The Importance of students' National Culture on their Innovative Capacity: A
Literature Review
Christopher Moylan, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
New York Institute of Technology
College of Arts and Science, English, Old Westbury, NY 11568, USA
cmoylan@nyit.edu
Anjum Razzaque, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
New York Institute of Technology
1700-701 W. Georgia Street, Vancouver, BC V7Y 1KB, Canada
arazza01@nyit.edu
ABSTRACT:
Recent research has demonstrated the need to assess the relationship between college students’
imaginative capacity and the teaching effectiveness of instructors. In this paper, we critique reviewed
literature, i.e. books, journals and conference proceedings, to assess a particular research focus: the
relationship between the students' imaginative capacity and the instructors’ teaching effectiveness. So far
as we can determine, this is the first paper identifying and critiquing studies attempting to establish such
a relationship. Moreover, we will outline our own research strategy to explore this relationship. This
conceptual framework also has various practical and theoretical implications, which are proposed in this
paper.
Keywords - Social Capital Theory; Virtual Community; Innovation; Decision Making
Paper Type - Literature Review
1. INTRODUCTION:
This research aims to assess the relationship between national culture of students in higher education and
their innovative capacity. The study was inspired by the extremely diverse population of students at The
New York Institute of Technology (NYIT), with its campuses in Manhattan and suburban New York, as
well as its presence in China, Abu Dhabi and Vancouver, Canada. Based on the observation of the authors
of this paper, it was interesting to see how students of different cultures embrace and apply imagination,
in their in-class participation, written assignments and tests. Sadly, it was also noted by the authors of this
study that little research has been conducted to empirically assess the relationship between students’
national culture and their innovative capacity. In Section 2 the authors critique their reviewed literature to
define a theory-driven landscape of students’ national culture and their innovative capacity. In section 3,
the authors established a critiqued relationship between students’ national culture and their innovative
capacity.
There is a clear rationale to critique a relation between culture and innovation since we are in a world of
radical changes at the individual, social, organizational and culture levels. Clearly, those institutions
which adopt an innovative culture are in the best position to thrive in the challenging economic and social
conditions prevailing today. Higher education, with its escalating costs and constant need to justify the
inclusion of given disciplines and approaches in the curriculum, is under great pressure to innovate and to
encourage innovation. Nonetheless, the countervailing pressures in higher education are great as well:
tradition, the tenure system and the protection it offers from intrusion into the classroom, demands for
publication overriding the need for institutional reform, the increasing tendency toward corporate models
of top down administration and in some institutions the opposing efforts of unions to protect faculty from
just such corporate models. All of this makes for a complicated and challenging environment in which to
explore innovation.
Innovation cannot be inherited or purchase but must be developed and sustained through a strong
organizational belief, attitude, behavior, vision and culture. Innovation is the creation and implementation
of new ideas. When academic institutions utilize new practices to improve the service of education, their
innovative ways encourage performance in kind. Education base innovation falls under four categories:
culture, structure, personal innovation and leadership. Little study has been conducted in the area of
innovation management and innovative processes in international or education related research (BÜLBÜ,
2012). It is not surprising when BÜLBÜ (2012) stated that innovation requires organization structure,
besides other just-mentioned factors. In this regard, Wong, Everett and Nicholson’s (2008) reported that
there is a correlation between national culture and organizational culture. Organizational culture is an
outline of rudimentary assumptions (thought and feeling patterns) developed by a group as a learnt
outcome of solved problems. Organizational culture is cultivated by national culture. Past research
assessed the effect of national culture on organizational culture.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW:
Do characteristics such as student creativity and innovation have any bearing on perception and
evaluation of professors, and has this been demonstrated in research? Further, do cultural factors play a
role in the student-professor dynamic? The primary instrument for measuring student-professor feedback
is the SET or Student Evaluation of Teachers. The SET is now usually delivered electronically and is
referred to as the e-SET. This instrument was the focus of our review of the association between teacher
evaluations and creativity.
