Analysing New E-Learning Culture

Abstract

In this paper, we first of all deduce factors for the analysis of learning culture from HOFSTEDE’S onion
model of culture (Hofstede, Hofstede, 2005) and build a model of learning culture corresponding to
HOFSTEDE’S model. Secondly, we are going to introduce and describe how learning scenarios change from
an e-learning 1.0 to an e-learning 2.0 scenario, and – in a third section – describe the latter using elements
of a learning culture model for a cultural analysis.

Full text

ANALYSING NEW
E-LEARNING
CULTURE
Ulf-Daniel Ehlers, Cornelia Helmstedt, Thomas
Richter, University of Duisburg-Essen, 2009
Reference: Ehlers, U.-D., Helmstedt C., Richter, T. (2009): ANALYSING
NEW E-LEARNING CULTURE
Correspondence address: Prof. Dr. phil. habil. Ulf-Daniel Ehlers
Duale Hochschule Baden-Württemberg | Baden-Württemberg Cooperative State University
Friedrichstraße 14, 70174 Stuttgart
Deutschland | Germany
mail: ehlers@dhbw.de | ulf.ehlers@googlemail.com
skype: ulf.ehlers
web: www.dhbw.de | www.ulf-ehlers.net

ANALYSING NEW E-LEARNING CULTURE
Ulf-Daniel Ehlers, Cornelia Helmstedt, Thomas Richter, University of Duisburg Essen, Germany
Introduction
Learning is taking place in diverse forms and environments which often carry fundamental different values
as they are expressed in different pedagogical rituals follow different ideals, and express their merits in dif-
ferent symbols. It is important to recognise the value of each of these often carefully crafted attempts of
teaching and learning but also to realise its different natures. In that regard the underlying hypothesis of our
paper is that the very nature of these differences can be understood as diverse and deeply rooted into indi-
vidual experiences as it is the case with different cultures. In this paper, we are going to focus on what is
often described as e-learning 1.0 and e-learning 2.0 and make an attempt to answer the question which fac-
tors constitute a “new learning culture”, or e-learning 2.0, as in times of Web 2.0 it often is referred to.
An exploration into culture research will provide the required building blocks for the description of “new
learning culture”. A look into literature shows that culture has been dealt with as a field of research, but so
far has not been extensively extended to the field of learning. As there is no comprehensive agreement on
the definition of the term culture as of now, the term learning culture has not been defined comprehensive-
ly either. In literature, culture-models strongly differ in purpose and design. There are generic models, such
as those from HOFSTEDE & HOFSTEDE (2005), HALL (1990) and HENDERSON (1996). All of those models
define abstract dimensions showing cultural stereotypes and classifications. Other descriptions of culture
are related to a specific context, such as the CAP-model of EDMUNDSON (2007), which is related to e-
Learning, or the model of KAMENTZ (2006), which is related to hypermedia learning systems. In the follow-
ing, in analogy to HOFSTEDE’S ‘Software of the mind`, we define culture as a set of rules and opinions
commonly used within a certain society.
In this paper, we first of all deduce factors for the analysis of learning culture from HOFSTEDE’S onion
model of culture (Hofstede, Hofstede, 2005) and build a model of learning culture corresponding to HOF-
STEDE’S model. Secondly, we are going to introduce and describe how learning scenarios change from an
e-learning 1.0 to an e-learning 2.0 scenario, and – in a third section – describe the latter using elements of a
learning culture model for a cultural analysis.
Learning Culture Analysis
The dimension model of HOFSTEDE and HOFSTEDE (2005) actually may be the most prominent approach
describing cultures. Besides the controversially discussed
1
dimensions and their area of validity, they de-
scribe 4 impact depths of culture within an onion model. Basing on the statement ‘Culture is learned, not
initiate’ (Figure 1: Practice) and on the fact that culture is not static but dynamically changing, they show
that different levels of culture also have a different duration of validity.
Figure 1: The „onion“ model of culture (Hofstede, Hofstede, 2005)
1
HOFSTEDE and HOFSTEDE used the one-country-one-culture paradigm to describe the area of validity of their
generic values and although they conducted their survey only within branches of IBM, they transferred their re-
sults to the whole countries, where the investigation took place. This discussion may not be deeper considered
within this paper.

