skip to main content


Vol.2, Issue 2, 2016, pp.89-103 /Full text

DOI: ☍

Author: Ellie Boyadzhieva

South-West University Neofit Rilski, Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria

Pluralism, multiculturalism, leaner autonomy and motivation have become buzz expressions discussed widely both by the Common European Framework of Reference and the European Centre for Modern Languages. However, despite the hard work to implement these new approaches in the classroom, some countries seem to be more adaptive compared to others. In the author’s opinion, the answer is rooted in the specifics of national cultures. The article discusses the roles of teacher and student as an archetypal case of micro social organization as they reveal typical patterns of social behaviour. Provided is a detailed description of the specifics of the Bulgarian national culture along the six dimensions of Hofstede’s theory of organizations and cultures with regard to the educational system. The readiness of the Bulgarian teachers and students to comply with the concepts of pluralistic approaches, multiculturalism, learner–centred teaching and autonomy in the Bulgarian classroom are explored. The general conclusion is that these ideas are highly culture-sensitive and the success of their implementation depends on the closeness of the cultures where they emerged and the recipient countries to which they are exported.

Keywords: education, culture, cultural dimensions, autonomy, multiculturalism

Article history:
Received: 2 December 2016
Reviewed: 20 December 2016
Revised: 27 December 2016
Accepted: 28 December 2016
Published: 31 December 2016

Citation (APA6):
Boyadzhieva, E. (2016). Reflections on the Relation between National Cultures and Innovations in Education - the case of Bulgaria. English Studies at NBU, 2(2), 89-103. ☍

Copyright © 2016 Ellie Boyadzhieva

/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0), which permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. If you want to use the work commercially, you must first get the author's permission.


Banks, J. A. (2010). Multicultural education: Characteristics and goals. In J. A. Banks, & Banks, J. A. (Eds.). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (pp. 3-31) (7th ed.). New York, NY: Wiley & Sons.

Benson, P. (2006). Autonomy in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 40, 21-40. ☍

Boyadzhieva, E. (2014a). Pluralistic Approaches in Education: Culture Related Issues. In Bereshova, J. & Suhanyova, Z. (Eds.). Pluralistic Approaches to Languages and Cultures in Education Conference proceedings, 26-27 November 2014, Smolenice. Trnava: Trnava University, pp. 35–48.

Boyadzhieva, E. (2014b) Theory and Practice in Foreign Language Teaching — Past and Present. Journal of Modern Education Review, 4(10), 776–788. []

Boyadzhieva, E. (2014c). The Teacher Role and Learner Autonomy – Some Issues of Contention. Godishnik na filologicheskia facultet 12 ['Yearbook of the philological faculty 12'], Blagoevgrad: South-West University Publishing house, pp. 60–68.

Boyadzhieva E. (2015a). Global Trends in Education: Issues of Contention. [Ezikov sviat – Orbis Linguarum, 13(1)], Blagoevgrad: South-West University Publishing house, 16-25.

Boyadzhieva E. (2015b). Modern Trends in Education and National Cultures. Journal of the Department of Foreign Languages of Romanian-American University, 6(1), 131-139.

Boyadzhieva E. (2016a). Learner-Centered Teaching and Learner Autonomy. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232, 35-40. ☍

Boyadzhieva E. (2016b). Reflections on Learner autonomy: Cultural perspectives. International Scientific and Practical Conference “World Science” 4(2), 11-14. Retrieved from ☍

Dickinson, L. (1995). Autonomy and motivation: A literature review. System 23(2), 165–174.

Fullinwider, R. K. (2003) Multicultural Education, In R. Curren (Ed), A Companion to the Philosophy of Education, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford, UK. pp.487-500. ☍

Gardner, H. (2004). Changing minds. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Gerhart B. & Fang M. (2005). National culture and Human Resource Management: Assumptions and Evidence, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(6), 971–986.

Hofstede Home page. (n.d.). Retrieved from ☍

Hofstede Homepage – Bulgaria. (n.d.). Retrieved from ☍

Hofstede, G. (2009). Geert Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions. Retrieved from ☍

Hofstede, G. , Hofstede, G. J., Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. (3rd ed.), McGraw-Hill USA.

Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon. (First published 1979), Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Inglehart R. F. & Norris, P. (2009). Cosmopolitan Communications: Cultural Diversity in a Globalized World. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Khatri, N. (2009). Consequences of Power Distance Orientation in Organisations. Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective, 13(1). ☍

Little, D., Ridley, J. & Ushioda, E. (2002). Towards greater learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom. Dublin: Authentik.

McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede’s Identification of National Culture Differences – A Triumph of Faith a Failure of Analysis, Human Relations, 55(1), 89–188.

Melting pot. (n. d.). Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary. Retrieved from ☍

Schwartz, S. H. (2006). Value orientations: Measurement, antecedents and consequences across nations. In R. Jowell, C. Roberts, R. Fitzgerald, & G. Eva (Eds.), Measuring attitudes cross-nationally - lessons from the European Social Survey (pp. 169-204). London: Sage.

Shy. (n.d.). Dictionary on-line. Retrieved from ☍

Venaik, S. & Brewer, P. (2013). Critical issues in the Hofstede and GLOBE national culture models, International Marketing Review, 30(5), 469-482. ☍

World Values Survey. (n.d.). Retrieved from ☍

Handling Editor: Stan Bogdanov
/Verified Editor Record on Publons ☍

Article Metrics