Students from High-Context and Low-Context Cultures Differ in Intragroup Conflict - Literature review Example

Literature Review/Methodology Paper: Do from High-Context and Low-Context Cultures Differ in Intragroup Conflict and Satisfaction after New Class Rules that Promote Direct Communication? Tek U Judy Chan Dr. Garard Comm 288 Word Count: 4532 Anthropologist Edward Hall used the terms high-context and low-context to categorize cultural differences. He described cultures as being high-context or low-context, based on the extent to which people derive meaning from either their settings or society, or from the words being expressed to one another (Samovar, Porter, & McDaniel, 2010). High-context cultures depend more on non-verbal cues and their settings to make sense of what people are telling them, while low-context cultures emphasize the importance of direct and open verbal communication to expressing and understanding other people (Croucher et al., 2012, p.65). These concepts, however, are mostly studied in business settings and other social scenarios, and not in school environments. Shao, Bao, and Gray (2004) and Zhou, Zhou, and Xue (2005), for instance, studied how advertisements impact consumers through responding to high-context and low-context cultural values and communication practices. There are few studies that examine how high- and low-context cultures mediate class dynamics and outcomes (Homan et al., 2008). Communication is imperative for learning and teaching, while cultural beliefs and practices shape communication styles (Carlgren, 2013). Hence, the context of a culture has an important role in teaching and in affecting the learning paces of students from different cultural groups (Diallo, 2012). Besides the effect of culture on teaching and learning, it can also shape reactions to classroom rules. Classroom rules are explicit statements that determine behavioral expectations and assist in creating a predictable teaching and learning setting (Reinke, Herman, & Sprick, 2011). High-context and low-context cultures can have differences in interpreting and responding to specific classroom rules. Cultural values and behaviors can greatly shape how students understand and apply these rules (Kittler, 2006). For instance, classroom rules that discourage touching may be unfavorable to high-context cultures that are used to hugging or touching one another softly at the arms and hands to show support or caring. The same classroom rules favor low-context cultural beliefs, on the contrary, which can lead to better classroom experiences for them, to the detriment of high-context-culture students. These diverse ways of seeing and ways of doing due to cultural differences can have further impacts on classroom dynamics and outcomes, including group conflict (Croucher et al., 2012) and class satisfaction. The five basic kinds of conflict styles are avoiding, compromising, dominating, integrating, and obliging (Croucher et al., 2012). The avoiding style is one where people withdraw from a conflict; the compromising style happens when people seek to find the middle ground to manage a conflict; dominating refers to prioritizing individual interests over others; integrating is when individuals try to conciliate the interest of all parties; and obliging happens when people sacrifices their own needs for the needs of others (Croucher et al., 2012). Croucher et al. (2012) learned from their study in India, Ireland, Thailand, and the United States that high-context nations (India and Thailand) were more predisposed to use avoiding and obliging conflict styles more than low-context cultures (Ireland and the United States), while low-context nations favored dominating conflict style more than high-context nations. Ho-ying Fu et al. (2007) examined the need for disclosure and context in making conflict judgments. Findings showed that need for disclosure moderates the impact of culture on conflict resolution behavior. As for classroom satisfaction, cultural differences can also shape feelings of satisfaction. In another study, Chang (2011) determined that collaboration can impact class satisfaction. If classroom rules have potentially different effects on collaboration, they can also shape class satisfaction. The paper plans to do research on how cultural differences impact conflict and class satisfaction. It believes that high-context and low-context cultures moderate how students see and respond to class rules, which, in turn, will shape classroom behaviors and interactions. It hypothesizes that students of high-context cultures will report higher intragroup conflict, lower learner-learner satisfaction, and lower general class satisfaction after the implementation of class rules that overtly promote open, direct, and articulate group communication compared to students of low-context cultures. The next section identifies and defines the variables of this study and explains the communication model used. Theoretical Background This theoretical background section describes the concepts and theories that will be used in the study. The independent variables are class rules, while the dependent variables are intragroup conflict and general class and learner-learner satisfaction. The moderating factor is the culture of the student (high-context