Ali and Ajmi (2013) argue that current e-SET forms are greatly affected by gender and national culture, a
finding that is supported by other general surveys of the research literature (Badri et al. 2006; Ali and
Ajmi 2013; Brockx, Spooren and Mortelmans 2011; Davidovitch 2009; Pounder, 2007; Cramer and
Alexitch 2000). There is an extensive, if as yet inconclusive, body of research to indicate that faculty
modify their approach to teaching based on their desire for good student evaluations (see, for example,
Crumbley et al. 2001; Boretz 2004; Davidovitch and Soen 2009; Schneider 2013), and it is alleged they
will inflate grades toward such an end.
In short, it appears that the faculty-student dynamic combines with specific cultural factors to encourage a
defensive response on the part of the instructor (i.e., grade inflation) and a similarly defensive set of
behaviors on the part of the student. Some cultures encourage an assertive stance on the part of students
(demand for higher grades) and others a more passive one. Al-Issa & Sulieman (2007), for example,
found that Arab students are not accustomed to pass judgments on their instructors. Arab culture
associates the age and personality of an instructor (i.e. his/her leniency) to his/her ability to care for
his/her students. Several other studies have examined culture as a factor in student evaluations in Asian
cultures (Centra1993; Stork and Hartley 2011; Chen and Hoshower 1998). Moreover, theoretical
consideration of the influence of culture on students’ learning style is pertinent (Hofstede 1986, 2001;
Charlesworth, 2008; Badri et al. 2006; Stork and Hartley 2011) since culture naturally raises questions of
culture specific learning style. An e-SET survey device offers a technologically mediated, anonymous
method for investigating such factors.
The research picture to this point suggests that culture specific dynamics effect creativity and innovation
in the college classroom. This is not to suggest the privileging of one learning style or approach over
another, rather that developing teaching approaches that encourage innovation and creativity might take
into account cultural predilections for deference and the like. A syllabus that assigns a certain per cent of
the final grade to classroom participation, for example, may be favoring an American cultural norm of
self-assertion, individualism, and initiative over other cultural norms of reserve and respect for authority.
Imagination is composed of various describing factors: i.e. psychology aspect, exploration, sensibility,
intuition, crystallization, novelty, effectiveness, transformation, productivity, sensibility and elaboration.
Imagination is oriented to purpose and goal. To make this possible, education related research should
concentrate on imagination in the educational technology area in order to investigate how students utilize
technology, within a social environment, to attain skills and knowledge and understand how social factors
influence learning (Liang, Hsu, Huang & Chen, 2012). It was also reported by Liang, Hsu, Huang and
Chen (2012) that despite technology playing a major role in the human lives, the education sector still
struggles to integrate technology to support e-learning. The fast growing technology is challenged by a
low rate of adaption by the teachers. Technology is important, so to imaginatively design the educational
experience and to improve students’ engagement in order to make a curriculum meaningful and engaging.
In higher education, researchers have observed a shift encouraging students’ creativity rather than
emphasizing rote learning. There is greater emphasis on facilitating critical thinking (Donnelly, 2004).
With Asia booming in the restructuring of its education system and the establishment of new universities;
the job market is demanding imagination and creativity beyond professional skill (Chang & Lin, 2013).
Creative thinking requires inventive power extending beyond personal experience in the analysis of a
situation (Liang, Hsu, Huang, & Chen, 2012). In the higher sector, creativity is essential to introduce
reforms. A creative curriculum, which is supported by creative lectures, harnesses group projects where
the students can socially group think to critique, adapt. Here the instructor is a role model for encouraging
students’ creative thinking and creative performance.
Teaching is, or can be, a creative adventure to acquire knowledge and improve the student’s approach to a
given task. Imagination aids creativity and the design of a creative curriculum. Recent research has started
exploring customizing student curricula to maximize their imaginative capacity and has realized the need
to develop an instrument to measure imaginative capacity to quantify some correlation between instructor
and student (Chang & Lin, 2013). Creativity is harnessed through higher education curricula since, in this
scenario, creativity is shared imagination between students and teachers. Both will need to utilize
imagination and assist one another in using their own imaginations (Donnelly, 2004). Imaginative
capacity has become a new demand in the job market. Imagination influences the designing of ideas and
appearances of products. Imagination is based on either an acquired (based on a learning environment and
creative thinking) or innate (personality based) factors: extroversion, IQ level, sentimentality, curiosity,
etc (Chang & Lin, 2013).
