Introduction
There has been a cultural disconnect in learning environments, in both basic and higher education (Romaine, 2009). Language has emerged as the most significant contributor to cultural disconnect within the educational centers (Gollnick, & Chinn, 2002). The introduction of virtual learning environments worsened the situation in institutions of higher education. According to Dillon, Wang and Tearle (2007), virtual learning environments (VLEs) are dominantly conducted in English and this has been the case in Canadian institutions of higher learning. Several reasons contributed to the disconnect which include use of mother tongue in basic educational centers, poor assumptions made by instructors, non-English speaking students, economic variations and lack of direct feedback from students. So far, few reasonable efforts have been made to address cultural challenges aboriginal, native and non-white students face in virtual learning environments.
Learning disconnect is contributed by lack of visual clues in virtual learning environments making it challenging to native students who are accustomed to presence of instructors in class. Poor instructional design has also contributed to the cultural disconnect in virtual learning environments (Shih, & Yang, 2008). Cultural disconnect in virtual learning environments can be intervened through several strategies. According to Henderson (1996), there are major issues which must be considered during instructional design of virtual learning. Teaching aids and other written instructional materials should be made available for student to supplement lectures from tutors (Joo, 1999).
In this paper, cultural challenges, and language problems faced by native students in virtual learning environment will be analyzed. As universities continue to expand their virtual learning facilities, native, non-white, and aboriginal’s students continue to be disadvantaged. In this paper, various interventions which are in line with the challenges of the virtual learning environments are analyzed. Ways of addressing cultural concerns during instructional design of virtual learning are provided together with an online reference guide that will help all participants of virtual learning.
Critique and analysis
Although virtual learning environment has been hailed for its flexibility, instructional designers have ignored diverse cultures of their students (Thomas, 2002). The poor consideration of student’s cultural back ground impacts negatively the learners’ performance, motivation and persistence levels. There are unexpected challenges when transferring courses to students through the internet (Merryfield, 2001). According to Guanawardena and McIsaac (2004), these learning environments can impose author’s goals, perspectives and standards on receiving culture. Native students in Canada react differently to delivery methods used by instructors (Collier, 1993). Poor performance of native students in these environments should then be directed to course implementers rather than students.
Cognitive sciences have not been integrated into theories and models of a distance learning (Winn and Snyder, 1996). The failure to incorporate cognitive development leads to native students show poor results. These virtual learning environments impose different cognitive loads on native and non-white students. Digital natives think differently as compared to non-native users of technology (Guanawardena and McIsaac, 2004). This disadvantages native students who are not accustomed to digital environments.
Generally, there has been little analysis of mode of visually which has increasingly dominated higher learning. Native students in Canada are not used to learning environments with no physical tutor. Poor development of English for native students has a negative impact on the development of virtual environments. This is because learning in such environment is conducted in English which these students are not accustomed to. According to McCarty (1993), acquiring English as a second language has been challenged by strong cultural ties which impact native students in virtual learning environments negatively. For this reason, together with non-inclusive instructional design, cognitive development and non-familiar environments and technologies contribute to the poor effectiveness of learning (Shih, & Yang, 2008).
Interventions which have been formulated so far have not been taken by institutions seriously. Universities have continued to expand their virtual learning without effecting recommendations by several researches who have critically analyzed effects and possible solutions for problems in virtual learning. If instructional designers consider cultural backgrounds and language of expected students, virtual learning can improve its effectiveness (Shih, & Yang, 2008). However, universities have continued ignore them and concentrated on expanding their facilities as a way of improving their accessibility and cutting cost (Dillon et al. 2007). The question is, although access to higher education is improved, whether the intended academic knowledge acquired? Language barrier interventions can improve student’s interest in virtual learning environments which has been the main challenge (Dillon, 2007).
Group work and consultative studies which are known to be effective in normal classrooms are not used in virtual learning environments. Most candidates are learning individually in their homes, while others are in halls which are specifically developed for virtual learning. Instructional designers and tutors should work to come up with effective methods of increasing consultative learning. This will improve learning for native students who are disadvantaged (Shih, & Yang, 2008).
Shih & Yang (2008) believe that customized instructional styles are of importance in virtual learning environments. This has not been fully integrated in most institutions. Carefully designed styles can break cultural and language barriers.
References
Collier, L. (1993). Teaching Native students at the college level. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 20(1), 109-117.
Dillon, P., Wang, R. & Tearle, P. (2007). Cultural Disconnection In Virtual Education. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 15(2), 153-174.
Gollnick, D. M., & Chinn, P. C. (2002). Multicultural education in a pluralistic society (6th ed.). New York: Merrill.
Guanawardena, C. N., & McIsaac, M. S. (2004). Distance Education. In D. H. Johassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (2nd ed., pp. 355-396). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Joo, J. E. (1999). Cultural issues of the Internet in classrooms. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(3), 245–250.
McCarty, T. L. (1993). Language, Literacy and the Image of the Child in American Indian Classrooms. Language Arts, 70. 181-187.
Merryfield, M. M. (2001). The paradoxes of teaching a multicultural education course online. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(4), 283-299.
Romaine, S. (2009). Language, culture and identity across nations. In J. A Banks (Ed.), The Routledge international companion to multicultural education (pp. 373-384). New York: Routledge.
Shih, Y.C., & Yang, M.T. (2008). A Collaborative Virtual Environment for Situated Language Learning Using VEC3D. Educational Technology & Society, 11 (1), 56-68.
Thomas, M., Mitchell, M., & Joseph, R. (2002). The third dimension of ADDIE: a cultural embrace. TechTrends, 46(2), 40-45.
Winn, W., & Snyder, D. (1996). Cognitive perspectives in psychology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 112-142). New York: Macmillan Library Reference USA.