Cultural Dimensions of Learning: Addressing the

Challenges of Multicultural Instruction

The growing multicultural nature of education and training environments makes it critical that
instructors and instructional designers, especially those working in online learning environments,
develop skills to deliver culturally sensitive and culturally adaptive instruction. This article explores
research into cultural differences to identify those dimensions of culture that are most likely to impact
instructional situations. It presents these in the cultural dimensions of learning framework (CDLF),
which describes a set of eight cultural parameters regarding social relationships, epistemological
beliefs, and temporal perceptions, and illustrates their spectrums of variability as they might be
exhibited in instructional situations. The article also explores the literature on instructional design and
culture for guidelines on addressing the cross-cultural challenges faced by instructional providers. It
suggests that these challenges can be overcome through increased awareness, culturally sensitive
communication, modified instructional design processes, and efforts to accommodate the most critical
cultural differences. Finally, it describes the use of the CDLF questionnaire as a tool to illuminate the
range of preferences existing among learners and to discover the potential range of strategies and
tactics that might be useful for a given set of learners.

Why Multicultural Education and Training is a Growing

Concern
Numerous factors are converging that make teaching and learning in cross-cultural and multicultural
contexts more commonplace. Expanding world trade and globalization of industry, finance, and many
professions are creating a world in which cross-cultural interactions occur more frequently than at any time
in the past (Friedman, 2007). As well, increasing specialization within many professions has led to a
widely dispersed audience for targeted education and training. Professionals wishing to stay current or
students wanting to develop specialized skills that match the needs of a rapidly changing world demand
access to proper educational opportunities, even if this requires international travel or distance learning
approaches (Berge, 2007). Simpler and cheaper telecommunications, in particular, fuel a growing
willingness to teach and learn across cultures. Advances in Internet technologies and applications make
open and distance learning a fully viable alternative to traditional education, creating a natural environment
for the development of effective virtual learning communities.

But contrary to the growing flatness that Friedman (2007) reports, cultural diversity remains apparent
among learners, perhaps owing to deeply rooted cultural values and modes of thinking that are difficult to
separate from learning processes (Nisbett, 2003). A growing appreciation of cultural diversity is
demonstrated by more than its acknowledgement and tolerance, but also by a desire to preserve that
diversity as a valuable asset for addressing the many challenges faced by the global community now and in
the future. Additionally, one can recognize a strong desire to preserve diversity in response to the threat of
loss of cultural identity in the face of globalization and because of the benefits of community cohesiveness
through unique cultural expression (Mason, 2007).

The growing need for educational access leads students rightly to demand culturally adaptive learning
experiences that allow full development of the individual (Visser, 2007). As noted by Pincas (2001),
students entering into professional education in a multicultural context not aligned with their own culture
can experience significant conflict. This conflict arises not only in regards to incompatible teaching and
learning styles, but also because the growing professional self struggles to maintain both a connection to
the local culture in which the student eventually intends to work and a connection to the learning
environment. Accordingly, instructional providers, including instructors and instructional designers,
especially those working in online environments and struggling to maintain sufficient presence and student
engagement, should develop skills to deliver culturally sensitive and culturally adaptive instruction
(Gunawardena & LaPointe, 2007). This article provides a summary and consolidation of useful existing
literature to aid in developing these skills. Although culture has begun to be addressed in the field of
Instructional System Design (ISD), it is still too often overlooked or undervalued (Henderson, 1996;
Rogers, Graham, & Mayes, 2007; Thomas, Mitchell, & Joseph, 2002; Young, 2007). If education and
instructional design are inherently social processes (Schwier, Campbell, & Kenny, 2004), then instructional
providers can no longer take a neutral position in developing their courses and materials. For instruction to
do the most good for students, instructional providers must be cognizant of the cultures of their learners
and how those cultures manifest themselves in learning preferences (Nisbett, 2003).

Cultural sensitivity is not just one-way, however. Instructional providers should be acutely aware of their
own culture because their world views cannot be separated from the training that they develop (Thomas,
Mitchell, & Joseph, 2002). They should become cognizant of how their own cultural perspectives are
represented in the design decisions they make. Furthermore, instructional providers should examine the
assumptions they hold about how learners will and should respond, keeping an open mind for potentially
unexpected responses. Moreover, they must

Sources of Thinking and Behavior

The sources of influence on thinking and behavior can be seen as existing at several levels, including
human nature, culture, and personality (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). When people demonstrate
differences or similarities, it is easy to confuse these levels because their influences combine, making them
difficult to distinguish. The resulting uncertainty can lead to false assumptions and difficulties in
interactions with others. This is just as true in education and training as it is in other life situations.