3. RELATION BETWEEN STUDENTS’ NATIONAL CULTURE AND INNOVATIVE
CAPACITY:
National culture and organizational culture are correlated. Innovation encourages openness for developing
a welcome culture to change in an organizational culture. This is how culture facilitates an organization to
solve problems in addition to culture as a facilitator for group problem solving. Also, different national
cultures vary in the significance of an impact on innovation. An innovative culture is prevalent and
encouraged through factors such as: high independence, high tolerance to mistakes, high risk taking and
little bureaucracy. Hence, innovation is in those who hold entrepreneurial characteristics. Countries that
harbor low power distance, low doubt evasion, high individuality are countries with high outcome of
innovation. This is why national culture can be a barrier to innovation, e.g. lower the ability of people to
adapt an innovation. Social cultural traits are necessary for successful innovation. Past research has
assessed the impact of western and eastern cultures on innovation, e.g. Japan and USA. Also SC has an
impact on the creativity of an industrial economy. Operational cost is reduced when community members
work together on the bases of trust and work based on common norms. Trust is a major factor for SC
between community members to positive aid innovation. Innovation amongst the Chinese is low since
trust is only withheld within family members as well as members of the close circle of that Chinese
family. Also, lacking curiosity between Chinese causes them to produce less innovation than the US
society (Wong, Everett, & Nicholson, 2008).
4. STUDENTS’ LEARNING STYLES:
We will adapt Charlesworth’s (2008) definitions of learning style as theorist, activist, reflector and
pragmatist. Students with an activist learning style enjoy challenge whereas students with a reflector
learning style take their time and listen to others before taking action. The pragmatist is deliberate and
analytic, with students in this category inclined to take apart and reassemble problems piece by piece.
Gender is a final variable in our research but we will be assessing gender from the demographics point of
view. Also, several studies have examined gender in relation to assessment (Basow1995; Tomkiewicz and
Bass 2008; Holi and Ajami 2013). We have begun our research with a thorough review of the literature,
and have proceeded into this study to assess the practicality and pedagogical usefulness of e-SET devices.
Our aim is to determine and refine the e-SET questions and assess the delivery and timing of results. In
the next phase we anticipate to test our research hypotheses through a research methodology defined by
this study’s research questions and through our observations of other relevant published studies. The
following presents our research in summary.
5. CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDENTS’ IMAGINATION:
In the higher education sector, researchers observed a shift from teaching to learning to harness students’
creativity rather than students learning by memorization (Donnelly, 2004). With Asia booming in the
restructuring of its education system and the establishment of the new universities, the job market is
demanding imagination and creativity beyond professional skill (Chang & Lin, 2013). Creative thinking
requires imaginative thinking (am inventive power) since imagination is beyond experience to fragment a
situation (Liang, Hsu, Huang, & Chen, 2012). In higher education, creativity is essential to introduce reforms
within the higher education sector. A creative curriculum, which is supported by creative lectures,
harnesses group projects where students socially group think to critique, adapt. Here the instructor is a
role model for encouraging students’ creative thinking and creative performance. Hence, teaching is a
creative adventure to acquire knowledge and improve the students’ thinking perspective. Imagination aids
creativity and the design of creative curriculum. Creativity is harnessed through higher education
curriculums since, in this scenario; creativity is shared imagination between both students and teachers.
Both sides will need to use imagination and assistants one another in using their own imaginations
(Donnelly, 2004). Hence, imaginative capacity has become a new demand in the job market. Recent
research has started exploring on customizing student curricula to maximize their imaginative capacity
and has realized the need to develop an instrument to measure imaginative capacity to quantify some
correlation between instructor and student (Chang & Lin, 2013).
