The Potential Role of Individualistic versus Collectivistic Values on Students’ Engagement in the Classroom 37 th Annual EAIR Forum Track 2 Kjera Seregi, Institutional Research, Kent State University Maureen Blankemeyer, Education, Health and Human Services, Kent State University
21
Embed
The Potential Role of Individualistic versuseairaww.websites.xs4all.nl/forum/krems/PDF/1671.pdf · · 2015-09-09The Potential Role of Individualistic versus ... • Display social
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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
• “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., 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.
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.