Intercultural Communicative Competence in Educational Exchange: A Multinational Perspective 9780815369677, 9781351251747

Table of contents :
Cover
Title
Copyright
Dedication
Contents
List of Figures and Tables
Abbreviations
Preface
Acknowledgments
Project Staff
1 Introduction and Overview
2 Reconceptualizing Intercultural Communicative Competence
3 Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence
4 The Initial Research Project
5 The Follow-on Research Project
6 Toward a Multinational Perspective
Appendix A: AIC Form
Appendix B: AICC Form
Appendix C: ALTD Form
Appendix D: ALD Form
Index

Citation preview

Intercultural Communicative Competence in Educational Exchange

This book explores the nature of intercultural communicative competence (ICC): a set of abilities required to promote sojourner engagement with diversity during study abroad and other educational exchange experiences. A highly original contribution to the intercultural communication literature, this book bases its multinational perspective of ICC on an extensive literary search in six languages and spanning 50 years to identify ICC’s multiple components to develop a comprehensive assessment tool and to assess its development and impact on exchange participants in multiple countries. Alvino E. Fantini serves as education consultant to the Federation of The Experiment in International Living, as director of the World Learning institutional archives, as occasional adjunct faculty and lecturer, and as international consultant in areas of language education, intercultural communication, and internationalization of curriculum.

Routledge Research in Teacher Education

The Routledge Research in Teacher Education series presents the latest research on Teacher Education and also provides a forum to discuss the latest practices and challenges in the field. Learning to Teach in England and the United States The Evolution of Policy and Practice Maria Teresa Tatto, Katharine Burn, Ian Menter, Trevor Mutton, and Ian Thompson Learning from Latino English Language Learners Critical Teacher Education Edited by Pablo Ramirez, Christian Faltis, and Ester De Jong Teaching Towards Freedom Supporting Voices and Silence in the English Classroom Geraldine DeLuca Teacher Education Policy and Practice in Europe Challenges and Opportunities for the Future Edited by Ana Raquel Simões, Mónica Lourenço, and Nilza Costa Clinical Experiences in Teacher Education Critical, Project-Based Interventions in Diverse Classrooms Edited by Kristien Zenkov and Kristine Pytash Intercultural Communicative Competence in Educational Exchange A Multinational Perspective Alvino E. Fantini

For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.com/ Routledge-Research-in-Teacher-Education/book-series/RRTE

Intercultural Communicative Competence in Educational Exchange A Multinational Perspective Alvino E. Fantini

First published 2019 by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2019 Taylor & Francis The right of Alvino E. Fantini to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested ISBN: 978-0-815-36967-7 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-351-25174-7 (ebk) Typeset in Sabon by Apex CoVantage, LLC

This work is dedicated to the alumni, host families, and mentors in the many countries that participated in two important international research efforts designed to substantiate the nature of intercultural communicative competence, to learn how intercultural sojourns affect its development, and to reflect on the outcomes and the impact of educational exchange programs on their lives. It is hoped that these research findings will help advance the work of all engaged in providing these activities and maximize the benefits of intercultural exchange experiences for future participants.

Contents

List of Figures and Tables Abbreviations Preface Acknowledgments Project Staff

viii xii xiv xvii xix

1

Introduction and Overview

1

2

Reconceptualizing Intercultural Communicative Competence

28

3

Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence

46

4

The Initial Research Project

63

5

The Follow-on Research Project

113

6

Toward a Multinational Perspective

221

Appendix A: AIC Form Appendix B: AICC Form Appendix C: ALTD Form Appendix D: ALD Form Index

257 283 308 318 331

Figures and Tables

Figures 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1 3.2 4.1 4.2 4.3 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4

5.5

5.6 5.7 5.8

Components of Worldview Overlapping Configurations of Three Worldviews A Pasta Hierarchy Interaction of CC1 and CC2 Components and Aspects of ICC The Four Dimensions of ICC World-Readiness Standards: Five Goal Areas The Gemstone Model Quadrant of Multiple Assessment Modes Contrastive Mean ICC Scores (Beginning and End of Service) Contrastive Mean ICC Scores: ICC Composite (Beginning and End of Service) Improvement in Spanish Language Development QB12. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of Areas Developed by the Sojourn QB13. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of Areas Developed by Homestays QC2. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of Subsequent Educational Choices QC3. Cross and Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of Extent to Which the Sojourn Influenced Subsequent Educational Choices QC4. Cross and Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of Extent to Which the Sojourn Influenced Respondent Choices for Fields of Study QC6. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of Respondent Work Areas QC7. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of Work Positions QC8. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of Professional or Career Choices

9 12 16 30 35 36 39 48 50 76 77 79 136 138 141

142

143 144 145 147

Figures and Tables 5.9 5.10 5.11

5.12

5.13 5.14

5.15

5.16

5.17

5.18

5.19

6.1 6.2

QC9. Cross and Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of Previous Intercultural Work QC11. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of Duration of Previous Intercultural Work QC12. Cross and Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of Extent to Which the Sojourn Helped Obtain Employment QC13. Cross and Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of Extent to Which the Development of Language Abilities Helped Obtain Employment QE2. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of Sojourner Social Contacts after Returning Home QF2. Cross and Within-country: Frequency Distribution of Extent to Which the Sojourn Contributed to Respondent Host Communication Abilities QF3. Cross and Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of Extent to Which the Homestay Contributed to Respondent Host Language Abilities QG1. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of Appropriateness of Respondent Speech to Paralinguistic Aspects QH1. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of Quality of Respondent Social Contact with Host Families and Host Natives QH2. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of Quality of Respondent Host Language Communication with Host Families and Host Natives QH3. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of Quality of Respondent Communication in Their Own Native Language with Host Families and Host Natives Contrastive Educational Approaches A NAPI-KEPRA Framework

ix 148 149

150

151 153

155

156

157

162

163

165 246 249

Tables 1.1 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10

Time Requirements for Learning Various Languages Reliability Analysis (Beginning of Service) Reliability Analysis (End of Service) Factor Analysis for Knowledge Factor Analysis for Attitude Factor Analysis for Skills Factor Analysis for Awareness Composite Descriptive Statistics for ICC and Its Components Contrastive Alumni ICC (Beginning and End of Service) Measuring Effective Size of ICC Components

19 71 72 72 73 74 74 75 76 77 78

x

Figures and Tables

4.11 Percentage Responses for Spanish Language Development 5.1 QB8. Four Countries: Extent to Which Program Components Contributed to Respondent Overall Learning 5.2 QB9. Four Countries: Extent to Which Program Components Contributed to Respondent Understanding of the Host Culture 5.3 QB10. Four Countries: Extent to Which Program Components Contributed to Respondent Understanding of the Host Language 5.4 QB11. Four Countries: Extent to Which Program Components Contributed to Respondent Sense of Safety 5.5 QB12. Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of Areas Developed by the Sojourn 5.6 QB13. Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of Areas Developed by Homestays 5.7 QC1. Cross and Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of Educational Levels 5.8 QC11. Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of Duration of Previous Intercultural Work 5.9 QG2. Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of Appropriateness of Respondent Behavior to Extralinguistic Aspects 5.10 QG3. Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of the Appropriateness of Respondent Behaviors to Aspects of Sociolinguistic Variation 5.11 QH1. Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of the Quality of Respondent Social Contact with Host Families and Host Natives 5.12 QH2. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of Quality of Respondent Host Language Communication with Host Families and Host Natives 5.13 QH3. Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of the Quality of Respondent Communication in Their Own Language with Host Families and Host Natives 5.14 ICC Scale: Distribution of Subjects by Country in the Final Sample 5.15 Four Countries: Final Matrix for PCA of Factor Loadings, Commonalities (h2), and Corrected ItemTotal Correlation (R) for Each Item (n = 1,189) 5.16 Four Countries: Intercorrelation Matrix among Dimensions Extracted on PCA (n = 1,189) 5.17 Brazil: Final Matrix for PCA of Factor Loadings, Commonalities (h2), and Corrected Item-Total Correlation (R) for Each Item (n = 406)

78 130

132

133 134 136 138 140 149

159

160

163

164

166 167

168 172

173

Figures and Tables 5.18 Brazil: Intercorrelation Matrix among Dimensions Extracted on PCA (n = 406) 5.19 Germany: Final Matrix for PCA of Factor Loadings, Commonalities (h2), and Corrected Item-Total Correlation (R) for Each Item (n = 359) 5.20 Germany: Intercorrelation Matrix among Dimensions Extracted on PCA (n = 359) 5.21 Japan: Final Matrix for PCA of Factor Loadings, Commonalities (h2), and Corrected Item-Total Correlation (R) for Each Item (n = 202) 5.22 Japan: Intercorrelation Matrix among Dimensions Extracted on PCA (n = 202) 5.23 US: Final Matrix for PCA of Factor Loadings, Commonalities (h2), and Corrected Item-Total Correlation (R) for Each Item (n = 222) 5.24 US: Intercorrelation Matrix among Dimensions Extracted on PCA (n = 222) 5.25 Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of ICC Dimensions (n = 1,189) 5.26 Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD), and One-Way ANOVA (F) in ICC Dimensions by Country (n = 1,189) 5.27 Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD), and Independent Sample T-Test in ICC Dimensions by Gender (n = 1,178) 5.28 Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD), and One-Way ANOVA (F) in ICC Dimensions by Educational Level (n = 1,153) 5.29 Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD), and Independent Sample T-Test in ICC Dimensions by Previous Intercultural Experience (n = 1,189) 5.30 Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD), and Independent Sample T-Test in ICC Dimensions by Previous Intercultural Relationships (n = 1,179) 5.31 Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD), and One-Way ANOVA (F) in ICC Dimensions by Duration of Sojourn (n = 1,163) 5.32 Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD), and Independent Sample T-Test in ICC Dimensions by Homestay (n = 1,188) 5.33 Pearson Product-Moment Correlation among ICC Dimensions and Age at Time of Sojourn Participation (n = 1,180) 5.34 Pearson Product-Moment Correlation between Host Language Ability and ICC Dimensions (n = 1,185) 5.35 Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD), and Independent Sample T-Test in ICC Dimensions by Intercultural Work (n = 1,180)

xi 177

178 181

182 185

186 190 191 192 192

193

194

194

195 196

196 197

197

Abbreviations

ACTFL AIC AICC ASK+A ASLPR ASPAU CC CC1 CC2 CERCLL

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages Assessment of Intercultural Competence Assessment of Intercultural Communicative Competence Attitudes, Skills, Knowledge + Awareness Australian Second Language Proficiency Ratings African Scholars Program for American Universities Communicative competence First (or native) communicative competence Second communicative competence Center for Educational Resources in Culture, Language, and Literacy CLL Community Language Learning COP Cooperative Overseas Program CSD Center for Social Development EIL The Experiment in International Living Federation EIL Federation of The Experiment in International Living FSI Foreign Service Institute IC Intercultural competence ICC Intercultural communicative competence IIE Institute of International Education ITAIC Interdisciplinary Teaching and Assessment of Intercultural Competence ISLPR International Second Language Proficiency Ratings KMO Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Test L1 First (or native) language L2 Second language LASPAU Latin American Scholars Program for American Universities MAXSA Maximizing Study Abroad MO Member organization NCSSFL National Council of State Supervisors for Foreign Languages NGO Non-governmental organization

Abbreviations PA PCA PD RA SD SIETAR SIT SM SPSS TESOL TL TPO TPR VIP

xiii

Process Approach Principal Component Analysis Project director Research assistant Standard deviation Society for Intercultural Education, Training, and Research School for International Training SurveyMonkey Statistical Package for Social Sciences Teaching of English to Speakers of Other Languages Target Language Time, place, and occasion Total Physical Response Volunteers for International Partnership

Preface

Intercultural Communicative Competence in Educational Exchange: A Multinational Perspective is the result of two research efforts dedicated to learning about the nature of intercultural communicative competence (ICC) from a multinational perspective, its development during intercultural sojourns, and the outcomes and impact of intercultural educational exchange experiences on participants—the sojourners, their hosts, and their mentors. The studies were possible given the existence of an international exchange organization—a federation of member countries with alumni records dating back nearly nine decades that provided access to participants in eight countries, on four continents, and in multiple languages. The studies examined the effects of sojourns on individuals from diverse language and culture backgrounds who spent time abroad in an even greater number of countries around the world. Participating country members, known collectively as Federation of The Experiment in International Living (Federation EIL), founded in 1932, is one of the oldest such institutions in the world today. Although its member organizations (MOs), which organize and provide these exchanges, collected scores of anecdotes over the years about participant experiences in these programs and the outcomes, this work represents a new effort. It is a systematic attempt to collect and document data from participants who describe their experiences in detail, substantiating and supporting the testimonies recorded over the years, and providing evidence of the organization’s success in furthering its vision and mission of developing understanding across cultures. To conduct these studies, extensive preliminary research was first undertaken to define the nature of ICC, to identify its multiple components, and to devise ways to measure and monitor its development. These efforts were followed by surveys involving exchange participants and hosts to assess the impact and outcomes of these experiences upon their lives and their work long after the programs ended. The work is presented in six chapters: Chapter 1 begins with an overview of educational exchange programs and describes the international

Preface

xv

federation through which this research was carried out. It also discusses the importance and need for developing ICC in today’s world; explores the nature of worldview and the nexus between language, culture, and worldview (all elements involved in educational exchange); and explores fundamental concepts relevant to understanding the nature and value of intercultural experiences. Chapter 2 synthesizes information derived from a search of the intercultural literature of the past half century, drawing first upon earlier concepts of communicative competence (CC) in order to arrive at a broader conceptualization of ICC. It then identifies the multiple components that comprise ICC, stressing host language proficiency, a commonly omitted but essential and fundamental component. Chapter 3 follows with an exploration of assessment processes, distinguishing between summative and formative approaches. It describes instruments for measuring and monitoring ICC development and discusses aspects that ensure a comprehensive assessment approach needed to monitor all of the ICC components previously identified. Chapter 4 introduces the first of two multinational research projects (2005–6) that investigated ICC development among educational exchange participants in three countries. It describes the project design and implementation, data collection procedures (of both quantitative and qualitative data), data analysis, and findings. Chapter 5 presents the second multinational research project undertaken 10 years later (2015–16), which expands upon the work and findings of the initial project by investigating educational exchange participants in five additional countries. Whereas the analysis of quantitative data in both research projects may present some difficulty for readers without a background in statistics, the qualitative analysis will help to contextualize the statistical information by providing commentary in the words of participants themselves, followed by syntheses of the results from individual countries. Chapter 6 summarizes collective results obtained from the five participating countries in the second research project, reviews ten a priori assumptions underlying both research projects based on new findings, followed by discussion of implications and applications of the findings toward multiple aspects of educational exchange: participant selection, program design, orientation, interventions, assessment, and post-program follow-up. A summary of lessons learned and questions posed is presented in addition to suggested areas for further work. The final section shifts from theory to practice and provides several models and activities to help enrich the implementation of future programs. Finally, four appendixes provide copies of the English version of the assessment forms used in the two research projects, a self-assessment form for language educators, and a self-assessment form for language learners.

xvi

Preface

Intercultural Communicative Competence in Educational Exchange is an important resource for advanced undergraduate- and graduate-level students in the fields of language education and intercultural communication. It is especially valuable for researchers, educators, and trainers interested in ensuring quality educational exchange efforts. Most importantly, it is hoped that this work will be of benefit for study abroad professionals, their students, future program participants, and host natives.

Acknowledgments

I am indebted to several institutions and many individuals for their support, participation, and contributions to the research on which this work is based. Both research efforts, in fact, would not have been possible without the fortuitous collaboration of the sponsoring organization, Federation EIL, its MOs, and their staff and alumni, in conjunction with two funding agencies, which supported the research. For the Initial Research Project (IRP) (2005–6), I thank the Center for Social Development (CSD) at Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, and two colleagues at CSD who were responsive and helpful throughout the project—Maricelly Daltro and Amanda Moore McBride. For the Follow-on Research Project (FRP) (2015–16), which expanded significantly upon the initial effort, I am indebted to the Center for Educational Resources in Culture, Language, and Literacy (CERCLL) at the University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, for funding and to CERCLL co-directors, Beatrice C. Dupuy and Chantelle Warner. I am especially grateful to my principal contact and liaison at CERCLL, Katharine Mackay, who was responsive and helpful with every request from start to finish. I am also indebted to three Federation EIL MOs for their participation in the IRP. This included national directors Anne Alvear, Ecuador; David Shaddick, Great Britain; and Brigitte Schwarzenbach, Switzerland. Collaboration was provided by research assistants (RAs) in each of the respective MOs: Jorge Flores, Chris Harris, and Michèle Hofstetter, and German and Spanish translators, Georg Steinmeyer, Lisa Jaramillo Power, and Beatriz C. Fantini, respectively. Project assistants were also extremely important to this effort: A. Mario Fantini in initial stages, Rebecca DiCandilo for tracking and compiling data, and Jessica Rodríguez, who assisted in final verification of data. Ilene Todd, former executive director of Federation EIL, was especially helpful in supporting the initial project, providing needed information and monitoring expenses; Dona Alpert and Aqeel Tirmizi, SIT Graduate Institute faculty in Brattleboro, Vermont; and Noor Tirmizi, statistician, who assisted with statistical analysis. In the FRP, I relied on resources of five additional MOs and the support of their national directors: Fernanda Zocchio Semioni and Patricia

xviii

Acknowledgments

Zocchio, Brazil; Tom Kurz and Bettina Wiedmann, Germany; Kevin Hickey, Ireland; Yoshihiro Suzuki, Japan; Aaron Morehouse, US; and John Lucas, Provost, SIT Graduate Institute. I especially wish to cite contributions of MOs in Ireland and the US, which participated in this study at their own expense. RAs engaged in this phase who translated documents, accessed alumni records, sent out local mailings and emails, conducted interviews, and processed and translated data were Paul Minto and Tania Minto, Brazil; Eva Meseck, Germany; Aimie Brennan, Ireland; Nobuko Kamiya and Emiko Nojima, Japan; and Kate Harris and Samantha Leonard, USA. Also engaged throughout in various ways were Federation EIL’s executive director, Polli-Jo Moryl, who provided coordination and information, and monitored expenses; project assistant, Ilene Todd; and statisticians, Joana Almeida and Cláudia Figuereido, both of Aveiro, Portugal, who had a major role in guiding the research design, consulting on the approach, and conducting complex quantitative statistical analyses. For assistance in preparing the final draft, I wish to acknowledge the help of my able assistant, Rachel Goldstein, graduate student, at the SIT Graduate Institute. I am grateful to my colleagues Joana Almeida, research associate at Newcastle University; Linda Drake Gobbo, professor in International Education, SIT Graduate Institute; Paula Garrett-Rucks, associate professor, Georgia State University; Ann Puyana, assistant vice president for academic affairs emerita, Valencia College; and Claudia Sánchez, senior environmental scientist, who provided helpful comments on draft versions of the manuscript. Finally, I acknowledge permission to reprint copyrighted materials in the present work. These include the following items with permission granted by the following organizations and publishers: Figure 2.2, previously appearing in the journal Dimensions 2016, permission granted by David Jahner, executive director, Southern Conference on Language Teaching; Figure 2.4, permission granted by permissions manager ACTFL; Figure 6.2, permission granted by Teaching of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) International Association; and Figures 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, and Table 1.1, permission granted by Taylor & Francis as well as permission to adapt and include materials from Chapters 16 and 24, which I authored, in The Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural Communication, edited by Jane Jackson and published by Routledge. At the center of both research efforts, of course, were the alumni, host families, and mentors who took the time to complete lengthy survey questionnaire forms and, in some cases, to be interviewed. To all, I am truly indebted. ¡Mil gracias a todos! Thank you all!

Project Staff

Initial Research Project Staff (2005–6) Project director: Alvino E. Fantini Project assistants: Rebecca DiCandilo, A. Mario Fantini, Jessica Rodríguez CSD, Washington University: Maricelly Daltro, Amanda Moore McBride Federation EIL executive director: Ilene Todd EIL member organization directors: Anne Alvear, Ecuador; David Shaddick, Great Britain; Brigitte Schwarzenbach, Switzerland Translators: Georg Steinmeyer, German; Lisa Jaramillo Power, Spanish; Beatriz C. Fantini, Spanish EIL member organization research assistants: Jorge Flores, Ecuador; Chris Harris, Great Britain; Michèle Hofstetter, Switzerland Consultants and statisticians: Dona Alpert; Aqeel Tirmizi; Noor Tirmizi Follow-on Research Project Staff (2015–16) Project director: Alvino E. Fantini Project assistant: Ilene Todd Federation EIL executive director: Polli-Jo Moryl CERCLL, University of Arizona: Katharine Mackay EIL member organization directors: Fernanda Zocchio Semioni, Brazil; Tom Kurz and Bettina Wiedmann, Germany; Kevin Hickey, Ireland; Yoshihiro Suzuki, Japan; Aaron Morehouse, USA EIL member organization research assistants: Paul Minto, Brazil; Eva Meseck, Germany; Aimie Brennan, Ireland; Nobuko Kamiya and Emiko Nojima, Japan; Kate Harris and Samantha Leonard, USA Consultants and statisticians: Joana Almeida and Cláudia Figueiredo, Aveiro, Portugal Final draft assistant: Rachel Goldstein, Graduate Student, SIT Graduate Institute

1

1.1

Introduction and Overview

Overview

This chapter contains six sections, beginning with an overview of the promises and challenges of educational exchange programs. One of the oldest exchange organizations is The Experiment in International Living (EIL), founded in 1932, which developed into an international federation of member countries that has provided exchange programs for nearly nine decades. Federation EIL approved a plan to conduct longitudinal research to ascertain the nature of intercultural communicative competence (ICC) and its components, and to determine the extent to which participants develop ICC during their sojourn, as well as the impact such experiences have upon their lives years later. Indeed, given globalizing trends in today’s world, ICCs are needed for all: the ability to transcend one’s original worldview and to see the world anew from another perspective. To this end, the nexus between language, culture, and worldview is examined as well as fundamental concepts that are relevant to support ICC development and the value of intercultural experiences. An argument is made to promote bilingualism-biculturalism, and a discussion of the role of language educators and interculturalists in promoting these abilities follows. In the end, a common goal is the development of intercultural communicative abilities for all.

1.2

About Educational Exchange

This work is about the power and the promises of international intercultural educational exchange. One of the oldest exchange organizations in the world has been engaged in providing just such experiences for individuals for precisely these reasons. Founded in the US in 1932, The EIL, recognizing both the power and the promises such experiences hold, has been committed to providing intercultural educational exchange programs for over 85 years. Its commitment to these efforts is based on a vision of world peace; its mission is to help build it by developing understanding across cultures (Fantini et al. 2015:235). EIL’s first attempt at providing educational exchange programs began with a summer camp in Switzerland with young people from several

2

Introduction and Overview

countries: Belgium, France, Germany, Switzerland, and the US. Members of each national group, however, tended to stay together rather than mix and get to know each other, as the founder, Donald Watt (1967:95– 106), had intended. Watt redesigned the program with the aid of several European colleagues and, the following year, sought family homestays in small-town settings in Europe as the venue for the next intercultural experience. This subsequent model was immediately successful and has prevailed ever since—one in which an intimate and familial setting serves as the context for getting to know people of another culture and for gaining an understanding of that culture by establishing relationships with its members (ibid.:111–18). Procuring “homestays” was a collaborative effort that required seeking like-minded individuals in multiple countries. Eventually, national offices developed around the globe and, in 1954, they banded together to form a Swiss-registered association to coordinate educational exchange efforts. The association was known as Federation EIL, an organization that continues to the present day. Federation EIL member countries are privately run, nonprofit, nonpolitical, and nonreligious organizations, with consultative status at the United Nations Economic and Social Council. In 1989, Federation EIL was designated a Peace Messenger Organization by the Secretary General of the United Nations. Through its MOs—all autonomous national entities— Federation EIL constitutes a worldwide network with representation in multiple countries and on various continents around the globe. Over the past decades, several hundred thousand individuals of all ages have participated in intercultural programs through the combined efforts of Federation MOs. It is the alumni of these programs (and in some cases, their hosts) whose experiences the research reported in this work attempted to learn about—assessing the development of their ICC and the impact of the intercultural experience on their lives long after programs ended. The existence of this international structure of MOs with alumni files that date back many years made this multinational research effort possible. All Federation MOs exist for a common purpose: They are dedicated to providing quality intercultural educational opportunities for individuals in order to develop friendships across borders and to learn to participate in other societies “on their terms.” To accomplish this, MOs offer a wide variety of program options in areas of intercultural education, training, service, and development. Programs are conducted among Federation members as well as with other qualified partners around the globe who share similar beliefs and practices. Over the years, MOs have expanded their activities well beyond the original educational exchange format into various other related areas. Such is the case of the U.S. Experiment, now a division of a larger organization named World Learning, to reflect its wider range of activities. Early on, the U.S. Experiment began expanding

Introduction and Overview

3

its efforts: providing English language training, cultural orientation, and homestays for Hungarian refugees in 1956; conducting study abroad programs for numerous American universities, beginning in 1957; training volunteers for the U.S. Peace Corps, beginning in 1961; providing language and cultural orientation for the African Scholars Program for American Universities (ASPAU) and Latin American Scholars Program for American universities (LASPAU), starting in 1962 and 1963, respectively; and initiating teacher assistant programs and foreign language assistant programs in 1970 and 1971. These activities were followed with au pair programs, orientation for Fulbright scholars, refugee orientation in Southeast Asia, assistance to refugee sponsor organizations in the US, creation of the School for International Training (later renamed the SIT Graduate Institute, the academic branch providing a variety of MA programs), and the teaching of over 100 languages. To ensure quality and consistency within educational exchange programs, Federation EIL members adhere to a set of operational standards that guide their work, along with quality assurance procedures that serve as ongoing review processes. MOs also share common program designs. Basic program components normally include (1) cross-cultural orientation; (2) learning the host language; (3) travel in small groups, guided by experienced leaders working in partnership with local representatives of the host culture and host community; (4) homestays with host families in small communities; (5) in-country experiential activities to enhance and maximize learning during the sojourn; (6) ongoing interventions conducted by group leaders; (7) reflection, discussions, and evaluation of the experience; and (8) post-program contact and engagement with alumni. This standard format is occasionally augmented with additional features, such as programmatic themes (e.g., a focus on art, history, social justice), group excursions and explorations, school attendance, civic service projects, and programs that vary in length from summer to academic yearlong offerings. In all cases, the experience affords direct and intimate contact with members of various cultures in the hope of developing lifelong friendships and promoting intercultural understanding. Federation EIL’s Research Interests It is well known that educational exchange experiences exert a powerful effect on both sojourners and their hosts—one that is often life changing. Indeed, MOs have accrued numerous anecdotes over the years in the form of letters, testimonies, and publications attesting to the impact that the experience has on the lives of those involved. Testimonies were initially collected and made available publicly in the work Letters to the Founder (Watt 1977). Various other publications followed, written by participants and others to help tell the story—to wit, One Woman’s India (Clapp

4

Introduction and Overview

1966), A Time Apart: An Experiment in International Living (Case 1966), and The Experiment: A Way to Peace (Trivedi 2003), among others. Stories of these experiences—both the challenges and successes—are frequently recounted among participants. Alumni commonly speak of their sojourn as one of the most important educational experiences of their lives, and examples of well-known luminaries who participated are often cited: Sargent Shriver, an exchange participant, EIL group leader in his early years, and later ambassador to France and founding director of the U.S. Peace Corps in 1961; Jody Williams, an alumna of the SIT Graduate Institute, an employee of the U.S. MO, and later a Nobel Peace Laureate in 1997 for her work with the International Campaign to Ban Landmines; and Wangari Maathai, an EIL board member and a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate in 2004 for her work in Kenya as founder of the Green Belt Movement for reforestation, among others. However, little formal research had been conducted to assess and document the impact and outcomes of the experience upon large numbers of sojourners. It was time to move beyond these wonderful tales and individual examples. Questions frequently posed were how can we truly know whether the professed power and promises of educational exchange are valid and, if so, to what degree? What are the outcomes and the impact of exchange experiences upon the lives of participants? How can we truly know whether Federation EIL’s efforts contribute toward its vision and mission? Now, approaching the organization’s ninth decade of existence, EIL approved a plan to conduct extensive research to explore answers to these questions. A long-term effort was envisioned, beginning with an initial research project to start the process, followed by a later project to expand upon work of the initial effort. The research approach envisioned was global, longitudinal, and cross-sectional, and an effort that would involve participants from multiple countries and span many years. Funding obtained in 2005 supported the IRP involving three MOs. Ten years later, in 2015, an additional grant allowed the work to be replicated and expanded in a FRP, adding five more countries. The combined projects generated quantitative and qualitative data obtained from over 2,000 sojourners and over 200 hosts and mentors from eight countries, providing the multinational perspective that was envisioned. The present work is an account of these projects and their findings. It describes the preparatory work and literary searches conducted to define basic terms and notions critical to both efforts, the process of constructing assessment instruments needed to obtain the data, approaches to data collection and analysis, and implications derived from findings and their applications for future programs. These activities were undertaken in the hope that this work will contribute toward promoting and providing enhanced educational exchange experiences for all involved.

Introduction and Overview

1.3

5

Intercultural Abilities in Today’s World

In today’s world, “globalization” is a commonplace phrase. Whereas the term rings positive and holds great promise for some, for others, it conjures up certain negative aspects. These conflicting reactions (globalism vs. nationalism) often relate to differing opinions regarding the value of aggregated geopolitical units toward offering the promise of prosperity and other advantages versus a desire for political autonomy, local control, and the preservation of traditional languages and customs. While some prefer that their nations join together in an effort to enhance commerce, travel, communication, and, in some cases, a common sense of identity (e.g., the European Union), others favor separation, independence, and greater autonomy. The former Yugoslavia exemplifies a nation in recent history that previously united various language and ethnic groups for a time but subsequently split into several countries in the interest of local control. Great Britain provides another example of a nation that has chosen to leave the European Union for many of the same reasons. Catalonia is also a region whose inhabitants are split over the decision to remain within Spain or to become an independent nation (despite gaining increased autonomy and the right to use their own language, Catalán). Examples of other nations facing similar issues are found around the world, where tensions exist between preserving identity and heritage versus incorporating aspects of other languages and cultures into one’s life and lifestyle when becoming part of a larger whole. Whatever the case, more people today have more contact than ever before with people of other cultures, for multiple reasons: travel, tourism, commerce, educational exchanges, migration, immigration, refugees, and other factors. In addition, given the widespread availability of electronic media and devices (e.g., email, cell phones, the Internet, Skype, social media), more people today also communicate with more people beyond their own borders than ever before in history. These factors all contribute to increased intercultural contact (desired or not) and to a need for better understanding of others, especially those of different language and cultural backgrounds. Given this situation, many institutions of higher learning recognize a need to respond to these globalizing trends. Colleges and universities around the world, increasingly attempt to internationalize academic curricula to better prepare students for life and careers in today’s world (cf. Deardorff and Arasaratnam-Smith 2017). This need is clearly expressed in an essay by Sanford Ungar (2016), president emeritus of Goucher College: As new global challenges have arisen . . ., American discourse on world affairs has lacked historical context or deeper understanding.

6

Introduction and Overview It has become difficult to stir thoughtful, informed debate on foreign policy issues during congressional—or even presidential— campaigns . . . A candidate who speaks a foreign language appears almost suspect . . . Luckily, there exists a disarmingly simple way to help address this problem and to produce future generations of Americans who will know more and care more about the rest of the world: massively increase the number of U.S. college and university students who go abroad . . . and bring home essential knowledge and new perspectives . . . The benefits of an overseas experience are difficult to quantify, but there is little doubt that studying abroad can be beneficial for all.

Although approaches to internationalization vary greatly, one excellent model is a program initiated at Kennesaw State University titled “Interdisciplinary Teaching and Assessment of Intercultural Competence (ITAIC).” This model focuses on the professional development of faculty across disciplines who write, pilot, and assess online intercultural modules that are then introduced into the varied academic departments across the campus (Smith and Paracka 2018:17–26). More commonly, institutions seek to increase the number of international students on campus as well as to develop academic study abroad opportunities for domestic students. The number of study abroad programs in American universities continues to increase and, at present, one in ten undergraduates studies abroad (cf. Institute of International Education 2016). Within the European Union, the European Region Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students (ERASMUS) program, created in 1987, promotes exchanges of European students to study in another European country for a semester or up to two academic years (cf. European Commission 2015; Almeida 2015). Between 1987 and 2013, more than three million tertiary students in Europe participated in the ERASMUS program (European Commission 2015:4). In addition, in 2013, the British Council predicted that approximately 3.85 million higher education students will take part in study abroad programs by 2024, up from 3.04 million in 2011, with China and India accounting for 35% of the growth. Most East Asian students (China, Hong Kong SAR, Japan, Korea, Macau SAR, and Taiwan) study in a lingua franca such as English while abroad, with the US as the most popular host destination (cf. British Council 2013). Courses in world languages and intercultural communication are important to all these efforts, both for students attending universities in other countries and for domestic students preparing to participate in educational programs abroad. In addition to academic institutions, private organizations also serve as providers of intercultural educational exchange opportunities. The EIL, described earlier, in addition to other reputable organizations such as American Field Service, Youth for Understanding, and Children’s

Introduction and Overview

7

International Summer Villages are all well known, the latter working primarily with younger populations. The Experiment, in fact, which works with both high school and college-age students, developed many of the early study abroad programs that currently exist at numerous universities throughout the US. Beginning in the 1950s, EIL’s programs, known as cooperative overseas programs, were conducted collaboratively with universities to provide offerings in many countries before universities had established their own contacts abroad. The Experiment, for example, collaborated with institutions such as Dartmouth, the State University of New York, Pomona, Syracuse University, Tyler Art School of Temple University, and the University of the Pacific, among many others, to provide group leaders, cross-cultural orientation, and homestays, preceding the academic segment in Colombia, France, Italy, Germany, Spain, and elsewhere (Fantini 2002:3, 7). Today, EIL continues as a provider of academic study abroad programs for students from many institutions around the US, especially to places not commonly offered by home institutions, with nearly 80 programs in over 30 countries worldwide, including comparative programs in multiple countries in locations such as Australia, Bolivia, Cameroon, Chile, China, Ghana, Iceland, India, Jordan, Kenya, Nepal, Samoa, and Vietnam. Universities and private organizations work together to increase educational exchange opportunities for students worldwide. Success during an intercultural sojourn, of course, requires abilities beyond those needed for academic and social success at home. “Intercultural” abilities are also necessary (and one might argue that these abilities are just as important for dealing with ethnic diversity at home). Given this view, intercultural abilities are important for all, whether crossing an ocean or simply dealing with those around the block. Whether we stay at home or travel abroad, indeed, intercultural abilities are a necessity in today’s world to develop understanding and empathy toward other human beings, no matter their ethnicity, their religion, their color, their race, or any other difference. The interests of the intercultural field and diversity coalesce and, in fact, share this common goal.

