony, cohesion
Individualism and Culture
IDV
• Can only be applied to cultures, not individuals (Hofstede, 2001)
• Will be understood from a person’s own background (King & McInerney, 2014)
– Many cultural analyses are designed and interpreted with a Western perspective
– WEIRD
IDV and this paper
• Consider how it impacts
the classroom culture
– Then consider (values)
motivation/engagement
literature from this
perspective
• Current perspective of
“more collectivism” in
individualistic societies
Background & Purpose
• Student engagement and motivation
• Ireland classroom
• More collectivism in highly individualistic
culture
Individualistic Cultures Value Being
• Above average
• Distinguished, standing out
• The best
• Encouraged by emphasizing your
(individual) value(Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1995; Neff, 2011)
Motivation and IDV
• “It is likely that individualists are motivated to prove to themselves that they have socially desirable attributes. That would pressure them toward high personal achievement.
• However, with respect to motivation, it is also relevant that attributions made by collectivists tend to emphasize effort as a determinant of performance, whereas individualists tend to use abilities as the major determinant.”
(Triandis, 1995, p. 73)
Mindset – Growth and Fixed (Dweck, 2006)
Growth Mindset
• You can achieve beyond
current abilities
• Necessarily means you
have room to improve
• Failures are opportunities
• Examples
Fixed Mindset
• Your talents are fixed; you
will remain where you are
• Encourages you to stay
where you perform well
• Feel an urgency to succeed
• Examples
IDV, Motivation & Mindset
Motivation and IDV
• However, with respect to
motivation, it is also
relevant that attributions
made by collectivists tend
to emphasize effort as a
determinant of
performance, whereas
individualists tend to use
abilities as the major
determinant.
Fixed & Growth Mindsets
• Growth mindset
– You can always improve
from your current state.
Mistakes are opportunities
to learn, work and improve.
• Fixed mindset
– Your talents and traits are
“fixed”.
IDV and Mindset through Independence &
Interdependence lens
Independent
• Sense of self is relatively
independent of others
and therefore invariant
over time and space
• “I am creative"
Interdependent
• Sense of self is most
complete when
connected with the in-
group
– Works to find place, “where
they belong” in the group
– Adjusts to harmoniously be
in the in-group
(Markus & Kitayama, 1991, p. 226-227)
Summary of Key Differences Between an Independent and an
Interdependent Construal of Self (Markus & Kitayama, 1991, p.231)
Feature Compared Independent Interdependent
DefinitionSeparate from social
context
Connected with social
context
StructureBounded, unitary,
stableFlexible, variable
Important features
Internal, private
(abilities, thoughts,
feelings)
External, public (statuses,
roles, relationships)
Tasks
• Be unique
• Express self
• Realize internal
attributes
• Promote own goals
• Be direct; "say what's
on your mind"
• Belong, fit-in
• Occupy one's proper place
• Engage in appropriate
action
• Promote others' goals
• Be indirect; "read other's
mind"
Summary of Key Differences Between an Independent and an
Interdependent Construal of Self - continued
Feature Compared Independent Interdependent
Role of Others
Self-evaluation: others
important for social
comparison, reflected
appraisal
Self-definition: relationships
with others in specific
contexts define the self
Basis of self-esteem
Ability to express self,
validate internal
attributes
Ability to adjust, restrain
self, maintain harmony with
social context
Downward Social Comparison Theory
• See others as worse than oneself
• Increase feelings of self-worth(Wheeler, 1991; Wills, 1991; Crocker et al., 1987)
• May prevent individuals from engaging
– Find self-worth in this comparison instead of
learning the material
– May encourage others not to put forth effort
for fear of “confirming” others’ opinions
*Consider individuals and in-groups
Engagement & Vulnerability
Engagement
• To engage is to occupy,
attract, or involve
(someone's interest or
attention) – www.oxfordictionaries.com
• In a classroom
– Asking questions
– Participating in
discussion/debate
– Actively improving
Vulnerability (Brown, 2013)
• The birthplace for
creativity, innovation and
change
• “Innovation crisis”
• In a classroom
– Asking questions
– Participating in
discussion/debate
– Actively improving
Individualism & Collectivism: Is One Better?
