View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Cultural Compass: A Systematic Review on Cultural Dimensions Theory in Educational Settings

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Cultural Compass: A Systematic Review on Cultural Dimensions Theory in Educational Settings
Language: English
Authors: Sha Ouyang (ORCID 0000-0002-0009-1868), Wei Zhang (ORCID 0000-0002-9283-6360), Liangyong Xue (ORCID 0000-0002-4081-0230), Abdullah Mat Rashid (ORCID 0000-0002-3424-8480), How Shwu Pyng, Aminuddin Bin Hassan
Source: SAGE Open. 2025 15(2).
Availability: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 20
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Information Analyses
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Educational Theories, Foreign Countries, Cultural Influences, Leadership, Educational Practices, Educational Administration, Teacher Behavior, Student Behavior, Culturally Relevant Education, Educational Research, Educational Trends, Research Methodology
Geographic Terms: China, Japan, Israel, United Kingdom, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Ghana, Iceland, Indonesia, Ireland, Malaysia, Nigeria, Spain, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Ukraine, United States, Vietnam
DOI: 10.1177/21582440251342160
ISSN: 2158-2440
Abstract: Analyzing 28 articles from databases including WOS, Scopus, and ProQuest, this systematic review investigates the application of Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory in education. It reveals a sustained scholarly interest in cultural dimensions with substantial contributions from scholars in China, Japan, Israel, and the UK. The study focuses on the impact of cultural dimensions on educational management and their influence on teaching and learning behaviors. Significant findings indicate that key dimensions--power distance, individualism versus collectivism, and long-term orientation--affect educational management behaviors, leadership practices behaviors, teaching and learning behaviors. The review emphasizes the necessity of cultural sensitivity in educational practices and policies, advising educators and policymakers to adapt their approaches to diverse cultural contexts. While offering valuable insights into the development of culturally sensitive educational strategies in the context of globalization, the review also acknowledges limitations such as publication bias and calls for more empirical research.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1477212
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGUORhqYYCNa7PQz8vINmWnAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDGyda2uKzPT6uC66KQIBEICBm1L73tJZnnL_mMMNWgBZKV0YKshiB9jrcsk8E7ctz3f-HGmWEzYrpel5yKczV1BlCs-1Z2A-b8otAVG25IeNf82_BiEJkXZObqXaJ3BsCztV7jYqvGrB7QCDu8uh7vRzBEbqaGyC9FgU8gBWNLj_FzRGJ48Bgeyisd9NbIPfEJt2FUr31KWixLjzl0E01_abYhGZdT1xadK4F5J4
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0186372623;[kbz6]01apr.25;2025Jul07.02:57;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0186372623-1">The Cultural Compass: A Systematic Review on Cultural Dimensions Theory in Educational Settings </title> <p>Analyzing 28 articles from databases including WOS, Scopus, and ProQuest, this systematic review investigates the application of Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory in education. It reveals a sustained scholarly interest in cultural dimensions with substantial contributions from scholars in China, Japan, Israel, and the UK. The study focuses on the impact of cultural dimensions on educational management and their influence on teaching and learning behaviors. Significant findings indicate that key dimensions—power distance, individualism versus collectivism, and long-term orientation—affect educational management behaviors, leadership practices behaviors, teaching and learning behaviors. The review emphasizes the necessity of cultural sensitivity in educational practices and policies, advising educators and policymakers to adapt their approaches to diverse cultural contexts. While offering valuable insights into the development of culturally sensitive educational strategies in the context of globalization, the review also acknowledges limitations such as publication bias and calls for more empirical research.</p> <p>Keywords: cultural dimensions theory; education; systematic review; teaching practices; educational administration; online education; mental health; academic achievement</p> <hd id="AN0186372623-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Globalization and modernization are reshaping educational systems worldwide, making education a global issue beyond national boundaries ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref1">36</reflink>]). For example, immigration in Europe and North America has led to multicultural classrooms, requiring curriculum redesign to meet diverse cultural needs ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref2">17</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref3">50</reflink>]). Similarly, the rise in international students in countries like China presents challenges in delivering effective cross-cultural education ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref4">12</reflink>]). Addressing cultural differences is now a common concern for educators worldwide. This knowledge is essential for cultivating global citizens and ensuring educational systems accommodate diverse student populations.</p> <p>Different cultures possess unique systems of meaning ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref5">27</reflink>]), influencing interpersonal relationships, teaching methods, curriculum development, and classroom management strategies. Learners must not only recognize and understand their own cultures but also be aware of differences between cultures, which need to be respected and valued ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref6">4</reflink>]). Exploring how cultural dimensions impact education can help create learning environments that accommodate diverse needs and equip educators and policymakers with strategies to address the complexities of a globalized educational landscape.</p> <p>Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory, despite some criticisms, remains a most widely used framework in cross-cultural research ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref7">13</reflink>]). Its strength lies in explaining how culture shapes behaviors and values, yet its application in education has been limited, with more focus on business and organizational contexts ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref8">49</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref9">63</reflink>]). This lack of research in educational contexts leaves educators and policymakers without systematic guidance for navigating multicultural educational settings.</p> <p>In fact, Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory provides a systematic framework for understanding how cultural values influence behavior in educational environments. Cultural dimensions, while not always apparent, significantly impact leaders, teachers, and students. For example, Power Distance affects classroom dynamics; high power distance cultures view teachers as authoritative figures, whereas low power distance cultures emphasize more egalitarian interactions ([<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref10">72</reflink>]). Similarly, collectivist cultures favor collaborative learning, while individualist cultures emphasize independence ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref11">65</reflink>]). These differences influence educational strategies and teaching effectiveness in multicultural settings.</p> <p>The limited use of Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory in education has constrained its theoretical and practical understanding, hindering educators and policymakers from grasping its impact on teaching, learning, and management. This gap impedes the development of culturally responsive practices, essential for addressing diverse student needs ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref12">25</reflink>]). Drawing on literature from WOS, Scopus, and ProQuest, this review aims to capture the interplay between cultural dimensions and educational processes, offering comprehensive insights into how cultural values influence education and contribute to the field.</p> <hd id="AN0186372623-3">Literature Review</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186372623-4">Development, Expansion, and Evolution of Cultural Dimensions Theory</hd> <p>Cultural Dimensions Theory, proposed by Geert Hofstede in the 1970s, explains differences in individual and organizational behavior across cultures through cross-national analysis ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref13">28</reflink>]). Hofstede defined culture as the "collective programming of the mind" distinguishing one group from another ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref14">26</reflink>]). Based on surveys of IBM employees in over 50 countries, Hofstede initially identified four core dimensions: Power Distance, Individualism versus Collectivism, Masculinity versus Femininity, and Uncertainty Avoidance ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref15">27</reflink>]). Later, he added Long-Term Orientation (based on Michael Bond's research), and [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref16">48</reflink>] introduced a sixth dimension—Indulgence versus Restraint, which measures societal attitudes toward hedonism and self-control.</p> <p>Building on Hofstede's work, Robert J. House launched the GLOBE research project in 1991, initially focusing on cross-cultural leadership. The GLOBE model expanded Hofstede's approach, adding new dimensions like Humane Orientation and Performance Orientation to provide a more detailed examination of national and organizational cultures ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref17">29</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref18">63</reflink>]).</p> <p>Psychologist [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref19">58</reflink>] took a different approach, examining culture from a values perspective. He proposed seven cultural value types, which he later condensed into two overarching dimensions: Autonomy versus Conservation and Hierarchy versus Egalitarianism. This value-based approach offers a deeper understanding of how values influence individual behavior and social structures, complementing Hofstede and GLOBE models ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref20">39</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref21">58</reflink>]).</p> <p>Despite its wide use, Hofstede's theory has been criticized for being Western-centric and culturally biased, especially regarding Power Distance and Individualism in non-Western settings ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref22">13</reflink>]). Nonetheless, its simplicity and broad applicability make Hofstede's framework a foundational tool in cross-cultural research, management, and education. The GLOBE and Schwartz models further underscore the importance of culture in shaping behavior, providing valuable tools for both researchers and practitioners.</p> <hd id="AN0186372623-5">Cultural Dimensions Theory in Education: Exploration and Discovery</hd> <p>Building on Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory, many scholars have explored its application in education, showing how cultural dimensions significantly impact teaching and learning practices.</p> <p>Power distance is a key concept in Hofstede's framework. High power distance societies, such as those in many Asian and African countries, tend to have centralized authority structures where leaders are viewed as authoritative figures ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref23">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref24">22</reflink>]). In these settings, teachers are seen as the primary source of knowledge, and student success depends largely on teacher effectiveness. This dynamic, while fostering respect for authority, may limit teaching flexibility and inhibit student independence and creativity, as students often rely heavily on teacher guidance ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref25">6</reflink>]). While tacit acceptance of authority may foster discipline, it may also inhibit creativity ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref26">6</reflink>]). Conversely, in lower power distance cultures, relationships between leaders, teachers, and students are more egalitarian, encouraging open communication, collaboration, and independent thinking. However, excessive egalitarianism in classroom management can lead to a lack of direction, potentially undermining learning outcomes.</p> <p>The individualism-collectivism dimension highlights the relationship between individuals and the group. In individualistic cultures, personal independence and self-fulfillment are highly valued ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref27">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref28">75</reflink>]). These cultures often emphasize individual performance and personalized learning, as seen in American and Western European societies, where education is a means of personal development, self-fulfillment, and self-esteem ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref29">45</reflink>]). However, this focus on individual growth can overlook the importance of cooperative skills for social contexts. In contrast, collectivist cultures prioritize group goals and interdependence ([<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref30">75</reflink>]). Education in these settings often serves to support collective and societal development, as seen in East Asian cultures where education is aimed at enhancing community and national welfare ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref31">27</reflink>]). However, this emphasis may suppress individual uniqueness and encourage conformity, while often neglecting individual differences in educational practice ([<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref32">75</reflink>]). Moreover, collectivist cultures often neglect the dynamic interaction between the individual and the group, leading to a lack of attention to individual differences in educational practice.</p> <p>The uncertainty avoidance dimension reflects how societies handle ambiguity. High uncertainty avoidance cultures use strict rules to reduce anxiety, leading to educational environments that emphasize structure and stability ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref33">27</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref34">43</reflink>]). However, this may limit students' creativity. In contrast, low uncertainty avoidance cultures tolerate ambiguity, encouraging exploration and innovation, but risking disorganization and unclear objectives. Differences in preference for structure between teachers and students can also lead to conflicts if unaddressed, impacting educational outcomes ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref35">43</reflink>]). If left unaddressed, these differing expectations can negatively impact educational outcomes.