1.4

Seeing the World Anew

To explore this common goal further, it will help to consider some important concepts: First, we examine the concept of worldview; then the nexus between language, culture, and worldview; and, finally, how second language culture (LC2) experiences broaden understanding and appreciation of those around us, both near and far. Later, we explore abilities that facilitate transcending and transforming our initial way of seeing things (our native worldview paradigm) as we learn to see the world anew and investigate strategies that promote positive relationships between people—the development of ICC.

8

Introduction and Overview

Worldview, of course, is a term in common use today, especially in the fields of intercultural communication and language education. But what exactly is a worldview and what are its components? This concept, initially introduced by a German philosopher in the early 1800s with the label Weltanschauung (and later adopted into other languages with labels such as cosmovisión in Spanish, visão do mundo in Portuguese, vision du monde in French, desituri ya ulimwengu in Swahili, “worldview” in English, and so forth), conveys the notion that each person has a particular way of seeing the world. Stated another way, not everyone attends to the world, perceives, thinks about, nor expresses in the same way. Much depends on one’s native language (L1) and culture (C1), which explains why relative and differing patterns exist across language-cultures. Much has been written about the concept of worldview over the years (cf. Whorf in Carroll 1956; Pinker 1994; Taylor 2016; among others), and although we may understand this concept intellectually and vicariously, it is difficult to grasp directly if one experiences only one culture and speaks only one language. Full grasp of this concept requires direct involvement through exposure to another culture and acquisition of another language—another language that reflects and affects its culture, another culture that reflects and affects its language. Learning another language and experiencing the culture it represents is crucial to accessing another view of the world. In his work, The Language Animal, Taylor (ibid.:24) explains, “Expanding articulacy can regestalt our experience” and adds that by shifting paradigms, “it’s not just a matter of adding words, but of taking on new models, and recognizing previously unseen patterns.” Taylor explains that languages are not only designative but also constitutive— i.e., they not only represent the world as speakers perceive it but also they create the world as speakers come to know it (ibid.:3–50). Developing bilingual-bicultural abilities to varying degrees or, better yet, multilingual-multicultural abilities, therefore, is essential to shift paradigms and experience unseen and unknown possibilities. Without “secondary” (or alternative) abilities, it is impossible to enter into another view of the world, as understood, encoded, and reflected through any one of the 7,000 plus languages that exist around the globe. Examination of the components that make up a worldview helps to explain why this is so. One component is the set of values, beliefs, and attitudes held by each cultural group. These are transmitted early in life through language and behaviors—that is, through “symbol systems,” which make up the second component of worldview. The term “symbol systems” is used (instead of language) to ensure that the multiple dimensions of communication are acknowledged. In other words, in addition to the linguistic component (the sounds, words, script, grammar, etc.), other areas are the paralinguistic (the tone, pitch, volume, speed, and affect) and the extralinguistic (or non-verbal) components. The non-verbal component

Introduction and Overview

9

encompasses further multiple aspects: considerations of space (proxemics), touch (haptics), eye contact (oculesics), smell (olfactics), movement and gestures (kinesics), and timing (chronemics). These aspects differ, like language itself, from one communication system to another. Chronemic patterns, for example, range from monochronic to polychronic and vary across cultures (i.e., the conversational preferences that favor speaking one at a time or, conversely, that permit overlaps in conversation, allowing multiple persons to speak together at the same time). Monochronic behavior is typically displayed by Japanese speakers, whereas polychronic behavior is favored by speakers of languages such as French, Italian, and Spanish. These differences result in varied discourse styles, each culturally determined, which are reinforced by cultural notions of appropriateness. What one culture may consider polite conversational style, therefore, may be considered quite impolite in another, and vice versa. It is easy to see how misunderstandings might occur when monochronic speakers interact with polychronic speakers, and how individuals in the interaction judge each other based on their own cultural norms. We learn these interrelated dimensions of symbol systems from our earliest years and use them without much thought in order to communicate the third component: the semantic component, or meaning. Meaning, of course, is contemplated in our heads and remains uncommunicated until and unless we employ symbols to convey our thoughts to someone else. Hence symbol systems are interrelated with meaning and with our thoughts that reflect, in turn, our values, beliefs, and attitudes. Together, these components reflect and affect each other, and together, they constitute the worldview as we know it and think it and express it (depicted in Figure 1.1):

Figure 1.1 Components of Worldview

10

Introduction and Overview

Although all worldviews consist of the same three components, the individual components differ in nature within each language-culture—i.e., from linguaculture to linguaculture (cf. Fantini 1995). The components of values, beliefs, and attitudes, as well as the component comprising multiple symbols, differ in nature across linguacultures, just as semantic or meaning components are also construed differently. To delve into this latter notion further, consider, for example, how words make up the semantic component. Words have two types of meaning: a referential meaning (e.g., mother = the female head of a household) and associative meanings (e.g., mother = woman, female, caring, affectionate, security). Note also that words relate one to another in hierarchical structures: words related to “mother” are either more general or more specific, above or below the notion of “mother,” forming a hierarchy of words. Stated another way, words in language cohere in hierarchies such that each word is related to clusters of other words in fixed relationships, up and down the hierarchy. For example, one can generalize about a word by adding a superordinate term above it (e.g., “human” includes and subsumes “family;” similarly, “herd” includes “animal,” and “liquid” combines both “water” and “tea”). Conversely, one can also be more specific by adding a word beneath it (e.g., “male” or “female” under “person,” or “cow” or “dog” under “animal”). Words higher in the hierarchy are therefore more inclusive and acknowledge shared commonalities (e.g., “male” and “female” both share all the same notions above them in a hierarchy, such as “person,” “human,” “animate,” and “noun”). Conversely, words descending the hierarchy are more specific and designate attributes that are unique and more singular (e.g., “man,” “son,” and “child,” and “John” under “male”). Moreover, a word hierarchy combines with other word hierarchies, forming a hetararchy (i.e., a hierarchy of hierarchies), resembling the construction of a mobile. Whereas all languages organize thought in this manner, their hierarchies differ in composition and structure across languages. Hence comparison of a word across two languages—e.g., “family” in English and famiglia in Italian—although obvious cognates, differ considerably when their associative meanings and semantic hierarchies are also compared. These differences contribute to the relative perspectives encoded and conveyed through each language system that are not always apparent on the surface. It is of little surprise that language learners often consider their task to be one of simply learning new vocabulary for their existing words without suspecting that new words may also convey new ways of conceptualizing and of relating concepts one to another. An additional challenge relates each language to its culture—that of contextual variation. This is represented in Figure 1.1 by the circle labeled “sociolinguistic context” that encompasses the three components of worldview. Context is extremely important in speech and behavior, and it directly affects the link between language and culture, further

Introduction and Overview

11

revealing their interrelationship. In every language and culture, language is used not solely as a monolithic unit (i.e., spoken always in the same way at all times, in all places, and with all interlocutors), but rather as a variable system that utilizes several alternate forms based on context. We select and choose from among the various linguistic forms available in accordance with each situation, with the one form considered “appropriate” as determined by cultural norms. “Time, place, and occasion” (or TPO) is a phrase that captures the notion of appropriate speech (and behavior) for each context. Sociolinguistic research over the past 50 years or so has helped to clarify and explain this phenomenon by examining the nexus between the choice of language variables and social context. The selection of pronouns in English between “he” and “she,” for example, exemplifies word choice that acknowledges the gender of the person designated. This is obligatory and necessary in English, and not doing so would seem odd or strange. Admittedly, language rules and social norms may change over time, and along with this notions of appropriateness. And, indeed, there are indications that social attitudes regarding gender in English are in flux. Another example is the use of titles of address such as “Mrs.,” “Miss,” and “Ms.” Changes in usage have already occurred in our lifetime, and the form “Ms.” is a relatively recent innovation. Whether to employ a title, which title to use, or whether to address someone by first or last name (with or without a title) all reflect sociolinguistic variations dependent on perceived relative status and relationships between interlocutors, as determined by culture (cf. MacNeil and Cran 2005). Examples of sociolinguistic variants in other languages are tu/vous in French, tú/usted in Spanish, and tu/Lei in Italian. Choosing which pronoun to use (and the attendant verb form in the case of some languages) is often treated primarily as a grammatical task; however, the choice of which form to use rests entirely on sociocultural norms. Hence knowledge of target cultural norms is required in order to know which grammatical forms are appropriate, and these norms, of course, vary from culture to culture. Common social determinants that affect variations in many languages (while not necessarily the same across language-cultures) are factors such as interlocutors (their age, gender, role), context of the interaction (e.g. public or private settings, on the street, in a religious space, the presence or absence of others), relationships between speakers (equals or differences in position, status, authority), and purpose or topic of the conversation. Because these and other factors vary across cultures, learning another language must therefore include learning both the alternate language forms and the “appropriateness” of each as determined by the target language (TL) culture. Selecting the correct (i.e., proper) linguistic variant, therefore, is informed by cultural and variable contexts that determine proper speech choice (and behavior). Language and culture

12

Introduction and Overview

are interrelated; they affect each other, and both are as important in an intercultural context as they are at home. It should be clear that language professionals need to address all three components to help learners explore, understand, and enter the target worldview. We must teach language (i.e., the symbol systems in their multiple dimensions plus their variants in accordance with sociocultural contexts); understand the attitudes, beliefs, and values that speakers hold; and decipher the meanings they are likely to convey. Admittedly, this is a complex task, but one that is also exciting and rich, and one that will enable us to think, express, interact, and behave in new and appropriate ways. Seeing the world anew presents another interesting possibility: the ability to compare and contrast newfound differences with our initial worldview. Indeed, the process of exploring other worldviews enables us not only to see the world differently but also increases awareness of our own native paradigm, of what we have always thought to be so. In the end, while learning to see the world from a new perspective, we commonly transcend and transform our native paradigm as well: a two-way process that may be described with the phrase “looking out and looking in.” It should now be clear that while all worldviews have the same three components, those that make up each worldview are configured differently. Figure 1.2 illustrates how three worldviews might contrast if overlapped, given their differing configurations. Each view, constructed with the same three components, does not exactly match the others. Whereas linguacultures derived from similar backgrounds and long histories of interaction might align more closely (e.g., English and Dutch, Italian and Romanian, Spanish and Portuguese, Swahili and Twi), linguacultures originating from distinct sources and with little historical connections may be quite dissimilar. Dissimilar worldviews, of course, are likely to be more challenging, yet they also expose one to novel and sometimes

Figure 1.2 Overlapping Configurations of Three Worldviews

Introduction and Overview

13

surprising new insights (e.g., English and Japanese, French and Swahili, Spanish and Aymara). Finally, two other aspects of contrasting worldviews are important to recognize. First, as previously stated, all worldviews share the same three components—i.e., a “universal” aspect. Second, each worldview also has a distinctive or “particularist” aspect—i.e., the components of each are distinctive in configuration and representation. The universal aspect, however, suggests that all paradigms must be intrinsically accessible across human cultures, one to another. In other words, it is possible to see the world from other perspectives. Whereas humans are incredibly creative in their ability to develop many varied configurations of the world, in the end, all worldviews operate within the context of three components. The path to accessing a new worldview, then, lies in understanding how components differ. For adult learners, and especially after puberty, however, a major impediment exists to grasping a new worldview fully. The success we have had up to this moment with our own way of being— our own language and culture, and our own view of the world—stands between the new paradigm and us. Stated another way, while our native paradigm serves us well, it also presents the most likely barrier to entering easily into a new view of the world later on. Complacency, ethnocentricity, fear, disinterest, and lack of motivation are some reasons we may be reluctant to explore the challenges, the wonders, the surprises of other ways of being. Why would anyone want to go through that process again? Interest? Curiosity? Not everyone possesses the “integrative” (vs. the “instrumental”) motivation identified by intercultural psychologists to wander beyond one’s own linguaculture as an adult and to become part of a new one (cf. Gardner and Lambert 1972). For children raised bilingually and biculturally, it is quite a different matter. Developmental studies show that infants begin to interact with their environment almost at once—to distinguish the familiar from the unfamiliar, the known from the unknown, and the similar from the different. It is how they experience the world early on and how they learn to invoke one set of abilities or another, situationally—a process that is generally evident already by age three (cf. Fantini 1985:41). Imaginative and inspiring language-culture teachers, however, can play a role in encouraging this process by creating classroom experiences that promote interest and excitement about the target linguaculture and that pique students’ curiosity, so they will want to explore new possibilities. At the heart of our work (in the classroom as well as through educational exchange) is the challenge of inspiring interest and curiosity, and the task of helping students to understand and develop relations with other people, to develop abilities to enter into a new language-culture, and, indeed, to explore the world from a new perspective. In the end, they may well reconfigure their own initial worldview and transform the

14

Introduction and Overview

way they have always thought of the world, of themselves, and of others. Educational exchange experiences can help to expand and deepen what may begin in a language-culture classroom. In addition, a sojourn abroad may well prove to be a most profound educational experience and one that will serve students throughout the rest of their lives. As we will see later on, exchange alumni and others who participated in the research projects tell us that this is so.

1.5

Some Fundamental Concepts1

In the previous section, we reviewed the concept of worldview and examined the nexus between language and culture. Unfortunately, however, the fields of language education and intercultural communication remain quite unconnected in many institutions and are often treated as separate disciplines, despite a common end goal: the development of ICC. To explain how they share a common goal, let us further examine why language is intrinsic to worldview and therefore fundamental to entering another culture. No one questions the importance of language in one’s life, so it is puzzling to think that developing target language (TL) ability when dealing with a host culture might be given little significance or completely overlooked. Yet intercultural models commonly omit reference to host language proficiency when citing attributes needed for successful intercultural entry. Moreover, language is basic to human development and, indeed, it is the ability to speak that makes the anthropoid “human.” Human development and human behaviors are directly linked to the ability to communicate. Language is fundamental to every human society, and individuals without language are considered less than “human.” Studies of feral children illustrate this phenomenon. Reports of feral children, children raised apart from human societies and without the ability to speak, have been reported throughout history. Many such reports are well documented as, for example, the story of Kaspar Hauser, a German youth found in 1812 who grew up in total isolation in a darkened cell for his entire childhood, barely able to walk or talk (cf. Masson and Feuerbach 1997); the wolf-children of Bengal, Amala, and Kamala (cf. Singh and Zingg 1966); and Genie, raised in isolation from birth until discovered as an adolescent in 1970 (Curtiss 1977), among others. One of the best documented accounts, however, is that of Victor, the wild child, found in Aveyron, France, in 1797 (cf. Lane 1976)—a well-known story that has also been made into a movie. These cases are intriguing precisely because they show how language development clearly requires human interaction and leads to human behaviors. Studies of feral children demonstrate less than human conduct when language is not developed. They also provide evidence of how language and culture are intertwined, and how the habits and thoughts of speakers are inseparable from both.

Introduction and Overview

15

As Taylor (2016) points out in his work, The Language Animal, we learn language from others and once inducted into the shared practice of speech, our individual selves emerge out of the conversation. He explains that language is more than a tool to encode and communicate, but that it also plays a crucial role in shaping the very thought it purports to express. Language does more than describe; it constitutes meaning and fundamentally shapes human experience. Now consider something else: language is not really about what it “is” but rather what it “represents.” As an example, look at the markings on this page and think also about the sounds they suggest. Markings are merely ink on a sheet of paper, yet they represent something much more than ink. Markings are formulaic vehicles created to transmit meaning from one person to another, or, in this case, from a page to you. By imputing meaning to these markings (and to the sounds we make when we speak), we use both as a convenient and efficient way to communicate. By representing something other than themselves, words (i.e., ink markings or sounds) stand for concepts, mental abstractions from experience, formed into thoughts, shaped by our linguistic system, conveyed through markings or sound bites, and sequenced into continuous streams. These representational symbols (or words) perform an amazing range of functions. As discussed earlier, we also use words to specify and designate individual units or concepts (both tangible and abstract). For example, within the unit “liquids,” we may further specify other words such as tears, coffee, steam, water. Alternatively, we can generalize about dissimilar things by employing a single word such as “animals,” an abstraction to group together dogs, cats, porcupines, and llamas. In other words, we can distinguish phenomena from each other or group them together and name and label them as our language system permits. Diverse phenomena can be lumped together as an entity by a single word (e.g., tree) or separated into parts (e.g., leaves, branch, bark, trunk, and roots). We learn to do all these things beginning in infancy and continue to develop these abilities on into childhood and adulthood through a continuing process of language learning, and with no conscious effort at all. These functions further illustrate how our view of the world is shaped in our minds, aided and influenced by words of the specific language to which we are exposed. They also help to explain our surprise when we learn how other systems differ from what we are accustomed. The Inuit of Canada come to mind, often cited for the surprising number of words they use to designate the entity “snow,” identifying and classifying this phenomenon into varieties that most other people might not recognize (except, perhaps, ski enthusiasts). Yet speakers in all cultures categorize and classify, segment and specify whatever phenomena they consider important. Asians categorize and label rice in many more ways than do English speakers. Bolivian campesinos do the same with potatoes, a food staple

16

Introduction and Overview

with numerous varieties and names within the Andean region. Americans likewise create and designate numerous words to identify automobile makes and models. And Italians use the term pasta to label a variety of gastronomic experiences. The superordinate word pasta is codified and further labeled in accordance with methods of preparation—for example, major groupings depend on whether pasta is served with a sauce or garnish (asciutta), stuffed (ripiena), served in soup (in brodo), or baked (al forno). These four categories are further subclassified in accordance with their shape, often reminiscent of other objects. For example, the well-known pasta shape labeled spaghetti literally means “little strings” (i.e., spago = string, -etto = little, -i = plural); another is farfalle, so named because it resembles “butterflies.” Figure 1.3 illustrates the hierarchy of terms that result, producing some 200 plus word labels. Viewed this way, then, speaking Italian includes recognizing and classifying these phenomena in the Italian way.

Figure 1.3 A Pasta Hierarchy

Indeed, all languages organize words into verbal hierarchies, as discussed earlier in the section on semantics and word meaning (cf. Anglin 1970). Hierarchies differ, however, in terms of how speakers of each culture name and label, classify, and organize items in their environment. Because speakers create word hierarchies based on their own perceptions regarding the importance and relevance of phenomena, hierarchies naturally vary across languages. These considerations reinforce the interrelationship of language and culture. The oft-quoted phrase, “language as a two-edged sword,” captures this dual aspect of language—a phenomenon that arises from culture and, conversely, influences and affects culture.

Introduction and Overview

17

There is still more to consider regarding the dual nature of language— for example, language has the capacity to liberate and to constrain. How is this so? First, it liberates by providing a way to move figuratively beyond the “here and now.” This is accomplished simply by employing words such as “there, far away, across the ocean.” Additional utterances enable us to retrieve past events conceptually, or to project into the future with other words, such as “was, used to, last year, in 1492,” and “going to, shall, tomorrow, next year.” Such linguistic devices allow us to convey a sense of past or future intent (although affirming either linguistically is obviously no assurance that it did or will occur). Through language, we can also “know” (cognitively) what we might not know at all (directly) or have never experienced. We can talk about “dinosaurs,” “Franz Josef of Austria,” and “World War II.” Through language, we are indeed beneficiaries of a collective heritage preserved in language, obtaining access to the thoughts of generations of speakers in diverse places and across time. Linguistic symbols make this possible vicariously, of course, certainly not necessarily experientially. Indeed, life as we know it, is hard to imagine without language. Language sometimes guides and at times contradicts perception. In the first case, for example, children learn many facts through language—to wit, that an airplane is faster than an elephant. However, a child who peers out an airplane window perceives something quite different. He reports the speed of the airplane, demonstrating what he sees with a slow movement of his hand. In contrast, he affirms that elephants run really fast, now demonstrating their speed with a quick hand motion. He insists this is so because he saw elephants rampage through a village in a Tarzan movie. In this case, however, his direct experience is contradicted through language, and he eventually conforms his perceptions to conventional wisdom (Fantini 1985:182). Through language, we can do other amazing things. We can bring into creation what may not exist at all: The child excitedly describes a “witch” he has seen in his mommy’s closet. Real or fantasy? No matter. He can speak about the witch, describe the witch, and bring the witch into existence through language (ibid.:219). Through language, we transcend the boundaries of our very existence (mentally, of course); we can question and speak about alternatives to life’s end. After seeing a dead bird, for example, the child expresses concern and asks about death. While processing this concept, he says, Si yo me voy a morir, ¿por qué yo nací? ¿Por qué nací como nene? ¿Por qué no nací como Dios, o como el sol . . . como una bola de fuego? (If I am going to die, why was I born? Why was I born a little child? Why wasn’t I born instead like God, or like the sun . . . like a ball of fire?) (ibid.:v). In summary, these examples demonstrate various roles that language plays in human life and in making us human. All languages are capable of just such things (and more). Languages encode our differing experiences,

18

Introduction and Overview

and they do so in differing ways. As a most fundamental human paradigm, language is part of our thoughts, our behavioral patterns, and our societal norms. The prominent scholar Edward T. Hall (1973:97) expressed this notion in the early days of the field of intercultural communication when he wrote, “culture is communication,” to which I add, conversely, to complete the loop, “communication is culture.” The relation of language to CC, and therefore to ICC as well, is fundamental and indisputable. Because linguacultures configure worldview components differently, many cross-cultural differences are revealed only by direct access through the host language—not in translation, not through interpreters, and not through one’s own tongue. For all these reasons, educational exchange programs and intercultural constructs must address and include the fundamental role that language plays in human life and its role in accessing our own and other views of the world.

1.6

Beyond Monolingualism and Monoculturalism

The previous section explored concepts related to the nexus between language, culture, and worldview. That discussion leads directly to reasons one needs to move beyond monolingualism and monoculturalism in order to gain greater understanding, tolerance, and appreciation for another culture for access to another worldview. L2 development is an obvious path to bilingualism, a process that is described both in terms of “learning” language (as in classroom situations) or “acquiring” language (in naturalistic settings), two distinctly different processes (cf. Krashen 1988), often with differing results, although both can lead to bilingualbicultural behavior. In an earlier section, discussion of L2 development raised aspects that extend beyond what is commonly taught in traditional language classrooms. More importantly, it explored how L2 symbol systems interrelate with other components in forming a worldview. These critical notions are seldom addressed explicitly in L2 classrooms. Nonetheless, whether the L2 is learned in a classroom context or acquired in a field situation, both processes aid exploration of new paradigms. The more one gains proficiency in a new language, the more likely one can reflect on one’s native worldview and the less likely one will retain a singular and monocular vision of the world. Grappling with the TL becomes key to understanding others on their terms. To make these points another way, we might ask, is one language (and one culture, one worldview) adequate for interacting across language-culture groups? In addition, given increasing heterogeneity in many societies today plus globalizing trends, one might ask, is one language, one culture, adequate in today’s world? Is it sufficient to be monolingual and monocultural in the twenty-first century? How interculturally competent can one be without some ability to communicate in another tongue?

Introduction and Overview

19

The case made here is for developing bilingual abilities (in addition to bicultural abilities). Developing an L2, however, is a formidable task, but not impossible. Developing L2 proficiency is not a quick or easy process; it requires considerable time and effort. Educators often fail to take into account the length of time required to attain varying levels of proficiency (whether in classrooms or in field situations). In addition, many educational programs start L2 study after puberty, ignoring the well-known fact that early bilingual development is more effective. Moreover, most academic programs label courses as “beginning, intermediate, and advanced” instead of ratings based on proficiency levels (such as the ACTFL (1995) Proficiency Scale and Guidelines, the U.S. Foreign Service Institute (FSI) system, or the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). Unfortunately, academic course labels are also not always consistent across institutions, and the terms are relative to each other and often misleading. For example, “advanced” may not be very advanced at all in terms of actual performance but only with respect to a preceding level. Projection charts and assessment scales that are constructed based on the performance of many previous students help determine the time required in classroom hours to attain ascending levels of functioning in the TL. Table 1.1, taken from one such chart, compiled by the U.S. Foreign Service Institute (FSI) and adapted for public education by the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL), indicates the number of hours needed to develop ability levels in several languages (cf. Liskin-Gasparro 1982). FSI and ACTFL systems may be viewed and compared online: http://gauchatranslations.com/wp-content/ Table 1.1 Time Requirements for Learning Various Languages Time

Average Level Attained

Group I: Dutch, French, Italian, Spanish, etc. 8 weeks (240 hours) 16 weeks (480 hours) 24 weeks (720 hours)

1/1+ 2 2+

Group II: German, Greek, Farsi, Urdu, etc. 16 weeks (480 hours) 24 weeks (720 hours)

1/2+ 2

Group III: Bengali, Czech, Hebrew, Russian, etc. 16 weeks (480 hours) 24 weeks (720 hours)

1 2

Group IV: Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc. 16 weeks (480 hours) 24 weeks (720 hours)

1 1+

20

Introduction and Overview

uploads/2017/06/Correspondence-of-proficiency-scales.pdf. This excerpt lists TLs in four groups, based on levels of difficulty for English speakers, and indicates the hours and weeks needed on average to achieve proficiency levels ranging from zero to five (five representing a native speaker): Although this chart is constructed for English speakers learning other languages, one might hypothesize that speakers of the TLs cited might take about the same time to learn English. This may not apply, of course, where languages under consideration are historically and linguistically related, such as Spanish speakers learning Portuguese or German speakers learning Dutch. In any case, such a chart provides guidance regarding more realistic time commitments needed to achieve various proficiency levels in classroom situations. It is understood that time requirements for L2 development in immersion and in-country situations will differ and are most probably accelerated. Another relevant factor affecting language development is the approach to language teaching. Many innovative teaching methods have emerged over the past 50 years, each adding a variety of new techniques that are often quite ingenious; however, a communicative approach seems most effective given that its main focus is the development of proficiency. Communicative activities emphasize authentic communication, and, consequently, they are interactive and participatory. They strive to develop proficiency in all four skill areas: comprehension, speaking, reading, and writing. And, in addition to ability in the linguistic aspects of language, they also address paralinguistic, extralinguistic, and sociolinguistic aspects. Taken together, these combined dimensions ensure effective and appropriate language use when interacting and communicating with hosts in their tongue. Viewed this way, language and intercultural educators have much in common, and they must collaborate, overlap in their work, and provide useful and constructive redundancies that reinforce all components that constitute ICC, albeit with differing emphases. Today, the importance of developing a second, third, even a fourth language, and moving beyond monolingualism to multilingualism is well established. Whereas psychologists in the early 1900s viewed dual language development as having potentially negative effects, researchers over the last half century (plus changing world circumstances) now underscore the desirability (and often the necessity) of bilingual-multilingual abilities, pointing to cognitive and other benefits (cf. Todeva and Cenoz 2009). When referring to bilingualism and multilingualism, we are speaking of degrees of proficiency along a continuum, not of absolutes (cf. BaetensBeardsmore 1982). Linguists identify various types of bilinguals—to wit, simultaneous/sequential, alternating/balanced, active/passive, coordinate/ compound, and ambilingual or equilingual. Of these types, however, the ambilingual or equilingual speaker is a hypothetical construct and does not exist in fact. In other words, no individual, proficiency levels aside, commands two or more languages in identical ways—to the same degree, on all topics, and in every context (cf. Fantini 2007).

Introduction and Overview

21

In addition to varied degrees and types of bilinguals, there are also varied profiles of abilities. For example, consider the following text (or imagine a stranger approaching you on the street uttering these words); how might you react: “Desculpe, o senhor, pode-me ajudar? Eu estou perdido e não posso encontrar o meu hotel. Pode-me explicar como chegar lá? Estaria muito agradecido. Muito obrigado.” You might tend to skip over the text entirely (or ignore the person seeking assistance in a strange tongue). Another reaction, however, might be to show interest, feel intrigued, and try to figure out what is written, or to attempt to communicate with the stranger in creative ways. Moving beyond monolingualism, in fact, often begins with what we might term being an “incipient” bilingual. Simply put, this term stresses an attitude of willingness to engage with others despite the lack of a common tongue. This view of bilingualism emphasizes attitude—i.e., one that begins with a willingness to engage, even when no skill level exists. Such an attitude permits a process to unfold that enables one to develop the communication skills over time, given opportunity. The Portuguese text noted earlier underscores a further aspect of language: language as a “tool of communication,” but a tool that can also “excommunicate.” In other words, languages include those who share the system and exclude those who do not—another aspect of the dual nature of languages. Aside from bilingual types, degrees, and profiles, varying combinations exist when both bilingualism, plus or minus biculturalism, are considered. One might be bilingual without substantial biculturalism, bicultural without bilingualism, or bilingual and bicultural. The last combination links L2 and second cultural competence, as is the case in one’s native paradigm: everyone is competent in both an L1 and a C1 (i.e., competent in LC1). The same is desirable in a new language-culture—L2 + C2, or LC2, albeit with varying degrees of proficiency in accordance with exposure, duration, motivation, opportunity, etc. It is uncommon to achieve the same level of competence in second language–culture (LC2) that we have in our first system (i.e., native competence), although some do. In summary, developing LC2 in addition to native language–culture (LC1) assures the highest level of ICC. Moreover, those able to participate in more than one linguaculture obtain something more: two vantage points through an expanded worldview that allow comparing and contrasting both LCs, something that monolinguals of neither language-culture can never hope to achieve.

1.7

Exploring Common Goals

Language Education and Intercultural Communication The goals of the fields of language education and intercultural communication are inextricably linked. Each discipline, however, developed quite separately and with a different emphasis. Whereas language education

22

Introduction and Overview

has existed for many centuries (cf. Kelly 1969), intercultural communication is a relatively new field. In fact, IC was formalized a little over 50 years ago when Peace Corps intercultural trainers and language educators, engaged in preparing volunteers for service, were inventing the field through their practice. As they oriented volunteers to countries from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, and taught languages they were mostly unfamiliar with, their practice lacked a theoretical basis. That came later. Trainers met sporadically to discuss their evolving practices and to exchange ideas about their activities. Although intercultural communication theories and practices have evolved considerably since that time, and courses in intercultural communication (IC) are increasingly part of college offerings; its subject matter is still being defined and varies greatly (cf. Fantini and Smith 1997). The exchange of training ideas through occasional meetings of Peace Corps staff from around the country led to the creation of the premiere intercultural society, the Society for Intercultural Education, Training, and Research (SIETAR International), eventually spawning 35 local groups around the world (cf. Wight et al. 1999:11–16). What failed to happen (and persists to this day) was the integration of theory and practices of both intercultural professionals and language educators, despite our common goal of developing ICC. In general, intercultural educators and trainers leave language concerns to colleagues in the language field. This separation is evident throughout most published materials, in intercultural educational programs and training models, and reflected in the tools used for assessment (Fantini and Smith 1997). It is also reflected in the professional societies that represent interculturalists (such as SIETAR) and those for language educators (such as ACTFL and TESOL), which, unfortunately, have not yet considered the wisdom of holding a joint conference. Many interculturalists reflect this separate culture-language approach in their publications, and one scholar, while eschewing L2 proficiency in his work and models, described fluent L2 speakers who lack intercultural depth as “fluent fools” (Bennett 1997:16–21). Admittedly, there are individuals fluent in various languages, perhaps dilettantes intrigued by linguistic systems, with little knowledge or interest in the cultures they represent. Conversely, there are perhaps even more individuals with significant intercultural experience who interact with other cultures with no host language ability at all. Neither case represents the ideal, and neither case is desirable. Rather, our common concern should be to promote both culture and language abilities. It is reasonable to expect that intercultural entry and acceptance will be facilitated and accelerated when one both speaks the TL and understands the host culture, rather than having competence in only one of these areas. This expectation, in fact, is strongly substantiated in the findings of both research projects, discussed in later chapters.

Introduction and Overview

23

Although language educators commonly refer to cultural dimensions of language, their focus has generally been on “big C” culture (i.e., art, music, literature, history, etc.). Nonetheless, various scholars stand out who have attempted to change this paradigm through their works: Damen (1987), Kramsch (1993), Brown (1994), Phillips (1999), Sheth et al. (2002), Byram et al. (2002), Bai (2006), Littlemore and Low (2006), Spinthourakis et al. (2009), Kramsch (2014), Garrett-Rucks (2016), and Drewelow (2017), among others. Graduate students in various programs around the world are also beginning to draw attention to the need to combine language and IC through research they have conducted for their doctoral dissertations (cf. Almeida 2015; Lima and Guimarães 2017). This situation is being remedied to an even greater extent by the promulgation of ACTFL’s World-Readiness Standards for Learning Languages that identify five areas (communication, cultures, connections, comparisons, and communities) as the basis for designing and implementing foreign language curricula (cf. www.actfl. org/publications/all/world-readiness-standards-learning-languages ). Interculturalists, conversely, despite their focus on cross-cultural interactions, seldom refer to the specific language through which interaction occurs. Given the role of language to communication, it seems shortsighted to focus attention on interactions and ignore the language that mediates those same transactions. Separate approaches to the development of ICC are still quite common. The ubiquetousness of English worldwide may contribute to this situation since English speakers can travel widely and still find persons who speak their language. However, not all cross-cultural communication takes place in English. More typically, it transpires in one, two, or several languages and monolinguals are excluded when communication switches into other languages. Monolingual English speakers, indeed, are dependent on the goodwill of others to talk with them in English. The preparation of individuals for intercultural participation using multiple languages needs to be rethought. Expanded goals are needed that include the ability of individuals to make themselves understood linguistically as well as to gain acceptance behaviorally. Expanded goals, of course, lead to reformulating how best to prepare and assist individuals for the intercultural experience. New models based on shared language-culture goals will help language and intercultural educators focus on common areas, enhance positive redundancies, and reinforce each other’s work. Where culture-specific orientation is conducted, the TL must be included. Where culture-general orientation is conducted, language learning techniques (and general communicative strategies) can be introduced that promote active learning in field situations. In either case, attention must be given to the host language. And, in both disciplines, the common goal must support the development of ICC.