Hofstede and Hofstede (2005) present these levels as a pyramid, with human nature as the base all people
share, and personality as the peak, being unique to the individual. Culture forms an expansive middle
portion of the pyramid, reflecting its multiple layers of group interactions (e.g., from national to local
community). The authors have chosen to represent these influences differently in Figure 1 to highlight an
increased complexity and to emphasize the nature of these constructs as mutually influencing sources of
thought and behavior.

Human nature comprises the assumed commonalities all humans share because they are members of the
same species Homo sapiens. People inherit these ways of thinking and behaving because they result from
our genetic makeup and the constraints this places on how they respond to the world. These constraints
come in the form of sensory capabilities and other physiological traits, as well as predispositions toward
socialization, for example. Of course, the human genetic stream diverges and re-converges over time, so
the concept of species itself is imperfect. But one can, in practice, see commonalities across the human
species. Culture includes those ways of thinking and behaving that are taught by social groups, including
family, friends, community, and work colleagues, developed through direct interaction but also through
exposure to media (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). Among many other things, culture includes,

... how people express themselves (including shows of emotion), the way they think, how they move, how
problems are solved, how their cities are planned and laid out, how transportation systems function and are
organized, as well as how economic and government systems are put together and function. (Hall, 1981,
pp. 16-17)

Cultural preferences are strongly embedded because humans are highly social creatures with strong needs
to fit within our groups. There are many layers of culture, from work and family cultures to community
and regional cultures up to national and even international cultures based on shared heritage and language.
Culture is learned but is also constrained by human nature.

Unlike human nature, which is inherited, and culture, which is learned, personality is both learned and
inherited. Individuals within cultures vary in ways that are as dramatic as the variations across cultures,
and one can map similar personality variations across different cultures. This suggests that personality is in
part a reflection of the natural variability within human nature and cuts across cultures. But, also, there is
no one-to-one correspondence of personalities across cultures due to the blend of cultural and natural
influences on personality. Some discernable personalities and even some emotions may be culturally
unique (Kitayama & Markus, 1994).

Together, culture and human nature have a monumental influence on individual personalities, yet people
are also willful and creative in their responses to the world, frequently stretching or transcending their
natural and cultural inclinations. And even though they are products of their cultures, some individuals
ultimately have a profound influence on their cultures; consider the ongoing influence that individuals like
Confucius or Plato have had on civilizations over thousands of years. Through processes of natural
selection, individuals and cultures may even be seen as influencing human nature over time. In this way,
even human nature is in a sense learned.

Of course, one doesnt have to postulate a person as influential as Confucius to demonstrate the nature of
culture as changing through the influence of individuals and groups. Deep-rooted as culture may be, a
description of any culture is merely a snapshot of a continually evolving matrix of beliefs, values, and
behaviors developed through the creative interactions of its constituents as well as through interactions and
clashes with other cultures. In addition, while culture is reflected in arts and technologies, it is also
influenced by them. The fact that culture is created by the accumulation of historical experience is well
acknowledged in education literature through its embrace of cultural-historical activity theory (Cole,
1996).

However, the inevitability of cultural evolution does not suggest that how practitioners carry out cross-
cultural interactions in instruction is unimportant. (One might ask, Why work to preserve culture that will
change anyway?) On the contrary, in this article we argue that respect for preservation of culture is an
important value for instructors and instructional designers to hold because they are clearly in the position
of social agents having substantial influence on their learners (Schwier, Campbell, & Kenny, 2004). In
other words, prioritizing culture in education and training goes beyond wanting to be effective in
promoting knowledge acquisition. It is also an ethical concern.

Fundamentally, when we teach, we are teaching culture. Knowledge, skills, and attitudes are all
manifestations of culture and are not somehow immune to it. Moreover, when we teach, we are passing
along not only what we know, but how we come to know it as well as the basis for accepting it as useful
knowledge, and the values these represent. Teaching and learning are not only embedded in culture, they
are cultural transmission in action the means to culture. In multicultural settings, in particular, this leads
to the conundrum posed in the first section that educators must take responsibility to both acculturate
students and in the process avoid cultural bias that could impede instructional goals. Potential approaches
to this challenge are posed in the upcoming sections.

