Introducing and Implementing Instructional Design in an International Context

RUNNING HEADER: Introducing and Implementing Instructional Design1

Introducing and Implementing Instructional Design in an

International Context

Jesse S. McLain


3135 Victoria Park Road

Jacksonville, FL 32216

[email protected]

ABSTRACT

This paper examines the challenges and possible

instructional design issues which must be addressed in a cross-

cultural learning experience. This particular project is based on

a recent effort between Warner University faculty in Florida and

the International Christian Development Ministries staff in

Bayonnais, Haiti. Although this research concerns a specific

instance of theological education, the overarching concerns are

applicable to any multi-cultural or cross-cultural learning

environment.


INTRODUCTION

There is little doubt that globalization is creating

opportunities and challenges in the field of education. This is

nowhere more apparent than in the field of theological education

and preparation for Christian ministry. The internet and use of

virtual online environments has created the opportunity for

learners from diverse cultures to share learning across many


cultural, language, and even political boundaries. And with this

opportunity come challenges. According to Parrish and Linder-

vanberschot (2010):

The growing multicultural nature of education and training

environments makes it critical that instructors and

instructional designers, especially those working in online

learning environments, develop skills to deliver culturally

sensitive and culturally adaptive instruction. (p. 1)

Such skills are not automatically learned or practiced in the

field of instruction and instructional design. As many current

models of instructional design are based on western European and

American perspectives, it is important that instructional design

professionals address the diverse needs and perspectives of those

who have neither experienced western education and learning nor

have developed the same approaches to learning and instruction.

If we approach the multi-cultural learning environment without

taking these concrete cultural differences into account, we are

guilty of an ethnocentric perspective. As defined by Northouse

(2007):


Ethnocentrism is the human tendency to place one's own

group at the center of one's observations of others and the

world. It is problematic for leaders because it prevents them

from fully understanding the world of others. Similarly,

prejudice consists of judgments about others based on fixed

attitudes and unsubstantiated data. (p. 338)

This requires instructional designers, as well as actual

instructors, to be culturally sensitive, aware of the specific

needs which must be addressed, and able to design effective

instruction that can bridge the differences in such a way as to

both celebrate the diversity of learners, and to turn this

diversity into a learning asset.

The following portion of this article examines one attempt

at cross-cultural education through an online course offered

through International Christian Development Missions (ICDM) and

taught by a faculty member of Warner University. The course

included learners from both the United States and Haiti. There

were at least three major areas of concern in approaching the

task of designing the course: 1) Language differences (English


and French/Creole); 2) Cultural differences; and 3) Educational

approaches. In addition to merely translating materials from

English to French and French to English, there was also the issue

that Haitians do not approach life, relationships, or education

from a western European perspective. In terms of culture and

relationships, Haitians present a far more African tribal

perspective. This affects their views on time and schedules,

interactions with instructors and other learners, and their

perspectives on social issues such as poverty, gender roles, and

authority. As for the differences in educational backgrounds and

perspectives, most learners from the United States are

conditioned for learner-centered and interactive learning

environments. By contrast, the Haitian learners have for the most

part been taught through rote memorization and recitation of

content with little concern for critical thinking skill

development or interactive and group learning activities. These

are the kinds of differences which frame the discussion of a

collaboration between a university in the United States and an

indigenous missionary organization in Haiti.


PROJECT DESCRIPTION

In 2010, after the earthquake which devastated so much of

Port Au Prince, Haiti, Yvan Pierre, the director of International

Christian Development Ministries (ICDM), met with one of the

faculty members of Warner University (WU), a Christian liberal

arts college in central Florida. Yvan expressed a desire to

expand the pastors training program of ICDM beyond their current

model of correspondence training with workbooks and text-based

reading. This early conversation led to a series of discussions

about the possibility of making some of Warner’s Online Church

Ministry (OCM) program courses available to the pastors in Haiti.

