Results

Individualism vs.Collectivism

The quantitative questions on individualism clearly state that Sweden is an individualist country meanwhile the questions on collectivism conclude that the Chinese are more collectivist apart from one question showing that the Swedes are more collectivist from the Chinese side and no difference between the two cultures from the Swedish side.The disparity might be due to the respondents’different understanding of the statements caused by the language itself.The question，which obtains the biggest disparity in the means among six questions on this dimension from the Chinese side，states that Chinese students do not like to speak up in class unless a teacher addresses a particular student，while the biggest disparity in the means from the Swedish side states that in Sweden confrontation in learning situations can be salutary and conflicts can be brought into the open.Concerning the reasons for Chinese students’unwillingness to speak up in the class，besides the one that Chinese educational tradition places little value on self-expression there are other practical ones，such as，being afraid of losing face，of being looked upon as showoffs by classmates，and no point in speaking if nothing valuable to contribute，to name a few.In addition，Chinese education tends to be teacher-centered with little two-way communication（Hofstede，1991）.The results from the Swedish side show that confrontations and open discussion of conflicts are often considered salutary in Swedish schools，which gives the Swedes more inclinations toward individualism.The answers from both sides agree that face-consciousness is weaker in Swedish schools than in Chinese schools though the difference between the two is slight.

Further qualitative data on the dimension were obtained from the author's intermittent participation in an international master program class with 3 Northern American students，4 Swedish students，3 Chinese students，1 Vietnamese student and 1 African student in it.The interactive behavior between the teachers and students has been observed through attending the lectures and seminars for a semester.The finding came to that the American students were the most active speakers in the classroom activities，followed by the Swedish students.Chinese students were among those who seldom expressed their views and opinions in class.

One Swedish student gives his comments on the dimension，which shows Chinese's orientations toward collectivism：

It is much more difficult to become isolated outside or inside class in China.In Sweden，your problems（from studies to health）remain yours，while in China they become a concern not only for the teacher but also for the whole community，i.e.，the class.

In regard to the unconformable result on one question four respondents were asked about the reasons of their choices of the opposite answers after the results came out.The different understanding and interpretations on the question and some other questions in the questionnaire given by them reveal that the language interferes in persons’choices when a questionnaire is not designed in respondents’native language.Therefore the deviance from the expected answers on some questions might find its reason in the language（English）used in the questionnaire.

The mean of the difference rating between China and Sweden in total questions on individualism vs.collectivism（0.81 from the Chinese side and 0.82 from the Swedish side，see the appendix），which is the lowest score among Hofstede's four dimensions tested，indicates that there is not a great distinction between Chinese’collectivist and Swedes’individualist orientations.The results provide clear support for Hypothesis 1 in terms of the degree of individualistic or collectivist orientations since both China and Sweden belong to the horizontal countries，according to Triandis（1995），though they were ranked，respectively，as a collectivist country and an individualist one in Hofstede's（1980）survey.

Power Distance

The questions asked on this dimension，with an average highest score in the mean of the difference ratings（1.76 from the Chinese side and 1.16 from the Swedish side）and the lowest and second lowest scores in the standard deviations（0.81 for China and 0.84 for Sweden），thus the highest design reliability，point unanimously and distinctively to one result：the power distance in teacher-student relationship in China is quite high，whereas the one in Sweden is rather low.The results strongly support Hypothesis 2 in terms of the extent of the power differential：both Chinese and Swedish respondents conceive Chinese teachers to be significantly more superordinate to their students.As a proof，the question 13，which gains the biggest difference rating（2.70）from Chinese side，clearly shows that in China，a large power distance country，students seldom speak up spontaneously with a teacher in class，whereas in Sweden，a small power distance country，students are quite likely to speak up spontaneously with a teacher in class.The question 14，which obtains the biggest difference rating（1.78）from Swedish side，distinctly shows that Chinese students seldom contradict nor publicly criticize teachers while Swedish students are more likely to contradict and criticize teachers publicly.In China，teacher-student role pair bears a strong resemblance to parent-child role pair，which is characterized as one of the most hierarchical relations in the society.Teachers are looked upon as authority，experts，and parents and hence should be treated with great respect.The Chinese educational process tends to be teacher-centered and normally it is teachers who outline the intellectual paths for students to follow.Students，on the other hand，usually present themselves in classroom as an attentive，respectful，and above all，passive audience.They neither contradict nor criticize teachers publicly.

