c

Ê
 

Ý



 
 

     
 
 


   


In general, this paper highlights the significance of societal culture to developing theory,

policy and practice within an increasingly globalizing educational context. By 'globalization',

some people point toward the tendency for similar policies and practices to extend across

political, cultural and geographical boundaries. On the other hand, by `societal culture', we mean

those enduring sets of values, beliefs and practices that tell between one group of people from

another. This paper also argue that globalization tends to close the eyes to societal culture, the

latter tending to act as a arbitrator to the spread of ideas and practices across the globe, resulting

in their adoption, adaptation or even rejection. Hence in a globalizing world, the

acknowledgment of societal culture and cross-cultural similarities and differences becomes more

crucial. Therefore, the insertion of societal culture as a factor in investigations covering such

themes as the curriculum, teaching and learning, leadership and school-based management is

seen as an imperative for the future development of the education.

In a brief introductory, the first part of the paper gave definition to the concept of

'globalization'. In the second part, globalization and societal culture are juxtaposed and the

interface between them is explored. The third part offers a set of dimensions by which to gauge

the influence of, and to compare, cultures. Finally, we illustrate our argument for greater cultural

sensitivity by raising some key issues concerning school reform and improvement.
 u

‘ £

  


  


The influence of culture on beliefs about education, the value of education, and participation

styles is something that cannot be underestimated Many Asian students, for example, tend to be

quiet in class, and making eye contact with teachers is considered inappropriate for many of

these children (¦ ? while in contrast, most European American children are taught to

value active classroom discussion and to look teachers directly in the eye to show respect, while

their teachers view students' participation as a sign of engagement and competence. Indeed, these

are caused by what we called culture inclusion of self-oriented or group oriented culture.

Anglo-American society basically possessed self-oriented cultures, therefore, relations are

fairly loose and relational ties tend to be based on self-interest. People in this society primarily

regard themselves as individuals first, and members of a group, second. They are more

independent and self-contained. In self-oriented cultures, people are judged and status ascribed

more in line with individual performance or what has been accomplished individually-values

associated with Anglo-American societies.

In contrast to Anglo-American individualism, Japanese for example are group-oriented.

Japanese do not like to be alone or to do things differently from others. They stick together:

eating, working, or traveling in a group. Following others and being part of a group gives them a

kind of care freeness and joy. Why are Japanese group-oriented? The reasons originate from

their geography, history, and culture. Geographical location and climate play a key role in

promoting this group-orientedness. Japan is isolated from other countries. Japan is composed of
 ÿ

four main islands which are surrounded by sea and located far from America, Europe, or

Australia. Thus, Japan is isolated from other countries. In the past, this geographical location

makes it difficult to communicate with other countries, so this isolation reinforced their tendency

to stick together.

While Japanese who belong to group-oriented cultures, their affiliation and ties between

people are tight, relationships are firmly structured and individual needs are subservient to

collective needs. Group-oriented cultures value harmony, face-saving, filial piety and equality of

reward distribution among peers-values associated with Asian societies.

Status is traditionally defined by factors such as age, sex, kinship, educational standing, or

formal organizational position. In many education systems, a trend towards individualizing

curricula, teaching and learning is discernible. While such an approach may be harmonious with

cultures emphasizing self orientation, its suitability for group-oriented cultures may be

legitimately questioned. Broadly, 0ofstede (1991? identifies Anglo-American cultures as

individualist and most Asian cultures as group oriented or collectivist. On the contrary,

collaborative learning is generally acknowledged as an effective teaching-learning method, but

are students in group-oriented cultures more comfortable with its adoption than students in self-

oriented cultures.


 ‰

J‘ Ý
  
 

Finally, in the pursuit of quality schools and schooling, the part played by competent and

effective teachers is generally acknowledged. In pursuit of this goal, it is an accepted principle in

Anglo-American cultures that the appointment and promotion of staff be on the basis of merit, as

gauged by performance against some measurable criteria. Anglo-American societies conform to

what we call `limited relationship' cultures; that is, decisions taken specifically on the issues at

stake.