24

Introduction and Overview

The Role of Educators For some, formal intercultural contact and processes often begin in foreign language classroom settings, although informal exposure may also occur at home, given the diversity of society (especially for members of ethnic minority groups). In the latter case, ethnic minorities often live interculturally throughout their entire lives, given contrasts between their home linguaculture and a dominant one outside. However, there is little recognition of the intercultural nature of the experiences of ethnic minorities, nor of the development of their CC2 abilities through constant contact with other members of the mainstream culture. In contrast, language-culture classrooms provide a formal arena where learning about another society occurs. The language classroom is a place where contact with differentness is the subject matter and intercultural comparison is the focus. Educational exchange programs provide further opportunities for learners to explore other languages and cultures in real situations. All are opportunities that point in the same direction, working toward the same end goal. Hence, what is done vicariously in the artificiality of a classroom can be enhanced by drawing on cultural diversity that may exist in the institution by inviting diverse guests into classrooms and by sending students out to investigate ethnic neighborhoods and to research diversity in communities (cf. Fantini 1984). Within academia, language educators are especially well positioned to play a central role in developing intercultural abilities. For this to happen, however, the role of language teachers needs to be reconceptualized as linguaculture teachers. This is important also because as native English speakers, we often view English as our biggest asset; however, it is also our greatest liability. It is an asset because English is increasingly the L2 of many people around the world, and they come to know us through our language. Conversely, it is also a liability because we are often less motivated to learn an L2 (and culture). We lack experience in grappling with communication through another tongue and the attendant humility and challenges it poses, and we are unaware of the joys and insights derived when we succeed in communicating with others in their language. Language educators who prepare students for experiences abroad normally understand the need to foster abilities and behaviors beyond speaking the TL. Yet this same preparation is valuable for all students, including those in domestic classrooms, whether or not they cross a border or travel across an ocean. Successful relationships, both within cultures and across cultures, ultimately depend on the ability to deal with racial, religious, ethnic, and cultural differences in positive ways—to understand them, to appreciate them, and to respect them. Learning an L2 and concomitant intercultural abilities together, promotes this possibility in a powerful way. For this reason, the goals of learning an L2 and

Introduction and Overview

25

of developing intercultural abilities must be clearly articulated as one and the same goal—i.e., to enable our students to develop positive and meaningful relationships within and across cultures. While we have natives of other languages and cultures in mind, however, we must not overlook the fact that these abilities are just as important for relationships at home— with classmates, friends, and neighbors who may also represent diverse backgrounds. Academic study abroad experiences and educational exchange further opportunities to build on what should begin in language-culture classrooms. Immersion experiences, in real contexts, ideally with a homestay in a host family, and perhaps with a civic service project in the local community, all greatly advance the development of ICC. Peace Corps service serves as an example of an opportunity that has displayed many of these features over the past half century, creating one of the most important educational experiences of a lifetime for many people, young and old (cf. Wight et al. 1999). Together, language-culture teachers, interculturalists, and providers of educational exchange sojourns have a truly compelling and important task to perform. This study acknowledges the worthiness of that task and the research projects explained in the sections that follow elaborate on the challenges and opportunities in working toward helping participants become increasingly bilingual and bicultural.

Note 1. Adapted in part from Fantini in Jackson (2012:16, 263–78).

References ACTFL. (1995) ACTFL National Foreign Language Standards (renamed WorldReadiness Standards for Learning Languages). Online. Available: www.actfl. org/publications/all/world-readiness-standards-learning-languages (accessed 20 January 2018). Almeida, J. (2015) Mobilidade Estudantil Europeia e Aprendizagem Intercultural numa Universidade Portuguesa, Aveiro, Portugal: Universidade de Aveiro. Anglin, J. (1970) The Growth of Word Meaning, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Baetens-Beardsmore, H. (1982) Bilingualism: Basic Principles, Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Bai, R. (2006) “Foreign language teachers and intercultural competence: An international investigation,” in Teachers College Record, 108(8):1589, New York, NY. Bennett, M.J. (1997) “How not to be a fluent fool,” in A.E. Fantini (ed.) New Ways in Teaching Culture, Alexandria, VA: TESOL, pp. 16–21. British Council (2013) The Future of the World’s Mobile Students to 2014. Online. Available: http://ihe.britishcouncil.org/educationintelligence/futureworld-mobile-students 2024 (accessed 20 January 2018). Brown, H.D. (1994) Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, 3rd edn., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

26

Introduction and Overview

Byram, M., Gribkova, B., and Starkey, H. (2002) Developing the Intercultural Dimension in Language Teaching: A Practical Introduction for Teachers, Strasbourg, France: Language Policy Division, Council of Europe. Carroll, J.B. (1956) Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Case, R.S. (1966) A Time Apart: An Experiment in International Living, Pittsburgh, PA: Dorrance Publishing Co., Inc. Clapp, E.B. (1966) One Woman’s India: Experiment in Living, DeLand, FL: Everett/Edwards, Inc. Curtiss, S. (1977) Genie: A Psycholinguistic Study of a Modern-Day “Wild Child,” New York, NY: Academic Press. Damen, L. (1987) Culture Learning: The Fifth Dimension in the Language Classroom, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Deardorff, D.K. and Arasaratnam-Smith, L.A. (2017) Intercultural Competence in Higher Education: International Approaches, Assessment and Application, London and New York, NY: Routledge. Drewelow, I. (2017) “A socio-constructivist approach to developing intercultural empathy,” in Issues in Language Program Direction: Social Pedagogies and Entwining Language with the World, AAUSC (American Association of University Supervisors, Coordinators, and Directors of Language Programs), Vol. 2017. European Commission (2015) A Statistical Overview of the ERASMUS Program in 2012–2013. Online. Available: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_ culture/repository/education/library/publications/erasmus-stat-2012–13_ en.pdf (accessed 20 January 2018). Fantini, A.E. (1984) Beyond the Language Classroom: A Guide for Teachers, Brattleboro, VT: The Experiment Press. ——— (1985) Language Acquisition of a Bilingual Child: A Sociolinguistic Perspective, Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. ——— (ed.) (1995) Special issue: “Language, culture and world view,” in International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 19(2). ——— (ed.) (2002) Study Abroad: Student Essays and Research Papers, 3rd edn., Brattleboro, VT: School for International Training. ——— (2007) “Exploring bilingualism: Its development, use, and effects,” in U.D. Scheu Lottgen and J. Saura Sánchez (eds.) Discourse and International Relations, Berne: Peter Lang, pp. 263–77. ——— (2012) “Language: An essential component of ICC,” in J. Jackson (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural Communication, London and New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 263–78. Fantini, A.E. and Smith, E.M. (1997) “A survey of intercultural communication courses,” in D. Landis (ed.) International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 21(1):125–45. Fantini, A.E., Todd, I., Almeida, J., and Figuereido, C. (2015) Exploring Intercultural Communicative Competence: A Multinational Perspective, Brattleboro, VT: Federation of the Experiment in International Living, Unpublished report, p. 235. Gardner, R.C. and Lambert, W.E. (1972) Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning, Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers. Garrett-Rucks, P. (2016) Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning: Bridging Theory and Practice, Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Hall, E.T. (1973) The Silent Language, Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co. Institute of International Education (2016) Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange. Online. Available: www.iie.org/Research-and-

Introduction and Overview

27

Publications/Open-Doors/Data/US-Study-Abroad#.WLSUoTt97D4 (accessed 20 January 2018). Kelly, L.G. (1969) 25 Centuries of Language Teaching, Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers. Kramsch, C. (1993) Context and Culture in Language Teaching, Oxford: Oxford University Press. ——— (2014) “Teaching foreign languages in an era of globalization: Introduction,” in The Modern Language Journal, 98(1). Krashen, S.D. (1988) Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall International. Lane, H. (1976) The Wild Boy of Aveyron, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lima, R.R. and Guimarães, J.E. (2017) Competência Intercultural e o Ensino de Inglês Língua Estrangeira: Uma Experiência na Educação Básica, Pará, Belem: Universidade do Estado do Pará, Unpublished PhD dissertation. Liskin-Gasparro, J.E. (1982) ETS Oral Proficiency Testing Manual, Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Littlemore, J. and Low, G. (2006) “Metaphoric competence, second language learning, and communicative language ability,” in Applied Linguistics, 27(2):268, London. MacNeil, R. and Cran, W. (2005) Do You Speak American? New York, NY: Nan A. Talese. Masson, J. and Feuerbach, P.J. (1997) The Wild Child: The Unsolved Mystery of Kaspar Hauser, New York, NY: Free Press Paperbacks. Phillips, J.K. (1999) Foreign Language Standards: Linking Research, Theories, and Practices, Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Co. Pinker, S. (1994) The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language, New York, NY: William Morrow and Co. Sheth, A., Southard, S., and Bates, C. (2002) “Promoting intercultural communicative competence through foreign language courses,” in Technical Communication, 52(1):105. Singh, J.A.L. and Zingg, R.M. (1966) Wolf-Children and Feral Man, Hamden, CT: Archon Books. Smith, S.H. and Paracka, D.J. (2018) “Global learning is shared learning: Interdisciplinary intercultural competence at a comprehensive regional university,” in International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 63:17–26, Elsevier, Ltd. Spinthourakis, J.A., Karatzia-Stavlioti, E., and Roussakis, Y. (2009) “Pre-service teacher intercultural sensitivity assessment as a basis for addressing multiculturalism,” in Intercultural Education, 20(3):267–76. Taylor, C. (2016) The Language Animal: The Full Shape of the Human Linguistic Capacity, Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Todeva, E. and Cenoz, J. (2009) The Multiple Realities of Multilingualism, Berlin and New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter. Trivedi, A. (2003) The Experiment: A Way to Peace, New Delhi, India: The Indian Association of The Experiment in International Living. Ungar, S. (2016) “The study-abroad solution: How to open the American mind,” in Foreign Affairs. Online. Available: www.foreignaffairs.com/authors/sanford-jungar (accessed 20 January 2018). Watt, D.B. (1967) Intelligence Is Not Enough, Putney, VT: The Experiment Press. ——— (1977) Letters to the Founder, Brattleboro, VT: The Experiment Press. Wight, A.J., Wasilewski, J., Arzac, A., and Jones, D. (1999) “SIETAR’s past, present, and future,” in A.E. Fantini (ed.) The SIETAR Journal, 1(1):11–16.

2

2.1

Reconceptualizing Intercultural Communicative Competence

Overview

This chapter explores the concept of intercultural communicative competence (ICC) based on a synthesis of an extensive search of the intercultural literature in various languages and spanning more than 50 years. It harks back to an early notion of “communicative competence” (CC) well known within the field of language education, which expands the notion of language beyond grammar and vocabulary to include paralinguistic, extralinguistic, and sociolinguistic dimensions, and focuses on interactional behaviors appropriate to the target culture. CC serves as the fundamental concept to keep in mind when dealing with a second CC, and, despite nearly 50 terms used in the literature, “intercultural” CC emerges as the most comprehensive description of the abilities needed to perform appropriately and effectively in a new culture. Having defined ICC, its components are also identified from the literary search. These include certain characteristics or attributes, three dimensions (relationships, communication, and collaboration), four components (attitudes/ affect, skills, knowledge, and awareness), target or host language ability (a commonly omitted but essential component), and a developmental process over time. To promote ICC development, the evolution of practices in the fields of language education and intercultural communication are traced from the 1960s to the present, ending with recommendations to strengthen the interrelationship between both fields in order to maximize ICC development in academic settings and during educational exchanges.

2.2

About Communicative Competence

The previous chapter proposed new goals and expanded paradigms for educational exchange—ones that promote the full development of intercultural communicative competence (ICC). The development of new paradigms, however, depends on clear, comprehensive, and consistent notions of ICC. Yet a degree of inconsistency in intercultural constructs and terms persists in the field. Interculturalists employ varying terms to

Reconceptualizing Intercultural Communicative Competence

29

identify the abilities needed for intercultural entry. In addition to using varied terms, they commonly stress certain intercultural attributes while ignoring others, resulting in assessment processes that also address varying and only partial components. Educational exchange programs, like all intercultural interactions, provide rich opportunities to develop a full range of competencies, and it would be less than useful to account for only some of the many benefits of such an experience. The intercultural literature is replete with examples of such inconsistencies and omissions. For this reason, a necessary preliminary step before undertaking our research efforts was to review and reconceptualize the notion of ICC to ensure that we investigated all aspects, including language as a fundamental component. The discussion that follows responds to these concerns before addressing the actual design and implementation of the research projects (described later)—first, by examining CC, and then ICC and its multiple components, followed by creation of an instrument to measure and monitor this complex phenomenon. To understand “intercultural” communicative competence (ICC), we return first to the notion of communicative competence (CC). The term CC was well known among language educators some 50 years ago (and advanced through other disciplines). CC proved to be an important notion in the field of language education because it broadened traditional views of the language field, expanding the subject matter to encompass more than grammar structures and vocabulary. CC embraced all of the multiple abilities required to perform as a competent and comprehensible member within any language and cultural group. Every individual, in every culture, develops CC; in other words, everyone is competent in some CC system. Like language itself, we do not think about this competence because we have been communicatively competent for as long as we can remember. Moreover, like other aspects of our symbol systems, CC develops through a process of enculturation, beginning at birth. The process evolves so quickly that, by five, children are already native members of their society; moreover, they can identify those who are not. Even children with hearing or sight limitations develop alternative CC systems. They communicate in comprehensible and intelligible ways. In fact, they only become intelligible and acceptable members of society because of their ability in its communication system. Assuming no mental or physical limitations, we all master our LC1 system and, without realizing it, our LC1 system masters us (a phenomenon referred to as “languageculture unawareness”). In other words, we know of no alternative—that is, until and unless we enter into an LC2. Native communicative competence (or CC1), then, displays the precise combination of attributes that we also need to develop (in as far as possible) to participate in any language-culture system. Subsequent communicative competencies (CC2, CC3, CC4, etc.) all require precisely the same abilities that made us acceptable and intelligible within our initial CC. In summary, one’s CC1 includes shared values and beliefs, language

30

Reconceptualizing Intercultural Communicative Competence

and communicative behaviors as appropriate by context, and a shared semantic system. Clearly, this must be the same for meaningful participation in an LC2 (at least to some degree). Given this understanding of CC, we turn to encounters with an LC2 sometime later in life. Whereas all children acquire the language and culture to which they are exposed (including dual languages and cultures in bilingual settings), the same does not necessarily occur with adults entering a new society. Despite ideal circumstances, developing a CC2, CC3, or CC4 later in life is never quite the same as developing the CC1. What is quite clear is that the processes (and the results) of developing a subsequent CC later in life, especially beyond puberty, are increasingly different for a host of reasons. Psycholinguists, in fact, have contributed numerous studies that identify differences and similarities between sequential development of CCs, as well as differences and similarities when developing two or more systems simultaneously in infancy (as in the case of bilingual and multilingual children). Various factors such as social, psychological, and biological are some of the aspects that come into play (cf. Saporta and Bastian 1961). The greatest impediment to entering a CC2 later in life, however, is the fact that one already possesses a well-established CC system. One’s native CC exists and persists. One’s native CC simply cannot be set aside or ignored. It has served as the sole lens through which one has viewed the world, conceptualized, expressed, interacted, and behaved up to the moment of contact with the CC2, and its influence is total. It is how we operate in the world. Nevertheless, developing a new CC in another language-culture, to whatever degree and in whatever manner, constitutes “intercultural” contact and an “intercultural” process ensues. Contrasts between the two language-cultures come into play during periods of contact and interaction. One views and interprets the new CC through the only lens one currently has; one judges, hypothesizes, and configures in one’s most natural way. Developing a second, new, and different lens is therefore appropriately termed “ICC” because one’s CC1 and CC2 both demand our attention in several areas—through intercultural interaction, communicative behaviors, and cultural competencies. We might envision it as shown in Figure 2.1. Communicative competence1 Communicative competence2 Intercultural communicative competence

Figure 2.1 Interaction of CC1 and CC2

Note that the addition of CC2 to CC1 is interactive (indicated by the arrow pointing in both directions)—i.e., development of a CC2 often has an impact on and affects one’s CC1. One’s CC1 does not remain unaltered but is commonly affected, revised, and transformed as a result

Reconceptualizing Intercultural Communicative Competence

31

of contact with another system. An additional aspect of interest is that CC2 development enables another possibility: the ability to compare and contrast the two languages, two cultures, and two views of the world involved. Finally, it is normally the case that no matter how proficient one becomes in a CC2, that new ability is seldom on par with one’s native competence, even when it might exceed one’s native ability in certain areas (given one’s interests and experiences in specific areas of endeavor). In any case, intercultural contact (in positive contexts) opens the possibility of entering a new and different language-culture. This experience is enriching because possession of a LC2 allows one not only to know more but also to know differently. However, there is more: the LC2 permits interacting with representatives of another worldview; it expands options and choices (each of which bears consequences), and it affects one’s original perspective of the world. A popular proverb captures this thought: “If you want to know about water, don’t ask a goldfish.” Like the goldfish, we are often unaware of our own medium—that is, until we have left our own medium behind.

2.3 Toward a Concept of Intercultural Communicative Competence Whereas communicative competence is a well-known concept and widely understood (especially within the field of language education), “intercultural”communicative competence is not, despite many attempts to address and define it: Martin (1989), Samovar and Porter (1991), Lusting and Koester (1993), Wiseman and Koester (1993), Byram (1997), Martin and Nakayama (2000), Alpetkin (2002), Deardorff (2004), and Humphrey (2007), among others. An abundance of published literature on the topic reveals a wide range of terms in use, not always meaning the same thing. In addition, a recent study (cf. Edelstein 2014) that reviewed research on study abroad outcomes concluded that there is no clear, measurable consensus regarding the abilities needed to be “globally competent” and what study abroad experiences should be teaching students in order to produce “interculturally competent” graduates. Several subsequent surveys echo this observation, including one that reviewed 1,204 citations based on an extensive electronic search of databases (cf. Alizadeh and Chavan 2015). This survey, moreover, confirmed a lack of empirical studies to substantiate the benefits of intercultural competence (IC) as described in most works. It should be noted, however, that the electronic survey was conducted solely in English. This is beginning to change, however, as the search continues among younger graduate students pursuing the task in other parts of the world, including a recent attempt by Malaysian scholars who proposed a model of ICC for their own context (cf. Nadeem et al. 2017). Although Bennett (2015:xxiii) reports that “there appears to be an emerging consensus around what constitutes intercultural competence,

32

Reconceptualizing Intercultural Communicative Competence

most often viewed as a set of cognitive, affective, and behavioral skills and characteristics,” certain other inconsistencies cannot be easily dismissed. Evidence continues to reveal a lack of consistency not only about what IC should be termed but also about the attributes it encompasses. For this reason, before undertaking the two research projects on which this work is based, we felt compelled to conduct an extensive review of the literature as a preliminary step—a review, however, conducted in multiple languages and spanning 50 years. RAs in multiple countries assisted in the literary search in an attempt to ascertain areas of convergence and divergence regarding ICC. The compilation produced a surprising array of terms—to wit, biculturalism, cross-cultural adaptation, cross-cultural awareness, cross-cultural communication, cultural competence, cultural or intercultural sensitivity, effective intergroup communication, ethnorelativity, global competence, global competitive intelligence, global mindedness, global mind-set, intercultural competence, intercultural cooperation, intercultural effectiveness, intercultural interaction, international communication, international competence, metaphoric competence, multiculturalism, plurilingualism, and transcultural communication, among others. And this is only a partial list. Most terms allude to incomplete aspects of a more complex phenomenon. Some terms stress global knowledge, others sensitivity, and still others highlight certain skills. Our long involvement with exchange programs and the field of IC suggested that most terms, definitions, and models in use inadequately encompass all that occurs when individuals engage in intercultural contact. Lacking a single unifying concept, it is also not surprising, therefore, that a myriad of different assessment instruments exists to measure intercultural outcomes (we collected 140 and found still others are under development) (cf. Fantini et al. 2015:247). Assessment instruments, of course, are only as good as the concepts on which they are based and the components they attempt to measure. Among these terms, the board of directors of ACTFL endorsed and promoted “global competence” in 2014. Consequently, global competence is in wide use today, especially among foreign language educators in the U.S. The term, however, posits an unlikely goal—one impossible to attain given that no individual can become “globally” competent. Whereas one may develop competence in a second, third, or several language-cultures, no one can develop competence in all. Competence in another language-culture, of course, may facilitate and accelerate the learning of still others, but it is impossible to develop competence on a global scale. Perhaps a nation may aspire to global competence as a collective among its citizens, but global competence is not achievable by a single individual. And, despite its use as a superordinate term in several published articles, those same articles employing this phrase frequently interchange it with “IC” throughout the text as though both terms were equivalent.

Reconceptualizing Intercultural Communicative Competence

33

Among the many other terms cited in the literature, the most commonly used label is “intercultural competence” (IC). Yet, based on our search (and the discussion earlier regarding CC), a more descriptive and complete term appears to be “intercultural communicative competence” (ICC). Furthermore, since the field is commonly known as “intercultural communication”” or “cross-cultural communication,” why would the ability we speak of not be termed competence in IC, or “intercultural communicative + competence?” Again, the emphasis is on communication—speaking, behaving, and interacting. Although longer and perhaps more cumbersome, this latter term ensures that the focus is on communication (i.e., language), indispensable and fundamental to a complete concept of ICC. In the end, the varied terms and the concepts they reflect, orient and affect the work of researchers and educators with regard to their objectives, lesson plans and program designs, and approaches to assessment. The lack of consensus leads to a diversity of approaches, from start to finish. Consensus regarding ICC and its components will help to formulate clearer educational objectives and expectations, as well as aid in designing and implementing better training efforts to develop ICC in participants. A comprehensive notion is also necessary to determine what and how to monitor and measure what is at the heart of our concern: the development of interculturally and communicatively competent individuals. Finding the most appropriate label, formulating a proper definition, and identifying the constituent components that comprise ICC presented the most basic challenge preceding implementation of the actual research projects themselves. This preliminary work was essential for the design, plan, and implementation of both research efforts. It also formed the basis for compiling the assessment instrument used to measure and monitor the outcomes of those who underwent intercultural sojourns. After completing the literary search, we compared findings with the ideas we held, informed by our academic and empirical work in the field over many years (cf. Fantini 2000; Fantini et al. 2001). This approach resulted in a construct that we felt was holistic and comprehensive compared to others reported in the literature to date. This construct, in turn, provided the basis for creating the Assessment of Intercultural Competence (AIC) and Assessment of Intercultural Communicative Competence (AICC) Survey Forms employed in the first and second study, respectively (cf. Appendix A: AIC Form and Appendix B: AICC Form). Having concluded the term ICC to be the most appropriate designation, our search then focused on the question, what exactly is ICC? What are its components? To this end, we reviewed well-known models and found that many were developed by individual scholars with a few based on limited surveys involving other interculturalists. With few exceptions, most represented ideas based on work conducted within a single language

34

Reconceptualizing Intercultural Communicative Competence

(mostly English) and within a single culture (often North American) (e.g., Bennett’s model 1993; Byram et al.’s model 2001; Deardorff’s model 2008, among others). To ensure a more inclusive and comprehensive perspective, our Research Assistants (RAs) helped in reviewing the intercultural literature of scholars over the past half century, in multiple languages, and in multiple countries. The international team identified those ICC components most consistently cited in the literature as the basis for constructing the multiple components used in our model. This expanded model provided the objectives, the guidelines for achieving them, and the criteria on which to measure and monitor the outcomes. The result is a multinational perspective that undergirded our research efforts, a concept of ICC, briefly defined as “a complex of abilities needed to perform effectively and appropriately when interacting with others who are linguistically and culturally different from oneself” (Fantini and Tirmizi 2006:12). The terms “effective” and “appropriate” are both equally important in this definition (and are now widely used) because they acknowledge that input is needed from two perspectives—that of self and that of other. Early on in our work with the U.S. Peace Corps, trainers spoke mostly of “effective.” During Peace Corps training programs, for example, the phrase used was to prepare volunteers for “effective functioning overseas.” Much later, and largely thanks to the work of sociolinguists, the concept of appropriateness became clearly acknowledged—appropriateness of speech and behaviors as determined by context and situation within a given language-culture. As a result, both terms (“effective” and “appropriate”) became extremely important, bolstered by another concept: that of “etic” and “emic,” in which etic refers to one’s own view of the context and situation (i.e., an outsider’s view of the target linguaculture). Conversely, emic refers to the view of context and situation as seen by members of the target linguaculture (an insider’s view). A sojourner’s etic view in a new linguaculture is highly influenced and affected by his or her own native CC. Naturally, the views of sojourners and hosts often differ. Hence the task of trainers and educators is to help sojourners understand this variance and to help them to develop an understanding of the emic view of the culture (that is, a native’s view). While this requires time and perseverance, an emic view is ultimately the view of a culture that natives themselves hold of the world. In addition, approaching an emic viewpoint also affects and reduces problems of self-report (when sojourners perform self-assessments), acknowledging the distinctive views held by both sojourners and hosts regarding outcomes. Whereas perceptions may differ, it is instructive to understand etic-emic contrasts and to compare and account for them precisely because they arise from differing cultural perspectives of the same situation. In this, we are reminded of a statement by Plato who said, “If there is not contradictory impression, there is nothing to awaken reflection” (Heifetz 1994:6).

Reconceptualizing Intercultural Communicative Competence

2.4

35

Components of Intercultural Communicative Competence

A definition of ICC, of course, requires further elaboration for operational use. Whereas ICC is the superordinate term, it has multiple subcomponents. For this reason, the literary search also sought to identify precisely the components and aspects that comprise it. The following components emerged consistently from the survey: (1) various characteristics or attributes, (2) three areas or domains, (3) four dimensions, (4) host language proficiency, and (5) degrees of attainment that evolve through a longitudinal and developmental process. These components and aspects are illustrated in Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2 Components and Aspects of ICC

Following is an elaboration of each component: 1) Characteristics—Common ICC characteristics cited in the literature include the following attributes: flexibility, humor, patience, openness, interest, curiosity, empathy, tolerance for ambiguity, and suspending judgments, among others. While participants in the research projects echoed all of these same characteristics in their responses, they also added several more to this list (cited in the research reports that follow). It is useful to distinguish acquired characteristics (related to one’s cultural and situational context) from traits (i.e., innate personal

36

Reconceptualizing Intercultural Communicative Competence

qualities)—a sort of nurture versus nature distinction. This distinction may be helpful for educational and training programs because it poses the question: Which aspects form part of an individual’s intrinsic personality and which can be developed or modified through training and educational efforts? 2) Three areas or domains—The survey also identified three areas or domains: the ability to establish and maintain relationships, the ability to communicate with minimal loss or distortion, and the ability to collaborate in order to accomplish something of mutual interest or need. Not surprisingly, these are relevant to success within one’s native LC1 as well. 3) Four dimensions—Whereas IC models commonly identify only three dimensions, the literature survey revealed four dimensions as important: (positive) attitudes/affect, skills, knowledge, and awareness. Of these, awareness, however, appears to be central to the other dimensions (and therefore placed at the center in Figure 2.3), and it is especially critical to cross-cultural development. Awareness is furthered through developments in positive attitudes, skills, and knowledge, while it in turn also enhances and furthers their development.

Figure 2.3 The Four Dimensions of ICC

Awareness is increased through reflection and introspection in which the LC1 and LC2 are compared and contrasted—a process that occurs quite naturally during intercultural encounters but is also enhanced through discussion and interventions. Awareness differs from knowledge. Knowledge can be forgotten, but once one is aware, it is difficult to become unaware. In addition, awareness is always about the “self”

Reconceptualizing Intercultural Communicative Competence

37

vis-à-vis everything else in the world (other things, other people, other thoughts, etc.) and ultimately helps to clarify what is deepest and most relevant in one’s identity. Awareness involves exploring, experimenting, and experiencing (the subtitle of a book by Stevens 1971). It is pivotal to cross-cultural entry and to acceptance by members of other cultures (and for this reason, it deserves a clear role in orientation models and procedures). The well-known Brazilian educator, Paulo Freire (1970, 1973, 1998), placed awareness or conscientização at the center of his approach to education, reinforcing this notion with several important observations: • • • • •

conscientização is awareness of selfhood conscientização is a critical look at the self in a social situation it can produce a transformation of the self and of one’s relation to others it can lead to dealing critically and creatively with reality (and fantasy) it is the important task of education.

4) Target language proficiency—Ability to communicate in the TL enhances ICC development in quantitative and qualitative ways. This is firmly substantiated by the findings of both international research projects. After assessing host language proficiency levels attained by sojourners, many respondents gave testimony about how their increasing levels of proficiency positively affected their intercultural adjustments. Here are a few quotes made by respondents (more detail provided in later chapters dealing with the research): [Learning the host language affects ICC development/language was vital to overall intercultural success/it would have been impossible to perform duties without it/it opened a new world of opportunities and experiences/things changed as I gained proficiency in the language/ language was key to everything, to communicating, and to understanding the culture]. Sojourners also provided eloquent and insightful written narratives attesting to the importance of host language ability, and this came from individuals who were initially monolingual and unsophisticated with foreign languages. Their insights were derived not from linguistic study but from their own field experiences. They wrote not only of the importance of host language ability but also of the limitations imposed without it. In summary, it is clear that increased host language proficiency enhances entry possibilities, whereas lack of proficiency constrains entry adaptations and understanding of the host culture. Grappling with another language also fosters development of alternative communication strategies, diverse discourse styles, and on someone else’s terms, a humbling and challenging process. Lack of an L2, even at a minimal level, constrains one to continue to think about the world

38

Reconceptualizing Intercultural Communicative Competence

and act within it entirely in one’s native system, depriving the individual of one of the most valuable aspects of intercultural learning. 5) Levels of attainment—ICC is a gradual process that develops over time, occasionally with moments of stagnation and even regression. Much depends on the strength of one’s motivation (instrumental or integrative) and attitudes regarding the host culture. Establishing benchmarks (rubrics) can help to monitor and measure progress in this journey. Here are some examples of gross levels: • • •

•

Level I: Educational traveler—participants in short-term exchange programs (1–2 months) Level II: Sojourner—participants engaged in extended cultural immersion—e.g., internships of longer duration (3–9 months) Level III: Professional—individuals working in intercultural or multicultural contexts—e.g., faculty and staff employed in international institutions or organizations Level IV: Intercultural/multicultural specialist—trainers or educators engaged in training, educating, consulting, or advising international students.

In summary, this definition of ICC and its components is based on a compilation culled from over 200 publications, in several languages, spanning half a century—a multinational perspective. As a result, our research team believed it to be a more comprehensive construct than existing models to use in the two research projects that followed. These research projects, in turn, were also designed to test empirically the validity of this construct and substantiate whether these components were indeed borne out in actual field situations by exchange participants from eight countries having sojourns in more than 40 other countries. Additional multinational studies conducted in the future may add further detail to this model. In the end, a construct of ICC will benefit from the contributions of many, and from many perspectives, based on different types of sojourners and in varied cultural immersion situations.

2.5 Trends in Language Education and Intercultural Communication Language education has made enormous strides over the past half century. Breaking tradition with a centuries-old, grammar-translation approach, the Audio-Lingual Method shifted the focus in the 1960s from earlier teaching practices that emphasized memorization, grammar, and translation to newer principles founded on behaviorism. Other ideas quickly ensued, leading to a succession of innovative methods— from Audio-Lingual to the Direct Method, Silent Way, Community Language Learning (CLL), Situational Reinforcement, Suggestopedia, Total Physical Response (TPR), and Notional-Functional Syllabus,

Reconceptualizing Intercultural Communicative Competence

39

among others. Although each new method experienced varying degrees of success, most educators today have moved beyond a single “method” as attention shifted from pedagogy (or teaching) to acquisition and learning—i.e., how individuals develop languages, differences in learning styles and strategies, and, eventually, to the crux of the matter—to communicating. Today, communicative and competency-based approaches are widespread, stressing language proficiency and developing the learner’s ability to perform specific tasks or functions in the LC2, such as greeting, asking/giving autobiographical information, asking/giving directions, requesting, commanding, negotiating, apologizing, etc. Although this shift represents an important step toward communicating in a second tongue, many language educators still focus heavily on linguistic aspects of communicating and neglect concomitant interactive and behavioral dimensions required to communicate appropriately. There are, however, hopeful signs of change. An issue of the Foreign Language Annals (2010), for example, featured several articles that promote language awareness, social interaction, and pragmatic development—all steps in the right direction. ACTFL, the professional society of language educators, also promoted another important step forward in 1996 when it convened a group of professionals to develop National Foreign Language Standards for language teachers. These standards, later renamed the World-Readiness Standards, are configured as interlocking circles depicting five goal areas for developing language curricula, as shown in Figure 2.4.

