Learning Design for a Successful Blended E-learningEnvironment: Cultural Dimensions

N. AL-HUWAIL1

S. AL-SHARHAN2

A. AL-HUNAIYYAN1

1Computer Science DepartmentCollege of Business Studies

Hawally, Kuwait(nabil,ahmed)@paaet.edu.kw

2Computer Science DepartmentGulf Univ. for Science & Technology

Hawally, Kuwaitalsharhans@gust.edu.kw

Abstract. Blended e-learning is becoming an educational issue especially with the new development ofe-learning technology and globalization. This paper presents a new framework for delivery environmentin blended e-learning. In addition, new concepts related to the learning strategies and multimedia designin blended e-learning are introduced. The work focuses on the critical cultural factors that affect ablended elearning system. Since it is common that good systems may fail due to cultural issues, thisresearch work highlights these issues and how to utilize them to create a successful blended elearning.It introduces a new blended e-learning model that accommodates different cultural groups and variouslearning strategies.

Keywords: Blended elearning, cultural factors, interactive components, graphical interface.

(Received March 6, 2007 / Accepted July 13, 2007)

1 Introduction

We are witnessing an enormous advancement in multi-media technologies such as audio/video conferencing,interactive elements, and live video streaming, to namea few [11]. Benefiting from networking and commu-nication technologies and advances, these multimediaapplications reshaped the learning and educational sys-tem. The conventional learning systems, that mainlydepend on textual material, are dramatically chang-ing to a blended learning system where it utilizes theelearning as a crucial component of learning process.Recent years witnessed several works to build solidtheory for elearning that incorporates the emerging andrapidly changing multimedia, networking, and educa-tional technologies [20]. The main concern here is to

develop an efficient blended elearning that combinesthe conventional education and the online distance basedelearning [4].

E-learning can be defined as any form of learningthat utilizes a network for delivery, interaction, or fa-cilitation. The network could be the Internet, a Uni-versity Local Area Network or even a corporate WideArea Network. The learning could take place individu-ally (guided or instructed by a computer) or as part of aclass. The NCSA e-learning group defined the elearn-ing as [32]:

e-learning is the acquisition and use of knowl-edge distributed and facilitated primarily byelectronic means. This form of learning cur-rently depends on networks and computers

but will likely evolve into systems consistingof a variety of channels (e.g., wireless, satel-lite), and technologies (e.g., cellular phones,PDAs) as they are developed and adopted. e-learning can take the form of courses as wellas modules and smaller learning objects. elearn-ing may incorporate synchronous or asyn-chronous access and may be distributed geo-graphically with varied limits of time.

2 Blended E-learning

Blended e-learning, on the other hand, merges aspectsof e-learning such as: web-based instruction, stream-ing video, audio, synchronous and asynchronous com-munication, etc; with traditional "face-to-face" learn-ing. Valathian described Blended Learning as: "a so-lution, which includes face-to-face, live elearning andself paced learning"[29].

The benefits of blended e-learning is that it allowsstudents from different cultures the ability to select thedelivery format of their learning content, hence im-proving their interaction with the environment. Thereare two main areas associated with blended learningenvironment. The first is the blending of traditionalclassroom learning and e-learning. This is the mostrecognized form of blending that looks at combiningthe theories and practice from instructor-centered andstudent-centered learning. The second type of blend-ing is that of synchronous and asynchronous e-learningtechnologies. This blend of technologies will providestudents with access to both synchronous and asyn-chronous communication and information. This is verybeneficial when we consider the number of interna-tional off-campus students studying course at the ter-tiary level and the geographical and access issues asso-ciated, and to create an environment which is accom-modating to cross-cultural learners.

Designing an efficient elearning system is influencedby several issues and critical factors such as pedagogi-cal, technological, management support, and culturalissues; to name few. Among these issues, the cul-tural issues play a critical role in deploying a success-ful elearning system. Hence, it is crucial to understandthe cultural issues related to the learners, instructorsand the online content in order to utilize them as at-traction factors.

It is worth defining culture at this point. Cultureis a complex and broad concept, which can be definedin many ways. Boldley [5] stated that culture involveswhat people think, what they do, and the material prod-ucts they produce. Culture touches members of a soci-ety in which it shapes their value, assumptions, percep-

studentinstructor

content

Figure 1: Learning Model

tions, and behavior. We believe that there is a need forunified educational access to culturally diverse popu-lations. Educators often hear about the positive ef-fects of e-learning systems that is being used some-where and wonder if it would be useful in their ownsetting. When such a transfer of electronic learningoccurs across different countries and cultures, there isa problem of portability.