</p> <p>The gender role dimension highlights societal expectations for men and women. In masculine cultures, competitiveness, achievement, and material success are emphasized, which can increase psychological stress and create a fear of failure, particularly in high-pressure educational settings ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref36">30</reflink>]). Conversely, feminine cultures value care, cooperation, and quality of life, prioritizing students' holistic development and well-being ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref37">37</reflink>]). Masculine cultures encourage academic achievement and competition, while feminine cultures prioritize holistic growth. Nonetheless, rigid gender role classifications may overlook the increasing acceptance of gender diversity. As education continues to globalize, attention to gender inclusivity becomes crucial.</p> <p>The long-term and short-term orientation dimension reflects whether societies prioritize future goals or immediate outcomes. In long-term-oriented cultures (e.g., China and Japan), students exhibit perseverance and patience in achieving academic goals, though this future-focused mindset may reduce flexibility when facing short-term challenges ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref38">9</reflink>]). Conversely, short-term-oriented cultures (e.g., the United States and Canada) emphasize immediate success and short-term outcomes, which can lead to a preference for instant rewards and external validation, potentially undermining long-term planning and commitment ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref39">60</reflink>]). This suggests that cultural orientation significantly shapes students' academic strategies and motivational structures.</p> <p>The Indulgence versus Restraint dimension has received limited attention in educational research. Indulgent cultures prioritize happiness, allowing students more freedom for individuality and extracurricular activities, which fosters autonomy ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref40">34</reflink>]). However, too much freedom may reduce academic focus. In contrast, restrained cultures emphasize discipline and adherence to social norms, which can maintain high academic standards but may increase anxiety and stress. Despite its impact, there is no consensus on how indulgence and restraint influence students' mental health, motivation, and development.</p> <p>Hofstede's cultural dimensions provide a valuable framework for understanding educational practices across cultures. However, existing research has not fully explored the dynamic interactions of these dimensions. While they explain phenomena like teacher-student relationships and learning motivation, conflicting results within the same cultural context suggest that cultural influences in education are still not well understood. As globalization and technology rapidly transform education ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref41">7</reflink>]), systematic reviews and updates are crucial to better understand culture's nuanced effects and offer targeted guidance for educators and policymakers.</p> <hd id="AN0186372623-6">Current Research Limitations and Proposed Research Questions</hd> <p>Current research on cultural dimensions theory tends to describe basic characteristics and perform cross-cultural comparisons but often lacks in-depth exploration of its complex mechanisms within specific educational contexts. This limitation has led to a fragmented application of cultural dimensions theory in education, hindering the development of a systematic theoretical framework and practical guidance.</p> <p>First, existing studies primarily adopt a macro-level perspective, focusing on behavioral patterns across cultures while neglecting specific manifestations of cultural factors at the micro (individual) and meso (organizational) levels ([<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref42">67</reflink>]). Cultural factors, however, are nested and interact dynamically across different levels in educational settings. Analyzing cultural dimensions from a single level or a static perspective is insufficient to understand their interactions and dynamic evolution. Therefore, it is essential to conduct a comprehensive review of the application of cultural dimensions theory in education and reveal its diverse roles at different levels.</p> <p>Second, most literature reviews are limited to descriptive theoretical discussions or broad comparisons, lacking a systematic review of the application of cultural dimensions in education and detailed analysis of the research methodologies used. To date, only one study has examined cultural dimensions in the context of educational innovation, which falls short of capturing the full scope of educational environments ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref43">18</reflink>]). This gap limits the understanding of how cultural dimensions influence educational mechanisms, thereby restricting their effective application in practice.</p> <p>Lastly, globalization has increased the diversity and complexity of cultural factors in education. In response, educational practitioners need to adopt more culturally sensitive strategies and management methods. However, existing research has not provided sufficient theoretical support for understanding the deeper impact of cultural dimensions in educational settings. As cultural diversity becomes a growing educational challenge, there is an urgent need to systematically review existing research to provide targeted theoretical insights and strategic guidance for educational leaders.</p> <p>To address these gaps, a systematic review of cultural dimensions theory in education is necessary in the following aspects:</p> <p>Enhancing Understanding of Cultural Dimensions: A systematic review is needed to comprehensively reveal the role of cultural dimensions in educational contexts. This can help researchers identify the potential influence of culture on educational practices and provide a foundation for theoretical integration in future research.</p> <p>Addressing Fragmentation in Research: The current application of cultural dimensions theory in education is fragmented and lacks coherence. Most studies focus on specific dimensions or contexts. A systematic review can integrate these scattered findings to present a comprehensive picture of cultural dimensions in education.</p> <p>Responding to Practical Needs in Education: In a globalized world, the impact of culture on education is complex and significant. Culturally sensitive educational strategies can enhance student learning experiences and improve educational policies. A systematic review can provide practical and targeted guidance for educational administrators and policymakers.</p> <p>Based on this analysis, the following research questions are proposed:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> RQ1: What are the research trends in cultural dimensions theory within educational contexts?</item> </ulist> <p>Through a systematic review, this study will identify the research focus, development trends, and areas that need further exploration in the field of cultural dimensions theory in education.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> RQ2: What research methods have been used to explore cultural dimensions in education, and which dimensions have received the most attention?</item> </ulist> <p>This question aims to analyze the methods used in existing studies (e.g., quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods) and assess their effectiveness in revealing the relationships between cultural dimensions and educational practices. It will also identify well-researched dimensions and highlight areas needing further investigation.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> RQ3: What are the primary focus areas and findings of cultural dimensions research in education?</item> </ulist> <p>This question will explore the key applications and impacts of cultural dimensions in educational practice, aiming to understand how culture influences student behavior, teaching methods, and educational management strategies.</p> <p>Through addressing these research questions, this study aims to reveal the current state of cultural dimensions research in education, identify major trends, and highlight future directions. Furthermore, it seeks to provide educational administrators and practitioners with theoretical and practical strategies to integrate cultural context into educational practices, thereby promoting the broader application of cultural dimensions theory in educational settings.</p> <hd id="AN0186372623-7">Methodology</hd> <p>The purpose of systematic evaluation is to address specific research questions through a structured, systematic, and replicable search strategy, which allows for the inclusion or exclusion of studies based on predetermined criteria ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref44">11</reflink>]). This study adopted a systematic evaluation approach following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Evaluation and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) framework. The first step involved defining exclusion criteria for the review (see Table 1). A comprehensive search strategy was then developed to identify relevant information sources. The initial search string (Table 2) and criteria for this systematic review included peer-reviewed, English-language articles on the application of cultural dimensions theory in education, published from the earliest available date in the databases until March 20, 2024. Articles were sourced from three international databases: Web of Science, Scopus, and ProQuest, with the search covering titles, abstracts, and keywords. Despite concerns in the scientific community about the peer review process ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref45">56</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref46">59</reflink>], p. 200), this review focused solely on articles published in peer-reviewed journals, which are generally considered credible and undergo a rigorous review process ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref47">51</reflink>]).</p> <p>Table 1. Final Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="left" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Inclusion criteria</th><th align="left">Exclusion criteria</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Published before 20 March 2024</td><td>Published after 20 March 2024</td></tr><tr><td>English language</td><td>Not in English</td></tr><tr><td>Education Field</td><td>Not in education field</td></tr><tr><td>Indexed in Web of Science, Scopus or ProQuest</td><td>Not a journal articleNo Review or Report or Conference Proceeding</td></tr><tr><td>Cultural Dimensions Theory in educational fields</td><td>No educational fields</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 2. Initial Search String.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Database</th><th align="left">Search strings</th><th align="left">Results</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Wos</td><td>Results for "cultural dimensions theory" (All Fields) AND school or education or college or university or teacher or student (All Fields) and Article (Document Types) and English (Languages)</td><td>41</td></tr><tr><td>Scopus</td><td>(TITLE-ABS-KEY ("cultural dimensions theory") AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (school OR education OR college OR university OR teacher OR student)) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, "ar"))</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>ProQuest</td><td>(("cultural dimensions theory") AND (school or education or college or university or teacher or student)) NOT (at.exact("Literature Review" OR "Report" OR "Conference Proceeding" OR "Review") AND stype.exact("Scholarly Journals") AND la.exact("ENG") AND PEER(yes))</td><td>94</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>To ensure the validity and reliability of the review process, two authors independently conducted the screening procedure using Covidence software, a specialized tool designed to streamline systematic reviews. This rigorous approach helped mitigate bias and ensured an objective assessment of study inclusion based on predefined criteria. Discrepancies between the reviewers were resolved through consensus discussions, ensuring consistency and adherence to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The comprehensive screening protocol is detailed in Figure 1, outlining each step from initial identification to final inclusion.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Inclusion and exclusion processes in the review.</p> <p>The systematic search, conducted on March 20, 2024, yielded 159 records from three databases. During the title and abstract screening phase, each record was meticulously evaluated against the defined criteria, leading to the exclusion of irrelevant studies. After this screening, 28 articles were selected for in-depth analysis (Figure 1).</p> <p>To further validate the reliability of the screening process, inter-rater reliability was assessed using Cohen's Kappa coefficient. The results, κ = 0.732 for title and abstract screening, and κ = 0.912 for full-text screening, indicate substantial to almost perfect agreement between the reviewers ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref48">40</reflink>]). These high levels of agreement underscore the robustness and credibility of the review process, reinforcing the reliability of the findings derived from the final set of included studies.</p> <p>Data from the included studies were coded and extracted to synthesize findings, explore the application of cultural dimensions theory in education, and identify gaps or contradictions. All articles were uploaded into ATLAS.ti Version 24.0.1 for data extraction, where a coding system was developed. The codes captured information such as publication year, journal, author country, research methodology (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed), and the thematic representation of specific cultural dimensions. Ultimately, 4 primary codes and 14 secondary codes were established to effectively present the thematic findings of this review.</p> <hd id="AN0186372623-8">Results and Discussion</hd> <p>This section presents key findings. First, it examines the distribution of research across time, regions, and journals to reveal global trends in cultural dimensions theory in education. Next, it categorizes methodologies used in existing studies, emphasizing the diversity and evolution of approaches. By addressing these questions, this study clarifies the development of cultural dimensions theory, identifying gaps and underexplored areas. Finally, it synthesizes critical findings, highlighting the main applications and contributions of cultural dimensions theory in various educational contexts.</p> <hd id="AN0186372623-9">What is the Trends of Research Subjects in the Education Field?</hd> <p>The examination of publication trends focuses on aspects such as the publication years, geographical locations of studies, and journals, which together reflect the developmental trajectory of cultural dimensions theory's application in education and related fields. From 2006 to 2015, the number of related articles published was relatively low, which may indicate that cultural dimensions theory did not receive sufficient attention in the field of education during this period. Research on cultural dimensions theory was primarily focused on cross-cultural business contexts.</p> <p>However, as shown in Figure 2, the number of studies applying this theory to education has gradually increased and remained relatively stable from 2016 to 2023, indicating growing interest among educational researchers.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. Number of publications by country and year.