A Framework for Cultural Differences

The cultural dimensions of learning framework (CDLF) (Table 1), adapted from the work of Hofstede and
Hofstede (2005), Nisbett (2003), Levine (1997), Hall (1983), and Lewis (2006), is useful for understanding
the spectrum of cultural differences that impact the teaching and learning enterprise. Where individuals fall
along these dimensions impacts both how instructional providers approach their roles and how students
view their own roles and expected behaviors. The dimensions do not describe either/or conditions but
spectrums along which both cultures and individuals vary. Accordingly, no end of the spectrum should be
unrecognizable to the reader, regardless of cultural background. Because humans share a common nature,
each person is capable of the entire range of thoughts and behaviors that can arise along each of the
dimensions. Research shows that cultural differences can be usefully described along these dimensions but
that within any culture individuals will differ in how strongly they display these tendencies.

This framework differs in scope from the framework offered by Reeves (1992), as cited by Henderson,
(1996), which begins from the perspective of pedagogical differences; however, the frameworks reach
many of the same conclusions. The CDLF touches upon nearly all the dimensions described by Reeves but
includes several new dimensions due to its broader starting point and the benefit of new research
performed in the intervening years. It also describes these cultural dimensions in more detail. Even so, the
CDLF does not pretend to address all potential cultural dimensions that might be useful to consider. For
example, gender roles and differences in non-verbal communications are treated only indirectly. Cultural
complexity and the fundamental role of education and training in the transmission of culture make a
comprehensive framework impractical to describe in a single article.

In presenting their model of cultural dimensions, Hofstede and Hofstede (2005) discuss the difference
between values and practices as layers of culture. In their terms, cultural values are acquired early in
life and are the deepest and most enduring aspects of culture. Cultural practices, on the other hand, are
the superficial rituals and norms that are more easily observed. While practices may be reflections of
cultural values, they are more subject to change. The most superficial practices are not inevitable outcomes
of values; they are often mere trappings that can change without challenging underlying values. In this
framework, the eight cultural dimensions represent values. Consequently, the manifested learning
behaviors described are more than superficial practices. Instead, they are direct reflections of values, and
challenging them may conflict with those underlying values. More research specifically focused on cultural
aspects of learning environments is required before this claim can be asserted with full confidence,
although compelling research already exists for many of the aspects (e.g., Nisbett, 2003).

The descriptions of eight key cultural dimensions in the CDLF are offered so that culturally based learning
differences can be recognized when they manifest themselves. It is not suggested that each of the
dimensions needs to be considered and addressed in every instructional design project. However, those
involved in a large multicultural instructional undertaking for the first time may find it useful to study the
framework to prepare for the potential differences they might encounter among learners. Parrish and
Linder-VanBerschot (2009a) offer a survey on culturally based learning preferences, derived from the
CDLF, which can also aid in the analysis phase of projects or in the early phases of a course.

Another important use of the CDLF is as a tool for instructional providers to understand better their own
cultural biases and to account for them in their practice. Recognizing that ones beliefs and behaviors fall
along a spectrum of differences can help increase flexibility in instructional approaches and create stronger
empathy for learners. However, because the framework, even with its numerous dimensions, does not
begin to capture the cultural diversity that actually exists, unanticipated differences are likely. Note that
while no attempt is made here to classify cultures according to these dimensions, the works cited provide
substantial demonstration of how specific national and regional cultures vary. This article instead stresses
the spectrums of variability rather than the generalized differences between cultures.
Cross-Cultural Challenges for Instruction
People make false assumptions when they attribute ways of thinking and behavior to the wrong
source of influence (human nature, culture, or personality). They may wrongly assume that a
particular behavior is a manifestation of personality, perhaps making a value judgment about that
individual, when the behavior is actually driven more from the cultural level. Conversely, they may
over-generalize conclusions about a particular culture from a few individuals when actually their
behaviors are strongly personality driven. Perhaps the most common false assumption is when people
take their own cultural ways of thinking and behaving as representative of human nature and therefore
the right way to think or behave. For example, instructional providers may assume that they need to
teach those from other cultures to adopt new learning behaviors to think and learn properly. The
CDLF may aid in avoiding such false assumptions.