• Both can discourage from active participation in class– Not wanting to stand out and make a mistake
– Not wanting to stand out at all
• Both can discourage from trying something “new”/“different”– New – can’t be the best immediately
– Different isn’t maintaining role and responsibility in one’s group
• Both can encourage putting others down– Individual looks better
– In-group looks better
Additional Ways to Think About IDV and Engagement
• Personal Investment Theory (King &
McInerney, 2014)
• Social Interdependence Theory (Johnson &
Johnson, 2009)
• Horizontal and Vertical (Triandis, 2001)
• Achievement oriented (Vertical Individualism)
• Unique (Horizontal Individualism)
• Dutiful (Vertical Collectivism)
• Cooperative (Horizontal Collectivism)
Next Steps - Understanding and Action
• How do we see if this is true (i.e., further research)?– Interview/Observe instructors in Individualistic countries
using varying degrees of collectivism in class• “What motivates your students?”
– International Mindset surveys for correlations with IDV
• How can it be used?– Consider how your culture defines and encourages
success and how this might impact students
– Incremental changes• Social interdependence and cooperative learning
• HI ideas in VI (focusing on equality)
– Exchange programs for instructors
– Exchange teacher educator programs
• Ideas?
Works Cited
Brown, B. (2010, June). The power of vulnerability [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/brene_brown_on_vulnerability?language=en
Brown, B. (2013). The power of vulnerability: Teachings on authenticity, connection and courage. [Audible Audio edition]. Retrieved from http://www.audible.com
Crocker, J., Thompson, L.L., McGraw, K.M. & Ingerman, C. (1987). Downward Comparison, Prejudice, and Evaluation of Others: Effects of Self-Esteem and Threat, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52(5), 907-916.
Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House.
Gibbons, F. X., & Gerrard, M. (1991). Downward comparison and coping with threat. In J. Suls & T. A. Wills (Eds.), Social comparison: Contemporary theory and research (pp. 317-346). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hofstede, G. (1995). Foreword. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1997). The Archimedes effect. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), Working at the interface of cultures: Eighteen lives in social science (pp. 47-61). London: Routledge.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
King, R. B., & McInerney, D. M. (2014). Culture’s consequences on student motivation: Capturing cross-cultural universality and variability through personal investment theory. Educational Psychologist, 49(3), 175-198.
Major, B., Testa, M., & Bylsma, W. H. (1991). Responses to upward and downward social comparisons: The impact of esteem-relevance and perceived control. In J. Suls & T. A. Wills (Eds.), Social comparison: Contemporary theory and research (pp. 237-260). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253.
Works Cited
Minkov, M. (2013). Cross-cultural analysis: The science and art of comparing the world’s modern societies and their cultures. Los Angeles: Sage.
Minkov, M., & Hofstede, G. (2011). The evolution of Hofstede’s doctrine. Cross-Cultural Management: an International Journal, 18(1), 10-20.
Neff, K. (2011). Self-compassion: Stop beating yourself up and leave insecurity behind. [Audible Audio edition]. Retrieved from http://www.audible.com
Neff, K. D., Hsieh, Y. P., & Dejitterat, K. (2005). Self-compassion, achievement goals, and coping with academic failure. Self and Identity, 4, 263-287.
Plaut, V. C., & Markus, H. R. (2005). The “inside” story: A cultural-historical analysis of being smart and motivated, American style. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 457-488). New York: Guilford.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
Triandis, H. C. (1997). Raised in a collectivist culture, one may become an individualist. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), Working at the interface of cultures: Eighteen lives in social science (pp. 38-46). London: Routledge.
Triandis, H. C. (2001). Individualism and collectivism: Past, present, and future. In D. Matsumoto (Ed.), The handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 35-50). New York: Oxford University.
Triandis, H. C. (2002). Generic individualism and collectivism. In M. J. Gannon & K. L. Newman (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of cross-cultural management (pp. 16-45). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Wheeler, L. (1991). A brief history of social comparison theory. In J. Suls & T. A. Wills (Eds.), Social comparison: Contemporary theory and research (pp. 3-21). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wills, T. A. (1991). Similarity and self-esteem in downward comparison. In J. Suls & T. A. Wills (Eds.), Social comparison: Contemporary theory and research (pp. 41-78). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Recommended