</p> <p>This shift in focus is likely driven by accelerated globalization, increased intercultural exchanges, and the rapid internationalization of education. As education systems become more interconnected, the influence of cultural differences on teaching and learning has gained recognition, encouraging further exploration of cultural dimensions theory in educational settings. Technological advancements, particularly in artificial intelligence, have diversified educational research methods, creating opportunities for more in-depth exploration of cultural influences. For instance, data analytics and intelligent management systems allow scholars to analyze the impact of cultural differences on teacher behavior, student outcomes, and school culture development. As technology becomes increasingly borderless and AI gains wider application, research on cultural dimensions theory in education is expected to expand, providing new perspectives and strategies to address cross-cultural educational challenges.</p> <p>This review shows that research on cultural dimensions theory in education is concentrated in China, the United States, Israel, and the United Kingdom. Chinese scholars lead this field, driven by the country's efforts to internationalize education through initiatives like the "One Belt, One Road" education action plan and the "Double First-Class" program. These efforts highlight the need for Chinese institutions to address international management and faculty development. Cultural dimensions theory provides a vital framework for Chinese educators, helping improve communication and engagement in diverse cultural settings and enhancing educational management practices.</p> <p>In contrast, scholars from American institutions were actively engaged in this field around 2006 but have shown limited involvement in recent years. Despite the United States' rich multicultural composition as a nation of immigrants, cultural dimensions theory has not garnered extensive research attention within its educational context. Several factors may contribute to this trend. First, the multicultural landscape in the U.S. is more complex and dynamic compared to monocultural nations, which may limit the applicability of cultural dimensions theory in fully capturing the intricacies of cultural interactions. Second, American scholars may prioritize cultural integration and the promotion of equity and inclusiveness in education, focusing on reducing disparities and inequalities among diverse cultural groups rather than relying on predefined cultural dimensions.</p> <p>Moreover, scholars from Israeli and British institutions have demonstrated sustained interest in applying cultural dimensions theory to education. Researchers from countries such as Australia, Brunei, and Canada have also contributed, though their work is less extensive, indicating a growing yet uneven global interest in this area. As the educational landscape continues to evolve, cultural dimensions theory is expected to play a more significant role in educational management and cross-cultural research, providing valuable theoretical guidance and practical strategies for global education systems.</p> <hd id="AN0186372623-10">What Methods Have Been Used to Study Cultural Dimensions Theory in Education, and Which Cultu...</hd> <p>The 28 studies reviewed employed diverse methods to explore cultural dimensions in education (Table 3). About 46.4% used qualitative methods like case studies, interviews, and observations, while 42.9% used quantitative approaches, including questionnaires and statistical analyses. Three studies (10.7%) adopted mixed methods, combining qualitative and quantitative tools. Although less common, mixed methods reflect a growing need to bridge macro-level statistical findings with micro-level insights. This limited use suggests opportunities for more integrated approaches to better capture the multifaceted effects of cultural dimensions on education.</p> <p>Table 3. Research Methods and Explored Cultural Dimensions in Articles..</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /><col align="left" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">No.</th><th align="left">Authors/year</th><th align="left">Country</th><th align="left">Research method</th><th align="left">Sample</th><th align="left">Overall culture values</th><th align="left">Power distance</th><th align="left">Uncertainty avoidance</th><th align="left">Individualism/collectivism</th><th align="left">Masculinity/femininity</th><th align="left">Long-Term Orientation</th><th align="left">Indulgence/Restraint</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr53">Ólafsson and Hansen (2022)</xref></td><td>Iceland and 47 other countries</td><td>Quantitative (comparative analysis)</td><td>Principals in Iceland and 47 other countries</td><td /><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr70">K. Wang, Criado, and van Hemmen (2023)</xref></td><td>China, Spain</td><td>Quantitative (comparative analysis)</td><td>770 Undergraduates</td><td /><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td /><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td /></tr><tr><td>3</td><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6">Amzaleg and Masry-Herzallah (2022)</xref></td><td>Israel</td><td>Quantitative (survey research)</td><td>298 Teachers</td><td /><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>4</td><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr19">Fuangtharnthip et al. (2021)</xref></td><td>Thailand</td><td>Quantitative (survey research)</td><td>265 Students</td><td /><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td /></tr><tr><td>5</td><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr32">Jayatilleke and Gunawardena (2016)</xref></td><td>Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Mauritius</td><td>Mixed methods</td><td>30 Faculty members from Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and Mauritius</td><td /><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>6</td><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr76">Zhang and Wang (2021)</xref></td><td>China</td><td>Quantitative (survey research)</td><td>242 Innovative teams' members</td><td /><td /><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td /><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>7</td><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr47">Meng and Liu (2022)</xref></td><td>46 countries/economies</td><td>Quantitative (comparative analysis)</td><td>355,042 Students</td><td /><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr38">Kaur and Noman (2015)</xref></td><td>Malaysia, India, China, Iraq</td><td>Qualitative (interview)</td><td>6 Teachers</td><td /><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td /></tr><tr><td>9</td><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr69">Verma et al. (2016)</xref></td><td>UK</td><td>Qualitative (interpretative research)</td><td>21 International medical graduates</td><td /><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td /><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>10</td><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr20">Gach (2020)</xref></td><td>Ukrainian</td><td>Quantitative (Survey Research)</td><td>167 Undergraduate students</td><td /><td /><td /><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>11</td><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr57">Rojo et al. (2020)</xref></td><td>Australia</td><td>Mixed methods</td><td>7,292 Nursing students' academic records</td><td /><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td /></tr><tr><td>12</td><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr61">Stoten (2022)</xref></td><td>Sri Lanka</td><td>Mixed methods</td><td>96 Students</td><td /><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td /><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>13</td><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr10">Asunka (2012)</xref></td><td>Ghana</td><td>Qualitative (participatory action research)</td><td>9 Faculty members</td><td /><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td /></tr><tr><td>14</td><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr52">Obara et al. (2021)</xref></td><td>Japan</td><td>Qualitative (interview)</td><td>17 Mentees</td><td /><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td /></tr><tr><td>15</td><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr41">Lieb (2019)</xref></td><td>Japan</td><td>Quantitative (survey research)</td><td>119 Students</td><td /><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>16</td><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr66">Trang (2023)</xref></td><td>Japan</td><td>Qualitative (theoretical analysis)</td><td>-</td><td /><td /><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td /><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td /></tr><tr><td>17</td><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr33">Jiang et al. (2018)</xref></td><td>China</td><td>Quantitative (survey research)</td><td>438 International university students</td><td /><td /><td /><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>18</td><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr59">Smith (2006)</xref></td><td>USA</td><td>Qualitative (theoretical analysis)</td><td>-</td><td /><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td /></tr><tr><td>19</td><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr14">De Jong and Warmelink (2017)</xref></td><td>Netherlands, China</td><td>Qualitative (case study)</td><td>-</td><td /><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td /><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td></tr><tr><td>20</td><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr71">K. Wang, Van Hemmen, and Criado (2023)</xref></td><td>Spain, China</td><td>Quantitative (survey research)</td><td>319 University teachers</td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>21</td><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr55">Peled et al. (2019)</xref></td><td>USA, Israeli</td><td>Quantitative (survey research)</td><td>2,475 Students</td><td /><td /><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>22</td><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr64">Thomas (2017)</xref></td><td>Brunei</td><td>Qualitative (focused ethnography)</td><td>21 Teachers</td><td /><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td /><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>23</td><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr2">Akanji et al. (2020)</xref></td><td>Nigerian</td><td>Qualitative (Interview)</td><td> 40 Senior academics and non-teaching staff</td><td /><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td /><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>24</td><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr35">R. Jin et al. (2023)</xref></td><td>42 Countries/economies</td><td>Quantitative (comparative analysis)</td><td>308,849 Students</td><td /><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td /><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td /><td /><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td></tr><tr><td>25</td><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr68">Usman et al. (2022)</xref></td><td>Indonesia</td><td>Qualitative (case study)</td><td>20 Students</td><td /><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>26</td><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr54">O'Leary et al. (2020)</xref></td><td>Ireland</td><td>Qualitative (case study)</td><td>13 Clinical educators, current students, and recent graduates</td><td /><td /><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td /><td /><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td /></tr><tr><td>27</td><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr73">Wilbur et al. (2019)</xref></td><td>Qatar</td><td>Qualitative (focus groups)</td><td>27 Students</td><td /><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td /><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>28</td><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr23">Hamid (2017)</xref></td><td>Pakistan</td><td>Qualitative (content analysis)</td><td>1,064 Pictures from 100 university websites</td><td /><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td><td><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">*</xref></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Cultural dimension was considered in the study</emph></p> <p>Among the research approaches, survey research was the most prevalent, comprising 28.57% of the studies. Comparative analysis and mixed methods accounted for 14.29% and 10.71%, respectively. Qualitative methods—including interviews, case studies, and theoretical analysis—each represented between 7.14% and 10.71% of the studies, showcasing the diverse methodologies employed to explore cultural dimensions theory in education.</p> <p>In terms of cultural dimensions, Individualism/Collectivism was the most studied, appearing in 78.57% of the articles, underscoring its importance in shaping educational practices and policies. Power Distance was the second most examined dimension (67.86%), highlighting the relevance of hierarchical relationships in education. Uncertainty Avoidance (42.86%) and Masculinity/Femininity (35.71%) received moderate focus, contributing insights into tolerance for ambiguity and gender roles. Long-term Orientation (28.57%) and Indulgence/Restraint (17.86%) were less frequently studied, offering perspectives on temporal orientation and self-control within educational contexts.</p> <p>This study found that scholars primarily focus on how collectivism/individualism and power distance shape educational practices, significantly influencing teacher-student interactions, classroom management, and student performance. This aligns with existing literature on cultural differences in educational strategies and behaviors. Conversely, dimensions like long-term orientation and indulgence/restraint receive limited attention despite their potential effects on academic planning, motivation, and mental health. This study highlights their impact on student behavior, suggesting cultural orientation shapes academic attitudes. Future research should explore these dimensions further using mixed methods to better understand their effects on education.</p> <hd id="AN0186372623-11">What Are the Main Focuses and Findings of Studies on Cultural Dimensions Theory in Education?</hd> <p>Through our review, we found that research on cultural dimensions theory in education generally focuses on two main areas: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref49">1</reflink>) cultural dimensions in educational administration, and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref50">2</reflink>) cultural dimensions in teaching and learning. This section summarizes the key concerns and findings of existing research.</p> <hd id="AN0186372623-12">Cultural Dimensions and Educational Administration Behaviors</hd> <p>Research on the impact of cultural dimensions theory on educational management highlights key factors like power distance, individualism versus collectivism, long-term orientation, and gender roles as significant influences on leadership behaviors and management practices. Cultural variations notably affect how educational leaders exercise power, manage teams, and make decisions.