versus low-context). Though not specifically examined, this paper will include the moderating variables of gender, age, and socioeconomic status. The first concept to be explained is class rules. The paper defines class rules as explicit statements that guide how students should do their work and how to behave in class, specifically, towards fellow students and teachers (Reinke et al., 2011). Class rules are tools for classroom management; they reflect and promote the values and behaviors that teachers and school administration believe to be important to teaching and learning (Reinke et al., 2011). As for the concept of conflict, Hocker and Wilmot (1991) defined it as an “expressed struggle between at least two interdependent parties who perceive incompatible goals, scarce resources, and interference from the other party in achieving their goals’’ (p.12, as cited in Croucher et al., 2012, p.64). Studies examined how cultural variables, for instance, individualism–collectivism and context, impact how people see and deal with intragroup conflict (Cox, 2004; Croucher et al., 2012). Cai and Fink (2002) learned that low-context or individualistic cultures prefer the avoiding style, while high-context or collectivistic cultures prefer the compromising and integrating style (as cited in Kittler, 2006). This study indicated that cultural differences can impact how people deal with conflicts. Context is the “environment in which the communication takes place” (Hall, 1976, as cited in Croucher et al., 2012, p.64). Hall (1976) offered the concept of high versus low context as a way of perceiving different cultural orientations with special emphasis on communication (Kittler, 2006). He explained the role of culture in communication: “We believed that culture is communication and no communication by humans can be divorced from culture” (Kittler, 2006, p.4). He added that the system of communication “relates information in a context to produce something man calls meaning” (Hall, 1973, as cited in Kittler, 2006, p.4). Hall (1976) showed that context is essential to the process of making meaning and in communicating with one another. Besides defining the meaning of context, Hall (1976) explained that all communication transactions take place on the high-low-continuum. He defined the terms “high-context culture” (HC) and “low-context culture” (LC): “HC transactions feature preprogrammed information that is in the receiver and in the setting, with only minimal information in the transmitted message. LC transactions are the reverse” (Kittler, 2006, p.4). High-context communication or messages are ones ‘‘in which most of the information is either in the physical context or internalized in the person while very little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of the message’’ (p. 79, as cited in Croucher et al., 2012, p.64). In low-context messages, majority of the information is ‘‘vested in the explicit code’’ (p. 79, as cited in Croucher et al., 2012, p.64). High- and low-context cultures may shape communication styles and communication effectiveness (Croucher et al., 2012). In addition, in high-context cultures, open disagreement with someone can embarrass people and lead to losing ‘‘face’’ (Ting-Toomey, 1985), while in low-context cultures, people can separate people from conflict (as cited in Kittler, 2006). Ting-Toomey explained that people from low-context cultures prefer ‘‘explicit communication codes, time-logic style, rational-factual rhetoric, and open, direct strategies’’ (p.82, as cited in Kittler, 2006, p.5), while those from high-context cultures favor more ‘‘implicit communication codes, point-logic style, intuitive-affective rhetoric, and ambiguous, indirect strategies’’ in conflict (p. 82, as cited in Kittler, 2006, p.5). Generally, high-context communication is economical because it focuses on direct language, while low-context communication is less economical because it often beats around the bush and concerns the complex reading of nonverbal cues and contextual conditions (Kittler, 2006). Hall’s concept of high- and low-context cultures faces criticisms of bipolarization, hasty generalization, and lack of empirical foundation (Kittler, 2006). Kittler (2006) noted scholars who criticized the theory for being too bipolar, when, in fact, people combine high and low-context approaches to communication in real life. The same study pointed to studies that showed that Hall overgeneralized his findings to all cultures, when some highly “global” cultures may reflect mixtures of high and low-context cultural values and communication practices (Kittler, 2006). Furthermore, the theory does not have sufficient empirical foundation because other cultures are not well-studied (Kittler, 2006). The concepts of high- and low-context cultures, nevertheless, remain widely-used and studied in intercultural settings (Kim, Pan, & Park, 1998; Samovar et al., 2010). Literature Review This section summarizes past research on high- and low-context cultures. Croucher et al. (2012) aimed to determine if Ting-Toomey’s (1985) theory is true, where it states that culture shapes conflict style preference. Croucher et al. (2012) also tested the findings from Chau and Gudykunst (1987, as cited in Croucher et al., 2012). Chau and Gudykunst (1987) learned that