As shown in figure 1, they differentiate between Values, Rituals, Heroes and Symbols, which from inside
to the outside have a shorter life-cycle. Values are described as the ‘core of culture’ which as ‘broad
tendencies to prefer certain states of affairs over others are acquired early in our lives’. Rituals are consid-
ered being ‘collective activities, technically superfluous to reaching desired ends, but which within a cul-
ture are considered as socially essential’. Different to Values and Rituals, which within the time of a hu-
man life almost have a static character, Heroes and Symbols mostly have a far shorter life-cycle (an excep-
tion seem being ‘religious heroes’ and related symbols). Heroes are defined as ‘persons, alive or dead, real
or imaginary, who possess characteristics that are highly prized in a culture and serve as models for be-
haviour’. ‘Symbols are words, gestures or objects which carry a particular meaning only recognized as
such by those who share a culture’.
Turning to learning culture analysis, we can use the dimensions of HOFSTEDE’S model to apply it to actors
within a learning scenario. Our research shows that learning preferences are perceived quite diverse, de-
pending on the position and involvement of a stakeholder in the learning scenario (Ehlers, 2004). The per-
ception and description of elements of a learning culture, as it would be given by a student, might vary con-
siderably from those, given by a teacher, professor or manager of a school – although they are all part of
what constitutes learning culture. Table 1 gives an overview of different perceptions on learning culture re-
lated to stakeholders and makes evident that learning culture, although designed as an overarching concept
covering the view of societies, in some cases are perceived individually different.
Table 1: Comparison of perspectives in the education process among the Onion Model
Onion Model
Educators (Teachers, Professors)
Students
Symbols
“Helpful” tools, such as red pens for
marking papers (in Germany); a public
tally sheet for announcing troublemak-
ers in classrooms;
Mainly related to learner’s experiences, such as: the
anarchy sign; the purple scarf, symbolizing gender
emancipation; the rainbow for social equality of
gender adjustment; the peace symbol
Heroes
Personalities in Science and Religion
who may be introduced representing
certain knowledge or as stereotypes for
a certain behaviour, also colleagues
with outstanding achievements
Preferred teachers with valuable skills; Other learn-
ers who seem having a certain skill which is worth
being copied; Some of the promoted personalities in
Science and Religion who have been by the teachers
as they also are being considered being valuable by
learners
Rituals
Teaching methodologies; Rituals in the
educational process apart from the cur-
ricula (e. g. students’ standing to wel-
coming the teacher; Visit of the school
chapel)
Daily rituals related to the educational process, such
as: The way to school; Discussions with other
learners; Social rituals amongst students Greeting
the teacher when entering; Daily events during
school-breaks; Doing homework
Values
Pedagogical paradigms; Relationship
between teachers and learners; Reli-
gious background; Basic rules of Con-
duct (e. g. Do’s and Don’t’s)
Values expressed through youth culture, Learners
might not share values which they are exposed to
through the teaching scenarios
The objective of research on cultural aspects of learning is to contribute to instructional design models in
such a way that it is enhancing the knowledge of educational providers to provide learning materials which
are adapted to the specific cultural requirements and differences of learners. It is thus in line with a broad
range of empirical research attempting to elicit the preferences and requirements of learners in order to deal
with their heterogeneity.
In earlier research we have demonstrated that – for such diverse cultural contexts like South Korea and
Germany - cultural differences are a strong variable, which can explain to a large extent the preference set
and behaviour of learners (Richter et. al., 2008). In a method-mix of a written survey with a subsequent in-
terview, we investigated about aspects related to group building strategies, group behaviour, relationship to
educators, gender related issues, motivation and de-motivation. In order to decide which are sufficiently
different cultural contexts for our research design we decided to build on the suggestion of LEONARDI
(2002), who recognized languages as one of the strongest indicators for cultural differences. Therefore we
chose two culturally different countries, each with a country-wide homogeneous language.
2
The results
2
All different definitions of the term culture have one aspect in common: Culture is something, people within so-
cieties have in common (Boyd & Richerson, 1996).