Gujar and Sonone [13] mentioned in their studythat the adaption of educational and training to multi-cultural settings requires a new paradigm that includesan understanding of the deeper psychology of cultureand the unique differences culture brings to a globalworkplace. The question is: How does culture impactthe design and development of educational softwareespecially for blended e-learning approach? There isa need for research on culture and its impact on infor-mation seeking, user interface design, usability, inter-activity, access, delivery, learning style, and content.

Several cultural factors that may be affecting lowattraction of elearning systems are identified in thiswork. The objective is to highlight the problems re-lated to these issues in order to create an efficient blendedelearning. The rest of the paper is organized as fol-lows: section 3 presents a learning model that depicts ablended elearning system. Section 4 discusses the dif-ferent cultural elements that affect blended e-learningon different levels. The learning design strategy forblended e-learning is presented in section 5. In sec-tion 6, the authors discuss several issues related to themultimedia interface design for blended e-learning en-vironment. The paper concludes with several recom-mendations and future direction in section 7

3 The Learning Model and Framework

Blended learning programs may include several formsof delivery and interactions. According to Khan [14],"Blended learning programs may include several formsof learning tools, such as real-time virtual/ collabo-ration software, self-paced Web-based courses, elec-tronic performance support systems (EPSS) embeddedwithin the job-task environment, and knowledge man-agement systems". In this work, blended elearningmeans a combination of conventional teaching and on-line content in its different formats.

A learning model is depicted in Figure 1. It is evi-dent that the model is based on the interaction betweenthe instructors, the learners and the content. This peda-gogical model is derived from the Cognitive FlexibilityTheory. According to Spiro, et al [26] , cognitive flexi-bility is the “ability to spontaneously restructure one’sknowledge in many ways, in adaptive response to rad-ically changing situational demands” In complex envi-ronments, learners generally cannot retrieve an intacthierarchical learning structure from memory; insteadthe mind combines, recombines, and reinvents struc-tural components to meet the requirements of each par-ticular situation. Cognitive flexibility theory focuseson learning processes in ill-structured, context-dependentlearning environments

A framework for elearning is developed by BadrulKhan (http://BooksToRead.com/framework). The mainoutline of the framework does not include a main groupof cultural factors. However, it presents the cultural di-versity under the Ethics group. We strongly believethat the cultural diversity is one element of the criti-cal cultural factors of a successful blended elearning.The above framework can be dramatically enhanced byadding a group of "cultural factors"

3.1 Delivery Model for Blended E-learning

By the delivery environment we mean the medium wherethe learning and teaching process are taking place. Theelements of the environment are the learning manage-ment system, multimedia equipped classrooms (smartclassrooms), and network or the Internet. Here, wepropose a new framework for the delivery environmentin blended e-learning. Using the proposed framework,the learning activities in blended elearning process canbe summarized as follows: students meet with instruc-tor in smart classrooms. The instructor guides the learn-ing process by utilizing the online content where stu-dents access the content via the network (Internet). TheLMS tracks the learning activities and provides the in-structor with performance report about the learningprocess. Figure 2, depicts this model.

content

instructor

student

LMSNetwork

smart

classroom

Figure 2: Delivery Environment Framework

It is worth mentioning here that this new deliveryframework can be mapped to the Activity Theory [19].This theory focuses on people activities and their socialand contextual relationships of collaboration. It incor-porates six elements; primary elements ( subject, theobject, and community) and mediators (instruments,rules and roles). “An activity is undertaken by a hu-man agent (subject) who is motivated toward the so-lution of a problem or purpose (object), and mediatedby tools (artifacts) in collaboration with others (com-munity). The structure of the activity is constrained bycultural factors including conventions (rules) and so-cial strata (division of labor)”. Activity theory offersthe possible integration of many human computer in-struction theories and concepts. For more informationabout the activity theory, the reader may refer to [25].