Humans are highly adaptable, and the situational influences on thought and behavior are significant
(Lemke, 1997). So observing how a person behaves in one situation is not necessarily indicative of
how they will behave in another. In addition, people are able to compensate for their cultural
conditioning when they find themselves participating in another culture by adopting the behaviors
they begin to see as appropriate to that culture. These cases can also lead to additional false
assumptions that are more difficult to avoid.

The unique challenge for instructional providers is to understand which learning behaviors are based
on deeply entrenched cultural values that should not be challenged and which behaviors are more
superficial practices that can be challenged for the sake of promoting learning. In addition, other
challenges include (a) accepting that research-based instructional strategies are also culture- based and
may be at times inappropriate, (b) knowing which instructional activities will be most effective for a
particular group of students, and (c) deciding how instructional strategies should be adapted in cross-
cultural and multicultural situations. The existing literature that will aid in addressing these challenges
is growing but still limited.

Addressing the Challenges of Multicultural Education

and Training
Many of the challenges to practicing education and training in multicultural contexts have been put
forth in the preceding pages with few direct recommendations for changing practice. The challenges,
restated more succinctly, are these:

1. Understanding and appreciating the cultural differences of students in order to make the
appropriate instructional decisions that will enhance their learning;

2. Becoming aware of ones own cultural preferences for what they are and not assuming they
represent the right way to think;
 3. Determining which student behaviors represent cultural values and are therefore less prone to
modification to accommodate the instructional situation;

4. Accepting the dual responsibility of educators to acculturate and respect individual student
cultural backgrounds; and

5. 5. Accepting that research-based instructional strategies are also culture-based and therefore
may be at times inappropriate or in need of adaptation.

The CDLF can be used to help address the first three challenges. Challenges 4 and 5 require
additional effort toward a reflective practice that the CDLF also indirectly encourages and, hopefully,
stimulates. This section summarizes several additional ideas and perspectives that can lead to effective
multiculturally sensitive practice.

Awareness
Instructional providers must become more knowledgeable about the cultural differences existing
among the learners they serve. With an unpredictable learner population in most settings, perhaps
especially in open and distance learning settings, instructional providers can no longer make
overarching judgments about the demographics of their learners before having the opportunity to
interact with them (Lea & Goodfellow, 2003). Therefore, instructors and IDs should carefully
consider the learner population during the analysis phase of any instructional design or planning effort
(Edmunson, 2007; Young, 2008).

Unfortunately, culture is often overlooked because the analysis phase of instructional design is one of
the most commonly skipped phases. Thomas, Mitchell, and Joseph (2002) remind us that, culture is
so much a part of the construction of knowledge that it must underpin not only the analysis phase but
all phases of the design process (p. 41). Thus it is essential that instructional providers continue to
familiarize themselves with the learners cultures throughout the implementation phase and even
through the evaluation stage. They might consider including a cultural expert as part of the design
team or asking a representative participant to help plan a course, training event, or product before
implementation occurs (Thomas, Mitchell, & Joseph, 2002; Young, 2008).

Of course, educators must also become more aware of the cultural biases embedded in their own
teaching and instructional designs, including the selection of instructional activities, their presentation
styles (including both verbal and non-verbal communications), and their expectations of students.
Ignorance of these biases could prevent them from seeing opportunities for more effective avenues of
interaction with learners. The CDLF presented in the previous section is meant to increase both kinds
of awareness. Reviewing the framework while considering current and past students, as well as ones
own practice, can help create a higher degree of awareness and sensitivity to cultural differences when
they emerge.

To aid in using the framework, the authors have developed a questionnaire based on the CDLF that
can illuminate the range of preferences existing among learners (Parrish & Linder- Vanbershot,
2009a). The questionnaire is not intended to be used to make final judgments about individuals but to
point to the potential range of strategies and tactics that might be useful for a given set of learners. It
can be used in at least two ways. First, instructional providers may complete the survey themselves to
identify their personal learning (and teaching) preferences. This will help them become aware of their
biases as they design and deliver instruction. The second use is to have learners complete the survey
before instruction or instructional development begins. Students can self-analyze or, if there is time,
results can be analyzed as a group (using the CDLF questionnaire analysis form, Parrish & Linder-
Vanbershot, 2009b), which has the additional benefit of encouraging understanding between learners.
The results can also guide instructional providers in adapting instruction to meet the learning
preferences of learners. (Note that the CDLF questionnaire has not yet been used in a research
context. It is offered here as a tool for practice.)