This request for collaboration was based on the inadequate level

of pastoral training that ICDM was able to provide through the

correspondence courses, a desire on the part of the pastors to do

more advanced theological study and pastoral preparation. These

factors match what Parrish and Linder-vanBerschot (2007)

describe:


Professionals wishing to stay current or students wanting to

develop specialized skills

that match the needs of a rapidly changing world demand

access to proper educational

opportunities, even if this requires international travel or

distance learning approaches. (p. 2)

In this case, international travel was cost-prohibitive, while

the demand for a higher level of skill development and

theological understanding was growing. The decision was made to

design one course around a mixed group of learners, some from the

current OCM student body and others from the ICDM pastoral

training group. This course would be offered in a

smart-phone/tablet format over a typical 16 week semester.

Following the course, reflective debriefs were scheduled between

US learners and university faculty, between Haitian learners and

university faculty, and a mixed group containing members of both

groups of learners, Warner faculty teaching the course, and ICDM

administrators. The purpose of these debriefings was to assess


the learning experience and fine-tune designs for future courses

that might be offered.

Literature Review

Early attempts by Warner faculty to engage in cross-cultural

theological education were overall successful, but taught faculty

the importance of approaching a cross-cultural encounter

carefully. At least three poor approaches were identified by

McLain (2005): 1) Directed learning approaches; 2) Colonialistic

learning approaches; and 3) Imposed learning approaches. Directed

approaches are ethnocentric in the sense that they present

learning as ‘this is what we do and so this is what you should

do.’ One of Warner’s early attempts in Jamaica revealed the

inadequacy of this approach. Such an approach, as do all poor

approaches, fails to value and preserve the diversity as a

learning environment asset (Parrish and Linder-vanBershcot, 2007,

p. 2).

Colonial approaches went a step further and assumed, ‘by the

time we are through educating you, you will be just like us.’

This approach mirrors missionary endeavors in China during the


second half of the 19th century. (Pollock, 1996, p. 14) The

assumption here is that an educational enterprise should

reproduce the culture and perspective of the group administering

the learning events.

The third approach identified as a poor perspective is that

of an imposed learning approach. This is often the product of

rigid administrators or faculty who simply say, ‘this is what you

are going to do!’ This is not always an occurrence in cross-

cultural settings. When online education first began to appear in

theological education, many professors objected to the format

claiming that theological students could not learn what they

needed and how they needed to learn it in an online environment.

(Lowe & Lowe, 2010; Delemarter, 2005) Just as the emphasis on

uniformity seemed to impede racial reconciliation (DeYoung, 1997.

p. 21), the expectation of every learner and every culture

learning the same way will actually impede learning. In a recent

analysis of the changes in Warner’s OCM program, McLain (2011)

states:


In fact, it was their unique contexts and varied learning

styles which attracted many of them to the non-

traditional, distance education option of online learning. Many

of them are working adults with families and careers, some of

them already established in church ministry positions.

The difficulty of changing jobs and moving their families some

distance in order to attend college for 2-4 years had made a

traditional college degree in theology or ministry

impossible. Online programs offer them a viable opportunity for

learning. But this learning must be high quality and

reflective of their unique needs, not just a convenient

alternative. (p. 5)

When education is extended across any number of language,

cultural, and even theological boundaries, the demand for

learning and instruction that meets everyone’s unique needs and

provides a high quality experience is even more difficult to

produce.

Facing the Challenges


Geert Hofstrede (2008) offers five areas where culture can

differ:

1) Inequality, or power distance;

2) Need for security, or uncertainty avoidance;

3) Relationship with others, or individualism vs.

collectivism;

4) Emotional gender roles, or masculinity vs. femininity;

5) Time horizon, long or short-term orientation. (p. 8)

In each of these areas there are profound differences between the

typical US learner and the Haitian pastors sharing this learning

event. Without entering an extended discussion of these

differences, it is still possible to detail how the profound

differences affect the learning event. For example, where US

learners are likely to question and interact directly with the

instructor as near colleagues, Haitian learners tend to treat

professors and instructors as the experts to be respected, but

not to be questioned. Where the US learners are at least familiar

with women in ministry, this is almost unheard of among Haitian

leaders. Both groups view time, schedules, and deadlines


differently, uncertainty differently, and relationships

differently. All of this must be taken into consideration when

designing an online course that requires timely interaction,

critical thinking, and personal reflection.