Figure 2.4 World-Readiness Standards: Five Goal Areas

40

Reconceptualizing Intercultural Communicative Competence

To help implement these standards in the design of curriculum, one model is the Process Approach (PA) Framework, which posits cycles of seven stages in developing lesson units: from presentation of new material to practice, grammar exploration, transposition or use, sociolinguistic exploration, culture exploration, and, finally, intercultural exploration (Fantini 1997:40–4). Use of this framework ensures that teachers address language, interactions, behaviors, cultural aspects, and cultural comparisons in each lesson before beginning the next cycle. That said, implementation of a communicative approach is spotty, and its use varies from institution to institution and country to country. Although many countries have made a serious commitment to integrate foreign languages into their curriculum, the quality of language teaching varies dramatically. In recent years, for example, Chile, China, and Korea mandated study of English as part of public education. Although Japan has done likewise, its instructional approach is mainly ineffective at present, as teachers are inadequately prepared, speak mostly in Japanese, and focus primarily on grammar. This attempt contrasts with the European Union’s policy designed to make all students minimally trilingual by high school graduation by initiating L2 study in the early years and adding a third language a few years later. In many cases, however, language is often taught without adequate cultural context, although attempts at change are occurring. Several educators have helped to redefine the role of the foreign language teacher. In Europe, an article by Sercu (2006), for example, speaks of “the foreign language and IC teacher: the acquisition of a new professional identity.” Works by Byram et al. (2002), Sercu et al. (2005), and Usó-Juan and Martínez-Flor (2006) address this same issue. In the US, ACTFL’s adoption of the new standards explicitly incorporate context. These standards include a model labeled the “Three Ps” (products, practices, and perspectives), which expands the teaching paradigm (based on a model of artifacts, sociofacts, and mentifacts developed by Fantini and Fantini 1997:57–61). ACTFL also produced an excellent series of videos featuring exemplary teachers in language classrooms across the US demonstrating communicative teaching activities situated in cultural contexts (cf. ACTFL [2003] Foreign Language Video Series). These are signs of the language field moving in a direction that begins to overlap and reinforce the efforts of intercultural education and closer to an integrated model of ICC. The increasing use of creative technology, such as telecollaboration, virtual reality, and digital storytelling, add other resources toward this goal. Concurrently, unease about the spread of languages of wide communication as instruments of imperialism (especially English, Spanish, and French) seems to have diminished. This may be because minority language speakers increasingly choose to learn these lingua francas. In many cases, L2 ability (especially in “world” languages) is viewed as a sign of prestige, opportunity, and modernity, affording advantages to bilingual

Reconceptualizing Intercultural Communicative Competence

41

and multilingual speakers (cf. Graddol 2006). Another article, moreover, points to the fact that there are now more French speakers in the world outside of France than in France itself and that speaking French no longer relates only to the culture of France (cf. Kimmelman 2010). Certainly, the same must be true of English. Esperanto, an auxiliary language developed over 100 years ago (cf. Zamenhof 1887) and with an estimated ten million speakers worldwide today, presents a contrasting scenario. Artificially created, it pertains to no specific culture, yet its spread continues around the world for quite different reasons. In general, Esperantists simply wish to get to know others from many cultures, rather than a single or a specific culture, and they find that Esperanto makes this possible. Curiously, using a language that transcends all cultures makes most Esperantists into another type of interculturalist. The Esperantic Studies Foundation (cf. www.esperantic.org) provides information, conferences, courses, and workshops on developments in the field of planned languages and interlinguistics. As with language education, the intercultural field has also spread around the world and changes continue to evolve in how it is conceptualized and practiced. Representing educators and trainers in the intercultural field is the professional organization SIETAR, akin to TESOL, ACTFL, and other professional societies. Through conferences and publications, local chapters of SIETAR provide venues and networks through which interculturalists can share models, methods, and techniques for preparing people to live, study, and work interculturally. Today, IC courses are well established in many universities, especially in North America and Europe, and many institutions offer degrees in this field as well (cf. Fantini and Smith 1997:125–45). Courses and training programs are commonplace for students, business people, and professionals preparing for overseas sojourns. Often, these programs are offered concurrently with language courses. Cross-cultural orientation is provided not only for predeparture but also during and upon return from an overseas experience. Orientation efforts are both culture specific and culture general, as the context requires; they are content and process oriented and, typically, they employ interactive and participatory techniques and significant experiential and field-based activities.

2.6

Summary and Conclusions

“How can I speak of the sea to the frog if it has never left its pond?” This oft-quoted statement by Chung Tzu, a fourth-century BCE Chinese philosopher, captures the significance of educational exchange. Intercultural experiences are transformative, and they contribute significantly to human development in general. Just as entry into one’s initial languageculture paradigm is fundamental for every being to become human, access to a second linguaculture can also be a powerful catalyst toward opening up further possibilities and expanding on that original view of

42

Reconceptualizing Intercultural Communicative Competence

the world. As one develops competence, these possibilities are further enhanced. Essential to these competencies, however, is the development of L2 proficiency. In Whorf’s words, “A change in language can transform our appreciation of the Cosmos” (Carroll 1956:vii). Conversely, ignorance of the host tongue seriously constrains participation, impedes the ability to grasp alternative ways of being, and leaves one with monocular vision. Developing ICC competencies, however, is not a simple task. Despite modern language teaching approaches that stress communication, developing L2 proficiency requires time, effort, and constancy. Moreover, it is not easy for most individuals to question, introspect, and reconfigure the view that they hold of the world. For this reason, intercultural sojourns are arguably one of the most provocative educational experiences imaginable, challenging the sojourner on every level. In addition, although intercultural learning may occur without knowledge of the host language (cf. Bennett 1997:16–21), it is qualitatively different and severely impoverished by comparison. Without host language ability, one cannot directly access the thoughts, the culture, and the worldview of their hosts. One can only learn about these things vicariously and intellectually, but not experientially. L2 completes the whole and provides access, fully and directly. Developing intercultural competencies with language, then, facilitates full entrance into a new society. It allows participation and interaction in ways otherwise not possible. It extends relationships, evokes new sentiments, weakens stereotypes, and crumbles prejudices. It provokes new questions and stimulates reflection and introspection. Moreover, it leads toward bilingualism-biculturalism. If an L2 serves as a roadmap to another view of the world, then trilingualism is even better. A third language (and still others) breaks down potentially polarized views of the world common to bilinguals (e.g., Mexicans are like this and Americans are like that) and promotes the understanding that cultural aspects may also be shared by several groups instead of contrasting only two. Moreover, intercultural experiences are multidimensional. Returnees from a sojourn abroad often affirm its provocative and educational nature with comments like “I learned a lot about my host culture but, surprisingly, I learned even more about myself.” Such statements underscore the two-way nature of intercultural contact—in learning about others, we learn more about ourselves. In addition, in learning about differences, we gain insights into our common humanity underlying the many linguacultures around the globe. For all these reasons, intercultural experiences are typically transformative and result in a profound paradigm shift. Paradigm shifts of this magnitude are difficult to imagine within a monolingual, monocultural individual, shifts so deep that they produce

Reconceptualizing Intercultural Communicative Competence

43

that “crack in the cosmic egg” that Pearce (1971) described over 40 years ago, shifts that give new meaning to the challenge from Don Juan when he admonished, Who the hell do you think you are to say the world is so and so . . . just because you think it is so and so? Who gave you the authority? To believe that the world is only as you think, is stupid. The world is a strange place . . . full of mystery and awe. (Castaneda 1972:88) To summarize, language is fundamental to participation in any society. This is true in our initial cultural experience, and it is just as true in a second cultural experience. L2 development must be understood as essential to a full range of intercultural competencies. When considering the abilities needed for effective and appropriate cross-cultural interactions, the languages of both parties must form part of the core goal. When both are not included, an imbalance results. Monolinguals (especially those born to languages of wider communication) must recognize their language as both asset and liability. We cannot allow our languages of influence and power to prevent us from engaging in the dramatic experience that results when we attempt communication through other systems. The process must be direct, experienced (as well as “intellectual”), reflective, and introspective, and focus on learning to be and to do in alternative ways. As a result, we will profit maximally from the benefits of intercultural educational exchange— experiences that are unequaled, that change our approach to the world, and that enrich us for the rest of our lives.

References ACTFL. (1996) ACTFL World-Readiness Standards. Online. Available: www. actfl.org/sites/default/files/publications/standards/World-ReadinessStandards forLearningLanguages.pdf (accessed 20 January 2018). ——— (2003) Teaching Foreign Languages K-12. A Library of Classroom Practices. ACTFL, FL Video Series. Online. Available: www.learner.org/resources/ series185.html (accessed 20 January 2018). ——— (2014) ACTFL Position Statement on Global Competence. Online. Available: www.actfl.org/news/press-releases/actfl-publishes-position-statementglobal-competence (accessed 20 January 2018). Alizadeh, S. and Chavan, M. (2015) “Cultural competence dimensions and outcomes: A systematic review of the literature,” in Health and Social Care in the Community, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia: Wiley and Sons, Ltd. Alpetkin, C. (2002) “Towards intercultural communicative competence,” in ELT Journal, 56(1):57–64. ——— (Spring 2010) Foreign Language Annals, The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, 43(1). Bennett, J.M. (2015) The SAGE Encyclopedia of Intercultural Competence, Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, p. xxiii.

44

Reconceptualizing Intercultural Communicative Competence

Bennett, M.J. (1993) “Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity,” in R.M. Paige (ed.) Education for the Intercultural Experience, Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press, pp. 21–71. ——— (1997) “How not to be a fluent fool,” in A.E. Fantini (ed.) New Ways in Teaching Culture, Alexandria, VA: TESOL, pp. 16–21. Byram, M. (1997) Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Competence, Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Byram, M., Nichols, A., and Stevens, D. (2001) Developing Intercultural Competence in Practice, Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Byram, M., Cribkova, B., and Starkey, H. (2002) Developing the Intercultural Dimension in Language Teaching, Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Carroll, J.B. (1956) Language, Thought and Reality: Select Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Castaneda, C. (1972) Journey to Ixtlán: The Lessons of Don Juan, New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. Deardorff, D.K. (2004) The Identification and Assessment of Intercultural Competence as a Student Outcome of Internationalization at Universities of Higher Education in the United States, Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University, Unpublished dissertation. ——— (2008) “Intercultural competence: A definition, model, and implications for education abroad,” in V. Savicki (ed.) Intercultural Competence and Transformation: Theory, Research, and Application in International Education, Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC, pp. 32–52. Edelstein, R. (2014). “Globalization and student learning: A literature review and call for greater conceptual rigor and cross-institutional studies,” in CSHE Research and Occasional Paper Series, 14(6). ——— (2017) Esperantic Studies Foundation. Online. Available: www.esperantic. org (accessed 20 January 2018). Fantini, A.E. (ed.) (1997) “Developing intercultural competence: A process approach framework,” in New Ways in Teaching Culture, Alexandria, VA: TESOL, pp. 40–4. Fantini, A.E. and Fantini, B. (1997) “Artifacts, sociofacts, mentifacts: A sociocultural framework,” in A.E. Fantini (ed.) New Ways in Teaching Culture, Alexandria, VA: TESOL, pp. 57–9. Fantini, A.E. and Smith, E.M. (1997) “A survey of intercultural communication courses,” in The International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 21(1):125–45. Fantini, A.E. (2000) “A central concern: Developing intercultural competence,” in SIT Occasional Papers Series, Brattleboro, VT. Online. Available: www.sit. edu/publications (accessed 20 January 2018). Fantini, A.E., Arias-Galicia, F., and Guay, D. (2001) Globalization and 21st Century Competencies, Working Paper No. 11, Boulder, CO: CONAHEC (Consortium for North American Higher Education Collaboration. Fantini, A.E. and Tirmizi, A. (2006) Exploring and Assessing Intercultural Competence: Final Report, Brattleboro, VT: Federation of the Experiment in International Living Fantini, A.E., Todd, I., Almeida, J., and Figuereido, C. (2015) Exploring Intercultural Communicative Competence: A Multinational Perspective: Final Report, Brattleboro, VT: Federation of the Experiment in International Living, pp. 247–54. Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed, New York, NY: Continuum. ——— (1973) Education for Critical Consciousness, New York, NY: Continuum. ——— (1998) Teachers As Cultural Workers: Letters to Those Who Dare Teach, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Reconceptualizing Intercultural Communicative Competence

45

Graddol, D. (2006) English Next 2006, British Council. Online. Available: www. britishcouncil.org/learning-research-englishnext (accessed 20 January 2018). Heifetz, R.A. (1994) Leadership without Easy Answers, Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Humphrey, D. (2007) Intercultural Communication Competence: The State of Knowledge, London: The National Centre for Languages. Kimmelman, M. (2010) “Pardon My French,” in The New York Times, 21 April 2010. Lusting, M.W. and Koester, J. (1993) Intercultural Competence, New York, NY: Harper Collins. Martin, J.N. (ed.) (1989) “Special issue on intercultural communication competence,” in International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13(3). Martin, J.N. and Nakayama, T.K. (2000) Intercultural Communication in Contexts, 2nd edn., Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Co. Nadeem, M.U., Mohammed, R., and Dalib, S. (2017) “A proposed model of intercultural communication competence in the Malaysian context,” in International Journal of Educational Research Review, 2(2). Pearce, J.C. (1971) The Crack in the Cosmic Egg, New York, NY: Washington Square Press. Samovar, L.A. and Porter, R.E. (1991) Intercultural Communication: A Reader, 6th edn., Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co. Saporta, S. and Bastian, J.R. (1961) Psycholinguistics: A Book of Readings, New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Sercu, L., Bandura, E., Castro, P., Davcheva, L., Laskaridou, C., Lundgren, U., del Carmen, M., Méndez García, M., and Ryan, P. (2005) Foreign Language Teachers and Intercultural Competence: An International Investigation, Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Sercu, L. (2006) “The foreign language and intercultural competence teacher: The acquisition of a new identity,” in Intercultural Education, 17(1):55–72. Stevens, J.O. (1971) Awareness: Exploring, Experimenting, and Experiencing, Moah, UT: Real People Press. Usó-Juan, E. and Martínez-Flor, A. (2006) Approaches to Language Teaching and Learning: Towards Acquiring Communicative Competence through the Four Skills, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Wiseman, R.I. and Koester, J. (eds.) (1993) Intercultural Communication Competence, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Zamenhof, L.L. (1887) Unua Libro, Warsaw, Poland: Chaim Kelter.

3

3.1

Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence

Overview

A clear notion of intercultural communicative competence (ICC) and its components is fundamental not only for the design and implementation of educational exchange programs but also to ensure a comprehensive approach to monitor and measure ICC development throughout the exchange experience and beyond. Formative assessment processes are examined in this chapter and distinguished from traditional evaluative tasks (or summative assessment), given that the former process is oriented toward fomenting ongoing and continuing ICC development. For this purpose, various modes of assessment are presented and discussed (e.g., global, discrete, direct, and indirect), in addition to specific strategies that reflect each mode. Analysis of existing assessment instruments follows with presentations of select instruments to assess language proficiency and assess ICC. Assessment and research challenges are discussed, followed by suggestions for a comprehensive assessment approach that is reflected in the assessment tools (the AIC and AICC survey forms) used in the two research projects discussed in the next two chapters.

3.2

Aspects of Assessment

Evaluation and assessment are terms often used interchangeably; however, they also reflect differences in educational purposes and approaches. Evaluation (or summative assessment) is based on prescriptive standards and is generally used to judge the quality of performance to determine whether specified expectations are met for purposes of selection, placement, promotion, or assigning grades. An evaluative approach is typically used mid term and at the end of a period of instruction to ascertain (and often grade) what has been learned. Summative assessment evaluates student learning by comparing it against the attainment of a set of objectives. In contrast, formative assessment, based on an established set of criteria, rubrics, or benchmarks, differs in that its purpose is to monitor performance to ascertain student progress toward learning objectives in

Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence

47

order to provide feedback regarding their strengths and areas to develop further. Both summative and formative assessments are integral to educational processes and both ascertain levels of attainment. However, because formative assessment is oriented toward fostering development, it is an ongoing process whereas summative assessment, oriented toward making decisions, is commonly terminal. In educational exchange programs (as well as in the research projects presented in this work), the assessment approach was clearly formative given the developmental nature of ICC; its purpose was to foster continual development of ICC in participants during their sojourn. In addition, given our longitudinal research interests, formative assessment extended well beyond programs to include alumni in order to learn about the effect the experience had on their lives years later. Given the goal of fomenting ICC development, assessment focused on the attainment of several objectives: development of the various ICC components. Whereas a goal may be likened to a vision (what one hopes for), objectives are akin to a mission (what one works to achieve). Goals are long term and prescribe future directions and are therefore unmeasurable within a fixed timeframe; objectives, on the other hand, are what participants strive to achieve within the context of the program. Objectives are measurable and their attainment leads in the direction of the desired goal. This is what formative assessment tries to determine. In all educational processes, therefore, assessment reflects clear objectives; these in turn orient the direction of both educational content and process. In this sense, assessment may be likened to the “tail that wags the dog.” Stated another way, assessment addresses the objectives—i.e., what is considered important. Assessment is about measuring and monitoring the process and outcomes of learning, often expressed as rubrics or guidelines that articulate performance expectations and proficiency levels (cf. Andrade 2000). Rubrics help educators measure and monitor student progress in an ongoing way while also providing a common language for educators and learners to exchange feedback about the process and products of learning (cf. McGury et al. 2018). In this study, the assessment “process” ascertained when, how, and who was involved in the procedure and the purposes for which assessment was conducted; the assessment “content” specified the development of ICC components. For these reasons, the design of assessment instruments and procedures must be rooted in a holistic concept of ICC, formulated before the research began. This again stresses the need for assessment tools that encapsulate how ICC is conceptualized. A holistic conceptualization determines not only the design and implementation of the educational program but also establishes precisely what to monitor and measure. In summary, assessment tools and processes serve in three important ways: (1) to reflect the program objectives, (2) to provide guidelines for the educational process, and (3) to establish standards

48

Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence

by which to measure outcomes. Since our research also investigated the impact of sojourns on alumni up to a period of 20 years later, assessment also provided a means of obtaining this additional post-program information. The “gemstone” model shown in Figure 3.1 illustrates how components of educational programs are interrelated, from initial needs assessment to performative assessment (Fantini 2000–2001:100–5). Whereas most curriculum plans list parts sequentially, this model configures them around a circle with intersecting lines to highlight the interconnectedness of all parts. This model also emphasizes how assessment is linked not only to goals and objectives but also to all of the other components of the curriculum plan as well.

Figure 3.1 The Gemstone Model

In this design, the assessment approach is formative; assessment is conducted not only at the middle or end of the educational process but also considered from the very beginning along with all other components. Commonly termed backward design, course or program goals and objectives are identified from the onset in addition to identifying strategies for assessing student progress toward these objectives before creating the curriculum. One conducts the initial needs assessment and clarifies the educational precepts on which a course or program is based (e.g., whether inductive or deductive, teacher-centered or studentcentered, traditional or experiential), and one also establishes the goals and objectives. The goals and objectives in turn determine the curriculum design and syllabus, its implementation (i.e., the content and process of

Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence

49

each lesson unit or activity), the resources required, and the assessment content and process. Included in this model is a long-term assessment option, suggesting that departments or institutions might also conduct post-course or post-program assessment to ascertain the effects of a program cycle on participants at a later time. In the end, educational quality depends on the degree to which all curriculum components cohere and the degree to which they support and reinforce each other. Quality is further enhanced—as with a precious gem placed into an appropriate ring mount (hence the name of this model)—when all parts are appropriate for both the learners and the context for which they are designed. To summarize, planning a formative assessment process involves the following considerations: 1) Determine the purpose and use of assessment 2) Ensure that assessment monitors and measures the attainment of specified objectives 3) View assessment as an ongoing longitudinal process 4) Outline the assessment procedure (the when and how) 5) Ensure that assessment is multimodal and utilizes a variety of strategies 6) Identify items and tasks to utilize in the assessment process 7) Analyze items and tasks used for assessment 8) Document, distribute, and report results to all relevant parties 9) Discuss strategies for further improvement with the learner 10) Use findings to modify and improve the curriculum design, as needed.

3.3

Assessment Modes and Strategies

As previously discussed, firmly establishing all ICC components provides solid ground for the design and implementation of educational programs, as well as to determine what to assess. Monitoring and measuring, in turn, are linked directly with the ongoing educational process, as discussed earlier. Instead of “a tail that wags the dog,” formative assessment is part of the entire educational design, from start to finish. Moreover, given the complex nature of ICC, the assessment process is necessarily multimodal, utilizing multiple strategies. The assessment process, then, requires devising strategies that monitor the development of all ICC components, not just some. It is immediately apparent that assessment of all ICC aspects is not a simple task and that assessing multiple components requires diverse strategies conducted at various moments over time. Multiple assessment strategies, used in combination, ensure a comprehensive approach that will produce holistic results. Activities such as observations, conversations, inquiries, reflective diaries and journals, performative tasks, written reports, and others exemplify such strategies. Indeed, teachers, group leaders, and

50

Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence

participants employed many of these activities throughout the exchange programs. In addition, given the geographical distance between alumni and assessors in the two research projects involved in this work, surveys and telephone conversations were primary tools for gathering additional research data. Figure 3.2 identifies four modes of assessment strategies: global, discrete, direct, and indirect. Used individually or in combinations, multimodal strategies provide a variety of assessment indicators. Global mode strategies involve documenting general impressions regarding learner motivation, attitude, engagement, appropriateness of interactions, etc., based on performance criteria, whereas the discrete mode involves strategies based on observations focused on specific performative acts (e.g., proper greetings and salutations, appropriate discourse strategies, proper table manners, knowledge of certain facts, and so forth). The direct mode encompasses strategies typically conducted through tests or quizzes at a designated time (as in classroom situations), or by having the sojourner perform specific tasks upon request. Participants are informed when assessment takes place, and they may prepare in advance. Indirect assessment strategies, on the other hand, involve procedures conducted in unstructured situations at any moment (e.g., during discussions, simulations, roleplays, and field activities); participants may or may not be aware that assessment is taking place. In all cases, however, clearly established criteria guide the assessor’s tasks and reduce subjectivity.

Figure 3.2 Quadrant of Multiple Assessment Modes

In addition to multiple assessment modes and strategies is the generation and analysis of quantitative and qualitative indicators, especially for research purposes, commonly collected through surveys and interviews. Whereas quantitative indicators indicate frequency, consistency, and number of times phenomena occur, qualitative indicators provide rich descriptive comments, whether positive or negative. Together, these indicators gather important complimentary information.

Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence

51

Modes and strategies may be purposefully combined; in other cases, the choice of some strategies may automatically combine modes—for example, a quiz is both direct and discrete, and performative assessment during simulations is both global and indirect. In the end, what is important is that the assessment process employs multiple modes and strategies related to the assessment objectives to ensure accurate, complete, and reliable results.

3.4

Assessment Types and Instruments

A survey of intercultural communication courses conducted in 50 American universities (Fantini 1997) and another survey of over 100 ICC assessment tools (Fantini et al. 2015:247–54) revealed that in many cases, course goals and objectives were inadequately connected with assessment types and instruments. The choice of external test instruments at times further exacerbated this inconsistency. A disconnect may arise from incomplete or partial views of ICC displayed in the external tool, especially when the external instrument does not support the same goals and objectives set forth by trainers and educators. As stated at various points, lack of clarity about ICC components makes their assessment especially challenging, often leaving practitioners confused about what to assess, how to assess, and which assessment types and tools to use. Several educators at a 2016 CERCLL conference held in Tucson, Arizona, reported consternation when their use of external assessment tools indicated that participants appeared to do less well at the end of a sojourn than at the beginning. This is counterintuitive. One explanation for this type of result may be that when self-reporting, participants tend to rate themselves more critically (i.e., more realistically) at the end, given increased awareness regarding their own intercultural abilities (or lack of them). Indeed, the possibility of sojourners overestimating their performance at the beginning of the sojourn was also reported in one doctoral dissertation focusing on student mobility and intercultural learning (Almeida 2015:218), and in another study addressing the difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence, resulting in inflated self-assessments (cf. Krueger and Dunning 2009). More recent developments in general assessment approaches and in assessing intercultural competencies in particular now offer a wider option of assessment types and instruments. In addition to including learners in formative assessment processes (through self-evaluation, reflection, feedback, and discussion), newer trends generate more varied and better indicators of participant progress while also enriching the learning process itself. Reflective journals exemplify one such activity and are an excellent device for formative assessment. Through journals, students demonstrate their understanding of intercultural concepts, theories, and

52

Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence

practices, through connections they make with their own personal experiences. Feedback to students on their journal reflections provides individualized comments that can provide support and challenges to each student’s needs. Portfolios is another such activity, widely practiced, that directly involves the learner, enhancing learning while improving the assessment information obtained. To assemble a portfolio, the learner reviews his or her experiences, collects and documents evidentiary materials, analyzes and synthesizes what has been learned, selects salient aspects that demonstrate achievements, and reflects on the significance of the materials chosen. The entire process of constructing a portfolio reinforces learning and provides another basis for formative assessment. Digital storytelling projects are, according to the Digital Storytelling Association, “the modern expression of the ancient art of storytelling.” Over the years, storytelling has always been an important means for sharing history, wisdom, and knowledge in a variety of forms. Using the computer, learners are able to exchange tales at a distance. Digital storytelling typically involves making a brief video that combines images and narratives; however, the main purpose is to allow students to exchange their own experiences with each other. This activity can be used for both formative and summative assessments by being part of an ongoing learning process that allows feedback to the student and an evaluation of the learning that has taken place. Triangulation is another important assessment strategy that utilizes multiple sources to arrive at a composite profile. In this approach, the sojourner self-assesses his or her own performance, peers or colleagues observe and assess each other, and a group leader (or teacher) does the same. At least three persons are engaged in comparing, contrasting, and discussing assessment perspectives, often referred to as 360-degree assessment. Guidelines, of course, are required to assist this approach such as the AIC or AICC Forms used in the research projects (cf. Appendix A and B). Both forms are designed in a “YOGA” format; the acronym stands for “Your Objectives, Guidelines, and Assessment.” In other words, the criteria listed serve not only as the objectives of learning but also as guidelines for the learning process and as rubrics for assessment. When possible, assessment of sojourner performance by a host culture native adds another valuable dimension, providing an emic perspective to purely etic assessments. In all cases, however, it is the exchange of multiple perspectives plus the discussion of future strategies that matters. The goal is to further development by monitoring student learning and providing feedback, so students can continue to learn and grow. In the end, formative assessment approaches are based on the notion that becoming interculturally competent is an ongoing process, one that involves measuring and monitoring the process periodically, providing feedback to the learners, and guiding them to develop

Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence

53

strategies that will further their development. New approaches are constantly being developed and improved in universities around the world as formative assessment gains ground in aiding learners engaged in intercultural learning (cf. Deardorff 2015; Deardorff and Arasaratnam-Smith 2017). Assessing Language Proficiency1 As mentioned earlier, although an important and relevant component, TL proficiency is often omitted from courses and programs designed to develop ICC. Yet language is fundamental and integral to our reconceptualization of ICC. Given this perspective, we review approaches that assess the development of language proficiency here. Given a communicative approach to language teaching (discussed earlier), and the added possibility of field exposure, traditional language testing is clearly unsuitable for evaluating language proficiency. Instead, proficiency assessment is increasingly utilized in places such as the US, the European Union, and Australia that developed systems to assess language proficiency. All of these systems stress communicative ability and employ several criteria for judging language development (e.g., comprehension, fluency, pronunciation, grammar control, and vocabulary), utilizing scales that range from “no proficiency” to levels akin to that of a “fluent or native speaker of the target language.” As the examples that follow illustrate, most language assessment tools utilize a variety of strategies—e.g., dialog with the participant in the TL, questionnaires, portfolios, and so forth. During these activities, discrete details such as incorrect verb forms are subsumed within the total communication act, and they are important mostly for their effect on transmitting the message. In other words, importance is given to the global result—how well the learner communicates in the foreign tongue rather than discrete linguistic features. Following are descriptions of five such instruments: 1) ACTFL Proficiency Scale and Guidelines—This instrument measures foreign language proficiency based on five levels, originally identified by the U.S. Foreign Service Institute. The scale lists levels of communication functions, range of vocabulary, degree of accuracy, and conversational flexibility in four skill areas (comprehension, speaking, reading, and writing). Descriptions of each level help to establish learning goals, plan learning activities, and evaluate proficiency. 2) Assessment of Language Development (Fantini 2012a; cf. Appendix D: ALD Form)—A questionnaire in a YOGA format, designed for self-assessment and assessment of language development by peers and teachers. This tool charts developing levels of language proficiency over time, providing normative, formative, and summative indicators.

54

Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence

3) European Language Portfolio—This tool, developed by the Modern Language Division, Council of Europe, was launched throughout Europe in 2001. The instrument consists of a portfolio with three components—a language passport, a language biography, and a dossier—to describe proficiency levels required by existing standards, tests, and examinations, as well as to facilitate comparisons among differing systems of qualifications throughout the European Union (cf. also the Common European Framework). 4) International Second Language Proficiency Ratings (ISLPR)—This instrument, renamed in 1997, was formerly known as the Australian Second Language Proficiency Ratings (ASLPR). The instrument rates L2 proficiency on a scale from zero to native-like, providing performative descriptors expressed in terms of practical tasks. Developed for English L2 teaching, it was adapted for English dialects in Australia and for use with various other languages (cf. Wylie and Ingram 1995). 5) MAXSA (Maximizing Study Abroad) instruments—Three instruments designed to assess strategies learners use for language acquisition, intercultural development, and language gain (cf. Cohen et al.). The first two, known as the Language Strategy Use Inventory and the Culture-Learning Strategies Inventory, were created for pre- and post-study abroad. The third is the Speech Act Measure available in English, Spanish, and French. The instruments can be used as independent measures or within a broader study or program. Instruments to Assess ICC In addition to TL proficiency, clearly, all other ICC components also need to be assessed. To reiterate, these components include characteristics (or attributes), three areas (relationships, communication, and collaboration), and four domains (knowledge, attitudes/affect, skills, and awareness). Because they develop over time (hence the longitudinal dimension), these aspects need to be assessed periodically. In addition, because most components extend beyond cognitive areas (the usual focus of traditional education), many of these abilities are inferred through observations of performance, and through multiple modes and strategies in varying combinations. Several publications discuss approaches in detail: 1) Testing the Untestable—Can Intercultural Competence Be Tested? (Mader 2009)—This presentation provides examples of good tests, criteria, and tasks to evaluate the three areas cited earlier in addition to several other areas. 2) Teaching and Testing Intercultural Competence (Camerer 2008)— This presentation also discusses various aspects of ICC and strategies for assessment.

Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence

55

3) Learning about Language Assessment (Bailey 1998)—This publication discusses dilemmas, decisions, and directions for assessing language proficiency and provides abundant examples. In addition, a wide range of assessment instruments permits combining teacher-devised assessment with external tools. The important thing to remember is that ICC assessment needs to be multidimensional as well as multiperspective, ongoing, and integrated. By “integrated,” what is meant is that the external tool must be carefully chosen to align and support the overall assessment effort. If the tool is not aligned, it may distract and confuse more than it may help. Instruments are available from a variety of sources—some in journal publications, some are accessible online, and others are available commercially. Commercially published instruments often require specialized training and/or are administrated only by specialized agencies or organizations for a fee. When selecting an instrument, investigate exactly what each instrument purports to measure and ensure that its purpose, approach, and content are compatible with course or program objectives. The following questions may help guide selection of an external instrument (adapted in part from Deardorff 2004:203): 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8)

Is the external instrument compatible with your goals and objectives? Does it contribute to the overall assessment plan? Does it share compatible theoretical foundations? Is it free of cultural bias to allow use with any ethnic or national group? What is the instrument’s validity and reliability? Is it appropriate for the age and level of those being assessed? What is required to administer the tool? How will results be used (i.e., to inform the teaching/learning process, for students, researchers, teachers, administrators, supervisors)?

Following are selected examples of 12 external instruments, followed by brief descriptions of each. Upon comparison, varied ICC conceptualizations (and the components measured) represented in each instrument become obvious. Some tools are predictive, whereas others are formative, normative, and/or summative. With the exception of the first instrument cited, the remaining 11 assess ICC with no attention to language proficiency: 1) AIC and AICC—These forms, designed in a YOGA format, measure the attainment of ICC, including language proficiency (cf. Appendixes A and B). They may be used for self-assessment and assessment by peers, teachers, and host mentors. The tools monitor ICC development of sojourners (and hosts) over time, providing normative,

56

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence formative, and summative indicators. The AIC Form is available in American English, British English, Swiss German, and Spanish. The AICC Form is available in American English, German, Japanese, and Portuguese; the AICC Form for hosts is available in Irish English (cf. Fantini 2015). Behavioral Assessment Scale for Intercultural Communication (BASIC)—This instrument provides indicators of cross-cultural behavior and is used to explore cross-cultural equivalents of the Basic Assessment Scale. Its eight scales are based on a study that identified significant skill profiles, validated with 263 university students (cf. Olebe and Koester 1989). Beliefs, Events, and Values Inventory (BEVI)—This tool is designed to predict various developmental, affective, and attributional processes, and outcomes that explain the processes by which beliefs, values, and worldviews are acquired and maintained, why their alteration is typically resisted, and how and under what circumstances their modification occurs. It is proposed for assessing international learning and determines whether, how, and to what degree people are likely to be open to international experiences (cf. Shealy 2010). Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory—A culture-general instrument designed to assess individual potential for cross-cultural adaptability based on the assumption that individuals adapting to other cultures share common feelings, perceptions, and experiences regardless of their own cultural background or target culture characteristics. The tool contains 50 items that result in an individual profile with scores along four dimensions (cf. Kelley and Meyers 2010). Cross-Cultural Assessor—Designed to improve one’s understanding of self and others as well as to promote positive attitudes to cultural difference. The tool also provides a personal navigator system that allows individuals to conduct self-assessment to aid successful communication across cultures through a program of exercises and questionnaires that measures, builds, and manages cross-cultural skills and characteristics (cf. Lewis 1999). Cultural Orientations Indicator®—A cross-cultural assessment tool designed to help individuals to assess personal cultural preferences and compare them with generalized profiles of other cultures. Cultural profiles are based on ten dimensions especially relevant to doing business in multicultural situations (See URL in Reference List). Development Communication Index—A field instrument, designed to assess the quality of communication and the accuracy of perception between Canadian advisors and their national counterparts in development projects abroad. The index presents 30 scenarios related to issues such as project progress and adaptation skills (cf. Deardorff and Arasaratnam-Smith 1997).

Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence

57

8) Global Mindedness Scale—Pre- and post-surveys designed to determine how study abroad influences development of global mindedness among university students. The tool measures the effects of study abroad, using five dimensions: cultural pluralism, responsibility, efficacy, globalcentrism, and interconnectedness (cf. Hett 1993). 9) Intercultural Competence Questionnaire—A brief questionnaire containing a self-test of IC described as global literacy (cf. URL in Reference List). 10) Intercultural Development Inventory—An instrument containing 50 items designed to measure individual and group IC along a developmental continuum focusing on respondent orientation toward cultural differences and readiness for intercultural training. The tool is statistically reliable and available in 12 languages for use with people from various cultural backgrounds. A qualifying seminar is required to administer this instrument (cf. Hammer 2011). 11) Peterson Cultural Awareness Test and Peterson Cultural Style Indicator—Two tools designed to measure cross-cultural effectiveness and awareness of cultural differences. Both tools provide preand post-indicators of intercultural learning before and after training and help to promote global business success (cf. Peterson 1997). 12) Schwartz Value Survey—The tool assesses compatible cross-cultural values orientation. Based on use with more than 60,000 individuals in 64 nations, this tool explores the compatibility of a candidate’s cultural orientation and the anticipated dominant cultural orientations of the region or country to which assigned. The tool also provides information about differences in value orientations within a multicultural team and the effects on a team’s work (cf. Schwartz 1992).

3.5

Assessment and Research Challenges

Tracking ICC development is important not only during courses or programs preparing individuals for an overseas sojourn but also as a process that occurs during the intercultural experience itself. Developing ICC ensues over time as a longitudinal process, occasionally with moments of stagnation or even regression, but hopefully with forward movement over the long haul. It is also instructive to document the impact that an intercultural sojourn exerts upon a person’s life at various points after the program has ended. For this reason, impact studies that measure the outcomes of these experiences on individuals sometime later, make important contributions. One, five, ten, and even 20 years later, it is not uncommon to hear individuals say, “That experience was the most important educational experience I have ever had. It changed my entire life.” Indeed, educational impact studies have a long but sporadic history, dating back to very early studies such as On the Uses of Foreign Travel

58

Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence

(Hurd 1764) and later, occasional doctoral dissertations such as The Organization and Outcomes of A European Field Trip in Economics for Twenty-three College Women (Wallace 1949). Others followed and the number of impact studies is steadily increasing not only in the US but also elsewhere as well: Barber (1983), Kealey (1990), Wallace (1999), Akande and Slawson (2000), Masgoret et al. (2000), Comp (2003), Serban and Friedlander (2004), Stronkhorst (2005), Bolen (2007), Almeida et al. (2016), and Deardorff and Arasaratnam-Smith (2017). These studies are instructive and the results useful in many ways. In the end, findings obtained from orientation programs, sojourns abroad, as well as research studies of impact and outcomes might eventually be compiled in an effort to create a projection chart of norms or expectations similar to the language projection chart illustrated earlier. Of course, it would seem easier to establish norms based on hours and weeks of input in classroom situations than for developments that ensue in natural settings and field situations, given the host of variables that might affect each individual case. It would also be interesting to ascertain which competencies commonly emerge across cultural groups (universals), as well as which might be specific only to certain groups (particulars). In other words, in the research project (described in the next chapter) involving British and Swiss volunteers in Ecuador, are results comparable? Which competencies are salient for both groups? And what differences emerge across groups? Is the impact of the British upon their Ecuadorian hosts similar to that of the Swiss? Did the multilingual Swiss have an easier adjustment than the mostly monolingual British? There are early indications that similarities do exist, but differences also emerge. This promises to be an interesting area for future scholars as researchers investigate and expand upon more and diverse combinations of sojourners in cross-cultural contact. Finally, several other research challenges are worth adding or repeating (including some ideas from Van de Vijver and Leung 1997:413–15). These are as follows: 1) 2) 3) 4)

The need for more widely shared definitions of crucial concepts Further multinational contributions toward the conceptualization of ICC Ensure that assessment plans align with objectives and vice versa Develop an ongoing assessment plan that uses a multimethod, multiperspective approach to track the multiple ICC components, including language 5) Select external test tools that demonstrate good psychometric properties (i.e., adequate internal consistency, generally considered to be above a threshold of 0.70 or 0.80) 6) Choose instruments that are adequate from a cross-cultural perspective (in areas such as construct bias, method bias, and item bias) 7) Compile and analyze results obtained to use in modifying current plans or future program designs

Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence

59

These areas are reminders of the challenges facing the assessment of intercultural communicative competence and of research studies designed to measure the impact on participants as a result of their experiences. Challenges, yes, but not insurmountable.

3.6

A Comprehensive Approach

As illustrated earlier, numerous instruments exist in the intercultural field to aid in assessing ICC. Many, however, assess only specific components and most ignore the role of host language proficiency (cf. Fantini 2009:456–76). For this reason, to ensure that all ICC components were addressed in the assessment process, including host language proficiency development, our research projects required a comprehensive tool. The tools used were the AIC (cf. Appendix A: AIC Form) and the AICC (cf. Appendix B: AICC Form). These tools served multiple purposes: (1) to establish the intercultural objectives, (2) to serve as guidelines for orientation purposes, and (3) to assist assessment at various stages throughout an ongoing and longitudinal process. In this sense, the assessment approach was normative, formative, and summative. The tool was also used for both sojourners and hosts (with slight adaptations), eliciting etic and emic perspectives (where two-way assessment was used). In summary, holistic ICC assessment requires the following: 1) A variety of modes and strategies that involve objective scoring 2) Oral and written activities (e.g., presentations, paraphrasing, essays, journals) 3) Active and passive activities (e.g., experiential activities, reports, problem-solving tasks) 4) Individual and interactive activities in pairs or small groups (e.g., discussions, debates, tasks, reflective activities) 5) Dialogs, interviews, presentations, etc. 6) Demonstrations, poster sessions, simulations, role plays 7) Structured and unstructured field tasks and other experiential activities 8) Questionnaires (e.g., self-evaluation, peer evaluation, group evaluation, teacher evaluation, and/or host evaluation) 9) Triangulation of several data sources Assessment is critical to our work, despite the challenges it may present. The basic challenge reiterated several times throughout this chapter is the need to define and refine objectives from the beginning, followed by the process and multiple strategies employed to assess all components of intercultural communicative competence. Assessment ascertains how well we accomplish the objectives set forth and tracks their attainment. By monitoring and measuring participant development as the program

60

Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence

unfolds, assessment provides snapshots at various stages along the way. This feedback is important to trainers and educators as well as to those being trained and allows modifications and adjustments as needed throughout our work. Quality assessment—assessment based on a thoughtful, varied, and explicit approach—generates indicators that balance subjective impressions. Happily, increasing assessment options are now available to help in our efforts. In addition to assessment activities devised by educators, external instruments, properly aligned with objectives, provide important additional information. An assessment process involving multiple strategies yields rich and reliable information that enhances both educational practices and results for students and sojourners. In the end, intercultural experiences are extremely important because they provide valuable educational opportunities that further human development. The benefits of intercultural educational exchange that includes opportunities to experience directly, holistically, and affectively alternative ways of being in the world must be well documented. We believe that intercultural experiences are typically transformative; they change the rest of our life. A comprehensive assessment approach helps to substantiate that this is so.

Note 1. Adapted from Fantini, Chapter 24, “Multiple strategies for assessing intercultural communicative competence,” pp. 390–405, in The Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural Communication. (London and New York, NY: 2012b).

References ACTFL. (1985) ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines, Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: ACTFL Materials Center. Online. Available: www.actfl.org/i4a/pages/index. cfm?pageid=4236 (accessed 20 January 2018). Akande, Y. and Slawson, C. (2000) “Exploring the long-term impact of study abroad,” in International Educator, 10(3):12–17. Almeida, J. (2015) European Student Mobility and Intercultural Learning at a Portuguese University, Aveiro, Portugal: University of Aveiro, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, p. 218. Almeida, J., Fantini, A.E., Simões, A.R., and Costa, N. (2016) “Enhancing the intercultural effectiveness of exchange programmes: Formal and non-formal educational interventions,” in Intercultural Education, 27(6):515–33. Andrade, H.G. (2000) “Using rubrics to promote thinking and learning,” in Educational Leadership, 57(5):13–18. Bailey, K.M. (1998) Learning about Language Assessment, New York, NY: Heinle and Heinle Publishers. Barber, E.G. (1983) “The impact of foreign educational experience on individuals,” in ISECSI Bulletin of International Exchanges, 20:7–10. Bolen, M. (2007) A Guide to Outcomes Assessment in Education Abroad, Carlisle, PA: Forum on Education Abroad.

Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence

61

Camerer, R. (2008) Teaching and Testing Intercultural Competence, Bonn, Germany: BESIG Conference. Cohen, A.D., Paige, R.M., Shively, R.L., Emert, H.A., and Hoff, J.G. (2005) MAXSA (Maximizing Study Abroad) Instruments, pp. 325–55. Online. Available: www.carla.umn.edu/maxsa/documents/MAXSAResearchReport.pdf (accessed 20 January 2018). ———. (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), Council of Europe. Online. Available: www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/ cadre_en.asp (accessed 20 January 2018). Comp, D. (2003) Research on U.S. Students Study Abroad, Co-sponsored by NAFSA, SECUSSA, and the Center for Global Education. Online. Available: www.lmu.edu/globaled/ro/index.html (accessed 20 January 2018). ——— (2014) Cultural Orientations Indicator® (COI), A Berlitz Company. Online. Available: www.tmcorp.com (accessed 20 January 2018). Deardorff, D.K. (2004) The Identification and Assessment of Intercultural Competence as a Student Outcome of Internationalization at Universities of Higher Education in the United States, Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University, Unpublished doctoral dissertation. ——— (2015) Demystifying Outcomes Assessment for International Educators: A Practical Approach, Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC. Deardorff, D.K. and Arasaratnam-Smith, L.A. (1997) Development Communication Index. Online. Available: www.tamas.com/samples/source-docs/ROIBriefings.pdf (accessed 20 January 2018). ——— (2001) European Language Portfolio, Modern Languages Division, The Council of Europe. Online. Available: www.coe.int/t/dg4/portfolio/default. asp?l=e&m=/main_pages/welcome.html (accessed 20 January 2018). ——— (2017) Intercultural Competence in Higher Education: International Approaches, Assessment and Application, London: Routledge. Fantini, A.E. (1997) “A survey of intercultural communication courses,” in The International Journal of Intercultural Research, 21(1):125–48. ——— (2000–2001) “Designing quality intercultural programs: A model and a process,” in Interspectives: A Journal on Transcultural Education, 18:100–5. ——— (2009) “Assessing intercultural competence: Issues and tools,” in D.K. Deardorff (ed.) The Sage Handbook of Intercultural Competence, Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 456–76. ——— (2012a) Assessment of Language Development (ALD), Brattleboro, VT: SIT Graduate Institute. Online. Available: www.alvinoefantini.com. ——— (2012b) “Multiple strategies for assessing intercultural communicative competence,” in J. Jackson (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural Communication. London and New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 390–405. ——— (2015) Assessment of Intercultural Communicative Competence Forms (AIC and AICC). Online. For versions in other languages, access at the following website: www. alvinoefantini.com. Fantini, A.E., Todd, I., Almeida, J., and Figuereido, C. (2015) Exploring Intercultural Communicative Competence: A Multinational Perspective, Brattleboro, VT: Federation of the Experiment in International Living, Unpublished report, pp. 247–54. Hammer, M.R. (2011) The Intercultural Development Inventory, Hammer Consulting LLC. Online. Available: www.idiinventory.com/ (accessed 20 January 2018). Hett, E.J. (1993) The Developing of an Instrument to Measure Global Mindedness, San Diego, CA: The University of San Diego.

62

Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence

Hurd, R. (1764) On the Uses of Foreign Travel, Dialogue between Lord Shaftesbury and Mr. Locke, London: A. Miller. ——— Intercultural Competence Questionnaire. Online. Available: www.7dculture.nl/Content/cont053b.htm (accessed 20 January 2018). Kealey, D.J. (1990) Cross-Cultural Effectiveness: A Study of Canadian Technical Advisors Overseas, Hull, Canada: Canadian International Development Agency. Kelley, C. and Meyers, J. (2010) Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI), Chicago, IL: Vangent. Online. Available: www.vangent-hcm.com/Solutions/ (accessed 20 January 2018). Krueger, J. and Dunning, D. (2009) “Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments,” in Psychology, 1:30–46. Lewis, R. (1999) Cross-Cultural Assessor (CCA), Richard Lewis Communications. Online. Available: www.crossculture.com (accessed 20 January 2018). Mader, J. (2009) Testing the Untestable: Can Intercultural Competence Be Tested? Frankfurt, Germany: Frankfurt School of Finance and Management. Masgoret, A.M., Bernaus, M., and Gardner, R.C. (2000) “A study of crosscultural adaptation by English-speaking sojourners in Spain,” in Foreign Language Annals, 33(5), Tarrytown, NY: ACTFL. McGury, S., Shallenberger, D., and Tolliver, D.E. (2018) “It’s new, but is it learning? Assessment rubrics for intercultural learning programs,” in Assessment Update, 20(4), Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Olebe, M. and Koester, J. (1989) “Exploring the cross-cultural equivalence of the behavioral assessment scale for intercultural communication,” in International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13(3): 333–47. Peterson, B. (1997) Peterson Cultural Awareness Test (PCAT) and Peterson Cultural Style Indicator (PCSI), St. Paul, MN: Across Cultures, Inc. Online. Available: www.acrosscultures.com (accessed 20 January 2018). Schwartz, S.H. (1992) The Schwartz Value Survey, Israel: Hebrew University. Online. Available: www.imo-international.de/englItisch/html/svs_info_en.htm (accessed 20 January 2018). Serban, A.M. and Friedlander, J. (eds.) (2004) Developing and Implementing Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Shealy, C.N. (2010) Beliefs, Events, and Values Inventory (BEVI). Online. Available: www.acenet.edu/programs/international/fipse/PDF/BEVI_Abstract.pdf (accessed 20 January 2018). Stronkhorst, R. (2005) “Learning outcomes of international mobility at two Dutch institutions of higher education,” in Journal of Studies in International Education, 9(4):292–315. Van de Vijver, F.J.R. and Leung, K. (1997) “Methodological issues in researching intercultural competence,” in D. Deardorff (ed.) The Sage Handbook of Intercultural Competence, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 404–18. Wallace, D.H. (1999) Academic Study Abroad: The Long-Term Impact on Alumni Careers, Volunteer Activities, World, and Personal Perspectives, Claremont, CA: Claremont Graduate University, Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Wallace, J.A. (1949) The Organization and Outcomes of a European Field Trip in Economics for Twenty-Three College Women, Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Wylie, E. and Ingram, D.E. (1995) Australian Second Language Proficiency Ratings (ASLPR), Nathan, Queensland: Centre for Applied Linguistics and Languages (CALL), Griffith University. Online. Available: www.apec.edu.tw/ research/eng_3_1.php (accessed 20 January 2018).

4

4.1

The Initial Research Project

Overview

This chapter presents the Initial Research Project (IRP) carried out during 2005–6 with educational exchange participants in three countries (Ecuador, Great Britain, and Switzerland). The discussion introduces the programs examined in this research, provides a description of the research project, the participants involved (sojourners, hosts, and mentors), advantages and limitations of the project, and the approach to data compilation and organization. Research findings are based on quantitative and qualitative data compiled from surveys and interviews in three languages. Data are compiled and analyzed first by language-nationality groups in an attempt to identify “particularist” aspects (those that apply to each individual group) and subsequently translated into English and combined to identify “universal” aspects (those that apply across language-nationality groups). Findings are also presented in response to ten a priori assertions. Among these assertions, clear, strong, and positive responses highlight the homestay component as most important and learning the host language as fundamental and critical to the entire experience, in addition to other interesting findings attested to by alumni even 20 years later. The final section summarizes lessons learned and proposes areas for further research.

4.2

The Research Design and Plan

About Educational Exchange Service Programs Three Federation EIL MOs participated in the IRP conducted between 2005 and 2006—Ecuador, Great Britain, and Switzerland. From among various programs, we chose to focus on their educational exchange offerings with a service component. These programs, known as Volunteers for International Partnership (VIP), had been sponsored by several Federation MOs for many years; however, a few years before the start of this IRP, all MOs committed to providing global service offerings.

64

The Initial Research Project

Once all members committed to service projects, VIP programs were coordinated under the Federation umbrella. Federation EIL lists worldwide offerings on its website (www.partnershipvolunteers.org), providing information about sending and receiving countries, service projects, inquiry forms, a field album, and news items. It then lists individual country projects followed by a menu of service projects, host organizations, program components, photographs, finances, and country information. This format allows interested individuals anywhere in the world to pursue volunteer service opportunities in areas of education, health, and human service, plus select from a variety of development projects in various countries, with new program options constantly under development. Applicants in countries outside the Federation EIL member network are referred to MOs geographically, linguistically, and culturally close to their own location for processing. Applicants are matched with projects in accordance with their skills, interests, talents, and desired length of service, ranging from one to 12 months. Several features characterize VIP programs: Participants undergo predeparture and in-country intercultural orientation and language study, they participate in a homestay, and they are supervised by a local mentor during their service. Mentors give logistical, technical, and educational support to ensure a maximally productive experience. Quality is monitored in each program component through a process of ongoing reflection and evaluation. Also promoted are opportunities to serve in multicultural teams, attention to health and safety issues, and attempts to meet the needs and interests of individuals of varying ages and backgrounds. In 2005–6, with 23 sending and 14 receiving countries working with indigenous non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and local organizations, VIP programs exert a major impact on communities in need and on the lives of participants in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Ghana, Guatemala, India, Ireland, Morocco, Nepal, Nigeria, South Africa, Thailand, and Turkey. Projects in these countries included the following: • • • •

Aksay Pratishthan, a center in New Delhi for disabled people Dhapakjet Health Post in Nepal where volunteers assist medical staff Kayamandi Beads Project for women in South Africa TEMA, a Turkish environmental association

Additionally, projects available in Ecuador, the host country participating in this study, included the following: • • •

CENIT (Center for the Working Female Child) FINE (Foundation for the Integration of Special Children) Santa Lucía Reserve, community-based conservation organization in the forests of Northwestern Ecuador

The Initial Research Project • •

65

La Dolorosa Shelter, which provides education and a home for children whose families are unable to care for them Conocoto Rural School, which serves neglected rural communities lacking basic health facilities

Volunteers cover their own travel and expenses; however, efforts are made to keep costs low. Some projects provide accommodations in return for service. Information about scholarship assistance is available from individual sending offices. Indeed, one of VIP’s goals is to document program outcomes in hopes of securing external funds to provide scholarships by increasing private support. Project Description This IRP was designed to accommodate work schedules of participating MO staff to ensure minimal interference in office routines and maximum cooperation. RAs were contracted to work within each MO to avoid assigning additional tasks to already busy and dedicated staff. The time line for administering survey questionnaires, therefore, took into account critical stages in MO program cycles plus time needed to complete data compilation and summary reports at the end. The research project took place in four stages from July 2005 through December 2006. Each stage involved several activities: Stage 1. Preliminary project preparation (Summer 2005) • • • • •

update literary search on ICC and related research efforts refine research concept and procedures collect and analyze existing research instruments interview program alumni to obtain additional input for the research design and survey pilot, finalize, and transmit the research survey to collaborating MOs for translation

Stage 2. Pilot test the survey (Fall 2005) • • •

orient RAs to the survey and its use Ecuadorian RA administers the survey pre-, mid-, and end of program, and compiles results British and Swiss RAs administer survey to alumni and interview selected respondents

Stage 3. Data compilation and initial analysis (Winter–Spring 2006) • • •

RAs compile quantitative and qualitative data at national levels RAs follow guidelines to perform initial analysis of data RAs translate data results into English and transmit to Project Director (PD)

66

The Initial Research Project Stage 4. Further data compilation and analysis (Summer–Fall 2006) • • •

review analysis subsets and list findings compile international data and combine findings analyze combined data and summarize

Following is an explanation of each stage in further detail: An initial review of the intercultural literature in addition to our own empirical experience served as the basis for refining our conceptualization of ICC, in addition to review of relevant research projects focused on educational exchange. A search and analysis of available and relevant assessment instruments provided further basis for creating the survey questionnaire form used in this study. The assessment instrument was organized in a series of scales representing a coherent universe of content with items arranged hierarchically to indicate increasingly deeper involvement. In the scale designed to assess host language proficiency, items reflected increasing degrees of language use. Scales were developed in this manner to produce reliable measures of constructs with relatively few items per scale. Open-ended questions allowed respondents to contribute additional comments reflecting their own experiences and to raise other issues of interest. The resulting instrument was lengthy and posed a potential challenge for respondents. Although keenly aware of this, we decided to retain all items in order to address the multiple dimensions of ICC in this initial attempt (anticipating a subsequent item analysis to identify the most reliable items to produce a shorter form for general use beyond this research project). Finally, selected respondents were interviewed to generate additional rich data. The assessment instrument, as initially constituted, was refined after piloting and discussing with a small number of past participants. Once the pilot was completed, the questionnaire was finalized and sent to RAs for translation into German and Spanish (for use in Switzerland and Ecuador), and adapted into British English (for use in Great Britain). Translated forms were back translated into (American) English as a two-way check on accuracy, corrected as needed, and final versions were then distributed to current and past participants (cf. Appendix A: AIC Form). We considered it imperative that recipients complete the survey in their L1 to ensure accuracy. Questionnaires were sent via email or regular mail, as needed. Consenting respondents were subsequently interviewed in person or by telephone to obtain additional information. Once respondents returned forms and interviews were completed, RAs tabulated data gathered from questionnaires and interviews in their respective language, following guidelines provided by the PD, and converted results into English. Translated forms were forwarded to the PD who coded, compiled, and inputted data into a single

The Initial Research Project

67

combined set (i.e., the Banner Set). The project statistician transferred quantitative data into SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) for analysis, and the PD separately analyzed quantitative data directly from the forms themselves. Details regarding these analyses are narrated next. The combination of structured and open-ended processes produced quantitative and qualitative data about program participants from three MOs. Outcomes that converged or diverged regarding the development of participant competencies were identified as well as data regarding how the experience affected their lives after the program was over, resulting in a combined multinational perspective. In summary, this study had the following objectives: 1) to substantiate our reconceptualization of ICC in terms of definition, components and their interconnections, and developmental levels; 2) to pilot the assessment instrument in three languages and refine the assessment tool, as needed, for future use; 3) to investigate the role of host language proficiency and its effects on ICC development; 4) to assess the impact of the intercultural experience on alumni, volunteers, and hosts; 5) to compile and analyze the combined survey findings; and 6) to disseminate research findings and make the instrument available for use by others. We were especially keen to learn about the impact of intercultural contact on sojourners, hosts, and mentors in terms of how it affected their values, lifestyles, and work choices in addition to how sojourners in turn affected others after their return home (the multiplier effect). These outcomes would provide indicators regarding Federation EIL’s movement toward its vision and mission, an approach compatible with the trend toward outcomes assessment, which has become increasingly common over recent decades. Participants Involved in the Project Of the MOs participating in this project, Great Britain and Switzerland were sending countries whereas Ecuador was a receiving (or host) country. For this reason, in addition to current program participants, British and Swiss alumni were also contacted to learn about post-program outcomes. Great Britain began VIP programs with Ecuador in 2001 and had 18 alumni by 2005 when this project began. Switzerland began VIP programs in 1998 and had over 100 returnees of whom 76 (those involved in this study) were German speaking. In addition to alumni, VIP volunteers currently engaged in the program (one British and four Swiss) and their

68

The Initial Research Project

host mentors in Ecuador were also tracked. The numbers of individuals who completed and returned survey forms were as follows: British Alumni Responses Swiss Alumni Responses Volunteers (at beginning) Volunteers (at end) Mentors (of volunteers at beginning) Mentors (of volunteers at end) Mentors (of self at beginning) Mentors (of self at end)

8 of 22 (+5 interviews) 20 of 76 (+1 interview) 3 of 5 5 of 5 (+2 interviews) 4 of 5 3 of 5 (+4 interviews) 3 of 5 4 of 5 (+4 interviews)

In the case of Great Britain, all participants who received the survey forms completed and returned responses. The difference between numbers anticipated and those who responded was due to the inability of the cooperating office to reach alumni given faulty addresses or a lack of forwarding addresses. Given this situation, the quota to interview respondents assigned to RAs in each country was lowered from the original nine proposed to five. Great Britain completed the five required interview reports and Ecuador completed five for mentors and five for volunteers. Switzerland completed only one interview of the expected five (due to internal administrative difficulties), severely affecting access to the anticipated quantitative data. Advantages and Limitations of the Project As previously stated, the IRP was envisioned as the first stage of more extensive research to follow later. Although participants from only three countries were involved, the study provided an opportunity to begin work toward expanding the ICC concept, to design and pilot the assessment instrument, and to conduct an initial survey. A Follow-on Research Project (FRP) was contemplated (and later conducted in 2015) that would involve additional MOs in still other countries—organizations with available alumni records and the capacity to contact alumni, providing an opportunity to expand upon the IRP and add to its findings. Two-way assessments (of self and others) like those used with current volunteers plus their Ecuadorian mentors, are important and quite unusual. They provide dual perspectives and permit comparing views of sojourners and hosts. Although both parties may not concur, their differing views are instructive. The host view of sojourner performance is seldom addressed in research studies, yet adds an important research dimension. This recognition has prompted recent graduate researchers to pursue such studies, as exemplified by a paper presented at the 2018 CERCLL Conference on the Development and Assessment of Intercultural Competence, held in Tucson, Arizona, titled “Expectations of Conformity

The Initial Research Project

69

to Moroccan Cultural Norms,” in which the author reported on host native views regarding the speech and behaviors of sojourners in their country (Hannouchi 2018). Finally, it is instructive to obtain data from diverse and multiple cultural perspectives (in this case, the views of British, Ecuadorians, and Swiss) and to compare and contrast results by nationality groups. Points of divergence suggest aspects that are “particularist” in nature (pertaining to a single group), while points of convergence revealed by combining data, suggest potentially “universalist” aspects (applying more widely and to several groups). Limitations of this project, on the other hand, were constraints of time, resources, staffing, and small sample size, considerations to be considered in the FRP. In addition, the ideal of having a control group to allow comparison of results with other populations is difficult in most social science research. Engaging individuals on a multinational scale through local MOs who are not involved in intercultural experiences is quite unlikely. One important and practical area, however, to be taken up in the subsequent study is to learn more about potential “indirect” benefits accruing to host natives who have contact with sojourners from abroad. The project acknowledged several variables that could not be entirely controlled. In fact, the project’s design was both its forte and its challenge. On the one hand, participation of partner MOs in several countries allowed investigating senders and receivers outside the US, but it required collaboration with RAs at a distance. Obviously, it was not possible to supervise administration of survey forms directly, nor the compilation and analysis of initial data in each language and country involved. We attempted to minimize discrepancies, however, through detailed guidelines and close communication with in-country assistants. The fact that the study was conducted in languages other than English also constituted a strength, but added complexity to the task. It was a strength because many related studies are conducted in English rather than in the L1 of respondents; hence, this was an opportunity to learn about what transpires to others, from their perspectives, and in other languages, but this also comes at a cost given the need to convert responses from various languages into English for analysis. Clearly, we need studies conducted elsewhere, by others, and in their own languages. Recognizing this, we again attempted to minimize the downside through detailed guidelines and close communication with RAs. Data Compilation and Organization Data collection through the AIC Survey Form plus follow-on interviews provided the corpus of information regarding alumni, participants, hosts, and mentors, described earlier. This section deals with how data were

70

The Initial Research Project

compiled and organized. Before compiling data, a preliminary step was to protect the identity of respondents by coding each form. Upon receipt, each questionnaire form was grouped first by country and type of respondent as follows: B or S indicated country of origin, followed by A for alumni, V for volunteer, MV for Mentor evaluations of volunteers, and MS for Mentor self-evaluations, followed by a number for each individual. For example, the eight British respondents ranged from BA1 through BA8 and Swiss alumni were coded with S + A + number so that the 20 respondents ranged from SA1 through SA20. In contrast, British Volunteers or Swiss Volunteers were coded as BV or SV, Mentors evaluating volunteers as MV, and Mentors evaluating themselves as MS. Since volunteers and mentors completed forms twice (at beginning and end of service), final evaluations also bore the prefix FE—for example, FEBV 8 or FEMS5. To begin the compilation process, a blank survey form was produced on a web-based survey developed through Perseus Express (http://express. perseus.com/perseus/asp/login.aspx). Data from completed forms were entered into the master Perseus form by category. This resulted in a composite electronic copy ready for transfer into a second program designed to facilitate statistical analyses—the IBM software SPSS (IBM SPSS V.22). At this point, data were ready for quantitative analysis, discussed in the next section. Qualitative data, on the other hand, required additional preliminary steps given the open-ended information provided by respondents in their native tongues. For this reason, local RAs compiled and translated data and forwarded summaries in English to the PD for analysis. Translated data were treated first as subsets by country and category of participants (alumni, volunteers, and mentors) and subsequently compiled and analyzed as composite multinational samples to provide responses to our research questions. Presentation and analysis of qualitative data is discussed next, following the quantitative section.

4.3

Quantitative Analysis and Discussion

Overview Data collection, compilation, and organization resulted in the samples used for statistical purposes. Although the small size limits generalizations that might be construed, we were mindful of views regarding the effects of sample size in restricting certain analytical options. For this reason, two small datasets were eliminated from statistical analyses—those for volunteers and mentors in Ecuador—leaving comments about these groups for qualitative scrutiny only. Where British and Swiss alumni were concerned, however, the combined sample size totaled 28, which was used toward accommodating the n < 30 requirement. Our statistical analysis then (limited as it was to specific analytical options described in the sections that follow), provided important exploratory and initial findings to inform our later research effort. Statistical procedures applied to

The Initial Research Project

71

data derived from this group of 28 alumni included (1) t-test (cf. Agresti and Finlay 1997), (2) one-way ANOVA (cf. Levin 1999), and (3) factor analysis (cf. Kim and Mueller 1978). As mentioned at various points, the instrumentation (the AIC Form) developed and used in this IRP was based on a strong set of theoretical notions regarding the nature of ICC. This study provided the opportunity to test empirically the concepts embodied in the instrument. Select analyses were applied to evaluate the instrument and others to interpret the data generated by the instrument: reliability analysis, factor analysis, descriptive statistics, t-tests, and analysis of variance. However, for the moment, limitations of sample size and other considerations necessitated focusing quantitative analyses primarily on measuring the instrumentation, the underlying ICC construct through each of its four subcomponents (namely, Attitude, Skills, Knowledge, and Awareness), and multiple items within each component. Reliability Testing (Validity of the Assessment Tool) In the 11 tables that follow, the first seven examine and assess the validity of Part VII of the AIC assessment tool regarding its ability to measure and monitor ICC. Tables 4.8 through 4.11 in the following section look at “mean scores” of alumni at the beginning and end of the sojourn experience to understand whether the ICC construct captured this development—i.e., to ascertain the validity of assumptions made about ICC components. To reiterate, analyses were based only on responses from British and Swiss alumni, and do not include Ecuadorian mentors or volunteers. In general, an alpha score (i.e., the measure of reliability) of 0.6 or above for any item is considered a good score. Cronbach Alphas were employed to test the reliability of inter-item consistency of individual items cited as the four ICC components. Tables 4.1 and 4.2 report the resulting scores for beginning and end of service responses, respectively.

