2.1. Understand Cultural Differences. Readings

Alqarni (2022, 725) provides a detailed analysis of how Hofstede’s cultural dimensions are applied in educational contexts:

• Power distance. In low power distance countries (LPD), the relationship between students and teachers is informal and students can argue and question the teacher. There is spontaneous participation of students. The education process is student-centred. Focus on student initiative develops them as independent thinkers. In high power distance (HPD) countries, formal and hierarchical relationship exists between students and teachers. Education is teacher-centred. The teacher, as the Guru, creates intellectual paths that students need to follow without questioning. Class communication is initiated and driven by the teacher. Thus, in LPD countries, learning occurs due to the learner’s prevalence and in HPD countries it heavily depends on the ability of the teacher. 

• Individualism/collectivism. In individualist countries, students are highly individualistic. Education is meant to learn how to learn. There is no age-specificity for learning. In contrast, in collectivist countries, learning is a one-time process acquired at a young age. The aim is to make them strong members of society by teaching them the skills necessary to achieve this. Academic certificates in individualistic countries enhances worth and self-respect due to the perception of achievements. In collectivist countries, an academic certificate is a means to improve social status rather than to enhance an individual's self-respect. Group dimensions are either collectivist or individualist. On the other hand, an individual's responsibility to the group is more important. The quality of group may differ between different cultures. Thus, both groups can be found in any country. Philanthropic and humanitarian attitudes of some groups in developed countries reflect collectivist culture although the country may be categorised as individualistic by Hofstede. In some collectivist nations, deficient social security indicates that collectivist behaviours are more determined by socioeconomic necessity than by attachment to a particular group. Thus, both individual and collectivist interests can occur together and therefore, societies cannot be strictly classified as belonging to only one of the two. A complicated relationship between values and social structures is indicated here. Measurements are made difficult as the same individual may express different collective and individual interests in various contexts. Applied to higher education, group cultural dimensions need to be visualised as developing, flexible and negotiated. 

• Masculinity/femininity (MF). In highly masculine countries, there are distinct gender roles. In low masculine/high feminine countries, gender roles may overlap. In high femininity nations, students express shared tenacity and fading level of open contest in classrooms. In highly masculine societies, learners compete highly and manifest themselves in classrooms. In feministic countries, teacher skills are more significant. In masculinistic countries, academic reputation, brilliance and performance are more important. However, ascribing gender differences to classroom behaviours is superficial. Hofstede did not differentiate the MF ranges by learning setting, such as preschool, primary, high school, or university. The differences in their classroom cultures are not due to cultural dimensions, but due to age, maturity, curricula and physical and human resources. 

• Uncertainty avoidance/acceptance. Reactions to perceived threats in uncertain situations might involve avoidance or acceptance. In educational contexts, this dimension is supposedly revealed in many ways. In countries with high uncertainty avoidance and low acceptance, students are not expected to openly disagree with teachers or fellow students. This is perceived as disloyalty. Teachers are experts with all answers. The opposite is true in countries of low avoidance/high acceptance. In this way, students are more comfortable in unstructured learning environment. 

• Long term/short term orientation (LTO/STO). LTO encourages virtues for future rewards. In STO, the past virtues are glorified and present virtues are preserved with stress on tradition, fulfilment of social obligation and saving “face” in awkward situations. In LTO, students' academic success or failure is attributed to their efforts. Such students are mathematically talented. Moreover, they can easily deal with the applied sciences and solve problems. In STO, success or failure is purely accidental. Students in these have higher capability in theoretical and abstract science. They are not good in mathematics or solving problems. In LTO, children are rewarded for academic achievements. In STO, children are given gifts for pleasure. Hofstede found a causal relationship between long/short term orientation of nations and cognitive skills of individual children (maths scores). There is a contradiction in saying that students lack talent for abstract or theoretical science, yet possess basic mathematical skills. Hofstede added this dimension to get rid of alleged Western bias in the case of the other four dimensions. By integrating theory (e.g., Hofstede, Hall), research evidence, and reflective practice, lecturers are better equipped to recognize, explain, and respond adaptively to the cultural dynamics shaping student learning, creating classrooms where every student feels understood and supported. But lecturers should note that Hofstede did not sufficiently examine school-specific behavioural and age factors.

• The Indulgence versus Restraint cultural dimension describes the extent to which societies allow the gratification of basic human desires related to enjoying life and having fun, or instead regulate these desires through strict social norms and expectations (Hofstede, 2011). In higher education contexts, this dimension influences students’ attitudes toward learning, motivation, and participation. In cultures characterized by indulgence, students are more likely to value personal freedom, enjoyment, and self-expression in their learning experiences. Universities in such contexts often promote student-centred learning approaches, creativity, flexible learning pathways, and active classroom participation. Students may feel comfortable expressing opinions, questioning instructors, and engaging in collaborative discussions. In contrast, in restrained cultures, educational environments tend to emphasize discipline, perseverance, and delayed gratification, where students may focus more strongly on academic achievement, respect for authority, and adherence to institutional expectations (Hofstede, 2011). 

In indulgent contexts, higher education institutions often support a balance between academic work and student well-being, encouraging extracurricular activities, flexible learning formats, and innovative assessment methods that allow creativity and personal choice. Conversely, restrained cultures often prioritize structured curricula, clear academic regulations, and rigorous assessment systems designed to foster persistence and responsibility. Recognizing these cultural influences enables educators to design more inclusive and culturally responsive learning environments that balance academic rigor with opportunities for autonomy and enjoyment in learning.