</p> <p>Research specifically highlights the influence of cultural attributes on educational leadership authority. For example, power distance significantly affects leadership dynamics. [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref51">53</reflink>] found that in Iceland's low-power-distance culture, school leaders have greater responsibility and authority, with decentralized decision-making that allows principals and teachers to collectively participate in policy development. This distributed leadership model encourages collaboration and innovation at the school level, making it particularly effective in low-power-distance cultures that value equality and autonomy. These findings align with studies indicating that preferences for shared governance and distributed leadership are closely linked to cultural dimensions like power distance and collectivism ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref52">42</reflink>]).</p> <p>In contrast, high-power-distance cultures lead to different leadership behaviors. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref53">2</reflink>] found that in Nigeria's high-power-distance culture, leaders tend to adopt more centralized and paternalistic leadership styles, limiting employees' autonomy and creativity. While this leadership style may maintain short-term stability, it can hinder long-term creativity and organizational flexibility. As the demand for innovation grows, traditional centralized leadership in high-power-distance cultures may face challenges. Conversely, transformational leadership can alleviate these negative effects by fostering employee autonomy and creativity through open communication and decentralizing power ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref54">62</reflink>]).</p> <p>Building on previous research, individualistic and collectivistic cultures each have unique advantages and limitations regarding their impact on leadership behavior. [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref55">53</reflink>] noted that individualistic cultures tend to emphasize personal responsibility and autonomous decision-making, which promotes flexibility and adaptability in Iceland's educational environment. However, excessive decentralization may weaken team cohesion, especially during collective decision-making or periods of organizational change. The impact of individualistic culture on overall organizational effectiveness remains uncertain.</p> <p>In contrast, collectivist cultures demonstrate greater efficiency in teamwork and joint decision-making, particularly during crisis management. For example, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref56">66</reflink>] study illustrates the effectiveness of Japan's collectivist culture during the COVID-19 pandemic through the restructuring of the education system under the "GIGA Project." However, the culture of high consensus may inhibit the expression of individual opinions in innovative environments. While collectivist cultures encourage long-term cooperation, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref57">66</reflink>] found that decision-making processes can be slow, limiting an organization's ability to adapt to rapidly changing environments. [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref58">66</reflink>] also emphasized that the long-term orientation dimension is prominent in Japanese educational culture and, when combined with collectivist values, shows adaptability and resilience in responding to crises and advancing educational reform. Despite these insights, the interplay between individualism and collectivism, along with other cultural dimensions, deserves deeper exploration to identify effective paths for enhancing organizational effectiveness and innovation, particularly in response to crises and changes.</p> <p>Research also highlights the influence of gender on leadership styles. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref59">27</reflink>] suggest that masculine cultures are more competitive and goal-oriented, with male leaders often emphasizing results and efficiency through authoritative and task-oriented approaches. This leadership style is highly effective in goal-driven environments that require quick decision-making and efficient execution. However, its competitive nature may overlook the importance of teamwork and interpersonal relationships, rendering it less suitable for management environments that prioritize long-term development and employee welfare.</p> <p>In contrast, feminine cultures emphasize interpersonal relationships, collaboration, and empathy ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref60">27</reflink>]). Leaders in these cultures typically prioritize teamwork, employee welfare, and work-life balance. For instance, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref61">2</reflink>] found that in Nigeria's high-power-distance culture, female leaders overcame gender bias by adopting proactive strategies and flexible leadership approaches. This suggests that despite challenges in male-dominated cultural environments, female leaders can enhance their effectiveness by adapting to cultural contexts, focusing on relationship management and teamwork. While male-dominant cultures may drive short-term organizational goals, feminine cultures are likely more advantageous for long-term development and team building.</p> <p>However, existing discussions often emphasize the individual impact of cultural dimensions, with limited exploration of their complex interactions with mainstream leadership theories (e.g., transformational, transactional, and distributed leadership). This gap restricts a comprehensive understanding of leadership behaviors in cultural contexts, particularly in a globalized educational environment where the interplay between culture and leadership is crucial.</p> <p>The research results show that cultural dimension theory not only has a profound impact on the internal management of educational organizations but also plays a key role in external marketing. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref62">23</reflink>] demonstrated how cultural dimensions such as power distance, collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, and long-term orientation are reflected in online platforms through an analysis of Pakistani university websites. Specifically, high power distance in Pakistan resulted in university homepages prominently displaying faculty and leadership figures, reflecting the importance placed on authority. Collectivism was evident through an emphasis on group activities and collective achievements, underscoring the value of collective success in the Pakistani education system. Uncertainty avoidance was reflected in the persistent use of traditional teaching methods, minimizing reliance on innovation or abstract expression.</p> <p>Analyzing cultural dimensions in website symbols and images for external marketing allows educational institutions to adapt their online strategies to better address the cultural needs of local and international students. Such cultural sensitivity is vital in the globalized education market, particularly for institutions aiming to attract diverse students and faculty. Considering cultural dimensions can enhance competitiveness and strengthen international influence.</p> <p>The study of teacher empowerment in Brunei schools underscores the significant role of cultural context in shaping the empowerment process. It suggests that teachers' understanding, and expectations of empowerment are deeply rooted in their cultural backgrounds. In Asian cultures, teachers often expect leaders to act as "benevolent authorities," providing personalized supervision and clear guidance ([<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref63">64</reflink>]). However, these cultural values can conflict with the core concept of empowerment, which promotes teacher autonomy and participation. This reveals a complex dynamic: while cultural context shapes the form of empowerment, its influence on empowerment outcomes may not always be entirely positive.</p> <p>Empowerment strategies adopted by leaders within specific cultural contexts, though superficially aligned with teachers' expectations, may undermine the deeper effects of empowerment. The benevolent authority model prevalent in Asian culture, while effective in providing support and reducing uncertainty, can reinforce hierarchical structures, leading teachers to become overly dependent on leaders and limiting their ability to make independent decisions or actively engage in school management ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref64">8</reflink>]). Thus, culture can both promote and hinder teacher empowerment, a dual impact that warrants researchers' attention.</p> <p>Furthermore, empowerment strategies that overlook cultural complexity risk creating misunderstandings about empowerment among teachers. For instance, excessive dependence on leaders for guidance and supervision can make empowerment appear to be merely a management tool, rather than a true process of enabling autonomy ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref65">62</reflink>]). Educational institutions need to design empowerment strategies that are not only culturally responsive but also promote higher levels of autonomy and professional growth among teachers. This calls for a nuanced understanding of how empowerment manifests across cultural contexts and requires gradual adjustments to achieve meaningful empowerment outcomes.</p> <p>Cultural background also influences the design and use of digital resources. [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref66">59</reflink>] noted that users in high power distance cultures prefer structured, guided systems, whereas those in low power distance cultures favor open, collaborative environments. In individualistic cultures, users prioritize personal information needs and autonomy, while in collectivist cultures, users emphasize community interests and teamwork. These differences highlight the varying needs and expectations of users from different cultural backgrounds for digital resources. Uncertainty tolerance also influences users' acceptance of digital libraries. In cultures with high uncertainty avoidance, users prefer systems that offer clear guidance and predictable outcomes.</p> <p>The influence of gender roles on digital library use varies across cultures. In masculine cultures, users prefer competitive, achievement-oriented features, while feminine cultures prioritize collaboration and community. Long-term-oriented cultures focus on in-depth study, while short-term-oriented cultures seek quick information. Indulgent cultures encourage self-expression, whereas restrictive cultures emphasize rules and etiquette ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref67">59</reflink>]). Understanding these cultural differences can help educational institutions design digital resources that enhance usability and learning experiences for diverse users.</p> <p>Research on knowledge hiding in university teams highlights how cultural values influence innovation. A supportive team climate can mitigate the negative effects of knowledge hiding, but individual cultural values like uncertainty avoidance and masculinity affect this outcome ([<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref68">76</reflink>]). For those high in uncertainty avoidance or masculinity, a positive climate does not significantly reduce the negative impact of knowledge hiding on innovation. Power distance is less influential due to minimized hierarchy in innovation teams. Although individualism versus collectivism was not explicitly examined, the benefits of a supportive climate may align with collectivist values that emphasize teamwork and shared goals. These findings underscore the need to foster positive team climates while considering cultural values to minimize knowledge hiding's negative impact.</p> <p>The influence of cultural dimensions on educational management is evident in studies on leadership, teacher empowerment, and resource integration, but also reveals limitations in current strategies. Cultural context can enhance adaptability, but an imbalance with innovation may limit management efficiency and learning outcomes. To optimize performance, leaders must balance cultural adaptability and innovation. Cultural adaptability requires addressing the diverse needs of teachers and students, fostering comfort and engagement. Innovation, on the other hand, involves transcending cultural constraints to promote autonomy, creativity, and collaboration. Balancing these ensures effective empowerment strategies and resource integration, supporting success in a globalized educational context.</p> <hd id="AN0186372623-13">Cultural Dimensions and Teaching and Learning Behaviors</hd> <p>In our systematic review, we identified that researchers investigating cultural dimensions and teaching and learning predominantly concentrated on three key aspects: teaching practices, online education, and the interplay between mental health and academic achievement.</p> <hd id="AN0186372623-14">Teaching Practices</hd> <p>Research in Israel found a positive correlation between cultural dimensions like collectivism, low power distance, high uncertainty avoidance, and femininity with collaborative learning, empathetic teaching, and multicultural-centered education ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref69">6</reflink>]). These findings suggest that cultures valuing collaboration and empathy tend to foster supportive learning environments. However, valuing collaboration alone does not ensure effective collaborative learning. Success often depends on whether teachers have the time, resources, and skills to implement these strategies effectively. Educational systems focused on one-way knowledge transfer may lack the advanced pedagogical design needed for successful collaborative learning, limiting its potential benefits.</p> <p>Moreover, cultural factors like high power distance, individualism, and uncertainty avoidance in Ghana influence teachers' attitudes toward technology use ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref70">10</reflink>]). Addressing these dimensions is crucial for encouraging teachers to adopt online collaborative tools, promoting a more sustainable educational environment. This suggests that cultural dimensions not only shape teaching methods but also constrain openness to educational innovation ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref71">1</reflink>]). Even if technology can theoretically enhance learning, cultural backgrounds may lead teachers to maintain traditional authority structures in the classroom. This issue extends beyond individual resistance, highlighting how cultural power dynamics influence knowledge control. Thus, encouraging the adoption of collaborative tools requires more than technical training—it involves reevaluating educational power structures and redefining teacher and learner roles ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref72">46</reflink>]).</p> <p>This highlights the contradictions within collectivist cultures when teachers try to incorporate individualistic teaching methods, such as hands-on activities and interactive games to boost engagement ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref73">38</reflink>]). Teachers may seek to promote student autonomy, yet students and their families often expect them to act as the primary authority and knowledge source. This role conflict, particularly in exam-focused systems, can hinder teachers' innovation efforts, as they navigate between cultural expectations of success and modern pedagogical demands ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref74">18</reflink>]). It reflects the complex influence of culture on educational innovation—not only from cultural traits but also from traditional definitions of success that may clash with modern teaching methods.