It is evident that the proposed model depicts the re-lation between students (subject), learning objects orcontent (object) and the role of the instructor as facil-itator (role). The interaction is mediated by the Inter-net and the LMS (tools) and the collaboration s takenplace between students online or in the smart class-room (community). In this environment, cultural is-sues and phenomenons play a key role in creating asuccessful collaborative environment. In such an en-vironment, it is obvious that there is a cultural phe-nomenon controls the environment; i.e., cultural ac-tivities [22]. These activities forms the foundation inwhich individuals interact with objects, people, andtools. Hence, studying the cultural factors related tothese cultural activities is of a paramount importancefor creating a successful blended e-learning environ-ment. Examples of these factors include communica-

tion langauge, technical factors and social, political,economical, and religious factors.

In the above framework, the medium of delivery isthe network and usually it is the Internet. The Inter-net becomes the natural choice as a delivery medium.Research shows that university students are heavy andfrequent users of the Internet [31] Success factors re-lated to the medium of delivery are mainly related tonetwork efficiency. In other words, these factors arerelated to the bandwidth, strong wireless coverage, ap-plication architecture and network’s security. The de-livery medium requires many-to-many communication(i.e., multicasting). Hence, sufficient bandwidth playsa key role in ensuring smooth delivery. Another im-portant factor is a good wireless coverage and up-to-date tools and protocols in the smart classrooms. Inaddition to the tools and technologies provided in asmart classroom [23] , every student has his/her lap-top and have an access to the content via the wirelessnetwork inside the class. Smooth and fast delivery viathe network motivates the students and avoids frustrat-ing waiting time to complete the content download. Itis worth mentioning here that these issues are tackledin the delivery framework as high level factors and notfrom the perspective of technical and low-level design.For example, readers that are interested in the technicallow-level design may refer to [27].

Another main factor in the delivery environment isthe Learning Management System (LMS). There areseveral LMSs by different vendors. Blended elearningadopters should select the LMS that support the deliv-ery environment. The LMS should support transpar-ently a number of features:

• easy and smooth navigation through system andlearning content.

• monitors and tracks of learner performance.

• allows the communication with the instructor andpeers.

• provides a wide variety of reports.

• the system should allow the learner to go throughassessment material.

• user-friendly interface.

• enables the usability of the learning objects andcontents.

In addition to these general features, the LMS shouldempower instructors to manage the learning contentby adding, removing and updating learning objects.

Moreover, instructors can manage the classes and courses,and determining students progression and assessing theirperformance.

4 Cultural Elements & Blended e-learning

This section discusses the critical cultural factors thataffect a blended system. In this work we concentrateon factors related to language, technical issues, and so-cial, political, economical, and religious issues.

4.1 Language

Language is a critical issue in global e-learning. Lan-guage is a cultural tool, as well as culture itself, it in-cludes not only its most obvious meaning, but also theusage variations within a language that set one groupapart from another. Language is one of the most im-portant constraints on portability of educational soft-ware. Unless instructors and learners understand thelanguage, the program has no value. It is not just amatter of substituting words. One has to be aware ofthe meaning, the inferences and connotations.

Dunbar [9] believes that most computer-related ma-terial such as manuals, keyboards, software is designedfor English speakers and lack features that add sym-bols, punctuation and accents easily. Even though key-boards have been designed for some languages, thisdoes not solve the problem. Testing and developmentwould constantly require the developers to change key-boards and software environments. This issue can-not be resolved unless there is an international stan-dards effort in the area of technological innovations.One solution to this may be to use visual programmingmethods and icons to represent various features of theprogram; however, even icons are sometimes cultur-ally dependent. The challenge is how to turn English-language training materials into culturally sensitive, in-tellectually stimulating, knowledge- and skill-transferringmaterials in a different language. Blended e-learningcan bring solutions with local instructors who can fa-cilitate learning with proper translation of the learningmaterials.

4.2 Social, Political, Economical, and Religious Is-sues

Traditions, political, economical, and values all playan important part in every society. A society’s phys-ical and geographical locations may further promotethe extent to which these socio-cultural factors becomesignificant in educational matters. National and cul-tural identities play an important role in interactionwith computer-based learning materials. If people from

both cultures are to identify with the software, the con-tent should be carefully written so that there are noclashes of cultural identity. Dunbar [9] stated that tech-nology is encoded with the characteristics of the cul-ture that developed it. For example, individualistic val-ues are implicit in software developed in the UnitedStates, whereas these techniques may be totally inap-propriate for Arabic students, because they are extremelyheteronomous by nature.