In addition to these cultural concerns and issues, the

faculty and administrators of both Warner and ICDM identified

other areas of instructional and cultural concern. The first of

these involved very straightforward differences in 1) Prior

educational/learning experience; 2) Prior pastoral experience;

and 3) Experience with the online technology and computers.

Haitian learners for the most part have only an eighth grade

education. A few have completed examinations and Lysee (high

school), and none have completed any training except the

correspondence theology courses. By contrast, all of the US

learners have completed high school, most are in their 2nd or 3rd

year of college/university, and many already hold undergraduate

degrees in other fields.

In terms of professional ministry experience, the opposite

is true. Where US learners have on average more formal education,


they possess only 1/3 the average experience of their Haitian

counterparts. The US learners spread from 1-5 years of pastoral

and ministry experience where the average Haitian pastor in the

program has been in ministry for 12 or more years. Valuing the

experience of the Haitian cohort while at the same time valuing

the educational level of the US cohort has to be a serious

consideration in the course design and delivery.

The other area of profound difference is in the online and

technology skills of the two groups. Where all of the US learners

own their personal computers and have fairly wide access to the

internet, most of the Haitian cohort need to share computers and

access with each other and with the churches and schools near

where they live and work. What is more, many of the Haitian

learners are using computers for the first time and have few

skills in word processing, online interaction, and simply using

the delivery interface (Moodle).

From a design perspective, the courses must be able to

translate from English into French and from French into English.

Some of the US cohort can speak or at least read French, and a


few of the Haitian learners know basic English. Since neither

group possesses fluent language skills in the other group’s

language, it will be necessary to provide translation support

both ways. What is more, the course designers need to include

preparation for both cohorts to deal with cross-cultural

interactions, respect for widely divergent viewpoints, and for

possible confusion and ambiguity that can result from the

language and cultural distinctives.

Technical and logistical issues also crop up in this

project. The university is used to using a fixed schedule of

courses in line with the residential semesters. However the

agrarian nature of Haitian society and the limited access to the

internet may require an alteration of the course schedule, due

dates, and interaction deadlines. What is more, the less

experienced users may need heavy support and instruction in the

technology just to get started with the course. This kind of

scaffolding must be included, but without becoming a pointer to

the technological differences between the two cultures. For many

of the Haitian learners ICDM will have to provide both the


hardware and software necessary for an online learning

environment. This may include not only laptops, but also internet

access or 3G cellular hubs to be shared by learners. And tech

support, which has been supplied by the university for the OCM

program will now have to be extended by offering online and

telephone help in French/Creole.

Design Strategies

In an attempt to meet and prepare for all of these

challenges and to make the most of this learning opportunity, the

following strategies were used as a foundation for the course

design process. First, both the faculty of Warner university and

the leaders of ICDM sought to learn and encounter each other’s

culture directly. Teachers, instructional designers, and even

university administrators made several trips to Haiti in 2010 and

2011 to meet the people with whom they would be collaborating and

to learn something of the learning needs and perspectives of the

Haitian pastors. On the second trip several of the US students

also made the journey to Haiti as part of a rebuilding work camp.

At the same time, several ICDM leaders were brought to the US to


see the university programs in action, to meet at portions of the

US cohort, and to experience online learning directly. Only one

Haitian learner was able to come to the US and the high cost of

this young man’s journey highlights another cultural difference,

a vast economic divide.

A second major strategy was to adapt instructional design

plans and models to provide for the cultural and language

diversity in this group of learners. This included optional but

available support and scaffolding for the novice online learners.

