The classroom context

A number of students commented that a fear of failure prevented them from speaking out in class. They were worried what other students might be thinking and this

inhibited them from asking questions or contributing ideas. Rather, students

expressed a preference for small group situations, particularly with other Pacific Island students, where they could feel more comfortable about asking questions and could gain mutual support with their learning. Their comments suggested that their

perception of other students influenced the way they operated in the classroom. The students’ preference for operating interdependently in groups and their self-conscious attitude to speaking out in class suggest that the collective nature of their cultural background influenced how they acted in a classroom setting. In a collectivist culture, the individual recognises the identity of the self in relation to others. A collectivist culture promotes mutual dependence and encourages participants to feel involved with other members of the group (Gore et al., 2011; Raeff, Greenfield, & Quiroz, 2000; Trumbull, 2003).

The students, in effect, operated within two potentially contrasting value systems: individualism and collectivism. School systems generally support the value system of the dominant culture which has a Westernised, individualised perspective that promotes independence and self-reliance (Trumbull, 2003). The New Zealand curriculum, whilst acknowledging the importance of “relating to others” as a key competency, also states that “managing self” is a vital skill. Students who successfully

self-manage know how to develop personal goals and take responsibility for their own learning. Quite specifically, students should know “when and how to act

independently” (Ministry of Education, 2007, p. 12). For some student participants, this may have seemed incongruent with their background cultural values where independent actions may not have been prioritised.

The curriculum not only encourages personal responsibility but it also expects students to develop skills in critical thinking. This can be noted, for example, through the choice of vocabulary used for setting out the core values which underpin the curriculum. For example, students should: “Express their own values” and “critically analyse values” as well as “discuss disagreements that arise from differences in values” (Ministry of Education, 2007).

For students to be able to discuss and express their own ideas, they need to be proactive and engaged in interaction. Human development is affected by the quality of regular interaction which takes place at the micro-level, in this case the classroom (Bronfenbrenner, (1977, 1994, 1999). A potentially negative side to operating interdependently is that it can suppress personal development as the needs of the group take precedence (Pettit, 1987, p. 547). Gore et al. (2011) consider this issue in the school setting. They argue that students from a collectivist culture tend to

conform to each other, focusing on relationship maintenance at the cost of striving for individual success that might risk separation from the crowd (p. 6).

This might explain why some students said that they elected not to speak out in class. To speak out would make them stand out as an individual when the relationship with their peers is a higher priority. Trumbull (2003) adds that the hierarchical structure often found in collective cultures means that independent thought is discouraged among children because they are expected to listen and respect the knowledge of their teachers. The literature review of Ferguson et al. (2008) confirms this point of view with research findings that Pacific Island parents encourage their children to listen (p. 36). Likewise, this was something that the parent participants of my study acknowledged, saying that they emphasised to their children that they should listen in class. Whilst the school curriculum encourages a proactive approach to learning, students generally decided to keep a low profile in class. Their passive approach

potentially inhibited opportunities to develop critical thinking which is promoted in the New Zealand curriculum.

The students, therefore, operated in different, and sometimes opposing, value systems – between those of school and those of the home. In Bronfenbrenner’s model, the school and the home were both microsystems in which the student interacted. These microsystems were influenced by different values. Rather than make connections between these two worlds (in the mesosystem), students elected to keep them as separate as they could. Their decision was reflected in the way they avoided

conversations with parents about their academic progress. This is not a new finding. Hill and Hawk (1998) reported that Pacific students kept their lives separated into different worlds, keeping a distance between them. This included keeping information about school from parents and information about home and church separate from school. Siope (2011) reported a similar story about her upbringing as a child of Samoan migrants. She chose to avoid speaking to her parents, although she recognised that keeping her parents out of her school world was unhelpful to her learning. Thus the students in my study echoed research conducted some years ago in different school contexts.

Given that some of the parents of the student participants were educated in the New Zealand school system, one might have expected students to be more adaptable or willing to bridge the gap between the two worlds. The Canadian-based research of Kwak (2003) investigated family relationships within immigrant families and showed how these families learn to live in two cultures. Second-generation children (or third, as some students in my study were) acquire their cultural heritage from the family context but also learn to adapt to the dominant culture in which they live. From a socio-cultural point of view, individuals continually negotiate meaning through social interaction, and in doing so, cultural values are also negotiated and transformed (Kwak, 2003, p. 116). One area in which cultural values are negotiated is in parent- adolescent interactions. Tension can occur as parents transmit the values and social norms within their culture whilst adolescents press for autonomy as part of their socialisation and development in the dominant culture (Kwak, 2003; Raeff et al., 2000, p. 60.). There may be less friction in parent-child interactions with adolescents from

collectivist cultures, where interdependence and strong family cohesion are emphasised, as the adolescents are less likely to embrace autonomous behaviour (Kwak, 2003, p. 132). It is possible, therefore, that some of the Pacific students elected not to talk to their parents in order to avoid the difficulty of explaining different values and creating friction within the family. Instead they preferred to separate their worlds and adapt as best as they saw fit. Even when parents had been educated in New Zealand, students often chose not to keep their parents informed if they perceived their parents did not comprehend their school world.

An issue raised by this research, therefore, was the continuing preference for students to separate their worlds. Rather than act as a conduit between home and school, so that parents were better able to support, they preferred not to build bridges. Their parents’ strong emphasis on the importance of academic success may have deterred students from feeling they could engage in conversation and be truthful about their progress. Also core values which parents and their students shared around the collectivist nature of acting interdependently may have contributed to the passive approach adopted by students in class and in communication with their parents. Both parents and students agreed that conversations regarding academic progress could be beneficial but parents were not necessarily able to give appropriate advice due to a lack of familiarity with the school system and their child’s reticence to communicate with them.