people from low-context cultures employed solution-oriented conflict styles more than those from high-context cultures, and that people from high-context cultures favored the use of non-confrontation (as cited in Croucher et al., 2012). Croucher et al. (2012) studied conflict styles in four nations that have varying contexts. The United States and Ireland are low-context nations, while Thailand and India are high-context nations (Hall, 1976). They also have different histories, political structures, economies, and religious groups and practices that can shape communicative behaviors, including conflict (Croucher et al., 2012). The study consisted of 1,792 people: 657 from India, 311 from Ireland, 232 from Thailand, and 592 from the United States. The researchers used surveys that posed demographic questions and they also used the Conflict Style Instrument (Oetzel, 1998, as cited in Croucher et al., 2012). Findings confirmed Ting-Toomey’s research because high-context cultures used more indirect conflict strategies, such as avoiding and obliging conflict styles. Other findings were contrary to Ting-Toomey’s (1985) theory and findings from Chau and Gudykunst (1987) because high-context nations had higher scores than the low-context nations on the solution-oriented styles, specifically, compromising and integrating ones (Croucher et al., 2012). The study is limited to the geographic locations of their sampling and the validity of self-report measures is not as high compared to studies that combine different quantitative methods. Other studies further tested the role of culture in intragroup conflicts. The next studies focus on the issue of measuring individualism and collectivism of high- and low-context cultures. Homan et al. (2008) studied how openness to experience and team rewards highlight intragroup differences affect team performance of multicultural teams. Their sampling included 58 four-member teams who worked on interactive tasks. Findings showed that high openness positively shaped teams where salient differences existed, but not for teams with a superordinate identity (which refers to having a “we” identity). These findings implicate that those who have high-context cultures may have problems with classroom rules that promote too much openness. These cultures already have a superordinate identity and they may not appreciate rules that can lead to highlighting of fault-line differences (i.e. fault-line differences refers to sub-group differences) (Homan et al., 2008). The study has strengths of a relatively large sampling and consideration of fault-line and superordinate identity concerns, but has weaknesses of cultural limitations and lack of consideration of other alternative explanations, such as not having enough time to develop closer relations that reflect high-context cultural relationships. The next study that also examined cultural differences and conflicts is from Nibler and Harris (2003). They studied the role of culture and cohesiveness in shaping intragroup conflict and team effectiveness. They compared effectiveness for groups of American friends and strangers and groups of Chinese friends and strangers. Cohesiveness refers to “the resultant of all the forces acting on members to remain in the group” (Festinger, 1950, p. 272, as cited in Nibler & Harris, 2003, p.616). Their sampling included 50 groups in total where each group had five members each. Findings showed that U.S. strangers may not have experienced large task conflict compared to Chinese strangers, but both groups performed relatively poorly. Groups of U.S. friends had better performance because of their openness in sharing ideas and opinions. Groups of Chinese friends experienced task conflict and took more time making decisions, without necessarily having better performance (Nibler & Harris, 2003). Nibler and Harris (2003) concluded that gaining task conflict advantage, where group members feel relaxed enough to unreservedly express opinions and disagree with one another, have culture-based differences. The study has limitations because of sampling characteristics, which delimit the generalizability of its findings, but it has strengths of implicating that classroom rules which promote cohesiveness can improve performance for high- and low-context cultures, and it helps explore the role of openness which may be different in practice for high-context cultures. Some studies examined the appropriateness of using the Individualism and Collectivism Scale (INDCOL) from Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk, and Gelfand (1995 as cited in Gouveia, Clemente, & Espinosa, 2003). Gouveia et al. (2003) studied the attributes of individualism and collectivism for 526 Spanish respondents. They learned that the INDCOL has a moderate fit with Spanish cultural components. However, they highlighted the need for more self-report data that include interpersonal experiences. Robert, Lee, and Kim-Yin (2006) tested the 4 threats to the INDCOL’s robustness: “translation, culture, organization, and response context” (p. 65). They analyzed the measurement equivalence for the samples that came from the United States, Singapore, and Korea. Findings showed that the INDCOL was robust when considering the interpretability of correlations, but variations in culture