In Search of Educational, Socio-cultural, and Technological Criteria for Localizing Learning Solutions for Varying Cultural Contexts

Tiina Mäkelä
University of Jyväskylä
Finland
tiina.m.makela@jyu.fi

Bradley Young 
Zayed University
the United Arab Emirates
bradley.young@zu.ac.ae

Jan Pawlowski
Ruhr West University of Applied Sciences
Germany
jan.pawlowski@hs-ruhrwest.de
‎

Abstract: Despite the acknowledged necessity of localizing learning solutions developed in one cultural context in order to meet the demands of the target culture/s, the question of how to do it in practice remains unclear. This panel will first present a set of educational, socio-cultural, and technological criteria developed to evaluate localization needs in varying cultural contexts. Second, it discusses how localization should also consider the cultural diversity within a country. Third, the panel reminds of an urgent need for adapting learning solutions into cross-border and inter-cultural settings. Debate is provoked, in particular, by comparing previously proposed localization requirements for Australia, Finland, Germany, Spain, South Korea, and the United Arab Emirates with panelists’ knowledge of these countries. Finally, opportunities are given to deepen understanding of the localization requirements of these countries and to propose alternative criteria for localization. 

Introduction

	It is generally agreed that a technological learning solution developed based on the demands of one country is not effective in other culture unless localized to meet the demands of target culture/s (e.g., Esselink, 2003; Kersten, Kersten & Rakowski, 2002). While reductionist views of culture as language and other symbols, and technology as a mere instrument have led to associate software localization with the user interface localization architecture (see e.g., Esselink, 2003), authors such as Hendersen (1996) point out that these solutions reflect particular educational ideas, worldviews and design paradigms. Deeper localization or culturalization processes (e.g., Kersten et al., 2002), which adapt the solution developed in one culture to the educational, socio-cultural, and technological context of the target culture are thus needed in order to achieve the full functionality, relevancy, and acceptance in the target culture/s. This calls for the development of a design framework consisting of educational, socio-cultural, and technological criteria for localizing learning solutions.
One of the very first challenges in creating such a framework is the selection of the relevant criteria amongst the multiple possibilities. Richter and Pawlowski (2007), for example, identified in the earlier literature approximately 160 attributes related to areas such as culture, rules, standards, and technical infrastructure as possible contextual influence factors in e-Learning. In their study involving Belgian and Palestinian students, Mushtaha and de Troyer (2007, p.165), in turn, employed 16 cultural dimensions developed by anthropologists and system designers (e.g., Geert Hofstede, Edward T. Hall, Fons Trompenaars,  David A. Victor, Quincy Wright, and Nancy J. Adler) in order to “determine the most important cultural dimensions, factors and issues that should be taken into consideration when designing an e-learning Website”. The most relevant dimensions identified in their study were Individualism vs. Collectivism, Power Distance Index, External vs. Internal control, Universalism vs. Particularism, and Neutral vs. Affective (Mushtaha & de Troyer 2007). Of these dimensions, Individualism vs. Collectivism and Power Distance Index form part of commonly used (e.g., Dhindsa, 2007; Fisher & Waldrip, 1999; Kersten, et al., 2002; Munro-Smith, 2002; Richter & Pawlowski 2007) Hofstede’s dimensions on national culture (see Hofstede 1986;  see also Minkov & Hofstede, 2011). This model has, however, been heavily criticized, for example, because it gives an uniform and homogenized image of a national culture (e.g., Baskerville, 2003; Signorini, Wiesemes & Murphy, 2009) while models such as Multiple Cultural Model (Henderson, 1996, p.94) suggest that designers should consider three cultural logics: “those of the academic, mainstream, and minority cultures”. Further, increased international collaboration calls for learning solutions adaptive to cross-border and inter-cultural settings.
In this panel, the chair introduces first the question regarding the selection of relevant educational, socio-cultural, and technological criteria for localizing learning solutions developed in one culture to the deployment culture. The first panelist opens up the discussion about the cultural diversity within a country, which leads to an additional challenge: How to consider multiple worldviews in the localization process instead of adapting only to the mainstream culture? Finally, the other panelist leads discussion to the localization requirements in increasingly common cross-border and inter-cultural educational settings. 
Panelists have been selected based on two criteria: (a) expertise on learning solutions including their localization, and (b) expertise on various cultural contexts. Panelist (including the chair) have in-depth knowledge of educational contexts of countries such as Australia, Finland, Germany, South Korea, Spain, and the United Arab Emirates. This will also give an opportunity to test in real time, whether experts of these countries agree or disagree with educational, socio-cultural, and technological localization requirements previously proposed for these countries. Panelists will also respond to audience’s questions regarding localization needs in cultural contexts they are familiar with.

Developing localization criteria for localizing learning solutions in SysTech research collaboration. Cases Finland and Spain

Abstract: The chair of this panel, Tiina Mäkelä is currently a researcher in Systemic Learning Solutions  (SysTech http://systechlearning.fi) value network project led by the University of Jyväskylä. In 2014, this initially Finnish value network consisting of research institutes, educational institutions, and companies developing learning solutions, started collaboration with Chile, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, and the United Arab Emirates. Mäkelä’s research focuses on developing a framework for evaluating localization needs of learning solutions in these cultural contexts. In this panel, Mäkelä presents the preliminary SysTech localization criteria and some initial findings. In addition to her research knowledge, Mäkelä refers to her first-hand experiences on differences between Finland and Spain, where she has worked both as a teacher and a researcher. In this debate, Mäkelä argues that despite the cultural and educational diversity within a country, generic models of cultural dimension (e.g., Hofstede) can serve as conceptual tools when creating design principles for localizing learning solutions.