Table 4.1 Reliability Analysis (Beginning of Service) ICC Components

Cronbach Alpha

% Component Variance Explained

Knowledge Component 1 Component 2 Attitude Skills Awareness ICC

0.899 0.862 0.984 0.966 0.988 0.824

68.21 64.81 88.30 87.59 68.53 69.53

Source: Alumni Survey 2006

72

The Initial Research Project

Table 4.2 Reliability Analysis (End of Service) ICC components

Cronbach Alpha

% Component Variance Explained

Knowledge Component 1 Component 2 Attitude Skills Awareness ICC

0.870 0.800 0.960 0.944 0.968 0.892

61.89 53.69 72.90 72.85 71.57 85.53

Source: Alumni Survey 2006

In Tables 4.3 to 4.6, Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation method was used to obtain factor loadings. These tables provide factor loadings at the beginning and end of service for each item of the four components of the ICC construct. For the component, Knowledge, PCA suggested two underlying factors; consequently, items were consolidated into two clusters according to factor loadings. In each of the other three components (Attitude, Skills, and Awareness), however, most items loaded onto a single factor. In a few cases, where it was found that items loaded onto two factors at the same time, these items were excluded. Their exclusion led to single component loadings and showed an improvement in the explained variance. Tables 4.1 and 4.2 show the percentage of variance explained by each. Table 4.3 Factor Analysis for Knowledge Knowledge

Cluster 1 I knew the essential norms and taboos of the host culture I could contrast important aspects of the host language and culture with my own I could contrast my own behaviors with those of my hosts in important areas I could cite important historical and socio-political factors that shape my own and host culture I could describe interactional behaviors common among Ecuadorians in social and professional areas I could discuss and contrast various behavioral patterns in my own culture with those in Ecuador

Factor Loadings (Beginning of Service)

Factor Loadings (End of Service)

0.848

0.838

0.875

0.880

0.708

0.690

0.771

0.682

0.886

0.713

0.853

0.887

The Initial Research Project Knowledge

Cluster 2 I could cite a definition of culture and describe its components and complexities I recognized signs of culture stress and some strategies for overcoming it I knew some techniques to aid my learning of the host language and culture I could describe a model of cross-cultural adjustment stages I could cite various learning processes and strategies for learning about and adjusting to the host culture

73

Factor Loadings (Beginning of Service)

Factor Loadings (End of Service)

0.850

0.641

0.660

0.870

0.855

0.722

0.801

0.741

0.838

0.743

Table 4.4 Factor Analysis for Attitude Attitude

Factor Loadings (Beginning of Service)

Factor Loadings (End of Service)

Interact with host culture members Learn from my hosts, their language, culture Try to communicate in Spanish and behave in appropriate ways Deal with my emotions and frustrations with the host culture Take on various roles appropriate to different situations Show interest in new cultural aspects Try to understand differences in the behaviors, values, attitudes, and styles Adapt my behavior to communicate appropriately in Ecuador Reflect on the impact and consequences of my decisions and choices Deal with the different ways of perceiving, expressing, interacting, and behaving

0.867 0.961

0.935 0.925

0.939

0.841

0.923

0.782

0.925

0.804

0.934

0.929

0.985

0.884

0.975

0.879

0.928

0.771

0.953

0.762

Note: Items 10, 11, and 13 listed in Part VII of the survey form are excluded

74

The Initial Research Project

Table 4.5 Factor Analysis for Skills Skills

Factor Loadings (Beginning of Service)

Factor Loadings (End of Service)

I demonstrated flexibility when interacting with persons from the host culture I adjusted my behavior, dress, etc., as appropriate to avoid offending my host I was able to contrast the host culture with my own I used strategies for learning the host language and culture I demonstrated a capacity to interact appropriately in a variety of different social situations I used appropriate strategies for adapting to host culture and reducing stress I used culture-specific information to improve my style and personal interaction I helped to resolve cross-cultural conflicts and misunderstandings when they arose

0.900

0.905

0.904

0.867

0.822

0.915

0.919

0.866

0.961

0.912

0.918

0.866

0.873

0.704

0.920

0.772

Note: Items 7, 8, and 11 in Part VII of the survey form are excluded

Table 4.6 Factor Analysis for Awareness Awareness

Factor Loadings (Beginning of Service)

Factor Loadings (End of Service)

Aware of differences and similarities across my own culture and the host language and culture Aware of how varied situations in the host culture required modifying my interactions Aware of how host culture members viewed me and why Aware of myself as a culturally conditioned person with personal habits and preferences Aware of diversity in the host culture (such as differences in race, gender, age) Aware of dangers of generalizing individual behaviors as representative of the whole culture Aware of my choices and their consequences (which made me less or more acceptable)

0.923

0.865

0.940

0.841

0.892

0.715

0.891

0.952

0.950

0.845

0.936

0.876

0.939

0.894

The Initial Research Project

75

Awareness

Factor Loadings (Beginning of Service)

Factor Loadings (End of Service)

Aware of my personal values that affected my approach to ethical dilemmas and their resolution Aware of my hosts reactions to me that reflected their cultural values Aware of how my values and ethics were reflected in specific situations Aware of varying cultural styles and language use, and their effect in social and working situations Aware of my own level of intercultural development Aware of the level of intercultural development of those I worked with Aware of how I perceived myself as a communicator, facilitator or mediator, in an intercultural situation

0.932

0.789

0.968

0.892

0.972

0.887

0.968

0.759

0.949

0.896

0.968

0.876

0.867

0.718

Note: Items 2, 6, 16, and 18 listed in Part VII of the survey form are excluded

It is important to note that all factor loadings in Table 4.3 were 0.6 or above, indicating clear associations with the underlying ICC construct. With acceptable Cronbach Alpha scores of 0.7 or above, the item scores for each ICC component were then added together to compute the needed index. For Knowledge, a mean score of the two clusters cited was used to compute the index. Table 4.7 shows the results of additional PCA performed to assess if the four components do indeed load onto the single construct defined in this study as “ICC.” All factor loadings turned out to be very strong and, therefore, indicate strong association with the defined construct. (Tables 4.1 and 4.2 also provide the Cronbach Alpha score and percentage of component variance explained for ICC). Table 4.7 Composite ICC

Factor Loadings (Beginning of Service)

Factor Loadings (End of Service)

Knowledge Attitude Skills Awareness

0.537 0.871 0.944 0.918

0.896 0.909 0.906 0.923

Source: Alumni Survey 2006

76

The Initial Research Project

Reliability Testing (Validity of the ICC Construct) In this section, Tables 4.8 through 4.11 look at the efficacy and validity of assumptions made about the concept of ICC on which the AIC Form was based. Table 4.8 includes overall descriptive statistics, including sample size, mean scores on the four ICC dimensions, and their standard errors. In support of one of the main assumptions underlying this study, the mean scores for the overall ICC construct and its four subcomponents do show measurable changes from beginning to end of service during the intercultural sojourn. Table 4.8 Descriptive Statistics for ICC and Its Components Dimension

Knowledge Attitude Skills Awareness ICC

N

28 28 28 28 28

Beginning of Service

End of Service

Mean

Std. Error

Mean

Std. Error

10.13 21.86 12.14 19.29 15.85

1.34 3.58 2.40 4.27 2.51

34.14 42.29 30.11 52.93 39.87

1.37 1.70 1.76 3.09 1.81

Source: Alumni Survey 2006

Naturally, care must be taken not to overgeneralize the results observed and reported in this study given the limited sample size. A somewhat higher standard error in Table 4.8 is probably indicative of the size limitation. Even so, additional statistical analysis suggests strong support for the main assumptions proposed and tested. Mean scores at the end of service are definitely higher in all four ICC components. On average, subjects showed overall improvements in ICC development, further reflected and supported by improvements demonstrated in each of the individual subcomponents. A much larger sample size in the FRP will help to further substantiate these interim results. (Note: The information shown in Table 4.8 is more graphically presented in Figures 4.1 and 4.2.)

Figure 4.1 Contrastive Mean ICC Scores (Beginning and End of Service)

The Initial Research Project

77

Figure 4.2 Contrastive Mean ICC Scores: ICC Composite (Beginning and End of Service)

In Table 4.9, we see the results of difference of dependent sample t-test when respondent assessments of their ICC development at the beginning and end of service are compared. In this case, the t-values, significant at p < 0.05 (some even suggest < 0.04), confirm that alumni clearly improved in overall ICC development and in individual components at the end of their service experience. Table 4.9 Contrastive Alumni ICC (Beginning and End of Service) ICC Component

|T|

Std. Error

Knowledge Attitude Skills Awareness ICC

12.518* 5.155* 6.034* 6.369* 7.750*

1.92 3.96 2.97 5.26 3.09

Source: Alumni Survey 2006 (*significant at p < 0.05)

When a dependent variable is measured repeatedly at different time points (e.g., before and after treatment) for all sample members across a set of conditions, the design is termed “within-groups” or “repeated measures ANOVA.” The purpose of repeated measures design is to assess the same group of subjects at each category of the independent variable (cf. Levin 1999). This applied in the present study. Thus oneway ANOVA is generally regarded as an extension of t-test. This study only reports eta-squared values in order to document variation in ICC and its dimensions associated with exposure to a new culture (see Table 4.10).

78

The Initial Research Project

Table 4.10 Measuring Effective Size of ICC Components Dimension

Eta H

Squared η2p

Knowledge Attitude Skills Awareness ICC

0.862 0.574 0.635 0.656 0.726

0.744 0.330 0.403 0.430 0.527

Source: Alumni Survey 2006

The effects of intercultural exposure at the end of service were further examined by using the analysis of variance to compute partial etas. Etas (η2p) show the percentage of variation explained in each of the dependent variables due to a treatment factor (independent factor). In this case, η2p shows the effect of having been exposed to a new culture. These effects on each dependent variable are reflected in the reported eta squared values. The effect of exposure to a new culture accounts for 74.4% variation in the Knowledge component. Similarly, 52.7% of the variation in ICC is associated with intercultural exposure. Another important assumption of this study is that participation in an educational exchange service program enhances language proficiency. Table 4.11 illustrates participant levels of Spanish language proficiency Table 4.11 Percentage Responses for Spanish Language Development Spanish Language Development

% Beginning

% End

No ability at all Unable to function in spoken language Able to communicate in a limited way Able to satisfy immediate needs Able to satisfy basic survival needs Able to satisfy some survival needs Able to satisfy most survival needs and limited social demands Able to satisfy routine social and limited work requirements Able to communicate on some concrete topics Able to speak with sufficient structural accuracy Able to speak with sufficient structural accuracy and discuss professional areas Able to speak Spanish fluently on all levels Speaking proficiency sometimes equivalent to an educated native speaker Proficiency equivalent to an educated native speaker

46.4 28.6 14.3 10.7 25.0 14.3 7.1 10.7 14.3 7.1 3.6

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 3.6 14.3 42.9 32.1 21.4

0.0 0.0

14.3 17.9

0.0

1.0

The Initial Research Project

79

at the beginning and end of service on a 13-point scale ranging from “no ability at all” to “proficiency equivalent to an educated native speaker.” In the beginning, the majority of alumni reported “no ability at all” (46.4) or claimed they were “unable to function in spoken language” (28.6). At the end of service, significant improvement was reported by the majority of respondents, ranging from “able to satisfy routine social and limited work requirements” to “able to speak with sufficient structural accuracy,” as indicated in Table 4.11 and graphically illustrated again in Figure 4.3.

Figure 4.3 Improvement in Spanish Language Development

4.4

Qualitative Analysis and Discussion

Overview In contrast to statistical analysis, concerned with numerical size, qualitative analysis is able to utilize and consider data obtained from all groups of participants (alumni, volunteers, and mentors), conducted in both surveys and interviews, at various points in time (beginning and end of the program), and from etic and emic perspectives. To keep etic and emic perspectives distinct, however, qualitative analysis is presented in three parts: (1) alumni and volunteers (i.e., participants currently in a program), (2) mentors (commenting about the volunteers), and (3) mentors (commenting about themselves). Before presenting composite multinational views later in this chapter, data are first clustered and analyzed by subsets to reveal information about individual nationality groups. Data are subsequently examined to obtain insights regarding ten a priori assertions posited in the research plan and discussed in the sections that follow.

80

The Initial Research Project

Alumni and Volunteer Perspectives Of the total 98 alumni (British and Swiss combined), 28 returned consent forms and questionnaires. The breakdown by nationality group was as follows: 1) British alumni and volunteers: Of a total 22, eight responded and five were subsequently interviewed. Alumni had participated in programs as follows: one participant in 2000, one in 2001, two in 2002, two in 2004, one in 2005, and one volunteer currently in Ecuador during this study. The remaining 14 alumni were unable to be contacted due to faulty addresses or a lack of forwarding addresses. Hence 100% returns were received from alumni who actually received survey forms and five respondents were subsequently interviewed by telephone. 2) Swiss alumni: Of a total 140 Swiss alumni, 64 were French speakers and were not included in this study. The remaining 76 German speaking alumni participated as follows: seven volunteers in 1999, 10 in 2000, 19 in 2001, 16 in 2002, eight in 2003, 12 in 2004, four in 2005, and five volunteers in Ecuador during this study. Of the forms distributed, 20 alumni returned the survey forms. The remainder could not be contacted due to faulty or unknown addresses. Once again, 100% responses were returned from alumni who actually received the survey. One individual was subsequently interviewed in person; unfortunately, the remaining interviews were not conducted due to administrative problems within the Swiss MO. The following summary, then, represents a compilation of qualitative data extracted from 28 survey forms and 6 alumni interviews based on the following questions: 1. What abilities do you think are important for intercultural success? 2. To what extent did you develop these abilities? Why or why not? 3. Was learning the host language important to your success? Why or why not? 4. What impact did this intercultural service experience have on your life? 5. How and to what extent have you utilized any of these abilities in your own life and work? 6. Any additional comments? About alumni (from Part I)—Characteristics regarding respondents are provided next by individual nationality groups to provide some insight about differences between British and Swiss alumni, particularly with regard to previous language and intercultural experience.

The Initial Research Project

81

1) British alumni • • • • • • • • • • • •

all eight were native English speakers; one had a second home language six were monolingual, one listed French (B8), and one listed a home language as Gujarati and some Italian (B6) four males/four females all completed 2 years of college or higher four had prior intercultural experience/four had none six had a positive experience/two gave no response six continued Spanish language study upon their return one had prior work in a related field eight developed new intercultural relationships three now work in a related field/five do not five state they now use their intercultural abilities seven maintained contact with hosts after their return

2) Swiss alumni • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

20 are Swiss nationals/one listed other 18 are native German speakers/two listed Swiss German/one listed other all are trilingual in German, French, English, and added Spanish/ one also listed Italian and one listed other all 20 are females all are between 20 to 27 years old nine completed high school/11 completed 2 years of college or higher 13 are students/four clerks/four administrators/two other 15 had prior intercultural experience outside Switzerland/five listed none 18 had prior significant intercultural relationships (friends and work colleagues)/two had none all had positive IC experiences ten continued language study upon return (seven Spanish) seven pursued a related field of study upon return/12 did not 19 developed new intercultural relationships (friends, colleagues, one Colombian spouse, one boyfriend) six now work in a related field/13 do not 19 continue to use their IC abilities 19 maintain contact with hosts (by letter, email, telephone, gifts, four visits, two were visited)

Volunteers completed survey questionnaire forms twice during their sojourn in Ecuador—at the beginning and end. Three volunteers returned survey forms at the beginning of their sojourn (one British and two Swiss). All five volunteers returned survey forms at the end (one British and four

82

The Initial Research Project

Swiss). Two volunteers were subsequently interviewed. The breakdown was as follows: Beginning Evaluations (3) BV6 (No form) SV3 SV4 (No form)

End Evaluations (5) FEBV6 FESV1 FESV3 FESV4 FESV5

About the volunteers (from Part I): Following are characteristics of the volunteer respondents: • • • • • • • •

one was a native English speaker; two were native German speakers all three spoke other languages: French (two), English (two), Spanish (two) one male/two females education levels ranged from high school to a master’s degree two indicated prior intercultural experience/one gave no response all three had a positive experience one plans to continue Spanish language study upon return home all three developed new intercultural relationships

Volunteers were engaged in several different service projects that included the following: • • • •

Aliñambi, an organization working with people living in the jungle Albergue la Dolorosa, a shelter for low-income kids not able to live with their parents Escuela Nuestra Señora de la Paz, a nursery home for low-income kids Centro Infantil Miguelito, a nursery home for low-income kids.

Alumni and Volunteer Comments Re Assertions Following are ten a priori assertions posited for this research, followed by data gathered, discussion, and summary statements regarding each of the following: Assertion No. 1: ICC is a complex of abilities—The 15 attributes cited in survey forms (cf. Appendix A: AIC Form, Part II. Personal Characteristics) were compiled from 238 publications addressing ICC (under various related names). These attributes all proved relevant and appropriate to alumni and volunteer experiences based on their responses and comments. They left no item blank nor did they discard or otherwise judge any item as irrelevant. The attributes included tolerance, flexibility, patience, sense of humor, appreciate differences, suspending judgment,

The Initial Research Project

83

adaptability, curiosity, open-minded, motivated, self-reliant, empathy, clear sense of self, perceptive, and tolerance of ambiguity. To gain some indication of growth and development among the five volunteers with regards to these attributes, their ratings were contrasted at the beginning and end of their sojourn on an ascending scale from 0 to 5. Responses were limited in number, however, and are based on only three respondents at the beginning and five at the end of the program (numbers before the slash mark (/) are beginning indicators, numbers after the slash are end indicators). Responses to the question “perception of self in own culture” were as follows: intolerant 0 = 1/4, 1 = 2/1 flexible 3=/1, 4 = 2/2, 5 = 1/2 patient 2 = /1, 3 = /1, 4 = 3/2, 5 = /1 lacks sense of humor 0 = 2/3, 1 = /2, 2 = 1/ tolerates differences 3 = /1, 4 = 1/1, 5 = 2/3 suspends judgment 4 = 3/5 adaptable 4 = 2/3, 5 = 1/2 curious 3= 1/, 4= 1/3, 5 = 1/2

open-minded 3 = /1, 4 = 2/3, 5 = 1/1 motivated 4 = 1/4, 5 = 2/1 self-reliant 3= /2, 4 = 1/2, 5 = 2/1 empathetic 1 = 1/, 3 = 1/, 4 = /3, 5= 1/2 clear sense of self 3 = /1, 4 = /3, 5 = 3/1 perceptive 3 = /2, 4 = 1/2, 5 = 2/1 tolerates ambiguity 3 = 1/, 4 = /3, 5 = 2/2 other qualities (none listed)

Responses to the question “how perceived in Ecuador” were as follows: intolerant 0 = 2/3, 1 = 1/2 flexible 3 = /1, 4 = 2/2, 5 = 1/2 patient 2 = /1, 4 = 2/3, 5 = 1/1 lacks sense of humor 0 = 2/3, 2 = 1/, 3 = /1, 4 = /1 tolerates differences 3 = /1, 4 = 1/1, 5 = 2/3 suspends judgment 4 = 3/5 adaptable 3 = /1, 4 = 2/2, 5 = 1/2 curious 3 = 2/, 4 = /4, 5 = 1/1

open-minded 3 = /2, 4 = 2/2, 5 = 1/1 motivated 3 = 1/, 4 = 1/5, 5 = 1/ self-reliant 3 = /1, 4 = 1/3, 5 = 2/1 empathetic 2 = 1/, 3 = 1/1, 4 = /2, 5 = 1/2 clear sense of self 3 = /1, 4 = 1/3, 5 = 2/1 perceptive 3 = /2, 4 = 2/2, 5 = 1/1 tolerates ambiguity 2 = 1/, 3 = 1/1, 4 = 1/4 other qualities [none listed]

84

The Initial Research Project

Note that the first and fourth items listed earlier (in the first columns) differ in presentation from the others since both are stated in the negative; all other items are stated in the positive. For example, the first item (intolerance) remains almost the same with most claiming 0 intolerance (1 initially and 4 at the end, but since 0 is still 0, there is no change). On the other hand, two individuals rated themselves at the 1 (or low level of intolerance) at the beginning and only one did so at the end; hence, a minor shift is noted. The fourth item (lack of humor) can be read similarly: two volunteers rated themselves at 0 level at the beginning and three did so at the end; again, still 0 and therefore no change. Another rated self at the low level of 2, but at the end, only two rated themselves at 1, so some slight shift occurred in how they saw changes in their own sense of humor. All remaining items show a general upward shift on the scale suggesting positive changes in the development of attributes. Of course, a better comparison could be made between the beginning and end of the sojourn had all volunteers completed the entrance survey form. What is clear, however, is that no volunteer indicated reversal in any attribute. (It should be noted that respondents did not have access to their original assessments when completing end-of-program forms). Additional evidence of growth and development is revealed through volunteer comments made in open-ended responses in the forms and in interviews conducted at the end of the program. Following are openended comments provided in the survey forms: • • • • •

I now have a more open mind; I’m going to appreciate nature even more (SV4) I always develop and get to know myself better (SV3) I have new perspectives on issues important in Ecuadorian culture (BV6) I improved my language skills (BV5) I increased my confidence in dealing with other cultures (BV6)

In addition, they made the following comments during exit interviews: (BV6+I) “Communication, which means not only to speak but also to listen and watch differences and characteristics of different background people without being judgmental. It is important to be patient and to understand people from other cultures.” (SV3+I) “(I learned that) the most important thing towards intercultural success is not to be judgmental since many things at the host culture differ.” Indeed, volunteers reported that they learned important life lessons: open-mindedness, appreciation for others, a deeper level of

The Initial Research Project

85

self-knowledge, new perspectives, language skills, confidence, communication, observation skills, a non-judgmental attitude, patience, understanding, reasoning, self-development, and independence. In the end, all respondents indicated some degree of progress in each area. It seems possible to arrange attributes hierarchically in terms of descending or ascending importance—that is, some may contribute more than others to intercultural success (however, this might also vary depending on the target culture). It also seems possible that some attributes may overlap and be combined. The survey form, of course, did not list attributes in order of importance nor does the intercultural literature suggest any hint of a hierarchy of attributes. On the other hand, it might be interesting to quantify the number of times attributes were cited by respondents—both alumni and volunteers—in open-ended sections of the survey form and in interviews. Before attempting to organize attributes in terms of frequency of citation, a cluster analysis would be required. Some terms are synonymous or might overlap in their spheres of meaning. An initial cluster, for example (to be further substantiated), might be “open-minded, positive attitude, acceptance” or “language, communication,” in which cases items could be grouped together. Following this line of thought, here are such results in order of frequency of responses (the number of responses follows in brackets). Attributes based on the intercultural literature are cited in bold in the list that follows to distinguish them from additional attributes suggested by respondents. Attributes are followed by examples cited by alumni and volunteers that provide additional context to their comments: •

open-minded, positive attitude, acceptance, tolerance (26) [people, places, sights, and sounds/willing to absorb the culture/ willingness to learn/willingness to try new things (2)/willingness to interact with people/be prepared not to demand one’s own standards/ not questioning why (acceptance)/accept differences/don’t expect too much of yourself too soon (a gradual process)/don’t take one’s own culture as a yardstick for another /other cultures not inferior/take a step back/can’t change things/don’t be a missionary/become like a native to a certain degree/don’t carry own cultural beliefs abroad/ getting out of one’s own comfort zone/have no expectations (remain open)]

•

motivation (5) [motivation is the key/work hard/not always fun or a holiday/lots of work and effort/take the initiative/new perspectives, observe differences, understanding, sense of realism (5)/self-development, independence, confidence (3)/adaptability (2)/communication/language skills (2)/non-judgmental (i.e., suspend judgment) (2)/patience (2)/sense of

86

The Initial Research Project humor (2 / appreciation (2)/self-awareness (2)/ability to like people and get on with them (1)/curiosity (1)/reflective (1)]

Before settling on any hierarchy, however, we would also need to add results from items checked in the attribute list itself. Of the 15 attributes, alumni most often stressed open-mindedness; one stressed adaptability, curiosity, and understanding; several others emphasized qualities of tolerance and empathy. In Part I, item 36 of the AIC Form, some added: awareness, understanding, knowledge, acceptance, tolerance, and empathy. In Part II, items 16 and 32, the following qualities were cited: cooperativeness, stamina, a desire to learn (motivation), and language ability (the last two are explored further below). Not specifically cited in openended responses from the original list of 15 were the following 3 items: flexibility, perceptive, and tolerance of ambiguity. In summary, respondents confirmed all items cited in the literature as relevant and important attributes for intercultural success (see a. in the list that follows). All participants reported that they progressed and developed in each attribute during their sojourn. From among the 15 attributes cited, they highlighted several in particular (see b. in the list that follows). They also suggested additional attributes not on the original list (see c. in the list that follows), including host language ability (discussed further under Assertion 2): a.

attributes cited in the literature (in no particular order): tolerance, flexibility, patience, sense of humor, appreciation of differences, suspending judgment, adaptability, curiosity, open-mindedness, motivation, self-reliance, empathy, clear sense of self, perceptiveness, and tolerance of ambiguity b. attributes stressed by respondents (in order of importance): openmindedness, positive attitude, acceptance, tolerance, motivation, new perspectives, observe differences, understanding, sense of realism, self-development, independence, confidence, adaptability, communication, language skills, non-judgmental (i.e., suspend judgment), patience, sense of humor, appreciation, self-awareness, ability to like people and get on with them, curiosity, reflective, and empathy c. attributes added by respondents to those cited in the literature: awareness, understanding, knowledge, acceptance, cooperativeness, stamina, language ability, ability to establish relations, and sense of realism It may be the case that individuals already possessed some of these attributes to varying degrees before intercultural contact. Psychologists distinguish between attributes such as traits (innate qualities) and characteristics (qualities developed in specific cultural contexts and experiences). Combining the identification of traits and characteristics with attributes

The Initial Research Project

87

ordered hierarchically in terms of intercultural success might produce an interesting tool for selection, monitoring, and measuring a candidate’s relative preparedness and subsequent development in intercultural situations (in other words, a normative, formative, and summative assessment approach). Finally, although the intercultural literature seldom mentions communicative ability in terms of specific host language abilities as a criterion for success, the importance of language development did not go unnoticed by alumni and volunteers (discussed under Assertion 2). Assertion No. 2: Learning the host language affects ICC development— A marked difference emerged between British and Swiss participants regarding previous foreign language and intercultural experience. All British participants, for example, were monolingual and most had little Spanish language proficiency at the start of their sojourn (five respondents had no host language proficiency; three others listed “extremely low” proficiency); [one able to communicate in a limited manner/one able to communicate at a basic survival level/one with some survival language]. In sharp contrast, all Swiss participants were trilingual in German, French, and English; 9 knew no Spanish at the start of their sojourn and 11 listed a range of proficiency levels, as follows: [1 able to satisfy immediate needs/3 able to satisfy basic survival needs/3 able to satisfy some survival needs/1 able to satisfy most survival needs/1 able to satisfy routine social demands/2 able to communicate concretely/1 with sufficient structural accuracy/1 with sufficient structural accuracy and vocabulary]. At the conclusion of the sojourn, the five British volunteers who began with no language ability achieved some proficiency, and those who began with “extremely low” ability attained higher levels of fluency. By the end, all attained abilities ranging from “routine social abilities” to “higher levels” of proficiency, as follows: [two with routine social greetings/four able to communicate concretely/one with sufficient structural accuracy/ one with structural accuracy plus professional vocabulary]. As might be expected, results for Swiss volunteers were more dramatic, given their previous language experience and trilingualism. By the end of the sojourn, all indicated ability to communicate in the host tongue, including the five who began with “no Spanish” or “no ability at all.” All 20 indicated progress in their proficiency levels in the ranges as follows: [1 able to satisfy routine social demands/6 able to communicate concretely/6 with sufficient structural accuracy/2 with sufficient structural accuracy and vocabulary/1 able to speak fluently on all levels/3 able to speak sometimes as an educated native speaker/1 able to speak as an educated native speaker]. Despite greater strides in learning Spanish made by the Swiss, it is interesting to compare their comments with those made by British volunteers whose remarks were far more elaborate and enthusiastic, revealing

88

The Initial Research Project

that they felt a greater sense of accomplishment. Here is what British volunteers said: • • • •

•

•

I have more confidence in speaking to new people and also speaking Spanish (BA1) I gained more confidence in speaking with Spanish speakers Learning Spanish was extremely fun (BA4) I learned a new language, gained a much greater sense of perspective on all aspects of life, and an understanding of a different culture . . . I continue to have Spanish lessons . . . and I continue to be fascinated by Latin American culture I realize I am not the typical volunteer; on the plus side, I could bring a great deal of maturity to the experience; on the negative side, language ability reduced my communication skills . . . In most instances, I was able to find someone who wanted to practice their English in order to find out more about the culture. I am very curious and asked lots of questions. I look upon Ecuador as my second home The language tuition focused on speaking, which was good as this is the part of the language most needed day to day (BA8)

In contrast, only 4 of the 20 Swiss volunteers commented at all and only 1 expressed surprise at the progress made (as though it was expected they would indeed learn the language): • • • •

I am still working on my accent (SA1) I was surprised at how quickly I learned Spanish (SA4) I learned more Spanish with my host family and friends than in the course (SA6) I am now pursuing a masters in Spanish literature and linguistics (SA10)

Aside from levels of host language proficiency attained, alumni also gave significant testimonies during interviews, which speak to how they viewed the relevance of knowing the host language with regards to intercultural adjustments. Key ideas are listed following quoted narratives given next: (BA1) “Learning the host language was vital to the success of my trip. I had learned Spanish at school so I had some basics before arrival. I was grateful for the 4-week individual language course and felt this really boosted my confidence. The host family did not speak any English so I had to communicate straight away. This I was able to do by putting simple sentences together but as the weeks went by I became much more confident in talking to my host family and co-workers on the project. Part of my

The Initial Research Project

89

project duties were to guide visitors around the sanctuary, so I also needed the language for that.” [vital to the success of trip/grateful for the language course/ boosted confidence/family did not speak English so had to communicate straight away/able to talk to host family and co-workers on the project/duties included guiding visitors around in Spanish]. (BA3) “Language is definitely important as you are closed to both communication and the culture if you don’t speak the language. It is the main medium for everything else. At first, I was hindered by a lack of Spanish but the language did come quickly. I thought the Spanish lessons were excellent.” [definitely important/otherwise closed to communication and the culture/the main medium for everything else/hindered without the language/language is the key to everything]. (BA4) [if younger, learning the language was vital to success of visit/ also tried English with anyone willing/also relied on other volunteers to translate/would have enjoyed the experience even more if spoke more Spanish at every opportunity]. (BA6) [studied more than required from course so I could speak more quickly/important to have basic language skills/smiled, laughed and used hand gestures /willing to be corrected, wouldn’t take offense/language contributed greatly to the overall success of the program]. (BA8) “I really, really wanted to learn Spanish well, so I made a real effort to speak Spanish even when the other person spoke or understood English, as I knew that if I reverted to speaking English all the time whenever I could, I would never had made progress so fast . . . Learning the host language is definitely important to success. If you don’t speak the host language you miss out on so much. It’s all part of the experience and makes the whole thing much more enjoyable. If you can’t understand what people are saying to you it gets frustrating and boring for both parties. Language is the key to understanding the culture.” [motivation, really wanted to learn Spanish/made a real effort/ host language important to success/otherwise you miss out on so much/it’s part of the experience/makes the whole thing much more enjoyable/otherwise, it gets frustrating and boring/language is the key to understanding the culture/learning Spanish has opened up a whole new world of opportunities and experiences/impossible to immerse myself in the local culture with being able to speak/ would probably have been ripped off all the time too]. (SA14) [host language very important/enables one to take part in conversations/improved to level of political discussions/important in

90

The Initial Research Project order to communicate and to understand people/otherwise nuances get lost/in contact with Quechua but didn’t learn it/people who did not speak Spanish were not integrated or were excluded from conversations/English sometimes used as a means of communication].

In summary, for plurilingual Swiss volunteers, learning the host tongue was assumed. Since they all had already acquired three languages, learning a fourth was a natural (and perhaps easy) progression, in contrast with monolingual British volunteers who were amazed that they could indeed learn to communicate in another tongue (their first time). Given this background (and insights typical of multilingual individuals), learning Spanish was expected, and it is interesting that the Swiss volunteers focused their comments more on details of how they learned and of improving accent rather than marvel at their accomplishments. Overall, Swiss volunteers achieved higher proficiency levels than their British counterparts (of whom only two achieved levels of “structural accuracy”), while five of the Swiss volunteers exceeded this level. Aside from proficiency, all alumni expressed important insights about the significance of being able to speak the host language and its relevance to their experience. Here is what British and Swiss volunteers said in their own words during interviews (combined and consolidated where possible): (BV6+I) “Communication, which means not only to speak but also to listen and watch differences and characteristics . . . helped in many ways, especially with my family. At the beginning, I felt as a child because I wouldn’t understand most things. This wouldn’t let me know how to react before many different situations that changed as I got more experienced in the language and culture. Learning of the host language helped me overcome this ambiguity.” [communication helped in many ways/helped to know how to react in different situations/learning host language helped overcome ambiguities]. (SV3+I) “(Language) important to have intercultural success . . . . It would have been impossible to perform my duty without Spanish . . . . if I hadn’t been capable of communicating with (the kids I worked with), my work would have failed.” [important to intercultural success/impossible to perform my duty without it/if not capable of communicating, my work would have failed]. It is impressive that volunteers, who were not professors of language, linguistics, or intercultural communication, were able to articulate the role of language as fundamental to ICC success. Their words and

The Initial Research Project

91

thoughts are worthy of enumerating below (followed by the number of individuals who made similar statements in parentheses, if more than one): [language is the key to everything, to communicating and understanding the local culture, to overall success (7)/it opened a new world of opportunities and experiences/language was vital/very important to my success (7)/(things) changed as I got more experienced in the language/it boosted confidence/was the main medium for everything/enabled me to take part in conversations/helped in many ways, helped enjoy the experience (4)/helped overcome ambiguity/allowed integration/not excluded/ otherwise, closed to communication and culture/am grateful/able to talk to hosts and co-workers/able to perform job/hindered without language/ felt like a child/wouldn’t understand most things/my family did not speak English/impossible to perform without language/otherwise tried English when possible (2) otherwise work would have failed/relied on others to translate/smiled, laughed, and used gestures/otherwise would miss out on so much, frustrating, boring (2)/would probably have been ripped off/ otherwise nuances get lost/and I studied more than required so I could speak/willing to be corrected/really wanted to learn/made a real effort]. Their grasp of the relevance and importance of speaking the host language is eloquent and insightful, especially from individuals who were initially monolingual and unsophisticated with foreign languages. Their thoughts derive not from linguistic study but from their own direct field experience. They state not only why knowledge of the host language was important to success but also speak to limitations imposed without an ability to speak. In addition, given this realization, they comment on why both the positive and negative aspects motivated them to work even harder to develop proficiency. The quest to correlate increasing levels of proficiency with potentially increased ICCs remains an intriguing area of investigation, sorely overlooked by researchers in both language education and the intercultural field. More work needs to be done to clarify this relationship and the effect one has on the other. Although at first glance, a correlation may seem intuitive, the connection between both needs to be made explicit especially given that many prominent interculturalists—in my own experience—are themselves appallingly monolingual, this despite their years of prominence, research, publications, and international travel. Also, what might be the implications of this clarification toward preparing future intercultural sojourners in terms of program development and requirements? Can the intercultural sojourner transcend his/her native worldview without also struggling with the process of entering another tongue? Or is it adequate for interculturalists only to “know about” other worldviews intellectually and vicariously, but not experientially? The language-culture-worldview nexus raises important and fundamental questions. What is clear is that a total lack of proficiency in the host tongue must certainly constrain entry, adaptation, and understanding of the

92

The Initial Research Project

host culture on various levels and in many ways (unless, of course, one assumes interactions will occur through English, albeit not qualitatively the same), while increased levels of host language proficiency must certainly enhance entry possibilities although not a sole guarantee of success since other factors also come into play. Finally, language proficiency aside, much is yet to be said about participant awareness and development of alternative communicative styles and discourse strategies (cf. Appendix A: AIC Form, Part V.), another important contribution to expanding communicative repertoires, which goes beyond linguistic proficiency to embrace interactional patterns that form part of all communicative acts. Assertion No. 3: Intercultural experiences are life altering—British alumni described changes they experienced through comments in openended sections of the survey questionnaire form as follows: (BA1) “I have more confidence in speaking to new people.” (BA2) “More open-minded and tolerant of other cultures, more politically aware of South American politics and issues.” (BA3) “I do not think it would be an over exaggeration to say that I returned a completely different person. I was more relaxed, more confident, sharper, fitter, and healthier. I had learnt a new language, gained a much greater sense of perspective on all aspects of life and an understanding of a different culture.” (BA3) “Empathy towards other countries. More motivated to immerse in other cultures.” (BA4) “It was one of the most important experiences of my life because I went at the age of 60 to a country I had never visited with a language I did not know and whose customs I was unfamiliar with on my own after nearly 40 years of marriage doing most things with my husband.” (BA8) “I have become more confident and understanding, patient, and flexible.” Swiss participants expressed similar thoughts through comments they also made in open-ended sections of the form: (SA1) “We now have many friends from South America and other intercultural couples. I’ve become more adventurous; I have new contacts with people from Latin America. I have learned to switch between two cultures . . . try to act to the degree possible in a less ethnocentric way . . . more zest for life and equanimity, new interests and abilities. I have made new friends. I am coming to grips with living in a country in South America. I learned to behave appropriately. I’m now planning to carry out my field studies in Ecuador.”