By contrast, in Chinese cultures, where more holistic considerations of relationship hold

sway, personnel decisions may be made as much on the basis of connections as on merit. For

example, a teacher may be appointed because a trusted friend of the school may speak highly

of her loyalty, and loyalty is seen as a desirable quality leading to commitment and eventually

performance. This more holistic perspective may make the attainment of openness with respect

to transparency of selection or promotion criteria more difficult than in Anglo-American `limited

relationship' cultures.


 Î


  
J
 
 


The historical Anglo-American culture (primarily a male norm? is based on the freedom

of individuals to develop themselves to their fullest potential. Indeed, our traditional classroom

seating arrangements, teaching procedures and grading systems encourage competition among

students to be the "first with the correct answer," write the "best" essay and, generally, be the

"winner."

Compare this perspective to that of most other world cultures which value the group over

the individual. In Japanese schools, for example, the classroom is creatively arranged with

circular seating. When the teacher asks a question, students within each group confer with each

other, reach a consensus, and then raise their hands in unison with the answer they jointly think

is best; teams are rewarded for the quality of their answers and their cooperative efforts.

Translated into the education and learning environment, the Anglo-American mindset can

put their students into competition with one another for education growth and progress. A by-

product of such a system can be a lack of cooperation and absence of true team spirit if not

managed correctly. Mean while, the group orientation of the Japanese has helped them to build

effective teams and study hard for the betterment of their own kind.

Another aspect of the individualistic outlook is to prize the imagination and creativity of

each person. American ingenuity has been responsible for much of the nation's success.

Brainstorming, a popular American method of gleaning ideas from groups, requires that the

individual offer ideas for group consideration as they occur, without evaluation or judgment.

Such offerings require courage, sometimes, because the ideas may at first appear to be foolish,
 ü

particularly in the eyes of others. As a result, some cultural groups (such as Asians, American

Indians, and some Hispanics? may be reluctant to join into the process, fearing to lose face in the

eyes of the group members. This caution also explains their reluctance to respond negatively

when asked questions--to them such a response would be construed as being rude and

disrespectful. People who honor others before themselves need to be encouraged to excel as

individuals and to be assured that they will not be ridiculed for their views.

A further characteristic of curricular restructuring is the emphasis placed on creativity,

problem solving and higher-order thinking skills. Recent school curricular reforms in Anglo-

American societies have given prominence to these aspects, linking them with skills needed by

future workers in an information society.

The Asian economic crisis beginning in October 1997 for example has stopped the

phenomenal rate of economic growth achieved by the so-called Asian 'tiger' economies in its

tracks. It became apparent that economies such as Hong Kong needed a technologically skilled

workforce capable of sustaining a qualitatively different economic structure in the future. While

societies such as the USA have cultures (and to an extent school curricula? conducive to

creativity-they are what we call 'generative'-some in East Asia are more renowned for their

replication and rote learning. Although these school systems are successful in producing high

achieving students in mathematics and science, they are less likely to cultivate creativity in their

young people.
 

 

 

In term of education, the Anglo-American norm is primarily task-oriented and, as such,

tends to focus on "getting the job done" over the concerns of the people who are doing the job.

Indeed the Anglo-American norm is often distrustful of emotions, assuming that emotions

interfere with efficiency. African Americans often value the interpersonal aspect of relationships

highly, and may feel ignored and uncomfortable in a learning setting with little interpersonal

contact. Some Anglo-Americans, on the other hand, prefer to work alone, concentrating on the

facts associated with task achievement. Self-reliance is another American value, considered a

virtue by many Americans. A popular saying of early Anglican settlers was, "The Lord helps

those who help themselves." Although many cultures encourage self-development, it is usually

toward the advancement of the common good rather than for self-promotion. In America, in

societies where "the nail that sticks out gets hammered down," such a notion is equal to

profanity.