This is what Schmidt, et al refer to as “flexible adaptation of

guidance.” (p. 91) Such guidance requires the instructor or

facilitator to monitor and even tutor the novice learners as the

seek to master both the technology and learning environment. In

preparing for this design, research was done to find an

instructional design model that explicitly addressed cultural

differences. Although Parrish and Linder-vanBerschot (2007) offer

some strong insights into multicultural learning through the

“cultural dimensions of learning framework,” (p. 5), this is not

so much a design model as it is a framework for making decisions


about design in a multicultural context. It was decided at this

point to start with the existing course design and make

adaptations in accordance with known and emerging differences and

distinctives. . As a means of making the learning about each

culture as relevant as learning with each culture, the use of

case studies and worked examples from both cultures were included

in the course design.

The third strategic decision was to keep communications open

and transparent throughout the learning event. This includes

teaching and encouraging transparent communication (McLain, 2002,

p. 26). In order to facilitate the language differences, each

group was given access to an interpreter who could help them with

language difficulties experienced in online interactions. More

than just language support, the translators were also responsible

for translating cultural idiosyncrasies and nuances that might be

missed by the learners.

Since the basis of everything done in an evangelical

theological learning event is the Bible, it was also important to

use scripture in illustrating our cross-cultural intentions and


perspectives. In order to do this, a number of the early lessons

considered Jesus himself interacting with a variety of cultures

including the Samaritan Woman (John 4:7-30), the Syro-Phonecian

woman (Mark 7:26-31), and his interactions with even Jewish

women, something unheard of by most 1st century rabbis. This

image of cross-cultural interaction was then extended into a

study of Paul the Apostle’s interactions with Greeks and

Gentiles, including his sermon at the Areopagus (Acts 17:19-34).

These biblical foundations were presented as not only a defense

of what was being attempted but also as examples of the

difficulties and problems inherent in multicultural education and

learning. This learning was extended by asking learners to

present their own experiences of cross-cultural challenges and

together design possible solutions to those problems. In the

first iteration of this assignment, some of our Haitian learners

were cautious in presenting their perspectives as they were

negative experiences that involved US military and NGO

volunteers. When one of the US students opened up about his own

struggles with White/Black racism and prejudice, it opened the


door for some cautious sharing and insight. In all of these the

instructors and key learners had to model respect for the unique

perspectives of both groups and of individual learners.

One final strategy which was anticipated, but became far

more complex than imagined, was the need to teach critical

thinking skills and reflection to the Haitian learners and get

the US learners in helping them activate these skills. It was

apparent in the earliest conversations that the Haitian learners

were not prepared for nor used to complex interactions as part of

their learning; critical reflection on what they were reading,

hearing, and seeing; and the open reflection on their feelings,

experiences, and interactions. Providing the support to both

teach them these skills and then use them within the framework of

the course required what Denning and Burner (2007) term

“Cognitive Apprenticeship,” or CA. (p. 427) Cognitive

apprenticeship, like a trade apprenticeship, can be defined as

“learning through guided experience on cognitive and

metacognitive, rather than physical, skills and processes.”

(Collins et al. 1989, p. 456) Instructors and pre-course


orientation facilitators had to demonstrate through example and

by talking through their own cognitive processes and then assist

the learners in several exercises in critical thinking and

personal reflection. This was by no means as successful as hoped

for. In this regard, there is much to be done for learners who

have been ill-equipped for the task of critical reflection and

thinking. This is not an indictment or prejudice against the

learners themselves, but it is certainly a point to be considered

in how general education has been provided throughout Haiti.

As part of the critical thinking strategy and the

encouragement to reflect on their thinking, instructors also

provided continuous support for these activities and constant

affirmation for all the learners. Since there often seemed to be

a high frustration level for both groups, instructors and support

personnel often had to serve as mediators and not only resolve

conflicts, but also determine the causes behind them. This was no

easy task and it is hoped that continued interaction across the

cultural divide will lessen the frustration level and increase

the level of learning for both groups.