and translation can result to a potential threat to the interpretability of mean-level analyses. These studies underscore that the INDCOL is robust for several cultural groups, but other measures must also be used to ensure the validity of measuring cultural differences for high- and low-context cultures. Besides the use of additional scales to understand high- and low-context cultures, other studies indicated that classroom interaction affected student-student satisfaction and general class satisfaction. Driver (2002) studied student’s satisfaction with group interaction through a web-enhanced classroom. A total of 27 undergraduate students participated in the study. Findings showed that high levels of group interaction improved student-student satisfaction and general class satisfaction. The study has strengths of including the effects of technology and learning community variables in measuring class satisfaction, but it has limitations because of its small sampling and because it does not have a validated survey measure. In connection to the proposed study, having more interaction due to classroom rules can increase the satisfaction of students, but cultural differences may moderate satisfaction outcomes. Another study explored the role of student interaction to student satisfaction. Sher (2009) determined how communication and interaction shaped student satisfaction and learning in technology-mediated class environments. His sampling included 208 college students. Findings showed that student-student and student-instructor interactions are both considerable contributors to student learning and satisfaction. The study has strengths of focusing on web-based classes to improve validity for these settings and large sampling, but it still has generalizability limits and inability to determine causal relationships. The study implicates that cultures which value student-student and student-instructor interactions can have better satisfaction with classroom rules that promote them, though cultural differences may reflect the negative or positive feelings and experiences with such rules. Rationale The review of literature shows that cultural differences can impact how students interpret and respond to classroom rules. Their behaviors, in turn, may shape their group interactions. If they feel that class rules deviate from their cultural values, they may feel individual cognitive dissonance and not perform well in their teams. They might even experience a sense of disconnectedness with their team members. Conflicts may arise as team members differ on how communication should be done, with respect to expression of ideas and resolution of differences. In addition, the literature suggests that classroom rules can also impact satisfaction, although the paper did not find any study that specifically examined the relationship between class rules and student satisfaction with student-student interactions per se and classroom satisfaction in general. The literature pointed to gaps in determining how cultural differences mediate classroom’s rules impact on learner-learner satisfaction and general class satisfaction. Based on the gaps in literature, the study seeks to examine the connection between high and low-context cultures, classroom satisfaction and intragroup conflict, when new classroom rules emphasize low-context communication values. Classroom satisfaction and intragroup conflict are important variables to study because they can impact student relationships and academic outcomes (Reinke et al., 2011). The researcher aims to answer the following research questions: 1) Will there be differences among high- and low-context cultures with regards to group conflict perceptions after the introduction of new rules? 2) Will there be differences among high- and low-context cultures with regards to general classroom satisfaction and learner-learner satisfaction after the introduction of new rules? From these research aims, the following hypotheses will be answered: Hypothesis 1: Students of high-context cultures will report higher intragroup conflict than those in low-context cultures after the implementation of class rules that explicitly promote open, direct, and articulate group communication. Hypothesis 2: Students of low-context cultures will report lower intragroup conflict than those in high-context cultures after the implementation of class rules that explicitly promote open, direct, and articulate group communication. Hypothesis 3: Students of high-context cultures will report lower learner-learner satisfaction after the implementation of class rules that explicitly promote open, direct, and articulate group communication. Hypothesis 4: Students of low-context cultures will report higher learner-learner satisfaction after the implementation of class rules that explicitly promote open, direct, and articulate group communication. Hypothesis 5: Students of high-context cultures will report lower general class satisfaction after the implementation of class rules that explicitly promote open, direct, and articulate group communication. Hypothesis 6: Students of low-context cultures will report higher general class satisfaction after the implementation of class rules that explicitly promote open, direct, and articulate group communication. Methodology