Religion and politics both are sensitive issues thatinstructors and instructional designers who adapt globale-learning, should be mindful of. In Asia, religion,history, economics, class systems, and politics have adeep impact on how life and work issues are perceivedand programmed. In addition, political relationshipsbetween countries play an important role in cooper-ation on the academic front. Some countries do nottrade with others, and may refuse to buy computers orsoftware made in certain countries based on politicalideology. For example, there is a ban on trade betweenIsrael and some arabic and Islamic countries.

Arabic countries have some rich cultures and re-ligious beliefs, which may be violated seriously in thelight of the current trends in virtual learning. Akinyemi [2]examined the perspectives of some Arab students onWeb-based learning and possible cultural interference.He stated that Interactions between learners and in-structors seem to be the bedrock of web-based or on-line education. Interaction in the virtual realm is face-less and knows no restrictions in terms of race, color,sex, religion etc. A cultural conflict may thus emergeas the interaction patterns cannot be easily controlledbetween the male and female students. Further, the re-ligious barriers collapse in the virtual realm. He alsoraised some questions, should or can there be an "Ara-bised E-learning System"? Will a unique practice invirtual learning not affect the quality and universalityof global education?

Localization of educational resources is very im-portant. One of the factors that has made the CiscoNetworking Academy program so successful, as dis-cussed by Selinger [24], is that it was taught to nearlyhalf a million students in over 10,000 academies in152 countries worldwide. The program is a blendede-learning model in which students are locally taughtby instructors in face to face settings, using web basedteaching materials and hands on labs. The local in-structors make the Academy program relevant and ac-cessible to students because they understand the cul-tural preferences (language, social, political, and reli-gious issues)

4.3 Technical Issues

Technology has a cultural dimension, Pernici et al [21]believe that being aware of cultural differences in tech-nology can help instructional designers and instructorsto design more culturally sensitive learning materials.Hardware and software selection is one of the mostcritical factors affecting portability of educational soft-ware As well as the Authoring languages which allowdevelopers to easily change screens that they have de-veloped, whereas programming languages are a littlemore complicated to manipulate. Countries have var-ious computer systems that are popular in the schoolsystem. For example, the BBC microcomputer andCommodore systems are popular in England, whereas the Macintosh systems are popular in the UnitedStates. Software must naturally be compatible withboth systems. In addition, access to technology is animportant factor. The gap between the use of learningtechnology and their application in the social realityof the culture must be reduced. What about teachinglearners to surf the web and collaboration using emailor chatting without providing them access to the inter-net. Blended e-learning plays an important role withaccess to technology in which instructors can facilitate,provide, control the provision and access to technologyfor learners.

5 Learning Design For Blended E-learning

Learning design is one of the most important aspectin regard to the development of educational software.Designers should consider the following issues whendesigning program for different cultures with blendede-learning considerations:

5.1 Learner Characteristics

Designers of educational software must realize howpeople should conduct their thinking, their actions, theirrituals, and their businesses. Triandis [28] determinesdimensions of cultural variation as individualism- col-lectivism. He states that Asian countries represent thecollectivism culture, while the United States and Eu-ropean industrial countries are characterized by indi-vidualism. He also describes collectivist cultures areinterdependence, group identity, self-restraint, and hi-erarchical control. Individual matters are usually sub-ordinated to the goals and benefits of a collective, suchas the family, the tribe, the nation etc. Individualism,in contrast, highly values individuality and freedom.The belief in human rights, freedom, and individualequality underline Western social philosophy. These

basic cultural characteristics strongly shape the socialsystems, lifestyles, and values of each society.

In the case of instructor-centered learning as statedby Conlan [8], the instructor is responsible for con-veying the information or knowledge to be taught, andthen focus on encouraging the students to use this knowl-edge and practice it by completing set activities. Inthis type of learning students rely purely on the feed-back given by the instructor in order to gauge theirprogress. It is acknowledged in [8] that this approachis preferred by students with Asian backgrounds, in-cluding Arabic students. In student-centered learning,the responsibility lays purely on the student to com-plete the set work. Lanham and Zhou [16] argue thatthe emergence of cross-cultural classrooms has beensteadily increasing in Australian tertiary institutions,thus signifying a change in the student demographics.This change has acknowledged that a more flexible ap-proach is needed in the way that the unit content isconveyed to the learner. Studies have indicated thatstudents from different cultures responded variably indifferent learning environments. They add that to en-sure that all students are able to participate in this newlearning domain, preparations have to be made to ac-commodate all cultural types. Instructors are embod-iments of knowledge in certain cultures and studentsdo not contradict what the instructor says. Students insome cultures are not used to working independently,therefore, software that is designed for these culturesneeds to be adapted to enable students to participatein a manner that is not contradictory to their culture.Hence, with the importance on creating flexible learn-ing environments for all students the blended learn-ing approach can be selected for application. The re-searchers believe that blended learning could provideonline students with the right combination of student-centered learning and the more traditional approachesof instructor-centered learning. As education seems tobe expanding towards the online environment it lieswith the instructor to provide environments which canbe used by multi-cultural users.

