A moment during my postgraduate studies stands out as my first real lesson in cultural dynamics within a classroom. My then professor made a statement that didn’t resonate with me. With my background and training, my reaction was to respectfully counter his point and we engaged in a short back-and-forth dialogue, with the aim, from my perspective, of delving deeper into the subject. Then, a classmate, who had been born and educated in the Middle East, gently placed his hand on my shoulder and advised me to stop talking because, in his view, I was being disrespectful.
I did stop talking but I was very confused. Where I come from, open debate is a cornerstone of learning and holding back felt like a direct cost to my education. But that day I learned how cultural perceptions shape our interactions, and how what is considered engaged participation in one context might be seen as challenge or disrespect in another.
Now, as an educator on the other side of the lectern, my “educational culture shock” continues, albeit simmering beneath the surface. I notice it, for example, when I’m teaching and struggle to elicit responses to questions that often end up feeling rhetorical. A little voice in my head wonders if I’m boring my students or if the material is simply beyond their grasp. Most of the time, neither is the case, but these occurrences prompted me to quickly learn to understand the different pedagogical dynamics in my classroom and how to manage them more effectively.
- Unlock the benefits of multilingualism in higher education
- Create an online learning environment international students feel comfortable in
- It’s all in the presentation: how to engage international students during lectures
For context, I was born and raised in Mexico and attended a Swiss school. I completed my bachelor’s degree in the US, with a short stint in Italy. A few years later I moved to Hong Kong. I completed my postgraduate studies here and now teach a cohort composed primarily of mainland Chinese and Hong Kong students.
Understanding the educational philosophies of the various countries where I have studied and taught has been crucial for my development. I have directly experienced how, in the Americas, Mexico’s education emphasises humanism and social constructivism, focusing on holistic individual development and addressing social inequalities. Educators often prioritise community-oriented activities and knowledge construction through social interaction, a practice that I always enjoyed. And while, admittedly, a postcolonial hierarchical structure does prevail in its educational frameworks, it manifests as nurturing and guiding, rarely creating barriers to dialogue.
In the US, education can be thought of as the Mexican individualist cousin, strongly influenced by John Dewey’s theories, focusing on experiential learning, critical thinking and preparation for democratic participation. It emphasises individual development and caters to diverse learning styles through active and inquiry-based approaches.
In contrast, in Hong Kong, much like in China, educational philosophies are rooted in Confucian values emphasising respect for authority (and dare I say distance?), diligence and perseverance. Education is generally regarded as a means for social mobility. Chinese education, perhaps, can be interpreted as developing more strongly around ideas of collective well-being, harmony and even moral cultivation.
What that means in the classroom
It is easy to see how these differing educational philosophies, when mixed among students and instructors, can lead to uncomfortable classroom dynamics or, in the worst cases, stress or conflict.
For instance, educators accustomed to interactive, dialogue-based teaching methods may interpret silence as disengagement or lack of understanding, while students from cultures that value deference to authority and collective harmony may be less inclined to speak up, resulting in miscommunication and frustration. Students accustomed to collective learning may feel inadequate when encouraged to express individual opinions publicly, which could lead to anxiety and reluctance to participate.
Students from individualistic cultures may take initiative in group settings, while others may wait for consensus. Such dynamics could create a marked imbalance in group contributions, resentment among team members and reduced overall effectiveness of collaborative projects. Instructors’ biases could even unintentionally lean towards students whose mentalities and behaviours align with their own.
When we promote multicultural classrooms, we do so because we know the myriad benefits that exposure to foreign cultures brings to education. We develop empathy and appreciation for different perspectives, introduce a wealth of new ideas and approaches to problem-solving, learn crucial competencies for today’s interconnected world and leverage each other’s strengths in the co-creation of knowledge and understanding. But without (educational) cultural awareness, these good intentions can backfire as instructors and students unintentionally reinforce stereotypes and create an environment where we all feel pigeonholed or misunderstood, inhibiting genuine interaction and learning.
Harmonising world views in a classroom requires a steep learning curve. Much like parenting, we must become aware of and address our own biases and cultural habits (or vices) while helping our students understand and manage their own.
I would never suggest discouraging discussion and active participation, let alone respect! Active participation and interaction can take many forms and be captured by different metrics. We all have our tried-and-true strategies because there is no single recipe for successful integration.
But without question, and regardless of educational philosophy, setting (realistic) expectations early on about participation, feedback and classroom interaction, and encouraging open dialogue about cultural preferences, can only help to get everyone on the same page.
Talk about what healthy participation looks like
Setting expectations can be done through something as simple as a couple of lines on a syllabus, but real impact lies in involving students in creating ground rules. Facilitating a discussion where students contribute ideas on what respectful participation and feedback should look like can be a good way to start a course and replace an (often shallow) icebreaker activity. This, besides ensuring that expectations are clear, acknowledges that every voice matters and that differences in communication are valued. Furthermore, a helpful expansion of this discussion can introduce conversation on how cultural background and educational traditions can shape classroom behaviour. In some of my courses, this has the added bonus of setting the stage for learning about social anthropologist Mary Douglas’ analysis of the grid/group culture theory, but mostly it helps normalise differences.
Think outside the box for contributing
Once these discussions have happened, setting up diverse channels for contribution shouldn’t require too much work, or even imagination, as students themselves should have been able to provide specific ideas of mechanisms that work for them.
I, for example, have often received requests for online discussion boards, digital polls and even anonymised channels for asking questions before, during and after class. The trick lies in finding a balance between mechanisms that allow for learning via participation, and mechanisms that allow us to accurately track and measure it.
Let me share with you a simple strategy that a good friend and colleague shared with me. He told me that he allows students to answer questions in class both verbally and online in real time. He can see the answers as they’re posted and incorporate them into the discussion. This, he says, has opened up his students’ ability to share their insights without feeling spotlighted. Game. Changer.
But while all these tools are wonderful vehicles to deliver content and help students digest it, they also require individualised attention (and grading) that can be difficult to implement in larger classrooms. Overall, though, this process is really all about adaptive and responsive teaching. It’s not necessary to pull a new trick out of the hat every class, but it is important to set up a sustainable system attuned to preferences and performance, and adaptable based on observations of class dynamics.
Setting expectations early, consulting students on them, and revisiting them periodically with the class creates opportunities for students to participate without pushing them too far out or their comfort zones. But, perhaps more importantly, contributing towards the class structure itself can be not only validating, but empowering. We are teaching them by example to build respectful dialogue, to value diversity of thought and expression and to give voice to their preferences and needs while being receptive to those of others.
Marie N. Bernal is lecturer and co-director of the Master of Public Policy programme at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.
comment