The Initial Research Project

93

(SA2 & SA8) “I’ve become more spontaneous, calmer, and more even tempered.” (SA3) “Now working in a development organization.” (SA4) “The experience means a lot to me—the independence and the new environment as well as the lively and warm people have made me perk up. I can’t remember having sensed anything as a constraint. Quite the contrary, I could unfold and enjoy life. I have learned a lot and the stay has done me a lot of good.” (SA5) “Learned how to find one’s way in a different world; to approach other people.” (SA5 & SA8) “There are many things which I don’t take for granted anymore, such as warm water in the shower, heating.” (SA6) “I can better understand their attitude on Switzerland and I can also deal with it better.” (SA6) “My stay in Ecuador has changed me a lot. I’m fascinated about the country, the people, the culture, and the landscape.” (SA6) “After returning to Switzerland, I kept talking about Ecuador and I wanted to go back there as soon as possible. I have learned a lot about myself. This journey has stamped my life in many ways.” (SA8) “I’ve become more patient.” (SA8 & SA14) “I was shocked about the wealth in Switzerland and about the fact that people are still not happy with it. I have realized that things with material value cannot replace inner contentedness. One can be happy with fewer goods.” (SA9) “Now working in Ecuador . . . learned to express my feelings better. I’ve become more expressive when it comes to my feelings; I’ve learned to accept things which I don’t know . . . my situation in life has changed with my boyfriend from Ecuador; I now have a third home country.” (SA9, SA8, & SA14) “To appreciate my own country and also to appreciate others.” (SA12) “I learned a lot about myself during the time in Ecuador; this journey has stamped my life in many ways.” (SA15) “I gained a lot of new experiences, understanding for other ways of living, other cultures . . . a sad insight that basically one cannot make the world a better place; one cannot really change things.” (SA16) “I appreciate it much more that I’m so happy and that I have everything I need and want. I try harder not to throw away any food.”

94

The Initial Research Project (SA19) “I think above all I learned a lot of new things about myself. In the beginning, I thought that I could adapt completely to a totally different way of life and get used to living that way also. With time, I had to admit that that isn’t so easy. I did not have enough time for myself while living with the family and I did not like it at all that you cannot move freely all day in the city itself—a luxury that is practically never taken from me at home. I am still just as curious as I was before my stay, and will also take advantage of the next opportunity to get to know other cultures. I think that I also now have very different expectations about countries that I will visit in the future, because I now have an idea how it might be. When I went to Ecuador, I only had a limited idea about the country’s politics and history, but otherwise I knew so little that I held no expectations about my visit.” (SA20) “I do not get stressed as quickly now . . . and I don’t let myself be bothered by other people . . . . One learns to appreciate the advantages in Switzerland (infrastructure, cleanliness, less poverty).”

Additional insights about the impact of this experience on their lives were evident from comments made during interviews of alumni and volunteers: (BA1) “It is no exaggeration to say that this project has impacted on my life totally. In the future, after completion of a university degree, I plan to return to Ecuador and my future career will be based within the environmental sector. I feel that the whole experience in Ecuador has given me so much more confidence in my own abilities.” [impacted on my life totally/I plan to return/future career based on experience/increased confidence in my own abilities]. (BA3) [I returned a completely different person/gained a much a greater perspective on all aspects of life/gained an understanding of a different culture/a much greater global outlook/increased confidence/a life-changing experience]. (B4) [I feel stronger, know I can make it in another country/more confident]. (BA6) [has broadened my horizons/gained empathy about how difficult life can be for others/am mindful to be helpful and courteous with those with disabilities/gained extra confidence]. (BA8) [it has changed my life/I went for 3 months and stayed for 1–1/2 years/also traveled in Latin America and want to go back/it has changed me as a person/broadened my horizons/great on my CV and led to other interesting jobs].

The Initial Research Project

95

(BV6+I) “Had many abilities before the project. These were theoretical and I was able to put them into practice . .very different from my previous experiences. I increased my interpersonal skills, which I didn’t know much before going to Ecuador. Helped know many aspects of my life on a deeper level” [put the theoretical into practice/increased interpersonal skills/helped in many aspects of my life on a deeper level]. (SV3+I) [became more patient (used to lose his temper)/less judgmental/growing as a person/strengthened his personality/learned alternative ways]. In summary, it is abundantly clear from comments made by all alumni that the sojourn was indeed powerful and provocative and that it affected them in a variety of ways and on many levels—in behavior, personality, abilities, and characteristics, in addition to ASK+A (Attitudes, Skills, Knowledge + Awareness) aspects. They commented in various ways on how the experience “changed my life.” They gained in self-confidence, became more open-minded and tolerant, developed language skills, and even improved in health! They also made new or different life choices upon returning home (more on this later too). This item relates to Assertions 4, 5, and 7, and is discussed in more depth next. Assertion No. 4: Participant choices during the sojourn produce certain intercultural consequences—Participants expressed varying levels of motivation and interest before arriving in Ecuador and most indicated even higher levels upon arrival, with motivation continuing to increase midway and at the end of the experience. On a scale from 0 to 5 (from none to extremely high), British volunteers ranked their motivation at the end of the experience as follows: 1 person at level 3, 2 at 4, and 5 at 5; while Swiss volunteers ranked theirs as 1 at 3, 2 at 4, and 17 at 5. Of the total 28, then, 23 ranked their motivation at the highest possible level while only 2 ranked their motivation at a mid-point and 4 ranked their motivation as high. One might expect participants in a volunteer program (presupposing a self-selected group who elected a specific choice) to display high motivation and interest before arriving in-country and, in fact, most indicated even higher degrees upon arrival in the host culture. These attitudes continued midway and through to the end of the experience. One might also expect that these attitudes were important toward sustaining them throughout the experience and helped them through admittedly difficult times (culture bumps). For example, despite the fact that all expressed high motivation and interest, half of the participants acknowledged challenges at times and occasional low points during their stay, such that they “sometimes wanted to return home/felt not learning very much/felt forced or obliged to adjust/tried to survive as best they could.” These thoughts were offset by the fact that all participants, from a medium

96

The Initial Research Project

to high degree, also “desired to get along well/desired to adjust as best they could/admired hosts so that they worked to become as bilingual and bicultural as possible.” These latter thoughts are reminiscent of contrasts between the socalled instrumental and integrative types of motivations. Clearly, volunteers were mostly inclined toward the latter, given their willingness to learn and adapt, and in their positive feelings about their experiences. Here are their thoughts conveyed in their own words: (B4) [feel gratitude for own standard of living back home/I now make more generous donations to support these efforts]. (B6) [am more appreciative of what I have at home/gained insight into the less privileged/grateful for free state care in the UK]. (B8) [developed friendships, now have friends all over Latin America/none of this would have happened if I hadn’t gone to Ecuador, learned Spanish, and immersed myself in the life there]. In summary, intercultural service programs naturally attract volunteers with high degrees of motivation. They seek the experience, undergo selection, pay a sum of money, travel halfway around the world, and brave the challenges of participating in another linguaculture. Indeed, their motivation must lean more toward the integrative than the instrumental type, which means that sojourners desire to go beyond mere acceptance. As a result, they seek to emulate their hosts and work toward higher degrees of bilingualism and biculturalism than might be witnessed by others within the same timeframe. Integrative motivation does more than sustain them through difficult and challenging moments. It gives them pleasure in “becoming” like their hosts and “becoming” part of their host society and culture—not a likely disposition shared by all who enter other cultures. They undergo voluntary acculturation and welcome efforts by their hosts to “assimilate” them. The result, at whatever their level of attainment, is a satisfying, rewarding, and enriching experience in which positive aspects outweigh the negative, as they perceive them. They seek to move beyond the etic and into an emic posture insofar as possible. They transcend and transform their native paradigm as they seek to grasp another. These are all reasons captured by the data (although there may be others) that successful intercultural sojourners seek to perpetuate and extend this significant, provocative, and life-altering experience even after it has ended, and they return home. They reflect these sentiments through their own words and actions. After re-entry, six of the eight British volunteers spoke of the positive nature of their experience, six continued to study Spanish, eight developed new intercultural friendships, three now work in related fields, five continued to use their intercultural

The Initial Research Project

97

abilities, and seven maintained ongoing contact with hosts in various ways. And, after returning home, all 20 Swiss volunteers spoke of their experience in positive terms: ten continued to study another language (seven in Spanish), seven pursued a related field of study, 19 developed new intercultural relationships, six now work in a related field, 19 continued to use their intercultural abilities, and 19 maintained contact with hosts in various ways—by letter or email (19), occasional phone conversations (12), exchanging gifts (six), return visits (four), and receiving their hosts as visitors in Switzerland (two). Assertion No. 5: All parties in intercultural contact are affected to some degree and in various ways—From survey responses and interview comments, it became apparent how intercultural service volunteers were affected by their experience. They described the experience as life changing—they learned more about others, about the world, and about themselves. They developed positive attitudes, new skills, knowledge, and awareness (cf. AIC Form, Part VII). This was obvious in the earlier section and carries over into this area as well. Comments like those that follow reflect the impact of the experience upon participants even after the program had long since ended: [I will be in touch with my hosts for many years to come/I returned to Ecuador with husband/I maintain regular contact with my host family/I am still in contact with hosts even after 5 years/host family also visited them in the UK]. In summary, how volunteers were affected is clear from the comments cited here and those mentioned earlier. How mentors (and other hosts) were also affected will become apparent in later sections that deal with responses obtained from mentor survey forms. Assertion No. 6: Service programs offer unique opportunities for sojourners and hosts, beyond traditional educational exchanges—This assertion was inadequately explored in the survey since no specific questions addressed this area in the questionnaire form. Assertion No. 7: People are changed (presumably in positive ways) as a result of this experience—Responses provided in Part I of the survey provided insights in this regard. For example, the following are based on comments made by British and Swiss alumni: [all alumni stated that they had had positive IC experiences/16 continued language study (13 in Spanish) upon returning from Ecuador/7 pursued a related field of study upon return / 1 remained in Ecuador to work in another capacity/27 (i.e., all but 1) developed new intercultural relationships (friends, colleagues, a boyfriend, a Colombian spouse, and 2 by hosting visitors from abroad/10 now work in a related field or in intercultural or multicultural settings/and all cited a variety of ways they continue to utilize their newly developed intercultural abilities such as a desire and interest to learn more about other cultures, respect for diverse perspectives, increased intercultural understanding, enhanced communication skills, and continued use of Spanish].

98

The Initial Research Project

Others commented that they [developed an ability to make friends quickly and easily/confidence to go to a country and survive/learned salsa dancing, a great social activity/realized how privileged they are in the UK/ learned to make the most of every opportunity/appreciate more what one has, one’s own country/got to know another part of the world/can more easily approach people from a different culture/accept how other cultures function differently/more open to accept differences (even among the French-Swiss)/more open to new things/adapts more easily/more easygoing (e.g., accepts restructuring at work)]. Comments made by volunteers in interviews at the end of their program reinforced many of the same ideas made by alumni who had already returned home: (BV6+I) [experience very enjoyable/now thinks more about her own culture and its components/knows more about Ecuador and South America/changed her point of view/has new perspectives of life/ plans to keep in touch with host family and friends/plans to help her place of work/wants to keep the closeness she learned from her hosts in her own family]. (BV6+I) [developed intercultural abilities important for her future/ overcame ambiguity/able to adapt to new culture/helps to understand foreign people in own country]. (SV3+I) [has grown in many ways /views things differently/developed a higher level of consciousness and awareness/learned to live with less materialism and luxury]. (SV3+I) [helped to get to know himself on higher level/knows his life will change back home/more aware of the world/won’t be as selfcentered/will appreciate everything back home more]. In summary, as the comments noted earlier indicate, even when alumni acknowledged challenges and difficulties, they expressed no truly negative comments about the experience or its effects upon them. All comments concerned growth, development, expansion, opening, learning, and changing. And, despite occasional comments about what they learned about Ecuador, a preponderant amount of comments was really about themselves and their own societies—not unusual for intercultural sojourners who, while learning about others, are surprised by how much they also learn about themselves, an aspect they seldom anticipate. In the end, self-awareness is perhaps the most powerful change that takes place and something that continues to serve participants for the rest of their lives. Many believe that self-awareness is the most important aspect of human development. Perhaps for this reason, it is at the center of the world’s great religions: “know thyself” and at the core of

The Initial Research Project

99

a Freirean approach to education: “conscientização” (cf. Freire 2012). Interviewees became more aware of their own beliefs and limitations. They became more grateful for what they have at home and they broadened and deepened their perspectives about themselves, others, their government, country, indeed, their own worldview. Assertion No. 8: Some returnees lean toward specific life choices, life partners, lifestyles, values, and jobs as a result of this experience— Evidence for this assertion is somewhat sparse and is taken up again in the FRP. This may be attributable to the fact that, except for one individual, all alumni were young adults (between the ages of 19–28) and have yet to make such choices. The sole exception (a woman of 63) obviously already made these choices and would be unlikely to change at this point. Nonetheless, numerous indicators suggest that alumni were (re)oriented as a result of their experience. All but two returned to their previous home situations: one British alumna remained in Ecuador because she enjoyed the experience so much and was employed at the Embassy in Quito as did also one Swiss volunteer. Of the returnees, one Swiss alumna stated that she was pursuing courses related to her recent experience, while many others were pursuing further language study (Spanish or another language); still others were pursuing related fields of study, and several were contemplating intercultural careers. One returnee said she had chosen her career path before Ecuador but that the experience confirmed her choice and made her more excited and prepared for her chosen field in environmental studies. Other indicators were embedded in comments made in openended sections of the survey form and in the interviews that followed: The British Volunteers (B1) [retained language ability and plan to revisit Ecuador/reinforced decision to pursue a career in the environmental section (as per my project in Ecuador)]. (B3) [mentoring, coaching seven English people and one person each from France and Germany at work/often encounters people at her firm from other countries and go out of her way to welcome them using their own language/would like to take a career break so I could volunteer again/her company offered her the chance to travel to another country/wants to work in South America]. (B5) [psychologist for offending behavior programs, working with about ten persons per group]. (B8) [gave direction to career and life/went traveling throughout Latin America on own/began teaching English, gave private lessons, worked for a filming company/also as journalist and editor for a tourism website/then worked as assistant in Embassy].

100

The Initial Research Project

The Swiss Volunteers (S1) [planning to carry out my field studies in Ecuador]. (S3) [cultural anthropology/development cooperation]. (S4) [political science, general linguistics]. (S5) [international relations/international relations, planning to work for an international relief organization]. (S6) [course on project management in intercultural fields/husband is Colombian/now have many friends, intercultural couples, people from South America/new contacts with people from South America]. (S9) [now working for EIL Ecuador/promotes intercultural programs to people from Ecuador (50 people)/now have a third home country]. (S10) [will take advantage of the next possible opportunity to get to know other cultures/pursuing a master’s degree in Spanish literature and linguistics/want to discover the whole world (that’s why I’m working at the airport)]. (S15) [school for health and social work/teaching language to a woman from Albania/have made many new friends]. (S16) [recently conducted a fundraiser for scouts/helped to accept a job in the French part of Switzerland]. In summary, although the mostly young adult population under study was still too young to have made many important life choices with regards to career, marriage, and lifestyles, it is evident that they generally adopted a particular life “orientation” that built on their sojourn experience in Ecuador. Despite lack of definitive evidence for this assertion at this point due to age, other important changes did occur, as reported in Assertion 5. Other indicators pointed to their newfound intercultural dispositions, such as [interest in further developing language ability/plans to return/work/stay in South America (6)/influenced or confirmed decision about career (17)/mentoring, coaching, welcoming foreigners/diversity (5)/interest in travel, getting to know other cultures (5)/engaged to or married to a South American (2)/new friends from South America (4)]. Clearly, their interests in learning other languages, foreign travel and work abroad, meeting foreigners, getting to know other cultures, marrying someone from abroad, and wanting to make new friends from other cultures, were all consistent with individuals who have undergone intercultural experiences and were affected in positive ways. No comments suggested retreat or withdrawal from intercultural contact; all comments pointed in the direction of wanting to expand further upon what was already experienced.

The Initial Research Project

101

Assertion No. 9: Alumni often engage in activities that impact on others—Of 28 alumni, two indicated involvement in an intercultural engagement or marriage, four indicated the pursuit of related studies, ten indicated that they now work (or plan to work) in related fields (three of whom work or plan to work in Ecuador), and 18 indicated involvement in activities where they utilize their intercultural abilities to advantage. Examples include (numbers in parentheses indicate how many responded similarly) [an intercultural marriage and an intercultural fiancé (two)/pursuing course work or degrees in Spanish literature and linguistics, international relations, and project management in intercultural fields/teaching or mentoring immigrant co-workers (two)/ providing psychological counseling in a prison (nine)/doing charity work (one)/working at the British Embassy (15+)/careers in health and social work, political science, general linguistics, and cultural anthropology, and development/plans to work for an international relief organization and another to study in Ecuador/promoting intercultural programs to people from Ecuador (50 people)]. In summary, although the number of persons the alumni and volunteers affected or will affect in the future is difficult to calculate, it is clear that all of the alumni are having an impact on others, especially in fields such as teaching, counseling, health, social work, development, and service. Although not startling in terms of numbers, several indicated some multiplier effects with two, two, eight, nine, 15+, and 50+ persons being affected in the cases cited, totaling 86+ persons presumably benefiting from abilities the alumni developed during their service experience abroad. Several other respondents did not indicate the number of persons they work with in four areas, so there is no way of truly calculating these effects. Despite this, it remains clear that others are also affected by the actions of returnees from intercultural service programs. Assertion No. 10: These activities further the organizational mission— Federation EIL’s vision is one of world peace; its mission is to help build it. As one of the oldest organizations engaged in international, intercultural education, service, and development, Federation EIL maintains both academic and service project capabilities dedicated to promoting intercultural understanding, social justice, and world peace. Since its founding, its values have become ever more relevant in today’s world, and its programs have grown in scope and intensity. Through collaborative work among MOs, distinctive methods based on experiential approaches to education and training and the integration of theory and practice, Federation EIL’s diverse programs are designed to provide lifechanging experiences that develop ICCs, create leaders, contribute to global development, and effect positive change. In summary, the approach to developing world peace, one person at a time, mirrors Gandhi’s challenge when he said, “You must be the change that you wish to see in the world.” In other words, change occurs from the inside out. Federation EIL programs help this to occur in the

102

The Initial Research Project

context of quality educational exchange programs, including those with a service component. All of these experiences include selection, orientation, language study, a homestay, and usually an additional component. In Federation EIL’s VIP programs, this additional component involves participation in a service project. Most importantly, each intercultural sojourn is conducted in-country and on that culture’s terms. This means that participants learn in the way of the culture of the host society, requiring development of an emic approach. Findings in this study reinforce the numerous anecdotal and statistical reports accumulated over more than three-quarters of a century. Because the nature of intercultural encounters is always provocative, it promotes deep introspection and reflection. Rarely does one return with more stereotypes or intolerant attitudes. In addition, learning about others provides new vantage points for learning more about oneself. The returnee typically remarks, “I learned so much about Ecuador, but I learned even more about myself.” Understanding and changes of perspective occur for most and, as a result, they return home deeply changed. The intercultural experience, many state, has been the most profound educational experience of their lives. And changed participants return to live their lives differently, affecting others in the process. In so doing, they are helping to further the institutional vision and mission. This is a consistent theme throughout all of the reports provided in this study. Host Perspectives As previously stated, Ecuadorian mentors completed two types of survey forms addressing: (1) their views of volunteer performance (labeled Mentors/Volunteers or MV), and (2) about their own intercultural development (labeled Mentors/Self, or MS). In the first case, of five supervising mentors, four completed questionnaire forms at the beginning of the volunteers’ programs, three at the end, and four gave personal interviews, indicated by (+I). This first section examines mentor views of volunteer performance, guided by questions pertaining to the ten assertions. These provide the emic view, from the hosts’ point of view, an often-missing viewpoint in intercultural research and one that deserves increased attention. Mentor Views of Volunteer Performance Assertion No. 1: ICC is a complex of abilities (important attributes)— Mentors described volunteers at the end of programs in the following ways: (FEMV1+I) SV1 was initially impatient, became more adaptable, now a more open person. She is now [respectful/patient/reflective/ gentle/caring].

The Initial Research Project

103

(FEMV3+I) SV3 was initially very judgmental, criticized a lot, noted many problems, didn’t share the way he handled the problems, intelligent. He now [has his character well defined (set in his ways?)/learned to be more tolerant with different ideas and situations/more reflective before taking an action]. (FEMV4+I) SV4 is [very active/very helpful]. (FEMV5+I) BV6 was very patient, adaptable, humble, and a hard worker. She now [continues to have these same abilities/developed them to a higher level/especially patient/does good work/considers the needs of others before her own]. Mentors confirmed many of the attributes cited in the literature (i.e., those with numbers in parentheses show the number of respondents who cited particular attributes): [tolerance (1)/flexibility/patience (3)/sense of humor/appreciate differences/suspending judgment/adaptability (1)/ curiosity/open-minded/motivated (1)/self-reliant/empathy (1)/clear sense of self/perceptive/tolerance of ambiguity]. In addition, they added two other qualities they had observed: [respect (1)/reflective (2)]. They also cited several qualities when referring to specific individuals, all positive and one negative (i.e., set in his ways): [gentle (1)/caring (1)/active (1)/ helpful (1)/humble (1)/set in his ways (1)]. In summary, by completing all items in Part II of the survey form and leaving none blank, mentors confirmed all 15 attributes listed. In open-ended interviews, they spontaneously confirmed five and they identified two others not on the list. They also cited several positive and negative individual qualities without generalizing about them. Comparing comments between volunteers and hosts raises intriguing new questions: Are qualities cited as important to ICC success viewed in the same way by sojourners and hosts? Do they share the same order of importance? Are any qualities which hosts consider important not considered in the same way by sojourners (and interculturalists), and vice versa? Assertion No. 2: Learning the host language affects ICC development— Spontaneous comments made by mentors concerning language and communication when dealing with their international volunteers were as follows: (FEMV1+I) [helps to understand the situation on a deeper level/ allows her to comprehend better/to be less judgmental]. (FEMV3+I) [this is one of the most important aspects/necessary, because she works with kids who speak only Spanish]. (FEMV4+I) [learning the host language is really important/otherwise would need to find alternate ways to communicate which would be difficult].

104

The Initial Research Project (FEMV5+I) [fundamental to success/admires volunteers who come and learn a new language].

In summary, whereas the question regarding the significance and necessity of learning the host tongue may be discussed by language educators and interculturalists from an etic viewpoint, it is interesting to learn about this issue from the hosts’ point of view, especially from hosts who are themselves monolingual. From the mentor perspective, it was obvious that they all viewed volunteer knowledge of their language as important: “One of the most important aspects” and “fundamental to success; it is necessary to life and work; one cannot function without it.” Aside from practical aspects of speaking the host language, the volunteers’ language ability drew admiration thereby enhancing how hosts viewed volunteers even further. Assertion No. 5: All parties engaged in intercultural contact are affected to some degree and in various ways (impact of ICC contact on mentors). Also: Assertion No. 3: Intercultural experiences are life altering; Assertion No. 4: Participant choices during the sojourn produce certain intercultural consequences; Assertion No. 6: Service programs offer unique opportunities for sojourners and hosts, beyond traditional educational exchanges; Assertion No. 7: People are changed as a result of this experience; and Assertion No. 8: Some returnees lean toward specific life choices, life partners, lifestyles, values and jobs as a result of this experience (use of ICC abilities in my own life and work)—Here’s what mentors said during interviews (Is) regarding the impact of this experience upon volunteers as they saw it: (FEMV1+I) [the volunteer faced many difficult situations and overcame them/has been very helpful/strengthened her vocation/now sure about direction chosen for her life/she’s more aware of problems in the world/will help her in her future job/learned new aspects of health care systems/learned to deal with bureaucratic issues]. (FEMV3+I) [has become more open/will help his personal development/now has more expectations about life/more open/got to know new people/experienced new things/life changed without a doubt]. (FEMV4+I) [more awareness of differences/more open-minded/ helped her on many different levels/changed attitude/will be a helpful person throughout life]. (FEMV5+I) [will try to help poor people in her own country/a changed person/will want more different experiences/more aware of own values]. In summary, it is clear that mentors felt that volunteers were impacted in many positive ways—in areas of attitudes, skills, knowledge, and awareness—and they noted how volunteers had changed, expected

The Initial Research Project

105

volunteers to pursue their life choices more effectively, and to be helpful to others. The mentors also appreciated the contributions of volunteers to their projects: [the volunteers stay for short periods of time/experience with volunteers is excellent/have low budget and can’t hire adequate staff/ volunteers are a great help]. Given low project budgets and inadequate staff, the mentors recognized that volunteers provided much needed assistance. The mentors’ only complaint was the short duration of the volunteers’ stay, but all in all, they were “a great help.” Mentor Perspectives Finally, what about the host mentors involved in this study? The impact of intercultural contact on those who never leave home is seldom part of research but raises some interesting questions: Did interaction with foreigners also affect their lives? Did the mentors also develop ICC abilities? These questions are examined in this section. Of five supervising mentors, three completed survey forms about themselves at the beginning of their contact with volunteers, four completed forms at the end, and four were interviewed in person at program end. The following summary explores the impact of this experience on the Ecuadorian counterparts. About the Mentors/Self (MS) The following information was summarized from Part I of the survey form: • • • • • •

all four mentors were female their ages were 35, 43, 55; one did not answer this question all were Ecuadorian monolingual Spanish speakers three were college graduates and one held a doctoral degree they worked in civic service for 3, 12, 15, and 25 years three had never been outside of Ecuador, one in Bolivia

In summary, all mentors were well educated and dedicated to civic service. All were monocultural and monolingual in Spanish notwithstanding their involvement with indigenous peoples, often Quechua speakers. Only one had traveled outside of Ecuador to neighboring Bolivia. Following is the information they provided with relation to the ten assumptions: Assumption No. 1: ICC is a complex of abilities—In discussing their own attributes required for their work, mentors cited the following qualities: (FEMS1+I) [respect/willingness to adapt/understanding differences/ patience/reflection/problem solving/to see our reality]. (FEMS3+I) [willingness to help/sharing].

106

The Initial Research Project (FEMS4+I) [be active/willingness/attitude/creativity/communication/ developing relationships]. (FEMS5+I) [openness/interest/relationships/knowledge of local culture].

In their responses, mentors also confirmed nearly half of the attributes commonly cited in the literature (i.e., those marked in bold): [tolerance/ flexibility/patience/sense of humor/appreciate differences/suspending judgment/adaptability/curiosity/open-minded/motivated/self-reliant/ empathy/clear sense of self/perceptive/tolerance of ambiguity]. They also added several qualities (not cited in the literature) that they considered important; numbers in parentheses indicated the number of responses provided by mentors: [respect (1)/reflective (1)/problem solving (1)/language, communication (4)/attitude (1)/creativity (1)/relationships (2)/knowledge of local culture (1)]. In summary, by completing all items in Part II of the survey form and leaving no item blank, mentors acknowledged all 15 attributes. In openended interviews, they spontaneously confirmed seven without prompts and they identified eight additional qualities not on the original list. Among this last group, all four cited knowledge of the language and communication as important to intercultural success. Assertion No. 2: Learning the host language affects ICC development— Spontaneous comments made by mentors concerning the role of language and communication in their interactions with volunteers were as follows: (FEMS1+I) “It is important that volunteers learn Spanish since it makes them more self-confident and helps them communicate in a better way. Working in this environment allows them to learn the language on a deeper level. For mentors, it is very important that the volunteers learn Spanish because with this knowledge they can exchange ideas with each other and this makes their experience richer.” (FEMS3+I) “Volunteers tend to communicate in many different ways when they aren’t able to express something. When it comes to the working with kids (language) is fundamental since kids tend to be very curious and volunteers have to find a way to communicate with them.” (FEMS4+I) “Learning the language is basic to having a fluid relationship since we (the hosts) don’t speak other languages.” (FEMS5+I) “Without learning the host language, there would have been a barrier which would have made this more difficult, especially when it comes to this type of work.” In summary, it is important to note that communication and learning the host language were both factors cited by all mentors as important for

The Initial Research Project

107

intercultural success. This being so, they clearly affect and contribute to ICC development as well. Additional spontaneous comments made by mentors in this regard were that language was [important/helps the volunteers gain confidence/improves communication/allows a deeper level/ allows exchange of ideas/makes the experience richer/it’s fundamental/ basic to relationships]. Conversely, without language, [a barrier/more difficult/mentors don’t speak their languages/kids they work with are curious]. These comments not only substantiate why mentors thought knowledge of the host language was important for volunteers in terms of what they contribute, but they also point to how a lack of host language ability would seriously constrain relationships and interaction, especially since most hosts and mentors don’t speak other languages. Oddly, with the exception of only one mentor, the others did not reverse this thought to consider their own need or desire to learn another language (given that Quechua is frequently spoken in their areas). However, since only one had traveled to nearby Bolivia and most do not imagine the possibility of international travel, this may explain why they did not see the need to speak other languages. Assertion No. 5: All parties engaged in intercultural contact are affected to some degree and in various ways (impact of ICC contact on mentors). Also: Assertion No. 3: Intercultural experiences are lifealtering; Assertion No. 4: Participant choices during the sojourn produce certain intercultural consequences; Assertion No. 6: Service programs offer unique opportunities for sojourners and hosts, beyond traditional educational exchanges. Following is what mentors said in open-ended questions of the survey forms (+SFs) and in interviews (+Is) regarding the impact of their work with foreign volunteers: (FEMS1+SFs) [noted two sides of life (unstructured life of street children/structured life of volunteers)/respect/tolerate differences as got to know foreign volunteers]. (FEMS1+I) “Contact with people from other cultures . . . is an opportunity to meet new people, develop myself, and learn from the volunteers who have different points of view.” (FEMS3+I) [learned about communication/strengthened relationships I had due to contact with volunteers]. (FEMS3+I) “Sharing a new culture is important. While working with volunteers, I constantly learn to collaborate with them and this helps me to work better. This also helps me to know them (foreigners) better and be more open to them. There are some (customs) that volunteers don’t share (with us since) they haven’t lived our reality. As they get to know this reality better (through language), they tend to adapt better to this situation.”

108

The Initial Research Project (FEMS4+I) “This experience has helped me to recognize many differences between our cultures and theirs: the way they live, the way they dress, and the things they eat. I find (the volunteer) also very curious about other cultures. She told me this experience has made her want to travel and get to know other cultures on a deeper level.” (FEMS5+I) “This contact has allowed me to understand volunteers better and to become friends with them. Outside the work environment, I have become more open.” (FEMS5) [learned from contact with volunteers/became more understanding/more open/more tolerant/has helped me with my daily tasks].

In summary, intercultural research generally focuses on the sojourner— on those traveling to a new environment. However, their presence among their hosts most certainly must also exert some effect on people with whom they interact. It is clear in this case that the monolingualmonocultural mentors were challenged by this intercultural contact even while remaining at home. As a result, they too have grown although perhaps not in all the same ways (e.g., language) nor to the same degree. Mentors specifically cite the following effects on themselves: [derived insights by comparing/developed respect/opportunity to meet new people/ develop relationships (2)/learned about communication/opportunity to develop myself/constantly learn from them (3)/this helps me to work better (2)/became more open (3)/helps me to recognize differences among cultures (2)/learned of the impact this experience has on them/helps me to understand (2)/to become friends/to become more tolerant]. It is clear that host mentors were impacted in various ways through interactions with the volunteers in areas of attitudes, skills, knowledge, and awareness. ICC contact does affect all parties in the interaction— volunteer sojourners and hosts alike. The phrase “looking out is looking in” acquires more significance when we include the hosts who through contact with foreigners also began processes of reflection and introspection that might not otherwise have occurred. Hence, the provocative two-way nature of intercultural contact is clear no matter the setting. Assertion No. 7: People are changed as a result of this experience + Assertion No. 8: Some returnees lean toward specific life choices, life partners, lifestyles, values and jobs as a result of this experience (use of ICC abilities in life and work)—Mentors speak to these two points during interviews in the following ways: (FEMS1+I) “I’ve been applying these abilities in my work day by day because my job demands this. Respect and openness are the

The Initial Research Project

109

basis of this job since it allows people to respect and care about themselves and these are the values we also try to share with the people who live in extreme poverty. This experience (with the volunteers) helps me to understand many differences among people of diverse cultures and even inside the same culture. On the personal side, this experience has turned me into a more respectful person.” (FEMS3+I) “My job involves interpersonal skills, therefore the experience (with volunteers) helps me to know how to get along with people from other cultures. (My experience with volunteers) has helped me to improve these skills.” (FEMS4+I) “I use these abilities all the time since I have constant contact with volunteers at work. In my own life, I find that I miss this contact later because we become so close to each other. During this experience, I learned to respect people from other countries on a higher level, avoiding the use of terms such as ‘gringo’ which offends foreigners and explaining this to those around me.” (FEMS5+I) “This experience has helped me a lot and due to this contact, I am now more open-minded when it comes to relationships with people from other countries. I am always hoping to have more volunteers because they have proven to be very responsible individuals.” In summary, it is interesting to note the connections mentors make between their experience with foreign volunteers and what they learned from them, within their own lives and work. They commented on these correlations in various ways: [I apply this to my work every day/respect and openness are the values we try to share with the people we work with in extreme poverty/this experience (with the volunteers) helps me to understand many differences among people of diverse cultures and even inside the same culture/on the personal side, this experience has turned me into a more respectful person/helps me to know how to get along with people from other cultures/(my experience with volunteers) has helped me to improve these skills/I use these abilities all the time/ during this experience, I learned to respect people from other countries on a higher level/this experience has helped me a lot/due to this contact, I am now more open-minded when it comes to relationships with people from other countries]. Both parties were mutually enriched through contact. Without always realizing it, they had much to offer each other. They both grew and developed, and the growth experienced by mentors had direct application to their lives and work.