</p> <p>This analysis highlights how cultural and political factors influence learner autonomy, as seen in Ukraine, where educational policies are pushing toward more autonomous learning despite the collectivist nature of society ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref75">20</reflink>]). However, these policy shifts do not necessarily lead to changes in classroom practice. A key issue remains whether teachers are ready or willing to relinquish control, especially in societies that value authority and collectivism. Teachers' behaviors are often more influenced by culturally ingrained teaching roles than by external policy directives ([<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref76">67</reflink>]). This suggests that cultural change must come from within rather than being imposed externally through policy.</p> <p>Similarly, research in Sri Lanka challenges the stereotype that Asian students are predominantly teacher-centered, revealing that they value research-based learning and critical thinking ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref77">61</reflink>]). This suggests evolving learner preferences even within collectivist cultures. However, it is uncertain if teachers and administrators can adapt to these changes. In contexts where conservative attitudes toward critical thinking persist, educational innovations face significant societal barriers. Teachers promoting autonomy may encounter resistance from families, communities, and governments, indicating that while cultural shifts toward critical thinking may be happening in theory, entrenched authority structures could slow its practical implementation.</p> <p>The dynamic nature of cultural dimensions is evident in Thailand's educational system. While Hofstede initially identified Thailand as a high power distance culture, recent studies indicate a shift toward a more egalitarian environment, with students more engaged in discussions and expressing opinions ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref78">19</reflink>]). However, this shift in power relations does not necessarily translate into a full transformation in practice. Teachers may appear to transition from authority figures to facilitators, but deeply ingrained beliefs about hierarchy often persist. As a result, changes in classroom interactions may be superficial, maintaining traditional power structures in management and assessment. This gap between surface-level changes and actual practices suggests that genuine cultural transformation may take much longer to establish itself in classrooms.</p> <p>Hofstede's cultural dimensions also have been applied to understand mentoring dynamics between senior Japanese physicians and junior mentees. Research shows that Japan's high power distance and respect for hierarchy are positively viewed in mentoring, contrasting with the egalitarian mentoring models common in Western cultures ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref79">52</reflink>]). This highlights the need for cultural adaptation in education. Western models of autonomous learning may be effective in some contexts but can be counterproductive in hierarchical, collectivist cultures. Educators and leaders must carefully align reforms with cultural contexts, avoiding the uncritical adoption of models that may not fit locally ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref80">16</reflink>]). True cultural transformation requires understanding nuanced educator-learner relationships, not just implementing external reforms.</p> <p>In Qatar, a study of Arab pharmacy students revealed that teachers often underestimated individual performance and avoided criticism, consistent with the region's cultural emphasis on saving face and respecting authority. In contrast, students expressed a desire for more specific, timely feedback, reflecting the influence of globalized education expectations ([<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref81">73</reflink>]). This suggests that misalignment between teacher behaviors and student expectations, rooted in cultural values, can undermine educational outcomes, especially in cross-cultural settings. Differences in feedback culture can significantly impact student learning experiences ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref82">50</reflink>]). Teachers need to understand these cultural differences and adapt their approaches to balance local expectations with international standards, ensuring effective support for students' learning needs.</p> <p>In conclusion, cultural dimensions profoundly influence teaching practices in complex ways. As globalization advances and educational policies shift, traditional cultural paradigms are evolving, though not in a uniform or linear fashion. Teachers and students respond differently to cultural changes, especially when navigating ingrained authority structures and internalized cultural values. It is crucial to critically reassess Hofstede's cultural dimensions and explore their relevance in increasingly dynamic and diverse educational environments ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref83">5</reflink>]). Educational practices must adapt to cultural shifts influenced by globalization and socio-political changes, fostering flexible and inclusive approaches ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref84">44</reflink>]). Genuine cultural transformation requires ongoing reflection and innovation, beyond policy adoption or cultural borrowing.</p> <hd id="AN0186372623-15">Online Education</hd> <p>The rapid growth of online education, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, has drawn global attention. Learners and educators from different cultural backgrounds exhibit unique needs and behaviors in adopting online education. Thus, understanding and adapting to these diverse cultural contexts is crucial for successful global online education.</p> <p>In a cross-cultural study of university educators from Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and Mauritius, participants noted differences in how traditional culture influenced student engagement in online learning. Educators from Mauritius and Sri Lanka believed that power distance affected engagement, while only 33% of Pakistani respondents agreed ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref85">32</reflink>]). Power distance, as defined by Hofstede, affects both student-teacher interaction and perceptions of authority in online environments. In high power-distance cultures, students often hesitate to question instructors, leading to passive learning and limiting online platforms' interactivity, especially in asynchronous settings where engagement is crucial. To address this, online platforms should foster lower power-distance interactions, using tools like anonymous feedback and collaborative forums to encourage open dialog while respecting cultural norms.</p> <p>In Indonesia, EFL students' online learning experiences showed how cultural expectations influenced their behavior. Despite feeling constrained by platforms like WhatsApp, students refrained from voicing dissatisfaction to their teachers, reflecting high power distance ([<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref86">68</reflink>]). This highlights the challenge of engaging students in such cultures. Online platforms need restructuring to foster feedback-oriented interactions, allowing students to share concerns without undermining teacher authority. Tools like anonymous polls or respectful feedback forms could help bridge the gap between students' reluctance to criticize and the need for responsive teaching ([<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref87">68</reflink>]).</p> <p>Regarding online course design, most participants from Mauritius, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka expressed discomfort with unstructured courses, attributing it to high uncertainty avoidance ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref88">32</reflink>]). Recent research supports this, showing that students from high uncertainty-avoidance cultures perform better with clear guidelines ([<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref89">74</reflink>]). While structure reduces anxiety, it can hinder creativity and critical thinking. Global online education needs to balance structured guidance with opportunities for independent learning, helping students gradually engage with uncertainty ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref90">31</reflink>]). Educators should foster questioning and discussions to build confidence in navigating less structured environments.</p> <p>In a comparative study of Chinese and Spanish students' perceptions of MOOCs, researchers found notable cultural differences. Chinese students, influenced by a masculine cultural orientation, prioritized the usefulness of MOOCs, focusing on achievement and long-term goals ([<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref91">70</reflink>]). This aligns with cultural expectations where education is linked to personal advancement and societal status ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref92">44</reflink>]). However, such a practical approach risks reducing engagement with broader learning. In contrast, Spanish students valued MOOCs for intrinsic, self-directed learning, reflecting a preference for individualism ([<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref93">70</reflink>]). These differences suggest online platforms should be adaptable, accommodating both utilitarian learners and those seeking exploratory experiences. Additionally, course design should consider cultural preferences for collaboration versus individual achievement ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref94">24</reflink>]).</p> <p>Similarly, gender and cultural factors also influenced online learning experiences. In Indonesia, where socio-cultural norms traditionally favor males, students exhibited cooperation and care in online learning, likely due to educational and religious influences ([<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref95">68</reflink>]). This finding underscores how gender norms and cultural dimensions, like masculinity versus femininity, shape online interactions and expectations. Online platforms should promote inclusive designs that encourage equal participation, especially in societies where traditional gender roles may limit engagement. Gender-inclusive education enhances learning by ensuring materials and activities are accessible to all students.</p> <p>Most participants from Sri Lanka and Mauritius noted that their students, from collectivist cultures, were less likely to challenge teachers' views. However, only 33% of Pakistani respondents agreed, suggesting that collectivism may be less influential in some contexts ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref96">32</reflink>]). In a comparative study between Spain and China, cultural backgrounds significantly impacted teachers' acceptance of MOOCs. Spanish teachers demonstrated stronger influence from social norms, reflecting collectivist tendencies, while Chinese teachers, despite their collectivist context, emphasized individual achievement ([<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref97">70</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref98">71</reflink>]). This paradox highlights that although collectivist societies typically value group harmony, educational environments may prioritize personal academic success ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref99">31</reflink>]). The Confucian emphasis on both individual achievement and societal contribution in Chinese culture further complicates the collectivism-individualism dichotomy in education. Thus, designing MOOCs and other online platforms should address both individual aspirations and collective learning objectives.</p> <p>The "OASISTAN" cross-cultural simulation game offers an innovative way to explore cultural dynamics by immersing students in role-playing scenarios that highlight differences in cultural dimensions like power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and collectivism versus individualism ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref100">14</reflink>]). Such games provide an experiential learning platform where students can safely confront and reflect on their cultural biases, fostering a deeper understanding of how these dimensions influence real-world interactions. This type of learning is crucial for preparing students for global education, equipping them with skills to navigate and bridge cultural differences—an essential competence in the digital age.</p> <p>From the above analysis, it is evident that the embodiment of cultural dimensions in online education significantly influences the behaviors and expectations of learners and teachers. However, these cultural factors do not operate in isolation. They are closely linked to political, historical, and socioeconomic contexts, complicating the global implementation of online education ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref101">31</reflink>], p. 20). Without nuanced understanding of these intersecting factors, global online education risks reinforcing rather than reducing cultural inequalities. Educators and platform developers must adopt a flexible, culturally responsive approach to online education that addresses diverse learning needs. Integrating cultural sensitivity into online learning design can make education more inclusive, equitable, and effective globally.</p> <hd id="AN0186372623-16">Mental Health and Academic Achievement</hd> <p>In examining the impact of cultural dimensions on students' mental health and academic achievement, a variety of studies from different countries and educational backgrounds provide valuable insights.</p> <p>Studies show that power distance affects students' behavior and self-efficacy. Filipino students from high power-distance cultures reported greater anxiety and lower math self-efficacy than their American and Korean peers ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref102">35</reflink>]). This suggests that hierarchical societies may discourage questioning authority, leading to increased anxiety and lower self-efficacy ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref103">35</reflink>]). This finding supports [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref104">21</reflink>] study, which found that students from high power-distance cultures often experience stress from conforming to hierarchical expectations, hindering their academic performance and engagement. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref105">35</reflink>] further argue that while high power distance may suppress autonomy, it also fosters strong dependence on teacher approval, limiting students' ability to develop independent learning skills.</p> <p>[<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref106">69</reflink>] supported this notion by showing that international medical graduates (IMGs) from high power-distance cultures tend to dominate counseling sessions, limiting patient engagement and fostering one-way communication. This mirrors the power imbalance in education, where students may hesitate to ask questions or express concerns, limiting their academic growth. In contrast, overseas-born students are less likely to face issues associated with low power distance ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref107">57</reflink>]), suggesting that exposure to egalitarian educational settings can enhance self-efficacy and reduce anxiety. Thus, addressing power distance in education could improve students' self-efficacy and communication skills, particularly in hierarchical cultures.