Teaching and Learning: The influence of individualism vs. collectivism

In the blog last week, we evaluated the influence of power distance relationships on educational issues in a cross-cultural context. This week we shall explore the Hofstede dimension contrasting collectivist versus individualistic cultural contexts while maintaining our focus on key aspects of the educational system.

The cultural concept of collectivism versus individualism

The Hofstede dimension focusing on the contrast between collectivist and individualistic cultural contexts describes how societies prioritise either group or individual goals. Then, these contrasting orientations significantly influence interpersonal interactions, behavioural expectations, and decision-making criteria across a broad range of societal contexts.

The contrast between collectivist and individualistic cultures

Collectivism

In cultures that are inclined towards a more collectivist orientation, members prioritise group goals over individual objectives. Moreover, they are also more integrated into perceived primary ingroups such as the extended family, tribe, or clan. Examples societies include China, many Latin American countries, and the Arab cluster of nations.

Individualism

In contrast, within individualistic cultures, members tend to prioritise personal goals and autonomy over group concerns. Moreover, individuals are also expected to basically take care of themselves together with immediate family members. Indeed, emphasis is placed on self-reliance, free choice, and individual achievements. Example societies include Canada, the USA, and Scandinavian nations.

Contrasting teacher and student relationships

The primary differences between collective and individualistic cultures in relation to the education system is illustrated below.

Collectivist Cultures	Individualist Cultures
positive association in society with whatever is rooted in tradition	positive association in society with whatever is ‘new’
students expect to learn how to do	students expect to learn how to learn
individual students will only speak up in class when called upon personally by the teacher	individual students will speak up in class in response to a general invitation by the teacher
formal harmony in learning situations should be always maintained (T-groups are taboo)	confrontation in learning situations can be salutary; conflicts can be brought into the open
neither the teacher not any student should ever be made to lose face	face-consciousness is weak
education is a way of gaining prestige in one’s social environment and of joining a higher status group (‘a ticket to a ride’)	education is a way of improving one’s economic worth and self-respect based on ability and competence

Note. Hofstede (1986)

However, perhaps the most significant contrast focuses on the purpose of the experience. Three examples will suffice to illustrate this point.

Teacher- vs. Student-centred learning

First, collectivist cultures illustrate a teacher-centred educational approach. Here emphasis is placed on guiding students to acquire knowledge in terms of learning what is essential to learn. In contrast, individualistic cultures, especially those in the English-speaking nations, value a student-centred style that focuses on facilitating students progressively towards learning how to learn more independently.

Harmony vs. Confrontation

Then, in a collective environment, formal harmony between educators and students is emphasised throughout the learning experience. In contrast, from an individualistic perspective, confrontation is typically regarded as the primary trigger for the development of critical thinking abilities and independent intellectual development.

Indirect vs. Direct communication styles

In relation to interpersonal communication, individualistic societies favour direct communication styles during which opinions are expressed openly. In contrast, in collectivist cultures, interpersonal communication tends to more subtle, indirect, and much more reliant on non-verbal signalling. The reason for this is to reduce the opportunity for confrontation, maintain harmony, while avoiding any loss of face, either for the speaker and/or listener.

In short, Hofstede’s individualism versus collectivist dimensional framework provides a valuable insight into how cultural factors shape all manner of behavioural expectations and decision-making strategies that seek to pre-empt potential areas of conflict or interpersonal misunderstandings.

To conclude, in the blog next week explore a brief introductory overview of the key teaching approaches common across cultures in a higher educational environment.

---

Questions

1. How might geographical factors shape a collectivist cultural perspective?

   
   

2. Are rituals such as culinary behaviour influenced by an individualistic orientation?

   
   

3. What are the seven key teaching approaches in higher education?

---

We shall explore Question 3 in the next blog.

Reference

Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10(3), 301–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(86)90015-5