Cornelius N. Grove, M.A.T., Ed.D., 2005

Below is the abstract of a 10,000-word paper delivered on 6 October 2005 at the Conference on Intercultural Communication Competence: Implications for Business, Education, & Politics, held in Singapore.
-
The full paper was included in the conference proceedings, which in November 2006 was published under the title International Communication Competencies in Higher Education & Management by Singapore-based publisher Marshall Cavendish Academic (link).

Copyright © 2005, Cornelius N. Grove.  All rights reserved.

ABSTRACT:  This illustrated and carefully documented paper analyzes numerous findings from the research field of instructional styles.  Learning style research uses paper-and-pencil (or on-line) instruments to discover the mix of processes and stimuli that best enable each individual to learn; learning style researchers tend to be psychologists.  Instructional style research uses classroom observations to discover patterns of collective behavior of the group in a classroom and, in turn, to provide advice to instructors from other cultures; instructional style researchers tend to be ethnologists, anthropologists, and interculturalists.  “Patterns of collective behavior of the group” is a good short definition of culture, so the author interchangeably uses the terms “classroom culture” and “instructional style.”
-
This paper explores the patterned integrity of instructional styles worldwide.  The fundamental observable contrast between the two styles is this:  In a prototypal “Knowledge-Focused” classroom, the instructor delivers challenging learning content.  In a prototypal “Learner-Focused” classroom, the instructor facilitates a motivating learning process.  A central preoccupation of the Learner-Focused culture is motivating the learner to want to learn; this concern is absent from the Knowledge-Focused culture.  References to the two styles (by various names) are traced back to 1895, and ultimately to Rousseau.
-
Assumptions about, and expectations of, learners are revealed and analyzed.  Key features of the Knowledge-Focused prototype are that a learner’s academic success is thought to depend on his effort, that learners are “receptive” to the learning content, and that learners attempt to master all the content.  Features of the Learner-Focused prototype are that the learner’s success is thought to depend on his aptitude, that learners are “reluctant” vis-à-vis the learning content, and that learners are motivated to acquire as much content as possible.  The terms “receptive” and “reluctant” are discussed in relation to the presence or absence in each culture of the preoccupation with the learners’ motivation to learn.  The contrasting explanations for a learner’s academic success are explored and a paragraph is devoted to overviewing the historic shift, in some world regions, from an effort attribution to an aptitude attribution.
-
The question “Who evaluates whom?” is explored.  In a Knowledge-Focused classroom culture, the instructor evaluates the learners.  That process is optional in a Learner-Focused culture.  For example, in U.S.-inspired business training events, it rarely occurs.  A flawless indicator that Learner-Focused values are driving events in any classroom worldwide occurs when the learners are asked to evaluate the instructor’s performance; this practice is virtually unknown in Knowledge-Focused cultures.
-
At this point, the paper steps back from the details of classroom events to gain perspective on how the two prototypal instructional styles are influenced by the assumptions broadly shared by all members of the larger society in which a classroom exists.  Knowledge-Focused classroom cultures are associated with agrarian societies.  Based on LeVine & White (1986), a list of eight deep assumptions characteristic of agrarian societies is stated, and the question is asked about the consequent purpose of a classroom in such a society.  Key answers include that its purpose would be much more about virtue than about content and that, with respect to content, mastery would be expected of the learners.  The troublesome reality of learner failure is explored.  Learner failure is ascribed to the learner himself in this culture; it is not thought that the instructor should revise his methods.  Society’s attitude towards learner dropout and failure is “C’est la vie.”
-
A contrasting list of eight deep assumptions characteristic (to varying extents) of “post-agrarian” societies is stated; these are the societies in which the Learner-Focused instructional style is found.  Again the question is asked about the purpose of a classroom in such a society.  Its purpose would be principally to inculcate and demonstrate the uniqueness and autonomy of each individual.  In post-agrarian societies these qualities are revealed by an individual’s choices; thus, classrooms need to focus attention on choices.  This insight is related to the Learner-Focused instructor’s need to motivate and persuade the learners to want to learn the content.  Also discussed at this point are the drive for well-roundedness and the low value assigned to content mastery.  In a Learner-Focused culture, it is believed that “Something must be done!” about learners who drop out or fail.  Learner failure is ascribed to the instructor, the institution, or the environment, leading to interminable efforts to devise ways and means of making it more likely that learners will be (a) effortlessly able to acquire, and (b) positively motivated to acquire, the learning content.
-
Contrasting characteristics of instructors in the two cultures are explored.  Emphasized in the case of the Knowledge-Focused culture is that the instructor is a respected moral guide and mentor to the learners, and that he is directive towards the learners in terms of telling them what to learn and how to learn it, thus being perceived by most learners as positively supportive.  Emphasized in the case of the Learner-Focused culture is that the instructor must gain the respect of the learners (which he does by being positive, non-authoritarian, and approachable), that he is a content-guide and advanced fellow-learner, and that he encourages the learners (who need to verify themselves via autonomous choices) to self-reliantly “discover” learning content on their own. 
-
The last part of the paper offers three examples the practical benefits of understanding instructional style differences for instructors who face learners from an unfamiliar national culture.  The first example concerns patterns of question-asking in the two classroom cultures.  It is noted that, contrary to the belief of some instructors working abroad, learners in Knowledge-Focused cultures do ask questions, but do so differently.  Six differences are discussed.  Next, memorization is explored, and the contrast between “rote” and the recently discovered “repetitive learning” is stated together with some implications for classroom practice.  Finally, an important difference is revealed between the two cultures in their typical sequence of learning activities:  In the Knowledge-Focused culture, a lengthy private opportunity to attain content mastery precedes public (classroom) demonstration or application.  In the Learner-Focused culture, public trial-and-error application or demonstration often precedes any private opportunity for content acquisition.  Sequence differences disorient and upset learners, but sequences can be altered.
-
The paper ends with its author’s stating that the findings of instructional style research are not only useful for instructors working across cultures, but also for those striving to improve instruction at home.  [End of Abstract]
-