In the above sense, it is crucial that instructionaldesigners, developers and instructors understand learn-ers cultural background to ensure the online contentare culturally conflict free. In addition, and by na-ture, learners are different and have different paces. Assuch, it is very important that the online content con-tains the learning elements that match the abilities ofdifferent learners in order to keep them attracted to thesystem [30].

5.2 Communications and Interaction Styles

There are substantial cross-cultural differences in in-teraction and communication. Woolliams and Gee [33]stated that any social group or organizational settingdevelops its own culture, with norms and expectationsrelating to aspects such as the degree of formality andcentrality in communication patterns. Communication/ interaction style appropriate in one country may betotally inappropriate in another country. Originatingfrom the respect for authority and harmony, Asian peo-ple generally prefer formality and indirectness in re-questing and criticizing, especially when the authorityin presence. The pattern can be found in some smallthings such as, addressing people by family name withtitle, to general communication patterns. Not beingaware of these, westerns may feel confused and un-comfortable when communicating. On another hand,the westerns are used to informality, directness, andless central communication patterns. If a western in-structor/trainer brings this type of interaction into Asiancountries, he/she may be perceived as rude and dis-respectful of learners/trainees. It is very important toacknowledge the differences in communication and in-teraction styles and adapt them where necessary.

Boriarsky [6] mentioned that for the most commonused communication applications, such as email andtext chat, some culture members have higher expecta-tions to communicate, which may impose burdens onparticipants, for example, many Chinese Internet usershave higher expectation to communicate than Ameri-can counterparts according to a recent Chinese onlinesurvey. Thus, Chinese learners will potentially facemore distractions when they go online to receive train-ing. Hyper linked text is one of extensively studiedcomputer-mediated learning tools. According to Ay-serman and Minden [3], many studies indicated thata hyper linked environment emphasizing user choicemight not be consistent with a hierarchically orientedculture.

When doing collaborative projects, the cultural vari-ations in understanding of task sharing and context af-fect the effectiveness of collaboration. Some groupsmay have a relationship focus while others have a taskgoal. As a result, different groups perceive on-linetasks differently. Expectations that the course is fixedor static and that the instructor decides the essentialresources. We must realize the needs of students fromother countries and cultures and recognize that at timesthe lack of shared meaning can make communicationdifficult for people of different cultures. Instructionaldesigners must recognize and provide appropriate in-terface for these learners. In addition, it is important

to create flexible learning environment to facilitate andenhance the interaction styles between learners, learn-ing materials, and instructors through blended e-learningapproach.

5.3 Learning Strategies

E-learning is not just about web based content, it caninvolve simulations, modeling, and remote lab accessas well as construction and collaboration tools that en-gage students in a range of tasks and learning envi-ronments. Instructors work with designers of onlinecourses can select the technology that is most appropri-ate to the domain and the content being taught. In vo-cational subjects such as information technology, and,to some extent, mathematics and science, cultural rel-evance is not as pronounced as it is in disciplines likehistory, social studies, or music where the focus andbias will depend on the location of learners. This doesnot imply that cultural relevance is not important inscientific domains, but, by and large, the subject con-tent here differs little between countries, and it is onlythe context in which problems are set and the imagesused that vary considerably.

E-learning materials can be customized for differ-ent cultures particularly with e-learning tools that makeuse of reusable learning objects so that different ap-proaches can consider cultural differences when teach-ing the same content. These cultural differences alsohave implications for how locally based instructors sup-port students, and any advice ought to consider suchdifferences and not advocate one approach.

Khakhar et al [7] report that experience has shownthat materials and delivery methods transferred fromone place to another may interfere with peoples’ cul-tures and values. Materials used in web education needto be relevant, appropriate and in conformity with cul-tures and values of the citizenry of many nation. Withblended e-learning approach, various learning strate-gies can be included so that relationship between learn-ers and instructors are strong determinants of the inter-actions that take place, and any technology-facilitatedinterventions. Also the adaptation that need to be madefor culture in both scientific and humanities can beconsidered.