</p> <p>The role of uncertainty avoidance in academic dishonesty is significant. [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref108">55</reflink>] found that Israeli students from high uncertainty avoidance cultures were less likely to report classmates' misconduct compared to their counterparts in low uncertainty avoidance cultures, like the United States. This indicates that uncertainty avoidance influences students' moral decision-making and their willingness to address deviant behavior. In high uncertainty avoidance cultures, students may avoid risk, even in moral situations, to maintain social harmony. This aligns with research suggesting that students from such cultures prioritize avoiding conflict over addressing unethical behavior ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref109">15</reflink>]). However, while high uncertainty avoidance may reduce the likelihood of reporting academic dishonesty, it also interacts with other factors like institutional norms and peer influences, which significantly shape students' behavior ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref110">15</reflink>]). This raises questions about the generalizability of these findings across different educational systems.</p> <p>A study on loneliness and smartphone addiction among Chinese international students found that students in collectivist cultures were more likely to experience loneliness, which led to greater smartphone use and addiction ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref111">33</reflink>]). This finding aligns with the broader pattern in collectivist societies, where social relationships are highly valued, and the loss of these connections in a foreign environment can lead to increased psychological distress. Smartphone addiction may act as a coping mechanism for students to compensate for the lack of direct social interactions typical in collectivist cultures ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref112">31</reflink>]). However, the extent to which smartphone addiction exacerbates mental health issues may vary depending on individual resilience and available support systems within the academic environment ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref113">31</reflink>]). Regarding self-efficacy, individualism emerged as a significant predictor of higher self-efficacy, as students from individualistic cultures emphasize personal achievement and autonomy ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref114">35</reflink>]). This reflects the cultural value placed on independence and self-direction, but also raises concerns about the potential for heightened stress among students in individualistic cultures due to pressure to succeed without the support of a collectivist network ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref115">27</reflink>]).</p> <p>[<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref116">47</reflink>] highlighted the importance of long-term orientation in balancing math achievement and subjective well-being (SWB). In long-term oriented cultures, perseverance and forward planning are highly valued, leading to better academic outcomes and greater satisfaction with life ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref117">47</reflink>]). This is supported by several studies showing that students from long-term oriented cultures, such as East Asia, tend to approach challenges with a focus on future success rather than short-term gains ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref118">57</reflink>]). However, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref119">54</reflink>] highlighted that this emphasis on long-term goals can sometimes undermine students' immediate well-being, particularly in competitive educational environments where performance pressure is intense. A focus on long-term success can lead to stress and burnout if not properly managed. Thus, while long-term orientation fosters persistence and resilience, educational systems must provide holistic support to prevent compromising students' psychological well-being in the pursuit of academic excellence.</p> <p>The effects of indulgence versus restraint on students' well-being and self-efficacy were evident in studies by [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref120">35</reflink>] and [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref121">47</reflink>]. Cultures that emphasize restraint may foster a disciplined approach to learning, balancing academic achievement with self-control. However, such cultures may also limit creative risk-taking, which is crucial for innovation and problem-solving in academics. In contrast, indulgent cultures encourage students to explore new ideas and take risks, but may lack the structure for sustained success ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref122">6</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref123">35</reflink>] found that students from indulgent cultures had higher self-efficacy, suggesting that environments fostering risk-taking help students challenge themselves and build confidence. However, indulgence may also lead to distractions if not balanced with clear academic goals, highlighting the need for a balance between freedom and discipline ([<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref124">77</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref125">69</reflink>] found no significant differences between masculinity and femininity dimensions, they noted that disease-focused biomedical language was more common in male-dominated cultures. This suggests that cultural norms around masculinity may influence problem-solving and communication in educational and professional settings. However, similar patterns can also occur in traditionally feminine cultures, indicating that factors like professional training or institutional culture may have a greater impact on behavior ([<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref126">69</reflink>]).</p> <p>Certainly, some studies have yielded contrasting results. For example, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref127">41</reflink>] found no significant link between cultural learning preferences and TOEFL ITP scores among Japanese students. This suggests that cultural dimensions may not always impact academic outcomes, or that standardized tests like the TOEFL may lack sensitivity to capture cultural differences in learning ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref128">41</reflink>]). It highlights the limitations of standardized testing in assessing the complex interaction between culture and academic performance.</p> <p>In conclusion, these studies emphasize the important impact of cultural factors on students' mental health and academic performance. Understanding the interplay of cultural values—such as power distance, individualism versus collectivism, long-term versus short-term orientation, and indulgence versus restraint—offers insights into student success. However, culture is dynamic, especially in a globalized educational context, where students navigate multiple cultural influences affecting their mental health and academic outcomes. Thus, educational practices and policies must be adaptable and culturally responsive to support student success and well-being in diverse environments.</p> <hd id="AN0186372623-17">Conclusion</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186372623-18">Conclusions and Discussion</hd> <p>This study conducted a systematic review to evaluate the status of the application of cultural dimensions theory in the field of education. Through analyzing journal articles published in WOS, Scopus, and ProQuest, the review aimed to capture the complexity of the topic and provide a comprehensive understanding of how education is influenced by cultural dimensions. The findings reveal a growing interest in the application of cultural dimensions theory in education, particularly in the context of globalization and increasing cross-cultural exchanges. The research trends indicate that attention to this topic has gradually stabilized and shown an upward trend from 2016 to 2023. Scholars from various countries, including China, the United States, Israel, and the United Kingdom, have contributed to this research area, with a notable concentration of studies from Chinese institutions.</p> <p>The review identified two main focuses of existing research: cultural dimensions and educational administration, and cultural dimensions and teaching and learning. In the realm of educational administration, cultural dimensions such as power distance, individualism versus collectivism, and long-term orientation have significantly impacted educational management and leadership practices. The findings suggest that cultural attributes play a crucial role in shaping educational leadership authority and influencing organizational improvement programs ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref129">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref130">23</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref131">53</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref132">59</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref133">64</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref134">66</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref135">76</reflink>]).</p> <p>In terms of teaching and learning, the review highlights the significant influence of cultural factors on teaching practices, online education, and the interplay between mental health and academic achievement. Cultural dimensions such as collectivism, power distance, and uncertainty avoidance have been shown to affect teaching and learning environments ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref136">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref137">10</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref138">19</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref139">20</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref140">38</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref141">52</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref142">61</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref143">73</reflink>]), online course design ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref144">14</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref145">32</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref146">68</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref147">70</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref148">71</reflink>]), and students' mental health and achievement ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref149">33</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref150">35</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref151">41</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref152">47</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref153">54</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref154">55</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref155">57</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref156">69</reflink>]).</p> <p>Despite valuable insights, current research has several limitations. Many studies are small-scale and rely on self-reported data, which can introduce bias. Additionally, much of the research focuses on specific cultural contexts, limiting generalizability. Future research should prioritize larger, diverse samples and employ varied methodologies, including cross-cultural and longitudinal studies, to better understand how cultural dimensions influence education globally and explore the relationship between culture, mental health, and academic achievement.</p> <hd id="AN0186372623-19">Implications and Suggestions</hd> <p>The findings of this systematic review underscore the critical importance of cultural sensitivity in shaping effective educational practices and policies. Educators and policymakers must recognize and adapt to the diverse cultural backgrounds of learners to enhance engagement and learning outcomes. For instance, in high power distance cultures, adopting more participative leadership styles can foster autonomy and engagement among both teachers and students. Similarly, in collectivist cultures, collaborative learning approaches may be particularly effective in promoting student achievement and well-being.</p> <p>The review also highlights the importance of considering cultural dimensions in the design and delivery of online education. As online learning becomes increasingly prevalent, aligning course design with the cultural preferences of learners—such as providing structured environments for high uncertainty avoidance cultures—can significantly enhance learning experiences and outcomes.</p> <p>Furthermore, addressing cultural dimensions is shown to positively impact students' mental health and academic performance. Educational institutions should prioritize culturally inclusive environments that meet the diverse needs of students, thus promoting their well-being and academic success.</p> <hd id="AN0186372623-20">Limitations</hd> <p>This systematic review contributes to the literature by analyzing the application of Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory in education, highlighting its influence on educational administration, teaching practices, online education, and the relationship between mental health and academic achievement. It offers insights for educators and policymakers to develop culturally sensitive strategies.</p> <p>However, there are limitations to consider. First, the review is based on articles retrieved from specific databases (WOS, Scopus, ProQuest) and limited to English-language publications, which may introduce language bias and overlook relevant studies in other languages. This could limit the diversity of perspectives, especially from non-English-speaking regions. Second, the search focused on keywords related to Hofstede's dimensions, which might have excluded research using other frameworks or terminologies. Future reviews could expand to include models like Schwartz's value dimensions or the GLOBE study to provide a more comprehensive understanding of culture's influence on education.</p> <hd id="AN0186372623-21">Future Research</hd> <p>Future research should expand beyond Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory by incorporating frameworks like Schwartz's value theory and the GLOBE study, enabling a more nuanced understanding of cultural influences in education. Cross-cultural comparative and longitudinal studies are needed to identify universally applicable and culturally specific educational strategies and to explore the evolving impact of cultural dimensions on student outcomes over time. Empirical studies, including experimental or quasi-experimental research, should validate theoretical insights and assess the effectiveness of culturally adapted interventions. Furthermore, with the rise of online and hybrid learning, future research should explore how cultural dimensions impact student engagement and success in digital environments, guiding the development of culturally responsive learning experiences.