Further information about superordination in the Chinese teacher-student role relationship was obtained from the qualitative data.In terms of the questionnaire comments，eleven Chinese respondents add some general comments on teacher-student relationship.Nine of these comments draw an explicit distinction between the teacher-student relationships in China and Sweden concerning the power differential.They state that in China the teacher-student relationship is unequal and students should respect teachers，while in Sweden the teacher-student relationship is equal and students have more freedom to study and do their research.Three of them（one is from Taiwan）are as follows：

In China，teacher-student relationship is like an older-younger relationship.You cannot cross the line and you must obey the rule.In Sweden，they（teacher and student）are friends or，at least，equal.

The way of communication in class in China is one-directional，i.e.，from teacher to student.A classroom discussion is not on an equal basis，but asking and answering on unequal status.

In Sweden，the interaction between teachers and students is more active than Taiwan.Teachers encourage students to state their opinions and make suggestions.

In Taiwan，the class is dominated by teachers.Students just follow teachers’ideas.

Three of the Swedish respondents also add comments in relation to power distance in their questionnaire.Among them two state as follows：

Chinese teacher-student relation seems overall stricter.

I think that teaching in China is much stricter than in Sweden.

Only one Swedish respondent expresses his ideas which are different from others：

I have had more rewarding outside class from the discussions with Chinese teachers and professors than with Swedish equivalents.In China it happened more than once that lecturers called me and expressed their opinions on my essays.

This comment consists with Pye's（1985）argument which emphasizes the contrast between Asian and Western concepts of power.Power is often associated negatively with domination or authoritarianism in the West，whereas power is positively associated with benevolence，kindness，nurturance，and supportiveness in Asia.Spencer-Oatey（1997）did a comparative study of tutor-student relations in Britain and China and found that the distance/closeness of unequal relationships was regarded as closer in high power distance societies than in low power distance societies.

The results from the questions on the above two dimensions also provide clear support for Hypothesis 3 that Chinese teachers and students are more face conscious and have stronger sense of keeping up the harmony in the relations.One Chinese respondent states in his comment：

In China，（teacher-student relationships）tend to be based more on social orientation；in Sweden，（they）tend to be based more on research or study.

In regard to question 13，which states that students may speak up spontaneously with a teacher in class in China，it is interesting to find that Chinese respondents give a rather low score（1.90），whereas Swedish respondents give a rather high score（3.22）.The difference between the two might find its reason in the following comments made by two Swedish respondents：

It is important to see that when we foreigners study in China，we are placed in special classes with teachers that are experienced to teach foreigners.We do not necessarily see the true，traditional way of Chinese teaching.

Since my experience from studies in China is taken from the courses with only foreigners in them，the answers（to Chinese teacher and student reactions）are not based on my own experience.

Since all of Swedish respondents went to China to study the language and were placed in special classes with other foreign students，they might still conduct the behavior which is appropriate for Swedish students in Swedish classes—to speak up spontaneously with a teacher.

All in all，the survey on this dimension completely supports the hypotheses.It is also reasonable to conclude that Hofstede's work on this dimension is reliable as far as this study is concerned.

