Cultural Adaptation
Report on the Cultural Adaptation on the PG Students in Middlesex University
Executive Summary:
When new students attend university in a new culture from their own culture, behaviors and expectations change. According to Zhou at el (2008), traditionally researchers thought that culture shock was only about medical conditions. Historical theory has changed to contemporary theory of acculturation. This theory contains of cultural learning, stress and coping and social identification. We found that now people acculturate more easily than in the past. The former idea about acculturation was on medical basis but now this idea has changed into contemporary approach of acculturation. The implication of this research is that it can be used to produce information on the basis of the analysis. New students can take guidance from it.
Contents
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………….3
Finding………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….4
Analysis ……………………………………………………………………….……………………………………….5
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………….………………………………7
References……………………………………………………………………………………………………………8
Appendices…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..9
Introduction:
This report describes the idea of acculturation which is the contemporary approach. The contemporary approach introduced by Zhou et al (2008) concerned about culture learning, stress and coping and social identification. The culture shock was related to the students who suffered both physically and psychologically. The acculturation has three basic components these are Affective, behavioral, cognitive. According to Tayeb (1996 in Boddy and Parton, 1998) contrasts in nation culture she took two countries America and Japan for example she mentioned culture divided into high context and low context, view of change and time orientation. Furthermore, Hofstede (1991) comparison of national culture includes power distance, uncertainty
Executive Summary:
When new students attend university in a new culture from their own culture, behaviors and expectations change. According to Zhou at el (2008), traditionally researchers thought that culture shock was only about medical conditions. Historical theory has changed to contemporary theory of acculturation. This theory contains of cultural learning, stress and coping and social identification. We found that now people acculturate more easily than in the past. The former idea about acculturation was on medical basis but now this idea has changed into contemporary approach of acculturation. The implication of this research is that it can be used to produce information on the basis of the analysis. New students can take guidance from it.
Contents
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………….3
Finding………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….4
Analysis ……………………………………………………………………….……………………………………….5
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………….………………………………7
References……………………………………………………………………………………………………………8
Appendices…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..9
Introduction:
This report describes the idea of acculturation which is the contemporary approach. The contemporary approach introduced by Zhou et al (2008) concerned about culture learning, stress and coping and social identification. The culture shock was related to the students who suffered both physically and psychologically. The acculturation has three basic components these are Affective, behavioral, cognitive. According to Tayeb (1996 in Boddy and Parton, 1998) contrasts in nation culture she took two countries America and Japan for example she mentioned culture divided into high context and low context, view of change and time orientation. Furthermore, Hofstede (1991) comparison of national culture includes power distance, uncertainty
References: Zhou,Y, D. Jindal-Snape, K. Topping & J Todman, 2008 ‘Theoretical models of culture shock and adaptation in international students in higher education ’, in Studies in Higher Education, vol 33/1, pp 63-75. Boddy D & Paton R, 1998, The International context of management, in Management, Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall, pp 88-97.