Individualism and collectivism in school

The student who conceives of him/herself as part of a group, it is illogical to speak up without being sanctioned by the group to do so. If the teacher wants students to speak up, she or he should address a particular student personally. Collectivist culture students will also hesitate to speak up in larger groups without a teacher present, especially if these are partly composed of relative strangers: outgroup members. This hesitation decreases in smaller groups. Personally I obtained broad participation when teaching a collectivist class by asking students to turn around in their seats so that groups of three were formed. I asked the students to discuss a question for five minutes, and to decide who would report their joint answer to the class. Through this device students had an opportunity to develop a group answer and felt comfortable when speaking up before the class because they acted as the small group's representative. I also noticed that in subsequent exercises the students arranged for the spokespersons to rotate. Taking turns in group activities is a habit which exists in many collectivist cultures.

The desirability of having students speak up in class is more strongly felt in individualist than in collectivist cultures. Because most collectivist cultures also maintain large power distances, their education tends to be teacher-centered with little two-way communication.

In the collectivist society ingroup-outgroup distinctions springing from the family sphere will continue at school, so that students from different ethnic or clan backgrounds often form subgroups in class. In an individualist society the assignment of joint tasks leads more easily to the formation of new groups than in the collectivist society. In the latter, students from the same ethnic or family background as the teacher or other school officials will expect preferential treatment on this basis. In an individualist society this would be considered nepotism and intensely immoral, but in a collectivist environment it is immoral not to treat one's ingroup members better than others.

In the collectivist classroom the virtues of harmony and the maintenance of 'face' reign supreme. Confrontations and conflicts should be avoided, or at least formulated so as not to hurt anyone; even students should not lose face if this can be avoided. Shaming, that is invoking the group's honor, is an effective way of correcting offenders: they will be put in order by their ingroup members. At all times the teacher is dealing with the student as part of an ingroup, never as an isolated individual.

In the individualist classroom, of course, students expect to be treated as individuals and impartially, regardless of their background. Group forma­tion among students is much more ad hoc, according to the task, or to particular friendships and skills. Confrontations and open discussion of conflicts is often considered salutary, and face-consciousness is weak or nonexistent.

The purpose of education is perceived differently between the individualist and the collectivist society. In the former it aims at preparing the individual for a place in a society of other individuals. This means learning to cope with new, unknown, unforeseen situations. There is a basically positive attitude towards what is new. The purpose of learning is less to know how to do, as to know how to learn. The assumption is that learning in life never ends; even after school and university it will continue, for example through recycling; courses. The individualist society in its schools tries to provide the skills necessary for 'modern man'.

In the collectivist society there is a stress on adaptation to the skills and virtues necessary to be an acceptable group member. This leads to a premium on the products of tradition. Learning is more often seen as a one­time process, reserved for the young only, who have to learn how to do things in order to participate in society.

The role of diplomas or certificates as a result of successful completion of study is also different between the two poles of the individualism— collectivism dimension. In the individualist society the diploma not only improves the holder's economic worth but also his or her self-respect: it provides a sense of achievement. In the collectivist society a diploma is an honor to the holder and his or her ingroup which entitles the holder to associate with members of higher-status groups; for example, to obtain a more attractive marriage partner. It is to a certain extent 'a ticket to ride'. The social acceptance that comes with the diploma is more important than the individual self-respect that comes with mastering a subject, so that in collectivist societies the temptation is stronger to obtain diplomas in some irregular way, such as on the black market.