Scribd
Upload
30 views

Dialectic Theory

This document discusses several theories related to teaching in intercultural contexts: 1. Dialectical constructivist theory believes teaching should offer learners practices to structure their own questions and build models and problem-solving strategies. 2. Relational dialectics theory views relationships as containing internal tensions like connection-autonomy that partners negotiate through communication. This theory can be applied to student-teacher relationships. 3. Cultural values theories examine how cultures differ in dimensions like individualism-collectivism and influence relationships. For example, Swedish and U.S. cultures both value individualism but in different ways.

Uploaded by

boger butt
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
30 views

Dialectic Theory

This document discusses several theories related to teaching in intercultural contexts: 1. Dialectical constructivist theory believes teaching should offer learners practices to structure their own questions and build models and problem-solving strategies. 2. Relational dialectics theory views relationships as containing internal tensions like connection-autonomy that partners negotiate through communication. This theory can be applied to student-teacher relationships. 3. Cultural values theories examine how cultures differ in dimensions like individualism-collectivism and influence relationships. For example, Swedish and U.S. cultures both value individualism but in different ways.

Uploaded by

boger butt
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

he dialectical constructivist theory 

believes that teaching should offer learners conductive


and specific practices so that they can structure their own questions, and build their own
models and problem-solving strategies

Classroom Teaching in Intercultural Contexts

Communication research involving a teacher’s success in an intercultural setting is largely based on


empirical studies involving teachers and students from one culture being compared on a construct or
behavior with teachers and students from another culture. Sallinen-Kuparinen’s (1992) research on
teacher communicator style fits this comparative model. In the majority of studies, students are rating
teachers (e.g., Roach, Cornett-DeVito, & DeVito, 2005) rather than teachers reporting their own
experiences. Teacher immediacy behaviors have been studied the most. For example, Johnson and
Miller (2002) conducted a crosscultural comparison of teacher immediacy and students’ perceptions of
learning in the US and Kenya and found positive correlations in both cultures. Comparative analyses in
general are an excellent way to learn where cultural values and practices converge and diverge;
knowledge of the studies cited above might benefit exchange professors traveling in various directions.
More studies have been done to date on the communication behavior of teachers in the Chinese
classroom. Qin Zhang (2005, 2006) has examined a number of behaviors including immediacy, teacher
clarity (Zhang & Zhang, 2005), and teacher emotional labor (Zhang & Zhu, 2008). A study conducted by
Lu (1997) found that Chinese teachers use more punishment-oriented behavior alteration techniques to
gain student compliance. This reflection of Chinese cultural values for authority, morality, and modeling
is highly useful for American teachers going to China or for understanding Chinese students and their
expectations in the American classroom. Given the explosion of exchange students between China and
the US, and the number of study abroad opportunities that could accommodate faculty exchange, it is
no wonder that interest in cross-cultural comparisons is so intense. Studies such as those just described
are highly useful, to be sure, but there really is little else from American college or university professors
who might interpret their own experiences in some way that will be useful for those planning to go
abroad. One such study that does set the stage for others to follow is Festervand and Kyle’s (2001) case
study on teaching graduate economics in France. They discovered that differences in academic culture,
student conduct, language, and pedagogical technique do impact the teacher’s success. Since pre-
departure orientation programs are not consistent for faculty, especially those going on short-term
exchanges, a growing literature on faculty experience could be very useful to teacher training as a
whole.