We stress here that blended e-learning provides acomplementary balance between new and traditionaleducation environments. It will be through the blend-ing process that we will be able to provide studentsregardless of the location and culture, with a dynamiclearning environment. This dynamic learning environ-ment can empower students with the ability to caterthe unit learning content to fit their individual learning

styles.

6 Multimedia interface Design For BlendedE-learning

There are many principles relating to interface designthat should be developed. Importantly, as course de-signers of subjects that includes interface design, wemust provide cross-cultural design considerations. Learn-ers need to be aware of the role of visual communica-tion and the impact on the learner. A successful on-linecourse, web page or educational multi-media packageneeds to bring together all the elements, including cul-tural learning objects of successful interface.

6.1 Graphical Interfaces

Graphics and images are the visual language of a cul-ture. When people in one culture recognize an image,people in another cultures may have little or no mean-ing of it. Yeo [34] demonstrates some graphical issuesthat mirror the "feel and look" of the learning package.He believes that cultural user interfaces can be createdfor each culture taking advantage of the knowledge ofa target culture.

The cultural differences make designing effectiveicons and symbols challenging. Today, multimedia pro-grams rely heavily on icons and symbols, as they arevery important to communicate with users. Marcus [17]identifies icons as signs that are familiar and easy tounderstand, and often concrete representations of ob-jects or people. He stresses that icons and symbolsshould be designed and used to represent the environ-ment of the users’ culture. He adds that icons and sym-bols can replace the national verbal languages and con-tribute to user interfaces that are international in de-sign and comprehension. Uren et al [10] on the otherhand, introduced some examples of symbols like ham-mer and sickle, rising sun, crosses, stars, and so onwhich may represent political or religious forces thatpeople from other cultures find objectionable. If west-ern designers are intending to design for Moslem coun-tries, care must be taken, knowing that some people inthose countries appear to take offence at things that arequite innocuous in the west.

Fernandes [12] believes that culture is somethingin which people take pride, and that it must be consid-ered and respected in the user interface. While AlHu-naiyyan, et al [1], contend that culture is a discerniblevariable in interface acceptance and interfaces shouldbe designed to accommodate users’ cultures. Accord-ing to Marcus and Gould [18], current user interfacedesign is based on psychological and social models

drawn from European and American research tradi-tions, while recently, cultural psychologists, culturalanthropologists, cultural sociologists and designers havebegun reconsidering the applicability of these modelsby identifying cultural preferences and value orienta-tions more prevalent in Asia, Latin America, the Is-lamic world and Africa.

As a designer of multi-media instruction, the ba-sics of interaction, such as use of metaphors, manip-ulation, consistency, control, simplicity, support, ac-complishment, satisfaction and visual design (aestheticintegrity) are worthy principles to strive for. Culturalconsiderations increase the complexity of designing mul-timedia interfaces because more variables are added.As graphical interfaces reduce the amount of knowl-edge users have to remember, metaphors within theseinterfaces play an important role in creating meaning-ful and memorable environments for users. However,these metaphors should combine familiar domains withobjects and elements that represent a users’ culture.

6.2 Cultural Learning Objects (CLO)

Learning Objects (LOs) are reusable components inknowledge databases that provide flexibility in virtuallearning environments for reusability, adaptability, gen-erativity, and scalability. In respect to the previous the-ories of cultural-based and blended learning, the de-signing of LOs can be enriched by information aboutthe target culture by using artifacts, music, films, andeverything that refers to the way that people of the tar-get language live their lives. For example, studentscan be presented with and be given background infor-mation about art objects (jewelry, crafts, embroideries,paintings, etc.) in a particular cultural context.

In an efficient blended e-learning environment, build-ing interesting Cultural Learning Objects (CLOs) isa matter of a great importance. Instead of having todeal with one parameter as with all LOs produced upto now, we are dealing with two, the cultural and thegrammatical and structural phenomena. So, the useof interacting properties with text, image and soundmight be a better solution. As such, a multimedia CLO,technically speaking, needs an html environment to beintegrated.