Communication
To aid in increasing awareness, instructional providers should clearly communicate the cultural bases
of their approaches to instruction and should provide opportunities for students to voice their own
cultural proclivities. Creating opportunities for discussion about learning preferences should be a first
step in determining the direction an instructional event should take. Gunawardena, Wilson, and Nolla
(2003) suggest that dialogue and communication, leading to negotiation of the instructional details,
are the central factors in creating a culturally relevant design. Of course, for those who develop self-
pace materials or never actually meet their learner audiences, communication may be limited to the
interactions that occur during a learner analysis phase. But even in these instances of remoteness,
communication can be extended by providing opportunities for feedback via surveys and evaluation
tools.

The CDLF questionnaire results also can be a tool to stimulate class discussion about learning
preferences; it can create a venue for an instructor to justify the instructional strategies employed in a
course, or it can offer a structure for negotiation for those course activities that remain negotiable.

Process
Several authors have suggested amendments and alternatives to traditional instructional systems
design (ISD) models to better incorporate consideration of cultural diversity. Thomas, Mitchell, and
Joseph (2002) suggest adding a third dimension to the traditional ADDIE process (analysis,
design, development, implementation, and evaluation) that includes pervasive (a)
questioning of design intentions throughout to ensure designers remain culturally sensitive, (b)
interaction with the intended audience to better understand their needs and preferences, and (c)
introspection about beliefs and attitudes toward other cultures.

Edmundson (2007) offers the CAP (cultural adaptation process) model as an expansion of the
traditional needs assessment and learner analysis phases of an instructional design process (part of the
A of ADDIE). This model includes several levels of cultural analysis, including consideration of
those factors that impact content, pedagogical, and media choices, and identification of appropriate
adaptation strategies. While focused on needs assessment, CAP also implies recommendations for
formative evaluation. Rogers, Graham, and Mayes (2007) also point to the need for a much expanded
analysis phase for cross-cultural situations.

Gunawardena, Wilson, and Nolla (2003) emphasize interaction and negotiation in their adaptive,
meaningful, environmental-based architecture for online course design (AMOEBA). This model
suggests a highly participatory role for students in course decisions, including making choices
regarding language (when feasible), interface formats, communication channels, instructional
activities, and instructional methods.

Finally, Young (2007; 2008) offers the culture based model (CBM), which includes consideration of
culture throughout the instructional development process. The CBM is less a process-based model and
more an elaborate framework for culturally sensitive instructional design activity that describes (a)
questions asked to help maintain an audience focus, (b) project management recommendations, (c)
design team roles, (d) the use of assessment and review, (e) prescriptions for decision making
processes, (f) appropriate learner-centered learning outcomes, (g) culturally sensitive design factors
that must be considered, and (h) skills required of the design team.

These process recommendations have three things in common:

 Consideration of cultural differences in each phase of the design process, with extra attention
occurring during the analysis phase;

Pervasive reflection and a willingness to modify ones first inclinations about the instructional
design; and

Interaction with students or student representatives during design (user-centered design)

(Carr-Chellman, 2006).

Accommodation
Awareness, communication, and process changes will lead to increased knowledge about cultural
diversity, but the need remains to use that knowledge in making design decisions to address diversity.
This section describes several ways in which instruction can provide opportunities for learners to
apply their culturally dependent approaches to learning, effectively allowing a pedagogical
localization. Yet, the degree to which an instructor and ID can adapt instruction, given time and
budget constraints, organizational desires for consistency, and the need to acculturate students into
professional and mainstream cultures, is limited. Which adaptive design choices should be made
requires careful consideration.