In the American-style ±education performance appraisal process, it is unlikely that an

Asian, Hispanic, American Indian, some Blacks and even some Anglo-American women will

praise themselves for their own performance. It is assumed that the authority figure will already

know their level of performance and will make the appropriate evaluation. In addition, their

respect for authority figures may impede their inclination to speak on behalf of themselves. If

appraisers do not understand this assumption and, consequently, appraise the individual as

lacking self-confidence, they can severely devalue the true contributions of the person as well as

create a demoralizing work environment. Understanding the values of the individual being

appraised is critical to accurate assessment.

 †

While globalization has become an emergent phenomenon, relatively little credence has

been given to the concept of societal culture. Yet, as theory, policy and practice are transported

globally, they interface with the cultures of different host societies. The interaction merits

consideration for a number of reasons. First, as policies such as decentralization and school

based management spread from Anglo-American systems to become more globalised, what are

the implications for 'leadership' and 'management' in the host societies? Leadership and

management may not mean the same in different societal cultures. In Western societies, for

example, leadership is seen to rest on a set of technical skills, whereas in Chinese societies it is

viewed more as a process of influencing relationships and modeling what are deemed to be¶

desirable' behaviors.
 r

Ê
 

!"    
 

#$ #$
 
  

  

%
.

Globalization and education reform is often presented as a set of practices and

relationships to which educators must adapt in order to compete or maintain relevance in

contemporary society. Presented in such new versions of globalization and educational reform

situate localized culture often as a kind of obstacle, something we must overcome or improve in

order for progress to be continued and maintained. In Malaysia, these kinds of discourses inform

public policy debates. From debates over university competitiveness through to arguments over

language and literacy in a global world, the pressures on Malaysian educators to change their

practices and reform are often presented with an implicit assumption that local culture is

somehow in deficit.

Education in Malaysia is overseen by two government ministries: the Ministry of

Education for matters up to the secondary level, and the Ministry of Higher Education for tertiary

education. Although education is the responsibility of the federal government, each state has an

Education Department to help coordinate educational matters in their respective states. Education

may be obtained from government-sponsored schools, private schools, or through

homeschooling. As in other Asian countries such as Singapore and China, standardized tests are

a common feature.

For the introductory, a decade before the end of the British rule, the educational system in

Malaya was reorganized along the lines of the Barnes Report of 1951. Up to that point of time,

Malaya's educational system lacked uniformity in curriculum and an articulated rationale for a
 c

policy which would be relevant to the political and socio-economic goals of the people within

different culture lives under the same umbrella. In regards to that, the country's three principal

ethnic communities; Malays, Chinese and Indians should always be matter of concern. In 1955,

two years before Malaya's independence, the Razak Report endorsed the concept of a national

education system based on Malay (the national language?, being the main medium of instruction.

A key paragraph from it was reproduced in Section 3 of the Education Ordinance of

1957:

 national system of education acceptable to the people of the Federation [of Malaya] as a

whole which will satisfy their needs and promote their cultural, social, economic and political

development as a nation, having regard to the intention to make Malay the national language of

the country while preserving and sustaining the growth of the language and culture of other

communities living in the country.

Therefore, in order to examine and understand education in Malaysia, we need to

understand it historically within a scaffold that recognizes the tensions between forms of

globalization characterized by colonialism and imperialism and an insistence on  



   and respect. To a greater or lesser degree, this dialectical interplay has animated

Malaysian discourse since British Imperial times. Besides, one should also mull over the shift

toward nationism and developmental nationalism as a discursive legitimating for language the

shift in Malaysia that can run into significant political and cultural difficulties if it does not take

seriously the needs in Malaysia for a sense of recognition and respect for language. An  


discourse that marginalizes Bahasa Malaysia, or implicitly articulates it as a deficit in the current

globalized world runs the risk of creating serious backlash and discontent. The way language
 cc

policy is discussed by elites and how those who are uncomfortable with the direction of language

policy are discursively framed is a critical contributor to the success or otherwise of language

reform.