The researchers think that blended cultural -basedlearning could provide solutions for increasing inter-est in teaching and learning. Lambropoulos [15] usedcultural-based learning objects to teach Greek languagein a way that it could enhance learners’ interests andmotivation. The suggested proposal might need fur-ther development since it is the first attempt to con-struct cultural learning objects for teaching Greek as

second/foreign language. For the design and construc-tion of CLOs it is firstly needed an inquiry into stu-dents’ needs and common difficulties in learning andsecondly a cooperation and collaboration of researchers,teachers, curriculum developers, artists, and multime-dia designers in order to produce high quality CLOs.

7 Conclusion and Future Directions

The computer human interaction (CHI) environmentregularly researches factors that affect the success orfailure in interaction with computers. Designers needto construct meaningful frameworks for making appro-priate decisions regarding visual design and user in-teraction. It is important that we can provide theselearners with an environment that they feel comfort-able learning in. This is where the blended learningprovides instructors with the ability to incorporate bothtraditional and e-learning design and strategies.

It could be seen that to achieve a truly successfullye-learning environment we need a blend of both thenew technology and traditional learning. This does notmean that we simply recreate the classroom material inelectronic form and then offer it in an online environ-ment. However, if we utilize the teaching and learningprinciples of traditional learning that have producedsuccessful results in the past and apply them in the e-learning arena, we will begin the process of creatingblended learning technology.

Blended e-learning provides a complementary bal-ance between new and traditional education environ-ments. It will be through the blending process that wewill be able to provide students regardless of the loca-tion and culture, with a dynamic learning environment.This dynamic learning environment will empower stu-dents with the ability to cater the unit learning contentto fit their individual learning styles. Some reasons thatmake blended e-learning a successful approach are:

• Satisfies both instructor-centered and student-centeredlearning approach.

• Creates flexible learning environment.

• Enhances curriculum relevance.

• Stresses on cultural expectations and learning tra-ditions.

• Provides easy to use cultural interfaces.

• Coordinates and facilitates access to technology.

• Enhances communication and interaction styles.

• Decreases language difficulties.

• Minimizes the load on teachers.

• Allows for more effective and highly satisfactorylearning/teaching.

• Enhances self-learning, self-motivation and inde-pendence.

• Reduces learning and training costs.

• Supports various learning styles and strategies.

• Provide a balance between new and traditionaleducation environment.

Issues such as: the variations in access to tech-nology; learning traditions; cultural expectations; in-structors and learners, all must be considered and ana-lyzed with blended e-learning approach. managementawareness of the potential of technology; curriculumrelevance; and the level of expertise of the users.

This research introduces a new model for a suc-cessful blended e-learning and the influence of the cul-tural factors on the learning environment. The work,however, does not allow the identification of a compre-hensive and reasonably definitive set of design guide-lines for interactive multimedia blended e-learning pro-grams which accommodate a users’ culture, and a gooddeal of research will be required to develop guidelinesfor designing multimedia educational programs that ac-commodate different cultures. This may encourageresearchers to explore further into this field of cross-cultural differences in using multimedia computer-basedapplications.

References

[1] A. AlHunaiyyan, S. J., J. Hewitt and Messer,D. Multimedia interface design in relation toa learners culture. In Proceedings of Ed-Media99: World Conference on Educational Multime-dia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications, pages1187–1192, 1999.

[2] Akinyemi, A. Web-based learning and cul-tural interference: Perspectives of arab stu-dents. In Proceedings of World Conference onE-Learning in Corporate, Government, Health-care, and Higher Education, pages 1858–1862,2003.

[3] Ayserman, D. and Minden, A. Individual differ-ences, computer, and instruction. Computers inHuman Behavior, 11(3):371–390, 1996.

[4] Bedri, R. and Al-Nais, A. Blended learning ap-proach: Astrategy to address the issue of de-clining enrollment in mechanical programs. InKwan-Reggie and Joseph, F., editors, Web-basedLearning, pages 57–66. CRC Press, 2005.

[5] Boldly, J. Cultural anthropology: Tribes, statesand global system. New York: Academic Press,1994.

[6] Boriarsky, C. The relationship between culturaland rhetorical conventions: Engaging in interna-tional communication. Technical Communica-tion Quarterly, 4(3):17–22, 1995.

[7] C. C. Wills, G. Q. and Khakhar, D. Criticalfactors in developing e-education frameworks:lessons learned from a succesful european co-operation project. In Proceedings: e-learning2nd WBLE Conference, 2001.

[8] Conlan, F. Can the different learning expec-tations of australian and asian students be rec-onciled in one teaching strategy? teaching andlearning within and across disciplines. In Pro-ceedings of the 5th Annual Teaching and Learn-ing Forum, pages 41–45, 1996.