With reference to the stuent’s national culture, it is reported that culture plays a significant role on
creativity, i.e. an “independent self-oriented” culture is more supportive of creativity than “interdependent
self-oriented” culture (Donnelly, 2004). Imagination is composed of various describing factors:
psychology aspect, exploration, sensibility, intuition, crystallization, novelty, effectiveness,
transformation, exploration, exploration, productivity, sensibility and elaboration. Imagination is purpose
and goal oriented. Imagination is time consuming (Liang, Hsu, Huang, & Chen, 2012). It was also
reported by Liang, Hsu, Huang and Chen (2012) that despite technology playing a major role in human
lives, the education sector still struggles to integrate technology to support e-learning. The fast growing
technology is challenged by a low rate of adaption by the teachers. Technology is important so to
imaginatively design the educational experience and to improve students’ engagement in order to make a
curriculum meaningful and engaging. To make this possible, the education research should concentrate on
imagination in the educational technology area in order to investigate how students utilize technology,
within a social environment, to attain skills and knowledge and understand how physician and social
factors influence learning.
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:
This paper extends the review literature by Wong, Everett and Nicholson (2008) who critiqued the
relationship between national culture and innovation. In this paper, the authors concentrate on national
culture and innovation pertaining to students. However, the main limitation of this paper is that even
though it outlines a strong review of literature, this paper lacks the empirical assessment of the
relationship between students’ national culture and their innovation capacity. The study on national
culture, by itself in fairly new research areas since research pertaining to the three theories (cultural
convergence, cultural divergence and cultural cross-vergance has not been concluded. Past research
covered national culture and innovation as well as this relation from the perspective of management
(Wong, Everett, & Nicholson, 2008). However, as per the observation of the authors of this study, no
research has assessed these relations from the perspective of students’ national culture and their
innovative capacity. Future research should perform quantitative analysis to assess the significance and
impact of students’ national culture of their innovative capacity.
REFERENCES:
Burnyeat, M. (1999). Culture and Society in Plato's Republic. Tanner Lectures on Human Values,, 20,
217–324.
Adams, J. V. (1997). Student Evaluations: The Ratings Game. Inquiry, 1 (2), 10-16.
Aleamoni, L. M. (1999). Student rating myths versus research facts. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education,
13(2), 153-166.
Al-Issa, A., & Sulieman, H. (2007). Student evaluations of teaching: perceptions and biasing factors. Quality
Assurance in Education, 15 (3), 302-317.
Ali, H., & Al Ajmi, A. (2013). Exploring Non-Instructional Factors in Student Evaluations. Higher Education
Studies, 3(5), 81-93.
Badri, Masood A; Abdulla, Mohamed; Kamali, Mohammed A; Dodeen, Hamzeh. Identifying potential biasing
variables in student evaluation of teaching in a newly accredited business program in the UAE. The
International Journal of Educational Management 20.1 (2006): 43-59.
Basow, Susan A.Student evaluations of college professors: When gender matters. Journal of Educational
Psychology, Vol 87(4), Dec 1995, 656-665.
Boretz, E. (2004). Grade inflation and the myth of student consumerism. Journal of College Teaching, 52(2), 42-46.
Bert Brockx, Pieter Spooren and Dimitri Mortelmans. Taking the grading leniency story to the edge. The influence
of student, teacher, and course characteristics on student evaluations of teaching in higher education--Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability23.4 (Dec 2011): 289-306.
Buchert, Stephanie, Laws,·Eric L. Apperson, Jennifer M., Bregman Norman J.
Bulbu, T. (2012). Developing a Scale for Innovation Management at Schools: A Study of Validity and
Reliability. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12(1), 168-172.
Centra, J. A. (2003). Will teachers receive higher student evaluations by giving higher grades and less course work?
Research in Higher Education Journal, 44(3), 495-518.
Chang, H.-T., & Lin, T.-I. (2013). Discovering Taiwanese design college students’ learning performance
and imaginative capacity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 10, 23-39.
Charlesworth, Z. M. (2008). Learning styles across cultures: suggestions for educators. Education + Training, 50(2),
115-127.
Chen, Yining; Hoshower, Leon B. Assessing student motivation to participate in teaching evaluations: An
application of expectancy theory. Issues in Accounting Education 13.3 (Aug 1998): 531-549.