According to advocates of this distinction put above the conditions of globalization in

education require decision making of a shift in how we correlate and see language and Malaysia

s national interest and development. To advocates of developmental nationalism recognition and

respect for a nation and its culture comes through economic and development, which essentially

provides power. Apart from, a prerequisite for this respect lies in acquiring English language

competency especially in Science and Mathematics (Zakaria and Iksan 2007?. However, the

implications of this position for the broader educational system are clear (Ridge 2004; Thang and

Kumarasamy 2006?. If the achievement of national development and national strength correlates

to how a nation competes in a globalized knowledge economy then language identity must be

subordinated to educational development. Former PM Mahathir Mohammed captures the

dilemma presciently:

W e need to move from the extreme form of nationalism which concentrates on being a

language nationalist only, not a knowledge nationalist, not a development oriented nationalist. I

feel that we should be a development oriented nationalist.

This is because Malaysia wants their people to succeed, to be able to stand tall, to be

respected by the rest of the world. Not to be people with no knowledge of science and

technology, very poor, very backwards, working as servants to other people. If we have no

knowledge we will be servants to those with knowledge. µ(Gill 2006? essentially, the argument
 cu

put by articulate advocates of English in Malaysian educational institutions are that the shift to a

knowledge economy presages a shift in how we relate language to national development.

Whereas linguistic policy in Malaysia has historically been aimed at engendering national unity,

the process of globalization the growth of the knowledge economy has according to advocates of

English changed the argument concerning language and development.

Back in 1967, Malaysia proclaimed Bahasa Melayu the national language for purposes of

administration and education. In an effort to promote national integration, it was progressively

made the main medium of instruction in schools and institutions of higher learning. At the same

time, the people had the option to use their mother tongue and other languages.

Along with the 
 

  
J
 &
  required for

further educational growth, in late 2000, the Malaysian government announced that technology

education and high-tech industries would have leading roles in the country's economy which

would thereafter be predominantly "knowledge-based" or "K-economy." It would address the

country's "digital divide by de-emphasizing past practices of promoting businesses run by ethnic

Malays." For this purpose the government would focus on education "as a means to deliver the

promise of empowering the individual in the twenty-first century." In real terms, economy and

education would aim at closing the digital divide between the rural and urban centers of

population. The emphasis on high-tech economy and education shifted the government focus

from the practice of hand-picking individuals and businesses under the indigenous or Bumiputra

policy to introducing information technology at the level of the masses.

In regards to the 

  element in Malaysia Educational System, there has been an

increase in the number of public and private higher education institutions in Malaysia. The
 cÿ

leading school and universities in the country are currently facing unique challenges as well as

continual environmental change, as they attempt to meet the human resource demands from

various industries. At the same time, universities have been asked to reexamine their roles in

nation-building. In context, effective leadership is a key issue. Effective leadership plays a vital

role in leading universities through change as this often involves ambiguity, uncertainty and

risks. Where there is poor leadership, employees may be reluctant to change as they view change

as a threat rather than an opportunity to their career. Strong leadership, complemented by

effective administration of resources is therefore necessary to support change.

·
·


In conclusion, once cannot claim that societal culture is the only mediating power on

globalised trends in education policy, theory and practice. Nor is it without conceptual and

empirical difficulties. Without a doubt, culture itself is affected by globalization. As a result it is

misleading to see culture as simply a reactive and mediating phenomenon when it too is subject

to change from globalization. How the tension between the two, globalization and societal

culture, is resolved will predictably vary according to their relative strengths in particular

societies. Projecting into the future, perhaps the best scenario would be that each society

demonstrates capability of transforming globalised policies and practices in culturally sensitive

ways that respect the integrity of its indigenous culture while allowing room for change and

development.
c‰