[9] Dunbar, R. Adapting distance education for in-donesians: Problems with learner heteronomyand a strong oral tradition. Journal of DistanceEducation, 12(2):163–174, 1991.

[10] E. Uren, R. H. and Perinotti, T. Software Inter-nationalization and Localization. Van NostrandLienhold, New York, 1993.

[11] Eveline, V., Virgilio, A., agner, M. W., Azer,B., and Shudong, J. A hierarchical char-acterization of a live streaming media work-load. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking,14(1):133–146, 2006.

[12] Fernandes, T. Global interface design, 1995.Chestnut Hill, MA: AP Professional.

[13] in E-Learning: The Modern Media, G. I. Thechanging face of design education. In World Con-ference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermediaand Telecommunications, volume 1, pages 2390–2396, 2004.

[14] Khan, B. Building effective blended learningprograms. Journal of Educational Technology,43(6):51–54, 2003.

[15] Lambropoulos, N. Ict projects in the greek dias-pora: U.k. case. In Proceedings of the 6th Inter-national Conference for Multiculturalism, 2003.

[16] Lanham, E. and Zhou, W. Blended learning forcross-cultural e-learning. In World Conference onE-Learning in Corp., Govt., Health., & HigherEd., volume 1, pages 1927–1930, 2003.

[17] Marcus, A. Icon and symbol design issues forgraphical user interfaces,. In Del Galvo, E.and Nielsen, J., editors, International User Inter-faces, pages 257–270. John Wiley & Sons., 1996.

[18] Marcus, A. and Gould, E. Cultural dimensionsand global web user-interface design. ACM In-teractions, 7(4):32–46, 2000.

[19] Nard, B. Context and consciousness: Activitytheory and human-computer interaction. Cam-bridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996.

[20] Nichols, M. A theory for elearning. Journalof Educational Technology & Society, 6(2):1–10,2003.

[21] Pernici, B. and Casati, F. The design of distanceeducation applications based on the www. InKhan, B. H., editor, Web-based Learning, pages57–66. Education Technology Publications, En-glewood Sliffs, NewJercy, 1997.

[22] Ratner, C. Outline of a coherent, comprehensiveconcept of culture. Cross-Cultural PsychologyBulletin, 34(1):5–1, 2000.

[23] Shi, Y., Xie, W., Xu, G., Shi, R., Chen, E., Mao,Y., and Liu, F. The smart classroom: Merg-ing technologies for seamless tele-education.IEEE Pervasive Computing Magazine, 2(2):47–55, 2003.

[24] Slinger, M. The role of local instructors in mak-ing global e-learning programmes culturally andpedagogically relevant. In Davis, A. B. . N., ed-itor, World Yearbook of Education 2004: Digitaltechnology, communities and education, pages57–66. Koan Page, London, 2004.

[25] Spector, J. and Wang, X. Integrating technologyinto learning and working: Promising opportuni-ties and problematic issues. Educational Tech-nology and Society, 1(5), 2002.

[26] Spiro, R., Feltovich, P., Jacobson, M., and Coul-son, R. Cognitive flexibility, constructivism,

and hypertext: random access instruction for ad-vanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structureddomains. In Steffe, L. and Gale, J., editors,Constructivism in Education. Hillsdale, N.J.:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1995.

[27] Stalling, W. Data and Computer Communica-tions. Prentice Hall, 2004.

[28] Triandis, H. Collectivism vs. individualism: Areconceptualization of a basic concept in cross-cultural social psychology. 1987.

[29] Valathian, P. Designing blendedlearning, learning circuits, 2002.http://www.learningcircuits.com.

[30] Wang, X. Integrating technology into learningand working: A promising future. EducationalTechnology and Society, 2(5), 2002.

[31] Wang, Y.-M. Internet uses in university courses.International Journal on E-Learning, 6(2):279–292, 2007.

[32] Wentling, T., Waight, C. L., and Kanfer,A. E-learning: A review of literature, 2000.http://learning.ncsa.uiuc.edu.

[33] Woolliams, P. and Gee, D. Accounting for userdiversity in configuring online system. Interna-tional Online Review, 16(5):303–311, 1992.

[34] Yeo, A. World-wide chi: Cultural user interfaces,a silver lining in cultural diversity. SIGCHI Bul-letin, 28(3):31–37, 1996.