Research Design The research design follows a pretest posttest experimental and survey design. The experimental design is valuable in showing how cultural differences work in actual classroom settings. Survey design is also chosen because it is easy and less costly to do when compared to other qualitative and quantitative methods. In addition, survey design (pen and paper format) is a valid research design because it offers data that can inspect relationships among independent, dependent, and moderating variables. It can also combine questions that can offer qualitative and quantitative data. Open-ended questions can help participants offer data that can confirm answers in closed-ended questions. Pretest will measure learner-learner satisfaction and general class satisfaction before the application of new class rules to determine if the latter truly had some influence on satisfaction outcomes. Posttest will measure too learner-learner satisfaction and general class satisfaction. The design hopes to consider as many possible confounding variables, to reduce their effect on the validity of results and conclusions. Participants The participants will be college students of culturally diverse classes. Classes with diverse classrooms will be randomly selected from the school list of classes. After choosing certain classes, the researcher will exert an effort to ensure the combination of high- and low-context cultures for every team. The target number of groups is ten groups that are made of 4 to 5 members. Furthermore, these participants must be new students of new classes, so that class rules will not be familiar to them yet. This will reduce the confounding effect of familiarity with classmates and with existing class rules. In addition, gender balance will be targeted, so as to ensure a similar standard ratio of men to women in every group. Procedures Before introducing the new rules, the researcher will conduct a survey one week after class has started. Class satisfaction will be measured pretest through a survey on learner-learner satisfaction and general class satisfaction. In addition, the researcher will determine if they have high- or low-context cultures through the INDCOL and Direct and Indirect Communication Measures. After the survey, the class will be informed that they will engage in a team activity that will last for a month. They will work on a project where they will teach grade-school students about concepts and skills they learned from the class. They can choose the grade level of their students. They are required to meet at least twice a week and to record minutes of meetings in team journals. These journals will ensure that team members are interacting enough to experience potential conflict issues. After they have completed their project, a posttest survey will be done learner-learner satisfaction and general class satisfaction. Measurement High- and low-context cultural differences will be measured through the Individualism and Collectivism Scale (INDCOL). The INDCOL evaluates subjectively perceived dimensions of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism through a series of 32 statements (Singelis et al., 1995, as cited in Oppenheimer, 2004). This will be administered in written form to participants. Each statement needs an evaluation through the 5-point Likert-type scale that has a range from strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree (1). The dimensions of vertical and horizontal individualism and collectivism are evaluated through 8 items (Oppenheimer, 2004). Oppenheimer (2004) reported the following reliability coefficients: “reliability coefficients for vertical individualism ranged from .76 to .79; for horizontal individualism from .60 to .75; for vertical collectivism from .50 to .69; and for horizontal collectivism from .61 to .64” (p.338). In addition, since the INDCOL explored culturally-based characteristic, Triandis and Gelfand (1998) showed that low to moderate reliability coefficients are acceptable for the vertical and horizontal dimensions of individualism and collectivism (as cited in Oppenheimer, 2004). Besides the INDCOL, Direct and Indirect Communication Measures will be used to measure the indirect and direct ways that high- and low-context cultures communicate with others. The questionnaire will ask students to circle their response on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree) to statements that best capture how they feel (Rucker & Gendrin, 2007). The direct communication scale is composed of thirteen items, while the indirect communication scale has twelve items. Some examples of direct communication scale items are the following: “I believe that it is important to say exactly what you mean in most situations” and “Problems with others should be addressed directly through talk” (Rucker & Gendrin, 2007, p.443). Some examples of indirect communication scale items are: “It is generally better to let the other person figure out what you are saying” and “Subtle messages are better than those which are very frank” (Rucker & Gendrin, 2007, p.443). The reliability estimates for the direct communication and indirect communication scales, based on Cronbach’s alpha, were “α = 0.91 and 0.96, respectively” (Rucker & Gendrin, 2007, p.443). Intragroup