Dialectical Theory A Western view of dialectics is based in the work of Russian philosopher Mikhail
Bakhtin (1981), and more to the immediate case, Leslie Baxter and Barbara Montgomery’s (1996) theory
of relational dialectics that derives from Bakhtin’s (1981) social construction approach to
dialogue/communication. Relational dialectics is a common approach in the field of communication to
understanding interpersonal relationships. Baxter (1990) outlines the basic internal tensions in a
relationship to be connection—autonomy, certainty—uncertainty, and openness—closedness. The
tensions manifest in all types of relationships and indicate that relational partners want both connection
to their partner and individual autonomy; partners want both a degree of predictability about their
partners and a degree of novelty; partners expect both disclosure between each other and a degree of
privacy. These tensions of space, knowledge and talk, and others defined in the relational dialectics
literature (Rawlins, 1992) reflect the dialectical view that “social life is a dynamic knot of contradictions,
a ceaseless interplay between contrary or opposing tendencies” (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996, p. 3) such
as those just described. As communicators express themselves in relationship to each other, their
interpersonal communication engages the tensions that exist to find some kind of balance so that both
ends of the tension co-exist in the messy existence that defines any relationship. Relational dialectics
theory is appropriate for intercultural relationships as partners seek to negotiate tensions that come
from differences and similarities in their cultural backgrounds. This theory has been successfully applied
to the analysis of cross-cultural marriages in Finland (Cools, 2006); the present study extends the
application to the student-teacher relationship in Sweden. Two sets of dialectical contradictions were
apparent in my experience: hierarchy—equality and autonomy—connection.

Cultural Values Theory Relational dialectics are embedded in cross-cultural value systems that have
both similarities and differences that come into tension with each other. In trying to understand why a
tension may play out as it does, the answer may lie in the unconscious application of values to the
relational situation. Cultural values theories derive from Hall and Hall’s (1990) fifty years of
anthropological research, much of it capsulized in his book Understanding Cultural Differences. For the
present case, the work of Hofstede (2001) and House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, and Gupta (2004) and
the ongoing World Values Survey are the derivatives that provide useful insights into a comparison of
Sweden and the United States. Hofstede’s (2001) global study yielded four dimensions of value:
individualism—collectivism; high power—low power; masculinity—femininity; and low uncertainty
avoidance—high uncertainty avoidance. Extending from Hofstede’s (2001) work, House et al. (2004)
developed the Global Leadership and Organizational Effectiveness (GLOBE) study that looked at nine
cultural dimensions. Holmberg and Akerblom (2007) wrote the in-depth results of the GLOBE work in
Sweden and found the following three cultural themes at work: consensus as a work style (linked to low
power distances and equality); the use of rationality and pragmatism as strategies to cope with
uncertainty (linked to reliance on rules and personal responsibility); and individuals who had concern for
both self and the social good (private individualism balanced with public collectivisim). American and
Swedish value systems do have similarities, such as the value for high levels of individualism; however,
Swedish individualism is horizontal, emphasizing personal development and responsibility, while
American individualism is vertical and emphasizes competition with others (Hofstede, 2001). Both
Sweden and the United States have low uncertainty avoidance, that is, each takes risks and deals well
with uncertain situations; however, Swedes tend to be more rule oriented and less willing to engage
conflict while Americans bend rules and engage conflict more directly. In contrast, Americans rank
higher on masculinity and power distance than Swedes. The World Values Survey (see
www.worldvaluessurvery.org) is an ongoing measure of sociocultural change based on two major
dimensions: traditional versus secular-rational values and survival versus self expression values. When
countries are mapped (Inglehart & Welzel, 2005, 2010), Sweden ranks right at the top of both the
secular-rational and the selfexpression values. The United States, by contrast is more traditional in its
values, especially religiosity and national pride, even though Americans value self-expression almost as
much as Swedes. Appropriate to the culture in which the relationship is developing, this study focuses
on three interrelated Swedish values and beliefs that are part of “deep-level culture” (Ting-Toomey &
Chung, 2005) that help to explain Swedish everyday thinking and behavior: lagom, folkhemmet, and
ensamhet. As Ting-Toomey and Chung (2005) explain, shared beliefs reflect the cultural worldview and
reveal motivational bases for behavior. The Swedish model of social welfare is the overarching historical
development of political, economic, and social democracy that guides modern Swedish life (Pettersson,
2008). Sweden is considered one of the highest rated countries in the world for democracy, anti-
corruption, economic stability, and small class gaps. Linked to this model are the cognitive metaphors of
lagom (i.e., “moderation”), folkhemmet (i.e., “the good home”), and ensamhet (i.e., “solitude”). These
concepts will be explained in more detail in the analysis section to follow. Method

You might also like