Comparative analysis in educational values, traditions, systems

1
Comparative analysis in educational values,
traditions, systems topics

• general issues
• (report from CAE Tilburg meeting
• 24th 25th of february)

2
Aims of Tilburg meeting

• To define what we are talking about
• ?
• To accept our various perceptions, points of
  view, knowledges and motivations
• ?
• To find a common understanding

3
What are we talking about?

• 1. Issue
• 2. Objective
• 3. Concept
• 4. Method
• 5. Goal
• 6. Subject
• 7. Result
• 8. Suggestion

• target group
• mutual learning
• cultural identity
• comparative analysis
• e-learning model
• ODL virtual environment
• Tilburg recommendation
• guidelines for analysis

4
1. Issue target group

• Who are the learners?

5
There is not one single target group but several
wich are very different.
6
2. Objective mutual learning task

• Who learns from whom?

7
There are two possible models of mutual
learning model A

• European experts
• ? ?
• mutual learning
• ? ?
• SEAMEO staff ?

• lecturers
• teachers
• edu. officers
• practitioners

8
Mutual learning model B

• European experts ? SEAMEO staff
• ? ? mutual learning ? ?
• lecturers, teachers, education officers,
  practitioners (SEAMEO centers alumni)

9
3. Concept cultural identity

• Intercultural understanding means
• acknowledging the differences in cultural
  identity
• establishing a we-identity on the basis of common
  ground, needs and interests

10
Cultural identity is not identical with national,
ethnic or other types of personal identity.

• What does identity mean?

• What does culture mean?

11
Culture is understood as

• Habitual disposition (Sociologist Pierre
  BOURDIEU)
• Collectivly shared mental programming
  (Anthropologist Geert HOFSTEDE, p.401)
• Interpretation patterns of a lived world
  (Sociologist and philosopher Jürgen HABERMAS)
• ... and their materialisations (Educationa-list
  Wolfgang NIEKE, p.50 cont.)

12
Definition of culture

• A system of symbols by which man confers
  significance upon his own experience.
• Symbol systems, man-created, shared,
  conventional, ordered, and indeed learned,
• provide human beings with a meaningful framework
  for orienting themselves to one another, to the
  world around them, and to themselves. (GLAD,
  p.13, cit. Ethnologist Geertz)

13
I-identity

• Definition
• associate oneself inseparably with something
• Aspects
• personal identity concept of oneself as unique
  in time and space
• social identity self-image
• in varying social relationships
• as one is perceived by others

14
Associate oneself inseparably ...

• with
• political environment
• socio-economical environment
• cultural environment

• community (nation)
• history, ideology
• value system
• social class
• language, religion
• ethnic origin
• technology ?

15
Cultural identity we-identity(collective or
group identity)

• Definition affiliation to a group of the same
  culture as distinguished from other groups
  (NIEKE, p.215-217)
• determined by heritage, consumption,
  relationships, external factors (cf.
  SAIN-SUALIEN) (www.itb.uni-bremen/ projekte/
  fame/download/ lille-2001-france.doc)

16
4. Method comparative analysis

• qualitative empirical research method
• central part of the grounded theory or
  generative theory
• (GLASER SRAUSS Chicargo school of
  symbolism)

17
Qualitative data-collection

• approaches
• GEERTZ Close description i.e. observation of
  rituals, behaviour, etc. ? cultural
  interpretation
• BOHNSACK Documentational approach i.e. group
  interviews ?? typological classifications
• BAL Cultural analysis i.e. close reading of
  (narrative) texts, ideo-, ikonographics and
  objects such as pictures, tools, goods, etc. ?
  cultural understanding

18
Comparative analysis(based on BOHNSACK)

• Comparison of groups
• of correspondances and similarities
• (minimal contrasting)
• of divergences and differences
• (maximal contrasting)
• (BOHNSACK)

• ? i n t r a cultural comparison
• ? i n t e r cultural comparison
• (FRANKE)

19
Comparative analysis findings

• smallest common denominator
• largest common denominator
• (BOHNSACK)

• endogenous transcultural universalities
• exogenous transcultural universalities
• (FRANKE)

20
Endogenous transcultural universality
culture A
particulars

univer- salities
culture C particulars
culture B
particulars
21
Exogenous transcultural universality
megaculture universalities
culture C particulars
culture A particulars
Cul. E
culture B particulars
F
cul. D
22
E.g. common educational system in Europe?

• Organisation and paradigms

lokal Netherland automony
central France equality
regional Spain unity
federal Germany differentiation
23
E.g. common culture in Southeast Asia?

• Religions and cultural heritage of colonization

(USA, Spain) Philippines (Christianity)
(Netherlands) Indonesia (Islam,
Hinduism Nature-cults, Buddhism, Christianity)
(GB) Brunei (Islam)
(GB) Malaya (Islam, Confuc. Hinduism)
Thailand (Buddhism)
24
5. Goal e-learning model

• What does
• virtual learning
• mean?

25
There is no virtual learning, but only real
learning or no learning!

• e-learning
• learning supported by ICT
• (as complement/supplement) or
• learning based on ICT
• (as substitute 100 supported)
• learning in a virtual learning-environment

26
E-learning model(main dichotomous features)

• consumable
• content
• asynchronous
• for presentation
• as object of learning

• producing
• tool
• synchronous
• for dialogue
• as instrument for teaching learning

27
6. Subject ODL virtual environment

• EU-project contract
• adaptation and implementation of UOC virtual
  (learning) environment ???
• adoption of a standard compatible with European
  systems and regulations ???
• ??
• integration into (worlwide?) metacampus ???

28
Transfer strategies(based on migration issues
Glad, p.9, Wang p.55)

• segregation
• accomodation
• assimilation/ acculturation
• integration

• separation/isolation
• adjustment
• adoption
• acceptance ? adjustment ? adaptation ?
  amal-gamation

29
7. Recommendation of Tilburg meeting

• 1. Focus (intended) analysis on social, cultural
  and educational similarities rather on
  differences! (Finding universalities)
• 2. Select a culture-measurement tool that
• (a) fits the research objectives (broad and more
  superficial narrow and more in depth)
• (b) has been published in relevant core journals
  (or in books)

30
Recommendation (cont.)

• 3. Use a phenomenological than a historical
  approach.
• 4. Create a meta-model educational system for
  all target groups, but a feasible ODL e-learning
  prototyp for piloting, while
• 5. interacting with WP3 ITC technology!

31
8. Suggestion guidelines for analysis

• of educational values, traditions, systems,
  topics
• Map of (exogenous) transcultural universalities
  to identify educational differences as barriers
  and similarities as common basis of students
  needs and learning habits