In single cross-cultural instances, in which instruction is being designed for a culturally homogeneous
set of students but from a culture different than that of the instructional provider, accommodation
should include as much adaptation as possible based on the cultural analysis, without compromising
the fidelity of the content and underlying necessary instructional principles (Castro, Barrera Jr.,
Martinez Jr., 2004; Rogers, Graham, & Mayes, 2007). Of course, this assumes that instructional
providers can transcend their cultural inclinations to identify the instructional elements that require
fidelity as well as the changes that would corrupt the instructional intent and the comfortable
trappings that could be sacrificed for the sake of the students. For example, will a problem-based
learning activity require the same student roles as were used in a previous implementation? Will each
class be predominately discussion based, or should there be some lecture/presentation component that
provides increased guidance? To what degree should the instructor expect students to express personal
views or to ask challenging questions, and to what degree is that also the duty of the instructor?
Should a strict schedule be enforced, or should some flexibility be built in?

Most authors suggest that accommodation in multicultural situations be achieved by offering students
alternative choices in learning activities and instructional formats (Irvine & York, 1995; McLoughlin,
2001). Some choices may be more costly than others to include, so the use of alternatives must be
based on how deeply rooted the cultural preferences are (the degree to which ignoring them will affect
learning) and on how easy the alternatives are to implement (which will vary by instructional mode).
The alternatives that will be most critical to learning success can be discerned during the cultural
analysis of learners, which can be guided by the CAP, CBM, or AMOEBA models, as well as the
CDLF offered here. The CDLF questionnaire and analysis form (Parrish & Linder-Vanbershot, 2009a;
2009b) might be useful in determining the degree to which learners feel they are represented on each
dimension, which would be a good indicator of how critical that dimension is for determining
alternatives.

Knowing which types of adaptations instruction should undergo based on cultural analysis is difficult
and calls for additional research. The details offered in the CDLF can be of help in stimulating design
adaptations, but it offers no direct advice for design decisions. These must be derived by the
instructional provider based on a deeper understanding of a particular group of learners. However,
detailed case studies of adaptations are worth studying as best practices.
Henderson (1996), who espouses a multiple cultural approach that embraces both predominant and
minority cultures, describes a module design that supports both constructivist and instructivist
orientations, allowing freedom for students to follow either a prescribed path or one of their own
choosing. Arya, Margaryan, and Collis (2003) describe an instructional product that offers alternatives
in both content and learning activities in a blended learning course on workplace problem-solving, a
skill area which the CDLF suggests should reveal a high degree of cultural differences. Edmundson
(in press) describes how strategic modularization can achieve a similar effect for multinational
organizations, who desire to reuse core content while supplying interchangeable cross-cultural
learning objects (XCLOs) for key content and learning activities that call for cultural adaptation.
Edmundson also argues for careful use of low-context content (Hall, 1983), content that avoids
language, idioms, and references that assume a high degree of cultural context or that includes a clear
description of that context, which can avoid the need for unnecessary adaptation.

One might argue that research-based educational practices transcend culture or are culture-neutral
and that it is simply good practice to use what research tells us works, regardless of cultural
differences. But of course research itself is culturally bound, not only by the situations in which it is
performed and the availability of participants, but also by the chosen research questions, research
designs, and what is considered acceptable as evidence. In fact, the existence of long- held cultural
differences exhibited by foreign but successful cultures should make us question the broad validity of
any research-based practices. At a minimum, one should reflect to determine the underlying
operational principles of any particular research-based instructional strategy (Gibbons, 2009) and
decide whether some of its prescribed methods and conditions can be modified to work more
effectively within other cultural frameworks (Rogers, 2007).

References
Arya, K., Margaryan, A., & Collis, B. (2003). Culturally sensitive problem solving activities for
multi-national corporations. TechTrends, 47(6), 40-49. ociates.

Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2006). User design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Castro, F. G., Barrera Jr., M., & Martinez Jr., C. R. (2004). The cultural adaptation of prevention
interventions: Resolving tensions between fidelity and fit. Prevention Science, 5(1), 41- 45.

Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

Edmundson, A. (2007). The cultural adaptation process (cap) model: Designing e-learning for another
culture. In A. Edmundson (Ed.), Globalized e-learning cultural challenges (pp. 267-290).
Hershey, PA: Idea Group, Inc.

Edmundson, A. (in press). Cross cultural learning objects. In A. Edmunson (Ed.), Cases on
globalized and culturally appropriate e-learning: Challenges and solutions.
Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Gibbons, A. S. (2009). The value of the operational principle in instructional design. Educational
Technology, 49(1), 3-9.

Gunawardena, C. N., Wilson, P. L., & Nolla, A. C. (2003). Culture and online education. In M. G.
Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 753-775). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.