Considering cultural diversity in localizing learning solutions. Cases Australia and the United Arab Emirates

Abstract: Dr. Bradley Young is presently a faculty member at Zayed University at the United Arab Emirates (the UAE) and a leader in the development of the interdisciplinary major in Multimedia Design. He teaches both at the undergraduate and graduate levels with courses including (but not limited to) New Media, Interactive Multimedia Development, HCI, Game Design, IT Policy, and Ethics. Prior to joining Zayed University, Dr. Young coordinated the Educational Design and Production unit within Griffith University's Flexible Learning Initiative in Australia. He is also a member of SysTech value network in which he has participated in the coordinating and conducting expert evaluations of learning solutions from the UAE perspective. Young contributes to this debate from the perspective of the design and use of learning solutions in both Australia and the UAE. Both of these countries are culturally very diverse. This provokes important questions: To whose cultural reality should learning solutions be adapted? How to assure that localized solutions do not represent reductionist and narrowing worldviews?

Adapting learning solutions to cross-border and inter-cultural settings. Cases Germany and South Korea

Abstract: Dr. Jan Pawlowski is a Professor for Business Information Systems at the Ruhr West University of Applied Sciences, Germany. He has also worked as a Professor for Global Information Systems in Finland and chaired a private research institute for Knowledge Management and E-Learning in South Korea. One Pawlowski’s focus area is tools, in particular social software, for cross- and inter-cultural collaboration in educational settings. At present, Pawlowski is involved in two research projects related to the design and adaptation of Open Educational Resources (OER) in cross-border settings including multilingual and -cultural authoring, didactic and visual adaptation as well as collaboration techniques: (1) Open Educational Ideas and Innovations (OEI2, www.idea-space.eu), and (2) EAGLE (http://www.accelopment.com/de/projects/eagle). In addition to bringing in-depth knowledge of German and South Korean educational contexts to this debate, Pawlowski’s perspective reminds of the growing need, not only to consider cultural diversity within a country but also in cross-border and inter-cultural educational settings.

List of panelists’ perspective titles and authors

Developing localization criteria for localizing learning solutions in SysTech research collaboration. Cases Finland and Spain 
Mrs. Tiina Mäkelä, University of Jyväskylä, Finland

Considering cultural diversity in localizing learning solutions. Cases Australia and the United Arab Emirates
Dr. Bradley Young, Zayed University, the United Arab Emirates 

Adapting learning solutions for cross-border and inter-cultural settings. Cases Germany and South Korea
Prof. Jan Pawlowski, Ruhr West University of Applied Sciences, Germany

Outline of how the panel will be organized

1. The chair opens up the debate regarding the selection of relevant educational, socio-cultural, and technological criteria for localizing learning solutions. Some examples of localization needs are provided between Finland and Spain. (5-10 minutes)
2. The first panelist, who has wide experience on educational and multimedia design in both Australia and the United Arab Emirates, presents examples of the cultural diversity within these countries to be taken into account in the localization process.  (5-10 minutes)
3. The second panelist, an expert of information systems widens out the discussion towards learning solutions adaptive to cross-border and inter-cultural settings. Some examples of cross-border and inter-cultural settings are provided between Germany and South Korea.  (5-10 minutes)
4. After this audience is given an opportunity to take part to the debate both by expressing their own views on the theme and by asking questions related to localization needs in specific countries that panelists represent. In addition to multiple perspectives provided by the chair and the panelists, the chair provokes debate by stating findings related to localization requirements in participants’ countries of expertise, in which panelist either agree or disagree. (30-45 minutes)

References

Baskerville, R. F. (2003). Hofstede Never Studied Culture, Accounting, Organizations and Society 28 (pp. 1-14).

Dhindsa, H. S. (2007) Cultural Dimensions of the Learning Environment in Brunei, International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 6, (pp. 251-265).

Esselink, B. (2003). The Evolution of Localization, Multilingual Computing and Technology 2003 (pp. 21-29).

Fisher, D. L. & Waldrip, B. G. (1999). Cultural Factors of Science Classroom Learning Environments, Teacher-Student Interactions and Student Outcomes, Research in Science & Technological Education, 17:1 (pp. 83-96).

Henderson, L. (1996). Instructional Design of Interactive Multimedia: A Cultural Critique, Educational Technology Research and Development, Vol. 44, No. 4 (pp. 85-104).

Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural Differences in Teaching and Learning, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 10 (pp. 301-320).

Kersten, G. E., Kersten, M. A., & Rakowski, W. M. (2002). Software and Culture: beyond internationalization of the interface, Journal of Global Information Management, InterNeg Report INR01/02.

Minkov, M. & Hofstede, G. (2011). The Evolution of Hofstede’s doctrine, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal Vol. 18 No 1.

Munro-Smith, N. (2002). A Tale of Two Cities: computer mediated teaching and learning in Melbourne and Singapore. In Winds of change in the sea of learning: proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE): 8-11 December 2002. 

Mushtaha, A. & de Troyer, O. (2007). Cross-Cultural Understanding of Content and Interface in the Context of E-Learning Systems, Usability and Internationalization, Part I, HCII 2007, LNCS 4559, (pp. 164-173).

Richter, T. & Pawlowski, J.M. (2007). The Need for Standardization of Context Metadata for e-Learning Environments, Proceeding of e-ASEM Conference, Seoul, Korea, October 2007.

Signorini, P., Wiesemes, R. & Murphy, R. (2009). Developing Alternative Frameworks for Exploring Intercultural Learning: a critique of Hofstede’s cultural difference model, Teaching in Higher Education, 14: 3 (pp. 253-264).