conflict will be measured through the Intragroup Conflict Scale (ICS). The Intragroup Conflict Scale was made to measure conflict within groups (Cox, 2004). The scale items and the responses were recorded on 5-point Likert scales that had a range from 1 = “none” to 5 = “a great deal” (Cox, 2004). Cox (2004) noted that ICS is a reliable and valid way of measuring intragroup conflict. Class satisfaction will be measured through a survey on learner-learner satisfaction and general class satisfaction. See Appendix A for sample of statements that measure learner-learner satisfaction and Appendix B for sample of statements that measure general class satisfaction. A general survey will also be done to collect information regarding gender, age, and socioeconomic status. Results One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests will be conducted to analyze data and to determine relationships between independent and dependent variables and between moderating variable and dependent variables. The results are believed to support all six hypotheses. Students of high-context cultures will report higher intragroup conflict than those in low-context cultures after the implementation of class rules that explicitly promote open, direct, and articulate group communication. In addition, students of low-context cultures will report lower intragroup conflict than those in high-context cultures after the implementation of class rules. Furthermore, students of high-context cultures will report lower learner-learner satisfaction after the implementation of class rules. At the same time, students of low-context cultures will report higher learner-learner satisfaction after the implementation of class rules. Students of high-context cultures will report lower general class satisfaction, while students of low-context cultures will report higher general class satisfaction. Discussion The study seeks to examine the connection between high and low-context cultures, classroom satisfaction and intragroup conflict, when new classroom rules highlight low-context communication values. The results will show that high-context cultures will experience greater conflict in rules that oppose high-context communication values and practices. They will also report lower learner-learner satisfaction because they will feel left out when dominant low-context cultures take over their meetings. They will also report lower classroom satisfaction probably because of conflict experiences and cognitive dissonance (Croucher et al., 2012). On the contrary, low-context cultures will flourish after the implementation of class rules that explicitly promote open, direct, and articulate group communication. They will appreciate the openness and directness of communication that fits their cultural values and communication behaviors (Kittler, 2006). Furthermore, differences in age, gender, and socioeconomic status will not have direct effects on classroom satisfaction and intragroup conflict. In summation, these new class rules will disadvantage high-context cultural members who do not prefer such outright support for verbal expressions that are opposite to their cultural preferences. The study will have several limitations. It will have limitations that are typical of studies with small samplings, specifically, findings will be limited to the characteristics of the sampling (i.e. young undergraduates of specific cultural groups). In addition, the survey design will pose limitations of validity because students may over- or under-assess their feelings that will affect perceptions of conflict and classroom satisfaction. The survey on classroom satisfaction is also not validated through other studies, which may result to validity issues. Finally, the study will not include other potential confounding and moderating variables, such as teaching styles and classroom characteristics. Despite these limitations, the study will show that culture mediates classroom rules expectations and implementation. In turn, these classroom rules can have discernible effects on perceptions of conflict and classroom satisfaction. Students from high-context cultures will experience distinct learning disadvantages if teachers create rules that promote low-context values. In other words, diverse classrooms that lack diverse classroom rules can create disadvantaged positions for other cultural groups. Conclusion The study will show that context will impact how students view and respond to classroom rules. Classroom rules can also affect intragroup conflict and classroom satisfaction. The study has implications for teachers in culturally diverse classrooms because they should consider how their rules fit into multicultural frameworks. Future studies should compare the use of different classroom rules to understand how they fit or not fit high- and low-culture behaviors and dynamics. For instance, surveys can be done to compare how high-context cultures perceive rules that promote context-based communication versus direct and verbal communication practices. In addition, future studies should also determine in-group differences. As Croucher et al. (2012) noted, Hall’s high- and low-context cultural typology may overgeneralize cultural similarities within cultural groups, and researchers must also avoid the same research flaw. Finally, future studies should also consider other moderating factors that can impact intragroup conflict and classroom satisfaction, such as cohesion, teaching styles and strategies, and student-teacher relationships. References Carlgren, T. (2013). Communication, critical thinking, problem solving: A suggested course for all high school students in the 21st century. Interchange, 44(1/2), 63-81. Chang, Z. (2011). Online collaborative learning: Cultural differences in student satisfaction and performance. Journal for Educational Research Online, 3(1), 12-28. Cox, K.B. (2004). The Intragroup Conflict Scale: Development and psychometric properties. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 12(2), 133-46. Croucher, S.M., Bruno, A., McGrath, P., Adams, C., McGahan, C., Suits, A., & Huckins, A. (2012). Conflict styles and high–low context cultures: A cross-cultural extension. Communication Research Reports, 29(1), 64-73. DOI: 10.1080/ 08824096.2011.640093. Diallo, I. (2012). Intercultural teaching in the Arab Gulf region: Making a case for pedagogy that takes into account the epistemic context and the scholastic traditions of Muslim students. International Journal of Pedagogies & Learning, 7(3), 211-217. DOI: 10.5172/ijpl.2012.7.3.211. Driver, M. (2002). Exploring student perceptions of group interaction and class satisfaction in the web-enhanced classroom. Internet and Higher Education, 5, 35-45. Retrieved from http://compus.uom.gr/INF188/document/Arthra_gia_ergasies/Exploring-student-perceptions-of-group-interaction-and-class-satisfaction-in-the-web-enhanced-classroom.pdf Homan, A., Hollenbeck, J., Humphrey, S., Van Knippenberg, D., Ilgen, D., & Van Kleef, G. (2008). Facing differences with an open mind: Openness to experience, salience of intragroup differences, and performance of diverse work groups. The Academy of Management Journal, 51(6), 1204-1222. Ho-ying Fu, J., Morris, M., Lee, S., Chat, M., Chiu, & Hong, Y. (2007). Epistemic motives and cultural conformity: Need for closure, culture, and context as determinants of conflict judgments. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 92(2), 191-197. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.191. Gouveia, V.V., Clemente, M., & Espinosa, P. (2003). The horizontal and vertical attributes of individualism and collectivism in a Spanish population. Journal of Social Psychology, 143(1), 43-63. Kim, D., Pan, Y., & Park, H.S. (1998). High- versus low-context culture: A comparison of Chinese, Korean and American cultures. Psychology & Marketing, 15(6), 507-521. Kittler, M.G. (2006). How cultural context interferes with communication: A synthesis of Hal’s HC/LC-Concept and Krippendorff’s Information Theory. International Communication Association, 2006 Annual Meeting, 1-16. Nibler, R., & Harris, K. (2003). The effects of culture and cohesiveness on intragroup conflict and effectiveness. Journal of Social Psychology, 143(5), 613-631. Oppenheimer, L. (2004). Perception of individualism and collectivism in Dutch society: A developmental approach. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28(4), 336-346. DOI: 10.1080/01650250444000009. Reinke, W., Herman, K., & Sprick, S. (2011). Motivational interviewing for effective classroom management: The classroom check-up. New York: The Guilford Press. Robert, C., Lee, W.C., & Kim-Yin, C. (2006). An empirical analysis of measurement equivalence with the INDCOL measure of individualism and collectivism: Implications for valid cross-cultural inference. Personnel Psychology, 59(1), 65-99. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00804.x. Rucker, M.L., & Gendrin, D.M. (2007). Self-construal, interpersonal communication satisfaction, and communication style: Engendering differences. Human Communication, 10(4), 437 – 450. Retrieved from http://www.uab.edu/Communicationstudies/humancommunication/SCICSCSED,2007,437-450.pdf Samovar, L., Porter, R., & McDaniel, E. (2010). Communication between cultures (7th ed.). Massachusetts: Wadsworth. Shao, A., Bao, Y., & Gray, E. (2004). Comparative advertising effectiveness: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 26(2), 67-80. Sher, A. (2009). Assessing the relationship of student-instructor and student-student interaction to student learning and satisfaction in web-based online learning environment. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(2), 102-12. Zhou, S., Zhou, P., & Xue, F. (2005). Visual differences in U.S. and Chinese television commercials. Journal of Advertising, 34(1), 111-119. Appendix A: Sample of Survey Statements that Measure Learner-Learner Satisfaction The survey will be answered through this Likert Scale 1) My interaction with my fellow students is satisfactory. 2) I did not experience conflict with fellow students at all that we did not resolve effectively in the end. 3) I would like to interact with the same teammates in the future. 4) I find group work satisfying. Appendix B: Sample of Survey Statements that Measure General Class Satisfaction The survey will be answered through this Likert Scale 1) I am generally satisfied with how the class is handled. 2) I like this class enough to recommend it to others. 3) I like going to this class. 4) I find this class rewarding and relevant to my learning needs. Read More