show that in otherwise comparable situations student’s answers from the two different cultural contexts
vary considerably and show the importance of culture for learning (Richter et. al., 2008). Another aspect
that attracted our attention, was the fact that during the interviews, Values, Rituals and Heroes were repre-
sented to a large extent in the students’ individual accounts but symbols were not appearing as a dominant
factor influencing learning. This leads to the conclusion that the element “symbols” can be questioned in its
meaning for learning cultures – as a direct influence factor. Although, in our own learning culture model
(Figure 2), we adopt all 4 layers of HOFSTEDE’S onion model of culture, our research shows that symbols
seem to have a rather indirect influence. Therefore, we do not assign certain aspects to this layer in the fol-
lowing description.
Figure 2: The ‘Learning Culture Model’
 Values: Language (Language type and model); General Opinion (politics, religion, humour, eth-
ics); Didactical Paradigms; Gender related issues (educational issues, professional issues, general
rules); to the ‘role’ of educators;
 Rituals: Communication models (Relationship to authorities, ‘subordinates’ and peers); Habits
and preferences of learners (motivation, group building processes, group behaviour) and teachers;
Pedagogical approach; Self-Motivation; Conflict solving strategies;
 Heroes: General Opinion related to personalities of public life, science and religion;
From e-learning 1.0 to e-learning 2.0: A culture change?
Often, it is expressed that the difference between e-learning 1.0 and e-learning 2.0 lies in its underlying
value of being a shift from a more acquisition oriented to a more participation focussed understanding of
earning. How can this be analysed under a learning cultural perspective?
To begin with: e-learning 2.0 is not a scientific term.
3
It is not a new paradigm or a replacement in the sense
of a new release. Strictly speaking it is not even about a new technology, a new model of learning or a new,
separate, innovative variety of e-learning. E-learning 2.0 rather describes a number of developments, trends
and points of view, which require change from teaching to learning. The new point of view essentially con-
nects e-learning with five characteristics:
1. Learning takes place always and everywhere (ubiquitous) and therefore in many different contexts.
2. Learners take on the role of organizers and teachers.
3. Learning is a life-long process, has many episodes and is not (only) linked to educational institu-
tions.
4. Learning takes place in communities of learning (so called communities of practice: Wenger,
1998): Learners participate in formal, as well as informal communities.
5. Learning is relevant in informal as well as in non-formal, and is no longer bound to formal educa-
tional processes, as a associated with educational institutions.
E-learning 2.0 means using social software and learning services, which can be combined according to in-
dividual needs. The word “can“ is significant here, as technology alone does not determine its use. Only by
linking it to a learning model the existing possibilities of learning can be enhanced to go further than in
former contexts. Simply stated, e-learning 1.0 follows a broadcasting logic, which is mostly based on an
3
It is important to note that the term e-learning is used in a variety of ways in the international debate. Whereas
in the western literature a move to a meaning of e-learning as ‘Internet based’ can be identified, in countries such
as India, China, or regions as Africa, e-learning connotes often rather with blended learning and a mix of self-
study and presentational courses using computer-based training programs.