Conclusions

At this writing, there has only been a single iteration of

this course and plan. The formal course evaluations are still be

tabulated, but anecdotal reports have been both positive and

indicative of the high value both cohorts placed on this

experience. At the same time it is clear that there are still

many challenges. In the early cross-cultural teaching experiences

that Warner did in Jamaica, language was not as much of an issue

as the culture was. In the course with Haitian students, the

language difference became a singular hindrance and response

times from interpreters only slowed the interaction process. Some

help was provided with language translation software

(http://translate.google.com/), but since most of the Haitians

speak Creole (an Africanized dialect of French), this was not

always enough, especially with the more rural pastors who tended

to have less written language skill. Although some level of

language difficulty was expected, the hindrance this became to

communication and the frustration level of both populations of

learners was far higher than expected.


A positive change that can be attributed to this event is a

change in curriculum for the Ecole Henri Christophe in Bayonnais,

Haiti. This primary school (k-8), is shifting to less rote memory

and more class and small group interaction in their learning.

With the completion of their new Center for Hope school building

in the fall of 2012, they will also begin receiving computer

training. Although the long-term results of these efforts are as

yet unknown, it is hoped that these changes will not only

increase the learning of the primary school students but also set

the stage for more advanced learning in the future.

In a final interview with Yvan Pierre of ICDM, the author

asked why this collaboration was so important to Haitian leaders.

His response has much to tell us about what the future for Haiti

could be. Yvan described how often the world tries to buy a

solution for Haiti or to impose their goodwill and generosity on

Haiti, usually at the cost of crippling local business and

healthcare. Yvan went on to say, “what Haiti really needs is to

empower its own people to look at what they can do, find the

resources to do it, and then step up to change their own nation.”


He sees education as one of the most important components of this

goal. And in addition to the training of children and pastors,

ICDM is also working to develop a trade school and micro-finance

loan service for cottage industries and business. As part of a

plan for community development, this includes the spiritual,

economic, social, and physical development of individuals,

families, and villages.


REFERENCES

Behar-Hornstein, L. S., Schneider-Mitchell, G. and Graff, R.

(2009). Promoting the teaching of critical thinking skills

through faculty development. Journal of dental education, 73(6), 665-75.

Retrieved from: www.jdentaled.org

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., and Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive

apprenticeship: teaching the craft of reading, writing, and

mathematics. In Resnick, L. B. (Ed) Knowing , Learning , and

Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser , pp. 453–494. Hillsdale,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Delemarter, S. (2005). Theological Educators and their Concerns

about Technology. Teaching

Theology and Religion, 8, 131-133.

Dennen, V. and Burner, K. (2007). Cognitive apprenticeship model

in educational practice. In Spector, J. M., Merrill, M. D.,

Merrienboer, J. V., and Driscoll, M. P. (Ed) Handbook of

research for educational communications and technology (3rd). New York, NY:

Routledge.


Hofstrede, G. (2008). Cultural differences in teaching and

learning. FUHU Proceedings. Copenhagen, Denmark, May 8, 2008.

Lowe, S. D. and Lowe, M. E. (2010). Spiritual formation in

theological distance education: An

ecosystems model. Christian education journal, 7(1), 85-102.

McLain, J. S. (2011). Flexible assignments for theological education.

Minneapolis, MN: Capella.

McLain, J. S. (2005). Report on teaching experience in Mandeville, Jamaica.

Lake Wales, FL: Warner University.

Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications.

Oglesby, E. H. (1998) O Lord, move this mountain! St. Louis, MO:

Chalice Press.

Parrish, P.,Linder-vanBerschot, J. A. (2010). Cultural dimensions

of learning: Addressing the challenges of multicultural

instruction. International journal of research in open and distance learning,

11(2), 1-19.

Pierre, Y. (2010). Personal interview by author.


Pollock, J. (1996). Hudson and Maria: Pioneers in China. Taipei, Taiwan:

Christian Focus Publications.

Scully, R. E. (2008). Leadership across cultures : A comparative

study. Academy of strategic management journal, 7(1966), 47-62.

Senge, P. (2003). Creating desired futures in a global

economy. Reflections: The sol journal, 5(5), 1-12.

Introducing and Implementing Instructional Design in an International Context

Documents

Transcript of Introducing and Implementing Instructional Design in an International Context