Print this chapterPrint this chapter

2.4. Contextual cues to identify cultural differences. Readings

Structured guidance versus independent learning

Cultures vary in their preferences for structured guidance versus independent learning, and lecturers must adapt accordingly. In Hong Kong, students often favour teacher-led frameworks and clear roadmaps, while UK students typically exhibit greater comfort with learner autonomy (Lo, 2024). Lo’s comparative study of British and Hong Kong university students highlights differences in self-direction, with Hong Kong students relying more on guided approaches, an effect of societal expectations and educational systems. (Jukes et al, 2021). Additionally, Samuels (2018) notes that culturally responsive teachers tailor classroom support to match students’ cultural learning styles, offering clear benchmarks and scaffolded assignments in structured settings or open-ended tasks in autonomy-valuing contexts. 

For students needing structure: 

  • Break tasks into clear steps. 

  • Use checklists or templates. 

  • Provide milestone feedback to guide progress. 

For independent learners: 

  • Offer open-ended projects with flexible deadlines. 

  • Encourage self-set goals and peer critique. 

  • Use exploratory prompts to foster creative thinking. 

Differentiated classroom approach: 

  • Offer parallel task versions–structured and independent. 

  • Allow students to choose formats aligning with their strengths. 

Culturally Responsive Feedback and Assessment in Higher Education. Adapting feedback and assessment methods to align with students’ cultural backgrounds is vital for ensuring fairness, clarity, and engagement in diverse learning environments. Traditional feedback practices, which often assume direct communication and individual autonomy, may conflict with students' culturally shaped expectations.

For instance, in many East Asian or Middle Eastern contexts, indirect communication, high respect for authority, and a collective orientation influence how students interpret instructor feedback (Hofstede, 2011). In these settings, direct criticism may be viewed as discouraging or even disrespectful. Conversely, in low power-distance cultures, students may expect clear, candid feedback to guide their academic growth.

Nelson-Barber and Trumbull (2019) emphasize that culturally valid assessments reflect students’ real-life experiences, communication styles, and knowledge systems. Culturally responsive assessment includes adapting not just the content but also the format and tone of feedback. 

for example

For instance, students from indirect feedback cultures may respond better to written comments that begin with strengths and gently introduce areas for improvement. Using rubrics with annotated examples can also bridge cultural gaps in understanding expectations.

To support all students, lecturers should diversify assessment and feedback approaches. This includes offering multimodal feedback (oral, written, digital), involving peer review with guided protocols, and providing reflective opportunities for students to reflect on how feedback relates to their learning. Importantly, faculty should create a classroom culture where help-seeking and revision are normalized, helping reduce stigma around mistakes in cultures that associate academic struggle with personal failure. 

Interpreting Common Student Behaviours Across Cultures: A Comparison Table

Behaviour / Cue

Possible Meaning in Culture A

Possible Meaning in Culture B

Implication for Educators

Avoiding eye contact

Sign of respect for authority (e.g., East Asia)

Sign of disinterest or dishonesty (e.g., U.S., Germany)

Avoid assumptions—consider cultural norms before interpreting discomfort or disrespect 

Reluctance to speak up in class

Respect for teacher’s authority or group harmony (e.g., Japan, Nigeria)

Lack of preparation or engagement (e.g., UK, U.S.)

Provide alternative modes of participation (e.g., written responses, small groups)

Hesitating before disagreeing

Politeness and indirect communication style (e.g., China, Middle East)

Lack of confidence or unclear thinking (e.g., Netherlands)

Teach phrases for respectful disagreement and offer non-verbal ways to express differing views

Silence after a question is asked

Thoughtful reflection before responding (e.g., Finland, Korea)

Uncertainty or disengagement (e.g., U.S.)

Allow more wait time and interpret silence as possible processing, not confusion

Sitting at the back or away from others

Cultural deference or fear of standing out (e.g., high power-distance cultures)

Disengagement or lack of motivation

Observe patterns and offer safe encouragement or structured seating arrangements

Not asking for help

Value placed on self-reliance, avoiding shame or “loss of face” (e.g., South Asia, Middle East)

Confident independence or unawareness of support systems

Normalize help-seeking, offer anonymous options and model support-seeking behaviour

Minimal gesturing or emotional expression

Reserved or formal communication style (e.g., Nordic countries, Japan)

Lack of enthusiasm or confidence (e.g., Southern Europe, U.S.)

Acknowledge different expressive norms and avoid judging engagement based on extroversion