Uncertainty Avoidance

The second biggest mean rating of the difference scores between China and Sweden was found on the questions on this dimension from both Chinese and Swedish sides，which unequivocally shows that the Chinese are more prone to avoid uncertainty than the Swedes.Chinese students，in a strong uncertainty avoidance country，expect their teachers to be the experts who should have all the answers to whatever questions，while in Sweden，a weak uncertainty avoidance country，students accept a teacher's“I don't know”.In addition，teachers in China are more likely to interpret their students’academic disagreement as personal disloyalty.The question which is most correspondent with Hofstede's survey on the dimension from Chinese respondents（the mean rating of the difference：1.40）in the study is that Chinese students prefer more structured learning situations with precise objectives，detailed assignments，and strict timetables，which clear supports Hypothesis 4.The Swedish respondents give their biggest mean difference to question 4，which shows that teachers in China are more expected to have all answers than those in Sweden.

However，the scores from both sides in one question do not concur with the expected answer，i.e.，Chinese teachers are more expected to suppress emotions.The reason for the opposite direction from the Hofstede's might be that teachers，in China，are considered to be the models for students in every respect.Therefore they should not show and express their emotions before students.The point is，in a way，connected to the interpersonal relationship on the collectivist dimension.But there is one Swedish respondent who voices his different opinions on this question：

Concerning openness，Chinese teachers are often much opener about their private life and emotions than Swedish equivalents.In Sweden the role of the teacher is clearer than in China.In Sweden，private is holy，and you try to keep that separate from your work.

Masculinity vs.Femininity

All the answers to the questions，except one from Chinese side and two from Swedish side，on this dimension meet the expectations，which verifies the theory that China is a masculine country，whereas Sweden is a feminine one.The mean rating of the difference scores between China and Sweden on the dimension provides support for Hypothesis 5 in terms of the degree of competitive atmosphere among students.In China，a masculine country，teachers use the best students as the norm and openly praise or criticize students.Every year“the three good”（morality，intelligence and physical education）students are selected at schools（primary，secondary schools and universities）to set examples for other students to follow.Some schools even proclaim students’ranks of the results in mid-term and final exams to encourage students to compete with each other.In regard to job choices，the question，which obtained the biggest disparity in the mean of the difference scores on masculinity vs.femininity from both Chinese and Swedish sides，shows that the Chinese students take less intrinsic interests into consideration than the Swedish students do when they choose their academic subjects.It stands to reason that the competition for entering universities in China is so high that students have to give first priority to other factors for raising the chances of entrance than to their personal interests.Moreover，the results also reveal that Chinese male students are more likely to avoid traditionally feminine academic subjects than Swedish male students though the disparity between them is not big.

One question that does not identify with the expected result on the dimension from both Chinese and Swedish respondents is that Chinese students behave more modestly in class than Swedish students，which contradicts the features of a masculine culture.According to Hofstede（1986，1991），students in a masculine country try to make themselves visible in class.However，the result points in an opposite direction.The reason why it should be so lies possibly in that Chinese traditional values emphasize modesty as one of human's virtues as a number of Chinese social scientists rank“humbleness”fourth in forty fundamental and basic values for Chinese people（the Chinese Culture Connection，1987）.Moreover，Mao's theories have had a great effect on the people's values since 1949.“Modesty helps one to go forward，whereas conceit makes one lag behind”is one of Mao's best-known instructions.Therefore it is considered an inappropriate behavior in China for a person to make a display of his abilities，or knowledge，or achievements before other people though he may possess all these merits and advantages.The above reasons might have a notable impact on the Chinese students’choices of the question.

Another contradicting result from only Swedish respondents is on question 28，which states that system rewards students’academic performance（not social adaptation）.The Swedish respondents give a slightly higher score to the Swedish educational system，which puts Sweden a bit on a masculine side.The reasons for Swedish respondents’choice of the question are worthy of further inquiry.

To sum up，the expectations on this dimension are primarily confirmed.

Communication

The only question on this dimension shows that there exists no great disparity（the mean rating of the difference scores is 0.73 from Chinese side and 0.11 from Swedish side）in the ways of communication between Chinese teachers and students and Swedish teachers and students，which quite supports Hypothesis 6.Instead of vague，restricted，implicit and indirect ways to communicate with students teachers in China use，comparatively，more explicit and direct ways to communicate because teachers are supposed to be in a superior position than students，hence a more straightforward way of addressing students.