understanding of teaching as being transmissive. This is to say that information and materials are distribut-
ed, presented and made available to students. Learning in this view can be described using the metaphor of
“acquisition” of learning contents. E-Learning 2.0 emphasizes the metaphor of “participation” – learning is
perceived as an interlinked, social process in which Web 2.0 tools are used to develop learning results
through collaboration and communication, compile one’s own learning environment and comprehend the
entire Internet as a learning resource – not only the given material for a class.
E-learning 2.0 comprises the creation of a new kind of learning platform with the help of the available So-
cial Software: no longer is one Learning Management System (LMS) used as a material island in the ocean
that is the Internet, but a Learning Management System (LMS) needs to be understood as a gate leading in-
to the web (Kerres, 2006). The e-tutor (teacher) has the role of a guide who makes micro content available
in a portal, which opens the door to self-directed learning and makes it possible for learning objectives to
be achieved. These are negotiated together with the learner and noted at the beginning, for instance via blog
entry or pod cast. The learning environment no longer consists of single applications but is made up of dif-
ferent individually compiled and cooperative tools. In this context, the term “Personal Learning Environ-
ment” (PLE) has come into use. In a PLE the individual learner’s reflection takes place in web logs or pod
casts, as well as collaborative work in wikis (Kerres, 2006: 6). Therefore learning is no longer the transfer
and consumption of content and knowledge but also independent production (VAN HARMELEN 2006). In
the long run, a ’personal learning environment‘ can develop in the form of an ’interactive portal with all
kinds of access to the personal digital world‘ of the individual person. In a ’permanent process of produc-
ing knowledge […] each person aggregates their data and contents according to personal interest, reflects
and mixes them individually and shares them in the desired social context’. (Wagner, 2006)
KERRES points at the fact that existing e-learning (1.0) approaches often have the disadvantage of being
learning programs or modern learning platforms which have to be supplied with content and a lot of time
and money by the teachers, but then, often degenerate to a “data grave” while real life continues ’next door,
online’ (Kerres, 2006). With Web 2.0 tools the Internet contents can be used for teaching the contents of
which generate and re-generate all by themselves in an ongoing process (ibid: 5). In this model, the devel-
opment of complete course material is replaced by an active and creative ’rip, mix and learn’ (Richardson,
2005). Instead of an LMS, e-portfolios can be used which help the learners to manage and document the
learning and production processes and share them with others (Siemens, 2004). Table 2 summarises the
main differences of e-learning 1.0 and e-learning 2.0.
Table 2: Characteristics of Change in E-Learning Models (Ehlers 2007)
e-learning model
Characteristics
Distribution Model
(e-learning 1.0)
Collaboration Model
(e-learning 2.0)
Knowledge is
Stored, Processed
Constructed
Paradigm
Reproduction, Problem solv-
ing,
Understanding, Remember-
ing
Reflection4, to invent new
experience, active social practice
Technology use
Presentation,
Distribution, Information
Collaboration,
Communication
Learning is best described
as…
Acquisition Metaphor
Participation Metaphor
Tutor is
Authority
Coach, Player
Teacher activity
Teaching, Helping, Demon-
strating
Collaboration, interaction oriented practical
experiences
Interaction type
Transfer model (download)
Communication, Exchange (Interaction)
model
Goal of teaching/ learning
Knowledge, Qualification
Competence
Assessment Type
Knowledge Reproduction
Test, Multiple Choice
Performance, Skill application,
Evidence based assessment, e-portfolio
4
Reflection on learning is a common thread going through most learning perspectives or theories to
some degree. Dewey recognised it as far back as 1916, while COWAN (1998) sees reflection as a necessary peda-
gogical method and KOLB (1984) includes it in his experiential learning cycle (in Mayes T. 2004).