Cramer, Kenneth M; Alexitch, Louise R. How fair are student ratings in assessing the teaching performance of
university teachers? The Canadian Journal of Higher Education 30.3 (2000): 143-164.
Creative Research Systems. (2012). Sample Size Calculator. Retrieved June 1, 2012, from Creative Research
Systems Your Complete Survey Software Solution Since 1982: http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm
Crumbley, L., et al. (2001). Students’ perceptions of the evaluation of college teaching. Quality Assurance in Higher
Education Journal, 9(4), 197-207.
Davidovitch, Nitza; Soen, Dan. Myths And Facts About Student Surveys Of Teaching The Links Between
Students' Evaluations Of Faculty And Course Grades. Journal of College Teaching and Learning 6.7
(Nov 2009): 41-49.
Dee, Kay C. Student Perceptions of High Course Workloads are Not Associated with Poor Student Evaluations
of Instructor Performance.. Journal of Engineering Education 96.1 (Jan 2007): 69-78.
Donnelly, R. (2004). Fostering of creativity within an imaginative curriculum in higher education. The Curriculum
Journal, 15 (2), 155-166.
First impressions and professor reputation: influence on student evaluations of instruction. Social Psychology of
Education: An International Journal, v11 n4 p397-408 Nov 2008.
Gilroy, Marilyn. Bias in Student Evaluations of Faculty? The Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education 17.19
(Jul 2, 2007): 26-27.
Holi Ibrahim Holi Ali1 & Ahmed Ali Saleh Al Ajmi. Exploring Non-Instructional Factors in Student Evaluations.
Higher Education Journal, 38(2), 224-239.
Kam-Por Kwan. How Fair are Student Ratings in Assessing the Teaching Performance of University Teachers?
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 24.2 (Jun 1999): 181-195.
Liang, C., Hsu, Y., Huang, Y., & Chen, S.-C. (2012). How Learning Environments can stimulate Student
Imagination. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology , 11 (4), 432-441.
Liu, Jeanny; Hu, Jing; Furutan, Omid. The Influence of Student Perceived Professors' "Hotness" on
Expertise, Motivation, Learning Outcomes, and Course Satisfaction. Journal of Education for
Business 88.2 (2013): 94.
McGowan, Whitney Ransom. Faculty and student perceptions of the effects of mid-course evaluations on learning
and teaching. Brigham Young University, ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing, 2009. 3376925.
Pounder, James S., (2007) "Is student evaluation of teaching worthwhile?: An analytical framework for answering
the question", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 15 Iss: 2, pp.178 – 19.
Rantanen, P. (2013). The number of feedbacks needed for reliable evaluation: A multilevel analysis of the
reliability, stability and generalizability of students’ evaluation of teaching. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education Journal, 38(2), 224-239.
Roberts, T. Rochelle Mendiola. A test of the reliability of student ratings over time. The University of Texas at
Austin, ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing, 2008.
Sabri, S. A. (2012). Re-examination of Hofstede’s work value orientations on perceived leadership styles in Jordan.
International Journal of Commerce and Management, 22(3), 202-218.
Schneider, G. (2013). Student evaluations, grade inflation and pluralistic teaching: Moving from customer
satisfaction to student learning and critical thinking. Forum for Social Economics Journal, 42(1), 122-135.
Smith, Bettye P; Hawkins, Billy.Examining Student Evaluations of Black College Faculty: Does Race Matter? The
Journal of Negro Education 80.2 (Spring 2011): 149-162.
Stork, Elizabeth; Hartley, Nell T. A Comparison Of Chinese And American College Students' Perceptions Of
Professors' Behaviors. Journal of International Education Research 7.4 (2011): 1-10.
Tomkiewicz, Joseph; Bass, Kenneth. Differences between Male Students’ and Female Students’ Perceptions of
Professors. College Student Journal 42.2 (Jun 2008): 422-430.
Wong, Y.-Y., Everett, A. M., & Nicholson, J. D. (2008). National culture and innovation capability: some
observations concerning Chinese-Americans. concerning Chinese-Americans and innovation
capability, 31(9), 697-712.