</p> <ref id="AN0186372623-22"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref49" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Afandi P., Supeno B. (2016). The influence of competence, organization culture and work environment to teacher's performance as well as its implication on grad competence of state senior Islam schools on Padang City. International Journal of Business and Management, 11(5), 283. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v11n5p283</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref50" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Akanji B., Mordi C., Ituma A., Adisa T. A., Ajonbadi H. (2020). The influence of organisational culture on leadership style in higher education institutions. Personnel Review, 49(3), 709–732. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-08-2018-0280</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref27" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Alkhadher O., Beehr T., Meng L. (2020). Individualism-collectivism and nation as moderators of the job satisfaction-organisational citizenship behaviour relationship in the United States, China, and Kuwait. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 23(4), 469–482. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12414</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref6" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Al-Obaydi L. H. (2019). Cultural diversity, awareness and teaching: A study in an EFL context. Journal of Asia TEFL, 16(3), 987–995. https://doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2019.16.3.15.987</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref83" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Alqarni A. M. (2022). Hofstede's cultural dimensions in relation to learning behaviours and learning styles: A critical analysis of studies under different cultural and language learning environments. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 18, 721–739.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref25" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Amzaleg M., Masry-Herzallah A. (2022). Cultural dimensions and skills in the 21st century: The Israeli education system as a case study. Pedagogy Culture and Society, 30(5), 765–785. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2021.1873170</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref41" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Aririguzoh S. (2022). Communication competencies, culture and SDGs: Effective processes to cross-cultural communication. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 9(1), 96. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01109-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref64" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Arun K., Kahraman Gedik N. (2020). Impact of Asian cultural values upon leadership roles and styles. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 88, 428–448.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref38" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Asakawa K., Csikszentmihalyi M. (2000). Feelings of connectedness and internalization of values in Asian American adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29(2), 121–145. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005146914355</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Asunka S. (2012). Identifying and addressing cultural barriers to faculty adoption and use of a learning management system in a Ghanaian University: A participatory action research approach. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 7(4), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.4018/jwltt.2012100102</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brough P. (Ed.) (2018). Advanced research methods for applied psychology: Design, analysis and reporting. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cao C., Zhu C., Meng Q. (2021). Chinese international students' coping strategies, social support resources in response to academic stressors: Does heritage culture or host context matter? Current Psychology, 40(1), 242–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9929-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daniels M. A., Greguras G. J. (2014). Exploring the nature of power distance: Implications for micro- and macro-level theories, processes, and outcomes. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1202–1229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527131</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Jong M., Warmelink H. (2017). Oasistan: An intercultural role-playing simulation game to recognize cultural dimensions. Simulation & Gaming, 48(2), 178–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878117691076</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DeWees B. R., Lerner J. S. (2020). Uncertainty avoidance. In Zeigler-Hill V., Shackelford T. K. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences (pp. 5647–5652). Springer International Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eden C. A., Chisom O. N., Adeniyi I. S. (2024). Cultural competence in education: Strategies for fostering inclusivity and diversity awareness. International Journal of Applied Research in Social Sciences, 6(3), 383–392. https://doi.org/10.51594/ijarss.v6i3.895</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Figlio D., Özek U. (2020). Cross-generational differences in educational outcomes in the second great wave of immigration. Education Finance and Policy, 15(4), 648–674. https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00283</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fuad D. R. S. M., Musa K., Hashim Z. (2022). Innovation culture in education: A systematic review of the literature. Management in Education, 36(3), 135–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020620959760</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fuangtharnthip P., Jaitui K., Pachimsawat P., Bhattarai B. P., Manopatanakul S., Kasetsuwan J. (2021). Cultural dimensions of dental students in a Thai university. Science, Engineering and Health Studies, 15, 21050010.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gach N. (2020). From totalitarianism to democracy: Building learner autonomy in Ukrainian higher education. Issues in Educational Research, 30, 532–554.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gargari R. B., Amani-Saribaglou J., Ghafour A., Jahadi N., Mahmoudi H. (2014). School culture, basic psychological needs, intrinsic motivation and academic achievement: testing a casual model. Mathematics Education Trends and Research, 2014, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5899/2014/metr-00050</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guo W., Lu J. (2018). Assessing instructional leadership from two mindsets in China: Power distance as a moderator. Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability, 30(4), 433–455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-018-9287-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamid M. A. (2017). Analysis of visual presentation of cultural dimensions: Culture demonstrated by pictures on homepages of universities in Pakistan. Journal of Marketing Communications, 23(6), 592–613. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2016.1147486</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Herrera-Pavo M. Á. (2021). Collaborative learning for virtual higher education. Learning Culture and Social Interaction, 28, 100437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2020.100437</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Herzog-Punzenberger B., Altrichter H., Brown M., Burns D., Nortvedt G. A., Skedsmo G., Wiese E., Nayir F., Fellner M., McNamara G., O'Hara J. (2020). Teachers responding to cultural diversity: Case studies on assessment practices, challenges and experiences in secondary schools in Austria, Ireland, Norway and Turkey. Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability, 32(3), 395–424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-020-09330-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hofstede G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online readings in psychology and culture, 2(1), 8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hofstede G. H., Hofstede G. J., Minkov M. (Eds.). (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind: Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hofstede G., Neuijen B., Ohayv D. D., Sanders G. (1990). Measuring organizational cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(2), 286. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393392</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> House R. J., Hanges P. J., Javidan M., Dorfman P. W., Gupta V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hsu N., Badura K. L., Newman D. A., Speach M. E. P. (2021). Gender, "masculinity," and "femininity": A meta-analytic review of gender differences in agency and communion. Psychological Bulletin, 147(10), 987–1011. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000343</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huang R. H., Liu D. J., Tlili A., Yang J. F. (2020). Handbook on facilitating flexible learning during educational disruption: The Chinese experience in maintaining undisrupted learning in COVID-19 outbreak. Smart Learning Institute of Beijing Normal University. https://<ulink href="http://www.researchgate.net/publication/339939064">www.researchgate.net/publication/339939064</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jayatilleke B. G., Gunawardena C. (2016). Cultural perceptions of online learning: Transnational faculty perspectives. Asian Association of Open Universities Journal, 11(1), 50–63. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAOUJ-07-2016-0019</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jiang Q., Li Y., Shypenka V. (2018). Loneliness, individualism, and smartphone addiction among international students in China. Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking, 21(11), 711–718. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2018.0115</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jie C., Jing L. (2015). An empirical study on different tendencies toward indulgence-restraint dimension from the intercultural perspective—In the case of Guangdong Province. Chinese Studies, 04(04), 116–126. https://doi.org/10.4236/chnstd.2015.44017</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jin R., Wu R., Xia Y., Zhao M. (2023). What cultural values determine student self-efficacy? An empirical study for 42 countries and economies. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1177415. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1177415</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jin Y. (2023). The rise of education globalization: Embracing opportunities and overcoming challenges. Advances in Economics and Management Research, 8(1), 62. https://doi.org/10.56028/aemr.8.1.62.2023</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kachel S., Steffens M. C., Niedlich C. (2016). Traditional masculinity and femininity: Validation of a new scale assessing gender roles. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 956. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00956</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaur A., Noman M. (2015). Exploring classroom practices in collectivist cultures through the lens of Hofstede's model. The Qualitative Report, 20(11), 1794–1811. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2015.2379</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koleśnik K. (2013). The role of culture in accounting in the light of Hofstede's, Gray's and schwartz's cultural dimensions theories: A literature review. e-Finanse: Financial Internet Quarterly, 9(3), 33–41.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Landis J. R., Koch G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lieb M. M. (2019). Investigating the relationship between cultural dimensions of learning and English language proficiency. TESL-EJ, 24(2), n2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu Y. (2020). Focusing on the practice of distributed leadership: The international evidence from the 2013 TALIS. Educational Administration Quarterly, 56(5), 779–818. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X20907128</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Manikutty S., Anuradha N. S., Hansen K. (2007). Does culture influence learning styles in higher education? International Journal of Learning and Change, 2(1), 70. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLC.2007.014896</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marginson S. (2016). The worldwide trend to high participation higher education: Dynamics of social stratification in inclusive systems. Higher Education, 72(4), 413–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0016-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Markus H. R., Kitayama S. (2010). Cultures and selves: A cycle of mutual constitution. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 420–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610375557</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McDiarmid G. W., Zhao Y. (2023). Time to rethink: Educating for a technology-transformed world. ECNU Review of Education, 6(2), 189–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/20965311221076493</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meng J., Liu S. (2022). Effects of culture on the balance between mathematics achievement and subjective wellbeing. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 894774. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.894774</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Minkov M., Hofstede G. (2012). Hofstede's fifth dimension: New evidence from the world values survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022110388567</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mitter C., Kuttner M., Duller C., Sommerauer P. (2024). Does national culture impact management control systems? A systematic literature review. Review of Managerial Science, 18(1), 209–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-023-00661-w</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ndiangui P., Zhang J., Ozfidan B., Halpern C. (2024). Navigating cross-cultural challenges: A phenomenological study on strategies for international faculty in higher education to support local students. Journal of Culture and Values in Education, 7(2), 284–297. https://doi.org/10.46303/jcve.2024.24</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neylon C. (2018). Arenas of productive conflict: Universities, peer review, conflict and knowledge [Preprint]. Humanities Commons. https://doi.org/10.17613/fkrd-6b54</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Obara H., Saiki T., Imafuku R., Fujisaki K., Suzuki Y. (2021). Influence of national culture on mentoring relationship: A qualitative study of Japanese physician-scientists. BMC Medical Education, 21(1), 300. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02744-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ólafsson R. F., Hansen B. (2022). Characteristics of the authority basis of Icelandic compulsory school principals in comparison to other TALIS countries. Education Sciences, 12(3), 219. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12030219</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Leary N., Salmon N., Clifford A. M. (2020). 'It benefits patient care': The value of practice-based IPE in healthcare curriculums. BMC Medical Education, 20(1), 424. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02356-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peled Y., Eshet Y., Barczyk C., Grinautski K. (2019). Predictors of academic dishonesty among undergraduate students in online and face-to-face courses. Computers & Education, 131, 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Proctor D. M., Dada N., Serquiña A., Willett J. L. E. (2023). Problems with peer review shine a light on gaps in scientific training. mBio, 14(3), e03183-22. https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.03183-22</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rojo J., Everett B., Ramjan L. M., Hunt L., Salamonson Y. (2020). Hofstede's cultural dimensions as the explanatory framework for performance issues during clinical placement: A mixed methods study. Nurse Education Today, 94, 104581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2020.104581</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwartz S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith R. (2006). Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99(4), 178–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/014107680609900414</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Steel P., Taras V., Uggerslev K., Bosco F. (2018). The happy culture: A theoretical, meta-analytic, and empirical review of the relationship between culture and wealth and subjective well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(2), 128–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868317721372</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stoten D. W. (2022). How relevant is cultural dimensions theory? An empirical study of Sri Lankan undergraduate business and management students. Higher Education for the Future, 9(2), 132–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/23476311211052117</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tang G., Chen Y., van Knippenberg D., Yu B. (2020). Antecedents and consequences of empowering leadership: Leader power distance, leader perception of team capability, and team innovation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(6), 551–566. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2449</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taras V., Steel P., Stackhouse M. (2023). A comparative evaluation of seven instruments for measuring values comprising Hofstede's model of culture. Journal of World Business, 58(1), 101386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2022.101386</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thomas S. (2017). Teacher empowerment: A focused ethnographic study in Brunei Darussalam. The Qualitative Report, 22(1), 47–72. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2017.2587</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tinmaz H., Ozturk Y. E. (2022). Analysis of student attitudes towards cooperative learning in a collectivist culture: A case of South Korea. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 12(6), 1154–1168. https://doi.org/10.1108/HESWBL-12-2021-0237</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trang T. T. (2023). Japanese educational culture in times of the COVID-19 pandemic. Policy Futures in Education, 21(2), 126–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/14782103211065606</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tsui A. S., Wang H., Xin K. R. (2006). Organizational culture in China: An analysis of culture dimensions and culture types. Management and Organization Review, 2(3), 345–376. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2006.00050.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Usman J., Zainuddin Z., Zulfikar T., Lugendo D. (2022). When online learning and cultural values intersect: Indonesian EFL students' voices. Issues in Educational Research, 32(3), 1196–1212.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Verma A., Griffin A., Dacre J., Elder A. (2016). Exploring cultural and linguistic influences on clinical communication skills: A qualitative study of international medical graduates. BMC Medical Education, 16(1), 162. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0680-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang K., Criado J. R., van Hemmen S. F. (2023). Comparative study of students' perception and behavioral intention in MOOC context: Undergraduates in China and Spain. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 33, 1129–1137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-023-00781-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang K., Van Hemmen S. F., Criado J. R. (2023). "Play" or "Labour", the perception of university teachers towards MOOCs: Moderating role of culture. Education and Information Technologies, 28(7), 7737–7762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11502-w</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang S. (2023). The impact of power distance on classroom equity in second language teaching in a cross-cultural communicative context [Conference session]. In Peng C. F., Du H. S., Yin T. S., Prabhu J., Li H. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2022 7th International Conference on Modern Management and Education Technology (MMET 2022) (pp. 466–471). Atlantis Press SARL. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-494069-51-0_64</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilbur K., BenSmail N., Ahkter S. (2019). Student feedback experiences in a cross-border medical education curriculum. International Journal of Medical Education, 10, 98–105. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.5ce1.149f</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woods J., Murzi H., Schuman A. (2021). Effects of uncertainty avoidance and country culture on perceptions of power distance in the learning process [Conference session]. 2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access Proceedings, 37016. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2–37016</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yan Y., Zhang J., Akhtar M. N., Liang S. (2021). Positive leadership and employee engagement: The roles of state positive affect and individualism-collectivism. Current Psychology, 42, 9109–9118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02192-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang S., Wang X. (2021). Effect of knowledge hiding on knowledge innovative behavior of innovative team members. Scientometrics, 126(8), 6423–6442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04047-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhao L., Mao H., Compton B. J., Peng J., Fu G., Fang F., Heyman G. D., Lee K. (2022). Academic dishonesty and its relations to peer cheating and culture: A meta-analysis of the perceived peer cheating effect. Educational Research and Reviews, 36, 100455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100455</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0186372623-23"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> Sha Ouyang</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Graph</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0009-1868 Wei Zhang</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Graph</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9283-6360 Liangyong Xue</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Graph</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4081-0230 Abdullah Mat Rashid</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Graph https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3424-8480</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The data extraction sheet used in this review is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Sha Ouyang; Wei Zhang; Liangyong Xue; Abdullah Mat Rashid; How Shwu Pyng and Aminuddin Bin Hassan</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref124"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref127"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1477212
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Cultural Compass: A Systematic Review on Cultural Dimensions Theory in Educational Settings
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sha+Ouyang%22">Sha Ouyang</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0009-1868">0000-0002-0009-1868</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wei+Zhang%22">Wei Zhang</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9283-6360">0000-0002-9283-6360</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Liangyong+Xue%22">Liangyong Xue</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4081-0230">0000-0002-4081-0230</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Abdullah+Mat+Rashid%22">Abdullah Mat Rashid</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3424-8480">0000-0002-3424-8480</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22How+Shwu+Pyng%22">How Shwu Pyng</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Aminuddin+Bin+Hassan%22">Aminuddin Bin Hassan</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22SAGE+Open%22"><i>SAGE Open</i></searchLink>. 2025 15(2).
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 20
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Information Analyses<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Theories%22">Educational Theories</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cultural+Influences%22">Cultural Influences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Leadership%22">Leadership</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Practices%22">Educational Practices</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Administration%22">Educational Administration</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Behavior%22">Teacher Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Behavior%22">Student Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Culturally+Relevant+Education%22">Culturally Relevant Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Research%22">Educational Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Trends%22">Educational Trends</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+Methodology%22">Research Methodology</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22China%22">China</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Japan%22">Japan</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Israel%22">Israel</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+Kingdom%22">United Kingdom</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Australia%22">Australia</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Brunei%22">Brunei</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Canada%22">Canada</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ghana%22">Ghana</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Iceland%22">Iceland</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Indonesia%22">Indonesia</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ireland%22">Ireland</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Malaysia%22">Malaysia</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Nigeria%22">Nigeria</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Spain%22">Spain</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sri+Lanka%22">Sri Lanka</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Thailand%22">Thailand</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ukraine%22">Ukraine</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+States%22">United States</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Vietnam%22">Vietnam</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1177/21582440251342160
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 2158-2440
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Analyzing 28 articles from databases including WOS, Scopus, and ProQuest, this systematic review investigates the application of Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory in education. It reveals a sustained scholarly interest in cultural dimensions with substantial contributions from scholars in China, Japan, Israel, and the UK. The study focuses on the impact of cultural dimensions on educational management and their influence on teaching and learning behaviors. Significant findings indicate that key dimensions--power distance, individualism versus collectivism, and long-term orientation--affect educational management behaviors, leadership practices behaviors, teaching and learning behaviors. The review emphasizes the necessity of cultural sensitivity in educational practices and policies, advising educators and policymakers to adapt their approaches to diverse cultural contexts. While offering valuable insights into the development of culturally sensitive educational strategies in the context of globalization, the review also acknowledges limitations such as publication bias and calls for more empirical research.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1477212
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1477212
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1177/21582440251342160
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 20
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Educational Theories
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cultural Influences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Leadership
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Practices
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Administration
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Culturally Relevant Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Trends
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research Methodology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: China
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Japan
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Israel
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: United Kingdom
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Australia
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Brunei
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Canada
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ghana
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Iceland
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Indonesia
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ireland
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Malaysia
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Nigeria
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Spain
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Sri Lanka
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Thailand
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ukraine
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: United States
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Vietnam
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Cultural Compass: A Systematic Review on Cultural Dimensions Theory in Educational Settings
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sha Ouyang
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wei Zhang
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Liangyong Xue
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Abdullah Mat Rashid
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: How Shwu Pyng
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Aminuddin Bin Hassan
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 04
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2158-2440
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 15
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: SAGE Open
              Type: main
ResultId 1