The presentation in the table suggests that e-learning 2.0 is about learners learning in a self-directed way in
social networks. From a (constructivist) learning-theoretical perspective, advocates of e-learning 2.0 fun-
damentally question the “possibility of indoctrination”. This is argued for by saying that a self-directed sys-
tem (learner) cannot be determined by its environment, but only perturbed and stimulated by it. Moreover,
it is argued that learning does not function solely by putting forth external requirements – learning, as it is
understood – cannot be planned without the learner (cf. Holzkamp, 1993: 184). The concept of self-
directed learning comes to be of enormous importance to e-learning 2.0 – from an educational-theoretical
point of view. Self-directed learning is often understood being a generic term for all forms of learning in
which the learners can determine and be responsible for their learning processes, respectively tasks, meth-
ods and amount of time invested themselves (and / or take part in the decision) (Deitering, 1995: 45). FRIE-
DRICH and MANDL (1997) clarify the difference between “self-responsibility” and “self-directing” in the
following way:
’Self-directed learning offers learners the possibility to determine on their own what to learn and what the
aim of their learning is to be. Self-directed learning contains the option for learners to be responsible for
their way of learning, regulating their learning (how? when?) when learning contents and aims are pre-
determined.’ (Friedrich & Mandl, 1997: 219)
The basic media-didactic challenge for e-learning 2.0 is the adjustment of didactic learning arrangements to
parameters of the didactic field, such as the characteristics of the target group, the specification of learning
contents and aims, didactic method, didactic transformation and structuring of learning offers, characteris-
tics and functions of media chosen, as well as auxiliary material (Kerres, 2001). Especially as far as phe-
nomena like e-learning 2.0 are considered, it is key to point to the primacy of didactics and first of all, ask
for educational aims, and then choose appropriate teaching/learning scenarios and methods, as well as the
necessary tools to put these into action. With the example of a web log used as an e-portfolio at university,
following questions could arise:
 Is the subject or field of study appropriate for open work with portfolios?
 When is the appropriate point in time for working with e-portfolios? When can it be of value to the tar-
get group in the course of their studies?
 What prior experience do students have in working with portfolios? Are students familiar with, for ex-
ample, the rules of giving and receiving feedback?
 Which e-portfolio software and media equipment is adequate for the target group? What is the relation-
ship between IT-competences and the methods used?
 What strategies does the executing university have for saving the e-portfolio data?
Conclusion: E-Learning 2.0 as a new learning culture
To conclude, it can be said that e-learning 2.0 involves fundamental and profound changes. Given the focus
of this paper on learning cultures, it can be stated that the 4 layer model gives a fruitful model for analysis
of changes which occur between E-learning 1.0 and 2.0 and shows that the changes can be analysed under
the light of learning cultural factors. Table 3 shows a comparison according to the previously elaborated el-
ements of cultural dimensions.
Table 3: Comparison of learning culture 1.0 and learning culture 2.0
Onion
Model
E-Learning 1.0
E-Learning 2.0
Symbols
The symbols of an e-learning 1.0 culture are the
Learning Management Systems, the objects
used to store materials to distribute and present
them. In an e-learning 1.0 culture most symbols
for e-learning are technology oriented symbols.
The symbols of an e-learning 2.0 culture are
more related to Social Networks and Personal
Learning Environments. Rather than technol-
ogy social processes like connecting with
each other and sharing are in the foreground.
Heroes
Heroes of e-learning 1.0 are experts and teach-
ers who drive the learning process.
Heroes of an e-learning 2.0 culture are those
fellow learners which are network gatekeep-
ers because they enable networking, sharing
and community building in a effective way.
Rituals
The rituals of a learning culture which are ex-
pressed in pedagogical interventions and in-
The rituals of a learning culture 2.0 are focus-
sing on Sharing, peer-learning, peer-acting

structional methodologies are focussing on
transfer and instruction within an e-learning 1.0
culture.
and peer-interaction in order to reach a de-
sired commonly agreed learning objective.
Values
The underlying values in an e-learning 1.0 cul-
ture are associated with processes of acquisition
of knowledge.
The underlying values in an e-learning 2.0
cultures are associated with processes of par-
ticipation.
The comparison shows that the shift from an e-learning 1.0 scenario to an e-learning 2.0 scenario in the
light of a cultural analysis can be considered as a cultural change and e-learning 2.0 thus suggest a new
learning culture.
References
1. BOYD, R.; RICHERSON, P.J. (1996). Why Culture is Common but Cultural Evolution is Rare. Procee-
dings of the British Academy, 88: 73–93.
2. COWAN J. (1998). On Becoming an Innovative University Teacher Reflection in Action. Open Univer-
sity Press: McGraw – Hill Education.
3. DEITERING, F.G. (1995). Selbstgesteuertes Lernen. Göttingen: Verlag für Angewandte Psychologie.
4. EDMUNDSON, A. (2007). The Cultural Adaptation Process (CAP) Model: Designing E-Learning for
Another Culture. In: EDMUNDSON, A. (ed): Globalized E-Learning, Cultural Challenges. Idea Group,
U.S., pp. 267-290.
5. Ehlers, U.-D. (2004): Qualität im E-Learning aus Lernersicht. Grundlagen, Empirie und Modellkon-
zeption subjektiver Qualität. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden.
6. EHLERS, U.D. (2009). Web 2.0 – E-Learning 2.0 – Quality 2.0? Quality for new learning Cultures. In-
ternational Journal for Quality Assurance in Education.
7. FRIEDRICH, H.F.; MANDL, H. (1997). Analyse und Förderung selbstgesteuerten Lernens. In WEINERT,
F.E.; MANDL, H. (Hrsg.): Psychologie der Erwachsenenbildung. Enzyklopädie der Psychologie, D, Se-
rie I, Pädagogische Psychologie, Bd.4 (S. 238-293). Göttingen: Hogrefe, Verlag für Psychologie.
8. HALL, E.T.; HALL, M.R. (1990). Understanding cultural differences. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural
Press.
9. HENDERSON, L. (1996). Instructional design of interactive multimedia: A cultural critique. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 44(4); pp. 85-104.
10. HOFSTEDE, G; HOFSTEDE, G.J. (2005). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. 2. ed. New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
11. HOLZKAMP, K. (1993). Lernen. Subjektwissenschaftliche Grundlegung, Frankfurt a. M., New York.
12. KAMENTZ, E. (2006). Adaptivität von hypermedialen Lernsystemen. Ein Vorgehensmodell für die Kon-
zeption einer Benutzermodellierungskomponente unter Berücksichtigung kulturbedingter Benutzerei-
genschaften. Dissertation, Universität Hildesheim.
13. KERRES, M. (2001). Multimediale und telemediale Lernumgebungen. Konzeption und Entwicklung. (2.
Aufl.), München, Oldenbourg.
14. KERRES, M. (2006). Potenziale von Web 2.0 nutzen. In HOHENSTEIN, A.; WILBERS, K. (Eds.): Hand-
buch E-Learning. München. DWD – temporary version, 05.08.2006 [PDF]
available at: http://mediendidaktik.uni-duisburg-essen.de/files/web20-a.pdf (accessed 20.10.2006).
15. KOLB, D.A.; KOLB, A.Y. (2005). Learning Style Inventory - Version 3.1 2005. Technical Specifica-
tions. Boston: Hay Group.
16. LEONARDI, P. (2002). Cultural variability and web interface design: Communicating US Hispanic cul-
tural values on the Internet. In: SUDWEEKS, F.H.; ESS, C. (eds.): CATaC'02 Proceedings (Montréal,
Australia): Cultural Attitudes towards Technology and Communication. pp. 297-316.
17. MAYES T. (2004). Review of e-learning theories, frameworks and models. JISC e-Learning Models
Desk Study. Available at http://www.elearning.ac.uk/resources/ modelsdeskreview/
(accessed 18.12.2007).
18. RICHTER, T.; PAWLOWSKI, J.M. (2007). The Need for Standardization of Context Metadata for e-
Learning Environments, Proc. of e-ASEM Conference, Seoul, Korea, Oct. 2007.

19. RICHTER, T.; PAWLOWSKI, J.M.; LUTZE, M. (2008). Adapting E_Learning situations for international
reuse. In SUDWEEKS F., HRACHOVEC, H., ESS, C. (eds.). CATaC'08 Proceedings (Nimes, France): Cul-
tural Attitudes towards Technology and Communication, pp. 713-725.
20. SIEMENS, G. (2004). Connectivism. Available at:
http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm.
21. WAGNER, A.C. (2006). Überlegungen zu E-Learning 2.0. [Video-Podcast] Available at:
http://edufuture.de/2006/12/22/ueberlegungen-zu-elearning-20, (accessed 10.11.2007).