110

The Initial Research Project

Assertion No. 9: Alumni (and mentors) often engage in activities that impact on others—As persons involved in civic service, this is the chosen life course for all the Ecuadorian mentors. Assertion No. 10: These activities further the organizational vision and mission—Mentors, as well as volunteers, contribute since service projects advance the vision and mission of the umbrella organization.

4.5

Summary and Conclusions

Lessons Learned Numerous insights were gleaned about “process” aspects of this study. The lessons learned were considered when undertaking the FRP and included the following: 1) The challenges of collaborative international research efforts on several levels, especially administratively, cross-culturally, and linguistically; despite this, the promises are quite attractive 2) Contracting and supervising RAs as project employees emerged as an important factor (as opposed to contracting personnel within the local MOs) to avoid the difficulties experienced with one MO, which interfered with the RA performing her tasks 3) Working through untrained, nonprofessional RAs presents specific challenges in guiding them to ensure their efforts will result in producing reliable results 4) The need to ensure that the MOs involved have updated alumni files with current contact information (especially email, where possible) 5) The challenges, benefits, and necessity of working through local languages (and the native tongues of research subjects involved) and ensuring that surveys and documents are properly translated 6) The intercultural challenge of designing questionnaires for respondents from a variety of cultural backgrounds, inexperienced with surveys and who may hold differing attitudes about participation 7) The need to perform an item analysis to reduce an acknowledged lengthy questionnaire into the briefest possible instrument, yet one that will yield desired results 8) The importance of follow-on interviews toward producing a rich corpus of qualitative data 9) The value of combining quantitative and qualitative data to get complete and accurate results 10) Ways to apply the findings identified in the survey to enhance program design and implementation, promotion, selection, orientation, and assessment of outcomes

The Initial Research Project

111

Areas for Further Work Because the data obtained are extremely rich, they have the potential to yield many more insights. Following are questions and areas for further analysis in future studies: 1) General correlations across and within subgroups: • • • • • •

How do different subgroups compare in several areas—e.g., British and Swiss volunteers? What do they share? How do they differ? What comparisons can be made by gender? By age? Length of sojourn? Based on previous cross-cultural experiences? Based on monolingual versus bilingual or multilingual participants? Specific development in each area of ASK+A? What other etic-emic comparisons can be made?

2) What specific changes occurred in worldview? 3) General correlations among mentors (self): • • • •

Comparisons by gender? By age? Development in each specific area of ASK+A? What etic-emic comparisons can be made? What changes occurred in world view?

Additional questions and areas of interest to explore are as follows: 1) The ten assertions: • • •

Which assertions might coalesce (e.g., Assertions 3, 4, 5, and 7)? How should assertions be reframed or restated? What new assertions might be added?

2) ICC attributes: • • • •

Which attributes might cluster or coalesce? Is there a hierarchy or order of importance? Are attributes viewed the same from etic and emic points of view? Do attributes vary in accordance with target host culture?

3) Language/communication: • • •

How does language/communication transcend/affect other attributes? What is the role of language to ICC development in general? How to use and relate communicative styles to this area (Part V)?

4) Etic-emic: •

How do volunteer and mentor assessments compare?

112

The Initial Research Project

5) Assertion 6 (service programs offer unique opportunities for sojourners and hosts beyond traditional educational exchanges): •

Needs more information, otherwise eliminate?

6) The AIC instrument: • • •

Perform an item analysis to determine which items to keep, eliminate, or combine. Revise and shorten the instrument accordingly. What new areas might need to be added?

References Agresti, A. and Finlay, B. (1997) Statistical Methods for the Social Sciences, 3rd edn., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall International. Freire, P. (2012) Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 30th anniversary edn., New York, NY: Bloomsbury. Hannouchi, S. (2018) Expectations of Conformity to Moroccan Cultural Norms, Unpublished paper presented at the Conference on the Development and Assessment of Intercultural Competence, Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona. Kim, J.O. and Mueller, C.W. (1978) Introduction to Factor Analysis: What It Is and How to Do It, London: Sage Publications. Levin, I.P. (1999) Relating Statistics and Experimental Design, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

5

5.1

The Follow-on Research Project

Overview

Chapter 5 presents the second multinational research project undertaken between 2015 and 2016, which expands upon the work and findings of the Initial Research Project (IRP): The research design and plan provides a description of the project, lists participating countries involved in this study (Brazil, Germany, Ireland, Japan, and the USA), describes modifications and expansions made to the research instrument, the advantages and limitations of the project, and approaches to data compilation and organization, and findings. A major change in the Follow-on Research Project (FRP) was the availability of SurveyMonkey (SM), an online program, allowing direct access to participants, facilitating their ability to respond, and providing instantaneous statistical data compilation. The quantitative and qualitative data represent responses from over 2,000 sojourners and 200 host families and were again obtained through survey questionnaires and telephone interviews. This study supports and confirms findings in the initial study, plus it provides new information regarding the relative value of individual program components toward supporting the development of ICC. The core component remains undoubtedly the homestay sojourn, and all respondents affirm the significance of learning to function in the host language. Results are reported based on data from individual countries to identify particularist aspects (those specific to a given language-cultural group) and subsequently compiled to reflect universal aspects (those that apply across language-culture groups).

5.2

The Research Design and Plan

The design and plan of the FRP were significantly advanced by the experience and findings of the IRP. Further developments in the intercultural field during the intervening decade, however, required updating the review of the intercultural literature. The search expanded to include publications in related areas of research design and outcomes assessment; bilingualism-biculturalism (plurilingualism); education, orientation, and

114

The Follow-on Research Project

training; constructs of IC; intercultural programs; international education; language, culture, and worldview; related research and studies; and developments in study abroad programs. The search of assessment tools was also updated, and newly developed instruments were again analyzed to compare and to update the AIC Form for use in this FRP. This effort resulted in expanding the original AIC Form to learn more details about specific aspects of ICC development and study abroad program design and delivery. At this point, we also wanted to investigate the relative value of specific program components in terms of how each contributes to the overall experience. The result was a revised survey form, renamed the Assessment of Intercultural Communicative Competence (AICC) (more on this later). A major advance in the FRP was possible given the availability of SurveyMonkey (SM), an online computer software program. This program enabled more extensive research, especially across multiple countries—to wit, (1) direct online access to alumni located in five countries, (2) easy access for participants to the survey form plus instantaneous submission upon completion, (3) the ability to monitor data collection in process, and (4) the program’s ability to perform ongoing data tabulation and compilation as each questionnaire was received. The program facilitated collection and processing of a large amount of quantitative data plus the inclusion of open-ended questions allowing respondents to contribute additional insights about their experiences. This enhanced approach to data collection was supplemented with interviews of consenting respondents from each country. The combination of structured and open-ended questions generated quantitative and qualitative data regarding the experiences of program participants in five countries: alumni from Brazil, Germany, Japan, and the US, and host family participants in the case of Ireland. To summarize, objectives of the FRP were as follows: 1) To refine and substantiate a revised concept of ICC—definition, components and their interconnections, and developmental levels 2) To pilot a revised and expanded assessment instrument in 5 countries 3) To validate our theoretical model empirically (requiring a minimum of 300 subjects to ensure that the testing be more accurate as well as the instrument’s reliability) 4) To investigate the value of each program component (i.e., orientation, homestay, language training, group leaders, interventions, and program theme) 5) To assess the effect of host language proficiency on ICC development 6) To assess the impact of the experience on alumni and hosts during and beyond the program

The Follow-on Research Project

115

7) To compile survey findings about each country and to produce a composite multinational perspective 8) To learn whether certain ICC components characterize specific national groups (particularist aspects) and which apply to all (universal aspects) 9) To consider implications and applications of findings for designing and conducting future educational exchange programs 10) To contribute to general knowledge in the field of educational exchange In addition, aligning with current educational trends that place increased emphasis on outcomes assessment, we were especially keen to learn more about the impact of educational exchange experiences on both sojourners and hosts. We wanted to know how it affected their values, lifestyles, and work choices (hence the retrospective survey design), as well as how their experience, in turn, affected others with whom they had contact after return home (the multiplier effect). Project Description This FRP, conducted from January 2015 through January 2016, involved a multinational approach, possible again thanks to the federated nature of EIL (federationeil.org). Again, we engaged RAs placed within each participating MO to assist with in-country tasks. The project took place in four stages, each involving the following tasks: Stage 1. Preparatory phase • • • • • • • •

identify and contract RAs in five countries update the research of the literature collect and analyze recently developed research instruments update, refine, and pilot the survey instrument with a small group of alumni orient RAs to the revised assessment tool and its use RAs translate the instrument into their own language, back translate, and pilot locally utilize the aforementioned information (plus guidance of statisticians) to finalize the research plan post the final instrument in the language of each participating country on SM

Stage 2. Data collection •

RAs access and compile alumni records in each participating MO for the statisticians

116

The Follow-on Research Project • • • •

statisticians produce randomized alumni lists and establish target goals of survey responses needed from each MO RAs email notification of survey to alumni (or mail notifications to host families) RAs collect and compile quantitative data on SM (or compile responses from families) RAs conduct telephone interviews and document qualitative data

Stage 3. Data compilation and analysis • • • •

RAs compile quantitative and qualitative data at national levels in local languages RAs translate results into English and transmit to the PD the PD reviews results individually by country and also compiles multinational results statisticians conduct analysis of quantitative data; PD analyzes qualitative data

Stage 4. Dissemination • •

PD summarizes findings and prepares a composite research report PD disseminates findings to MOs and other interested parties

Participants Involved in the Project Funding for this research project provided support for the involvement of three MOs; in addition, two other countries participated at their own expense, resulting in five participating MOs: Brazil, Germany, Ireland, Japan, and the US, representing different cultures located on three continents. Although most Federation EIL MOs were founded over 60 years ago and currently offer a variety of programs, this study chose a focus on alumni from summer, semester, and yearlong exchange programs meeting the following criteria: high school and college students, ages 16–25 (at the time of their sojourn) and participation within the past 20 years (i.e., between 1995–2015). After ascertaining the total number of alumni meeting these conditions within each MO, qualified alumni listed on Excel spreadsheets allowed statisticians to produce randomized lists in appropriate ratios to the total alumni population by country. RAs then used these lists to email invitations to alumni to participate in the study. Each MO was assigned a specific number that represented its ideal response target (with a 10% buffer) needed to generate a sample size that would allow generalizing findings as representative of the entire alumni cohort of each country. The following

The Follow-on Research Project

117

summaries show the total alumni population (meeting research conditions) per country, the target number of survey responses desired, the number of responses received, and the number over or under desired targets. RAs were also to conduct 20 recorded telephone interviews in order to generate additional qualitative information as an important aspect of the data collection: Brazil Total alumni population: Target number of survey responses desired: Survey responses received: Number of responses exceeding target: Telephone interviews conducted:

35,517 591 712 121 20

Germany Total alumni population:

Target number of survey responses desired: Survey responses received: Number of responses exceeding target: Telephone interviews conducted:

7,127 (4,238 with email addresses) 526 554 28 20

Ireland Total host family population: Target number of survey responses desired: Survey responses received: Number of responses under target: Telephone interviews conducted:

1,660 120–200 111 89 11

Japan Total alumni population: Target number of survey responses desired: Survey responses received: Number of responses under target: Telephone interviews conducted:

2,005 463 338 125 20

Total alumni population: Target number of survey responses desired: Survey responses received: Number of responses under target: Telephone interviews conducted:

18,464 584 384 200 20

US

118

The Follow-on Research Project

These numbers require further comment to explain some of the challenges and procedures implemented during the research to achieve the figures cited earlier: •

•

• •

• • • •

After statisticians produced randomized lists and the targeted number of responses needed, RAs emailed alumni to explain the survey and to invite participation with a stated deadline. The deadline was extended by one month to attain the targeted goals needed to assure our confidence level and to reduce the margin of error. Periodic reminders were sent to alumni regarding the survey questionnaire deadline. Some MOs later extended invitations to all qualified alumni (beyond the randomized list) in order to secure the number of responses needed. A lack of current email addresses (especially in Japan), required RAs to update alumni records during the research process. In the US, a concurrent alumni survey and a fundraising campaign were factors that affected obtaining less than the desired target. Ireland, the only MO surveying host families, utilized snail mail. In a few cases, the difference between the number of survey responses desired and responses received was due to faulty email addresses or a lack of forwarding addresses.

At the conclusion of the survey, the combined number of responses received from the five MOs totaled 2,099. Of this total, Brazil, Germany, Japan, and the US surveyed 1,988 alumni, whereas Ireland surveyed 111 host families. The Research Instrument As mentioned at various points in this work, the revised AICC Form is based on a strong set of theoretical arguments regarding the nature and components of ICC, strengthened by findings from the IRP. This followon project provided a second opportunity to test empirically the conceptual model, the assessment instrument itself, and the data it generated. Select analyses were applied to accomplish these tasks, utilizing descriptive and psychometric approaches (more on this later). The revised AICC instrument (cf. Appendix B: AICC Form) was organized in a series of checklists, frequency scales, numerical ratings, and Likert-type scales. Numerical rating scales were based on a set of numbers with anchored endpoints—e.g., “did not contribute” (0) versus “contributed very strongly” (5). Likert scales allow grasping a coherent universe of content with items arranged hierarchically to reflect increasingly deeper involvement. In the scale designed to assess

The Follow-on Research Project

119

language, for example, items reflected ascending degrees of language proficiency. The resultant AICC Form was once again necessarily lengthy, posing a potential challenge for respondents. While keenly aware of this, we again chose to retain all items to assess properly the validity of our theoretical model as well as to include new items to assess the contributions of various program components. Despite the wisdom of brief questionnaires to ensure maximum responses, we proceeded with the extended form for several reasons: (1) we were bolstered by the 100% response rate obtained in the IRP, (2) we felt confident about alumni enthusiasm for their sojourn experience, and (3) we wanted to assess all ICC components in addition to specific program components. At a future time, we envision conducting an analysis of the AICC to identify the most reliable items, eliminate redundancies, and produce a shorter form for routine use. After updating the (American) English version of the instrument, the form was piloted with a small number of past participants to test its face validity, followed by discussion and consideration of their reactions. Additional revisions were made and the finalized questionnaire was distributed to RAs for translation (or adapted) into their respective languages: Portuguese, German, Irish English, and Japanese. Translated forms were piloted in each country with small local groups, adjusted as necessary, and back translated into English. This required step provided a two-way check on accuracy. The form was again revised as needed and final versions were distributed for use in three languages plus two varieties of English. Although a lengthy and complicated procedure, we considered it imperative that respondents be able to complete the survey in their own L1. Once the deadline arrived and the survey was completed on the SM program, RAs accessed and tabulated open-ended responses from questionnaires and documented the interviews in their respective languages, following guidelines provided by the PD. Data were converted into English and quantitative results were provided to the statisticians who transferred them into IBM SPSS V.22 for analysis; qualitative data were provided to the PD for separate analysis. Details regarding both analyses are narrated below. Advantages and Limitations of the Project As stated earlier, the FRP was a planned sequel, adding five countries to the three involved in the initial survey. In addition to providing a second opportunity to refine the test instrument and a new opportunity to assess individual components of the exchange programs, it had the advantage of involving host families (in the case of Ireland) in addition to sojourners. The family cohort allowed learning something regarding how host

120

The Follow-on Research Project

natives viewed the experience and about the impact on participants who had not left their own culture but experienced intercultural contact by hosting others. This important cohort provides an emic perspective of the exchange experience and deserves further exploration in future studies. Finally, as with the IRP, it was again instructive to view data representing individual language-nationality groups as well as combined data representing multiple language-nationality groups (in this case, Brazilians, Germans, Irish, Japanese, and Americans), providing further insights regarding both “particularist” and potentially “universalist” aspects. This second project again lacked a control group to allow comparing results obtained from participants in this study with populations not involved in educational exchange. One continues to wonder to what extent those who choose to participate in educational exchange constitute a pre-selected population. The fact that they sought intercultural opportunities may already suggest inclinations that contribute to the overwhelmingly positive results. Given its multinational scope, the FRP again dealt with variables not directly supervised; the project’s multinational design again being both its forte and its challenge. Working through RAs at a distance is obviously necessary when dealing across countries, but it requires detailed guidelines and close communication to ensure proper results. While this FRP study was conducted in several additional languages, this also constituted a strength and potential weakness. Extreme care is needed to ensure accurate translations of both the instruments and the data. On the other hand, the value of learning more about what transpires with others in diverse languages and cultures is inestimable. On the downside, as an example, a major study conducted by the Canadian Development Agency, cited earlier, regarding the performance of English and French speaking technical advisors working in various countries where still other languages were spoken, is weakened by the fact that questionnaires and interviews were conducted solely in English (Kealey 1990). Sociolinguists, of course, are keenly aware of how the language medium may affect results obtained and would hasten to point out this research flaw. Clearly, we need studies conducted elsewhere, by others, and in a variety of languages, with due attention given to proper crosscultural survey methods and their challenges. Happily, that this has begun to happen is evidenced by studies of Italian secondary school students abroad (cf. Baiutti 2017), cross-cultural contributions from over 19 countries (cf. Deardorff and Arasaratnam-Smith 2017), and the assessment of study abroad outcomes in Chinese (cf. Taguchi et al. 2017), among others. Data Compilation and Organization Availability of the SM computer program greatly enhanced this study, facilitating data collection and compilation. The SM program made

The Follow-on Research Project

121

the survey questionnaire immediately available to alumni located in a variety of locations at great distances, its completion was easy, and submission was done with a click. Moreover, the SM program compiled data automatically as each survey response was submitted electronically. The result was a composite providing instantaneous tabulation of responses for each questionnaire item, graphs and charts that illustrated percentages, and lists of the write-in comments. However, because the AICC Form was provided in several languages—American English, German, Irish English, Japanese, and Portuguese—the results required further processing. Questions that required answers to be checked off (as on numerical rating scales) were easily understood regardless of language given the identical format and questions for all countries. However, open-ended responses (listed as “other”) eliciting written comments, required translation from the target language (TL) into English. Translated responses were first reviewed to see whether they overlapped with pre-set categories in the survey or whether they required new categorizations before entering data onto an Excel spreadsheet to allow statisticians to transfer data to the SPSS program. Once transferred, data were ready for quantitative analysis, discussed in the next section. Qualitative data also required preliminary steps before analysis, given that information was obtained from respondents in recorded telephone interviews (with permission granted), and conducted in their native tongues. In these cases, local RAs compiled and translated interview data into English before forwarding to the PD. Translated data were analyzed as subsets by country and by category of participants (i.e., alumni or host family members) and subsequently compiled and analyzed as composite samples to provide answers to research questions from a multinational perspective. Presentation and discussion of quantitative data are provided next, followed by the analysis of qualitative data.

5.3

Quantitative Analysis and Discussion

Overview Quantitative analysis begins with a description of the statistical procedures used in this study, divided into three sections: (1) Descriptive analysis maps variables of interest and describes the data collection instrument employed. Descriptive analysis was computed considering the full range of observations by variable. (2) Psychometric analysis addresses issues concerned with scale validity and measurement utilizing multivariate analytical approaches. (3) Comparative analysis relates and contrasts variables of interest with the results obtained in the preceding section. All aspects of statistical analysis were conducted entirely with IBM SPSS (V. 22) software.

122

The Follow-on Research Project

Procedures for descriptive analysis involve frequency counts and relative frequencies for nominal and ordinal variables, central tendency statistics (mean and mode), and dispersion statistics (minimum, maximum, and SD) for discrete and continuous variables (cf. Field 2009). In inferential analysis, a statistical test was considered significant when it showed a p-value of less than 0.05. This value represents a 5% probability that the results observed occurred by chance (cf. Field 2009; Howell 2006). Psychometric analysis encompasses the factorial validity of the scale in the survey questionnaire used in this project to measure the construct of intercultural communicative competence (hereafter referred to as the ICC “scale” or “construct”). To assess the factorial validity of this scale, a PCA was performed—i.e., a data reduction technique that aims to extract underlying dimensions of the ICC scale in order to understand better its dimensional composition (cf. Stevens 1986; Tabachnick and Fidell 2007). Varimax rotation, an orthogonal procedure, was employed to maximize the dispersion of loadings within factors, resulting in more interpretable and independent factors (cf. Tabachnick and Fidell 2007; Field 2009; DeVellis 2012). A cutoff point of 0.45 in factor loading was adopted as a fair measure for item retention in each component, as suggested by Tabachnick and Fidell (2007). For commonalities, a cutoff point above 0.40 was assumed (cf. Stevens 1986). With regard to the reliability analysis, the internal consistency of each extracted dimension was calculated using Cronbach’s alpha, the most common reliability index for instruments using rating scales. Accordingly, a value of 0.70 was adopted as a lower acceptable boundary for alphas that provide an adequate measure of psychological constructs (cf. Nunnally 1978; DeVellis 2012). To assess the quality of individual items composing the summated score in each dimension, a corrected item-total correlation was computed (cf. Muñiz 2001). To analyze the level of association between paired continuous variables, Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was used (cf. Howell 2006; Field 2009). To assess the strength of correlation coefficients, Cohen’s effect ranges were used, assuming that a 0.10 correlation coefficient constitutes a small effect, a 0.30 a medium effect, and a 0.50 a large effect (cf. Cohen et al. 2003). For univariate group differences, independent samples t-test was computed to explore significant mean differences in numerical variables when categorical variables with two groups were used. Homogeneity of variances was verified with Levene’s test and, whenever the assumption of homogeneity was not met, the correction of the test result and degrees of freedom provided by the software were assumed (cf. Howell 2006; Field 2009). Finally, one-way analysis of variance (i.e., one-way ANOVA) was computed to determine mean differences of numerical variables with more than two groups. Whenever results were statistically significant,

The Follow-on Research Project

123

post hoc procedures were used. Post hoc procedures consider the pairwise comparisons correcting the level of significance for each test so that all comparisons remain at a 0.05 error. Two post hoc statistics were used: (1) Tukey’s test, when assumptions were generally met, and (2) GamesHowell test, whenever homogeneity of variances could not be assumed (considering Levene’s test) (cf. Howell 2006; Field 2009). Descriptive Analysis Descriptive analysis is organized into eight sections corresponding to the first eight components of the AICC Form. The ninth and last survey component (Section I: Intercultural Abilities) is addressed within the psychometric analysis given the psychometric properties of the scale measuring the underlying components of the ICC construct. Each section of the descriptive analysis contains the same number of questions as the corresponding section in the AICC survey form. The data analysis yielded by these survey questions is carried out in separate subsections and is preceded by a brief explanation of the survey section under examination (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H). Where questions elicit complementary or adjunct data, they are grouped within the same subsection. The AICC questionnaire contains 51 questions and 1 scale that measures the ICC construct. The division of questions by survey section is as follows: • • • • • • • • •

A. About yourself [11 questions] B. About your sojourn [13 questions] C. Beyond your sojourn [13 questions] D. Personal characteristics [1 question] E. Motivation [2 questions] F. Language proficiency [4 questions] G. Communication styles [4 questions] H. Intercultural areas [3 questions] I. Intercultural abilities [1 scale]

Section A: About Yourself Section A of the questionnaire elicits respondent demographic and sociocultural variables relevant to their participation in a sojourn abroad. This section contains 11 questions: 3 elicit demographic information and 8 concern sociocultural variables, and their potential relationship to the intercultural sojourn. Questions A1, A2, and A3 address demographic variables of gender and age, respectively. The resulting data show similar distributions across three subsamples wherein three-fourths of the respondents are female and one-fourth are male. Japan differed in that it registers the highest

124

The Follow-on Research Project

percentage of females at 77.9% and the lowest percentage of males at 22.1%. With regard to age (at the time survey questionnaires were completed), respondents of subsets span different age groups. Brazilian and German age groups range from adolescence to middle age (15–46 and 13–52 years of age, respectively), while American and Japanese respondents are seniors (69 and 71 years of age, respectively). The average age in the total sample of 1,656 participants is 23.78 years (SD = 6.26). Question A4 is open-ended, eliciting varied responses regarding foreign languages learned by respondents. However, since it was not always possible to infer which foreign languages were learned where respondents did not also list their native tongues, their responses were excluded from the frequency count to ensure data accuracy. A total of 846 valid responses was obtained showing a range of 32 foreign languages learned. The subsample registering the widest variety of languages was the US (n = 29), followed by Germany (n = 13) and Brazil (n = 9), with Japan yielding the smallest range of foreign languages learned (n = 4). The ten most frequently learned foreign languages by respondents were English, Spanish, Japanese, French, Chinese, Latin, German, Hebrew, Polish, and Portuguese. English was the most commonly learned foreign language in all countries, except in the US subsample where Spanish ranked first (n = 51; 34.5%). Questions A5 and A6 seek to learn whether respondents had had intercultural experience prior to their sojourn abroad, followed by the type of intercultural experience when respondents answered affirmatively. Analysis showed that 69.4% of respondents had no intercultural experience prior to their educational exchange abroad in contrast to a smaller group of 30.6% who had. The Japanese are an exception to this pattern given that more respondents (51.9%) had previous intercultural experience contrasting with 48.1% who did not. Regarding types of intercultural experiences elicited by Question A6, open-ended responses generated 15 categories across the 4 countries. The results show three types of intercultural experiences as most common: “Participation in exchange programs” ranks first, gathering 34.0% (n = 198) of valid responses, “travel abroad” at 20.1% (n = 117), followed by “language study and travel abroad” with 9.8% of responses (n = 57). The breakdown of data demonstrates that what respondents in one subsample consider their most common early intercultural experience may not necessarily be a frequent experience in another subsample. In effect, the most frequent intercultural experiences differed across samples. Thus, in Brazil, “travel abroad” ranks first by assembling 55.4% of responses, while in Germany 48.5% of respondents selected “participation in exchange programs.” For Japanese respondents, “homestays abroad” are the most frequent intercultural experience listed at 33.1%, while 15.1% of American respondents checked either “born or lived abroad.”

The Follow-on Research Project

125

Question A7 sought to ascertain the duration of any prior intercultural experience in years and months. Given the varied experiences respondents embarked upon, duration also varied considerably. As the previous survey question shows, intercultural experiences range from simple travel abroad to living/being born in another country. As such, measurement units range from days to months and several years. To group these disparate units of measurement, it was necessary to change the variable level of measurement from numerical to ordinal. Hence three intervals were created to indicate duration—viz., (a) less than 1 year, (b) between 1 to 3 years, and (c) more than 3 years. According to the results, 83.5% (n = 340) of respondent intercultural experiences prior to the educational exchange experience had a duration spanning from days to several months (“less than 1 year”). This interval encompasses the widest range of experiences, such as participation in exchange programs, language schools abroad, homestays, youth camps abroad, school trips abroad, and so forth. Few respondents had medium and long-term experiences, given that the categories “between 1 and 3 years” and “more than 3 years” assembled only 8.3% of responses (n = 38) in each. In the former interval, one finds medium-term intercultural experiences like work or study abroad; the latter refers essentially to respondents who lived or were born abroad. Within-country results reproduce data patterns drawn from the total sample. All subsamples show that a majority of respondents undertook short-term intercultural experiences (“less than 1 year”), corresponding to a percentage share of 85.1% in Brazil, 83.6% in Germany, 83.0% in Japan, and 81.7% in the US. With regard to medium short-term experiences (“between 1 and 3 years”), subsamples registering the highest percentage of responses are Brazil and Japan at 10.5% and 10.4%, respectively. In Germany and the US, only 6.3% and 6.1% underwent intercultural experiences of medium duration. In long-term experiences (“more than 3 years”), Germany and the US represent the two subsamples with more respondents who had sojourns of a long duration. In terms of percentages, this is the case for 12.2% and 10.1% of subjects in American and German subsamples, respectively. In Brazil and in Japan, only 4.4% and 6.6% of subjects had intercultural experiences of long duration, respectively. Question A8 elicited respondent relationships with people from diverse cultural backgrounds prior to the educational exchange experience, while Question A9 ascertains the type of relationships within a range of pre-set categories. Questions A10 and A11, in turn, ask respondents who had developed relationships with “diverse others” prior to sojourning whether those relationships were a positive experience (A10) and/or whether they had a bearing on their decision to participate in an educational exchange experience (A11).

126

The Follow-on Research Project

Results from survey Question A8 show that 70.4% of respondents had developed relationships with people from other cultural backgrounds prior to their educational exchange experience. Those who had not represent a minority of 29.6%. The within-country analysis demonstrates that this data pattern repeats itself across subsamples, with the American subsample reaching the highest proportion of prior intercultural relationships at 76.3%. Finally, Brazil represents the subsample where the proportion of respondents who developed this kind of relationship and those who did not is nearly balanced at 58.4% and 41.6%, respectively. With regard to type of intercultural relationships developed, respondents had a choice of four pre-set categories in addition to an open-ended category “other,” that included (1) friends, (2) classmates, (3) co-workers, and (4) family members. Each category accounts for 100%, with percentage shares reflecting the number of positive (“yes”) answers. Results show that sojourner relationships vary between friendship (71.6%), schooling (58.7%), professional (8.5%), and family ties (24.0%). In the category “other,” most answers duplicated responses that fell within preset categories and were therefore excluded from the frequency counts. The remaining open-ended answers create new categories, but with low frequencies, such as (5) teachers-Brazil (n = 8; 3.7%), Germany (n = 5; 1.7%), Japan (n = 4; 4.2%), and (6) au pair-Germany (n = 7, 2.3%). Within-country data show that although the category “friends” assembles the highest number of positive responses in all four subsamples, in American and German cases the percentage share of “friends” and “classmates” is nearly equal. This is particularly evident in the German subsample wherein this divide represents a 1.5% difference. Multicultural working environments reach the greatest percentage share in the Brazilian case (17.4%), whereas multicultural family environments are most common in the US (34.6%). Of the 1,137 participants who developed intercultural relationships, 99.5% deemed these relationships to be positive in contrast to 0.5% who did not. The latter case represents five respondents across Brazilian, German, and Japanese subsamples. Finally, of the 1,137 respondents who developed intercultural relationships, 57.5% considered these relationships to have influenced their decision to participate in an educational exchange experience. For 42.5% of respondents, these intercultural relationships were not an influence on their participation. This data pattern is applicable to all but the German subsample wherein 55.0% of respondents did not consider previous intercultural relationships to have influenced their decision to participate in a sojourn abroad. Section B: About Your Sojourn This section of the survey questionnaire poses a set of 13 questions focusing on the educational exchange experience itself. Here respondents

The Follow-on Research Project

127

are asked to base comments on their first sojourn experience (in cases where they may have had more than one sojourn abroad). The first seven questions seek information about key aspects, such as (QB1) country of sojourn, (QB2) year the sojourn took place, (QB3) respondent age at time of participation, (QB4) duration of the experience, (QB5) type of exchange program, (QB6) inclusion of homestay as part of the program, and (QB7) duration in months and weeks. The remaining six questions are a self-assessment component regarding each aspect of the sojourn and its potential effect on the development of respondent skillsets. Question B1 is open-ended, eliciting countries where sojourns took place. A total of 1,599 valid responses was obtained representing a range of 46 countries. The three main host countries are English speaking countries, with the US ranking first (n = 671; 42.0%), followed by Canada (n = 175; 10.9%) and Ireland (n = 87; 5.4%). To summarize, main destinations are the US, Canada, Ireland, United Kingdom, France, Spain, New Zealand, Australia, and Japan. Germany emerges as the top exporter of sojourners to the US, representing 57.2% of German outbound flows (n = 273). Brazil and Japan follow the same trend at 44.4% (n = 253) and 56.6% (n = 141), respectively. In these two subsamples, Canada ranks second as a host country at 22.6% (n = 129) and 12.9 % (n = 32), respectively, while in the German subsample it ranks fourth at 2.9% (n = 14). The second destination for German outbound sojourners is Ireland at 13.8% (n = 66). The main destination for the American subsample of sojourners is France at 14.5% (n = 44), followed closely by Spain (n = 34; 11.2 %). Questions B2 and B3 elicit the starting year of respondent sojourns and their age at the time of participation. A total of 1,557 valid responses was obtained for both questions, spanning 25 years and 5 decades—from the 1970s to the 2010s—as yielded by Question B2. According to the results, most intercultural experiences took place in the 2010s. This is the case of 55.0% (n = 857) of all respondents in the total sample. This data pattern is also repeated within two subsamples: Brazil (n = 382; 67.9%) and Germany (n = 256; 53.2%). For Japan, most sojourns took place in the 2000s at 45.7% (n = 102). The US, in turn, yielded the same number of sojourns over a span of 20 years that comprise the decades of 2000 and 2010 (n = 103; 44.8%). Question B3 shows that the 1,557 respondents participated in most sojourns at an average age of 17.44 (SD = 2.88). In all but one subsample, most respondents had their sojourn experience during adolescence. Brazil is the exception wherein most respondents sojourned in early adulthood. Finally, Question B4 ascertained the duration of the first sojourn. Similar to Question A7, the best way to interpret the wide range of responses was to convert the measurement system of the variable from numerical to ordinal. Interval categories were therefore created to reflect the different types of duration, but not the time ratio between

128

The Follow-on Research Project

observations. These intervals are: (a) less than 1 month, (b) between 1 and 2 months, (c) between 3 and 12 months, and (d) more than 12 months. The results show that the sojourn for most respondents (926; 59.1%) lasted between 3 and 12 months. Stated differently, for 59.1% of respondents, the sojourn did not exceed 1 year in duration. The secondmost common duration is between 1 and 2 months, reflecting 32.4% of responses. Programs lasting less than 1 month were infrequent, with only 4.3% of respondents having had a sojourn with such a duration. Similarly, sojourns of more than 12 months are also few, gathering 4.1% of responses. Within-country results indicate that all but one subsample reproduce similar data patterns to the total sample. In summary, the sojourn of most respondents lasted between 3 and 12 months, assembling 49.7%, 99.2% and 67.1% of responses. Contrariwise, 99.1% of American sojourners had shorter immersions, between 1 and 2 months. Question B5 ascertained the type of exchange program in which respondents participated, given a set of six formats: (1) travel only, (2) homestay only, (3) homestay and travel, (4) high school year/semester abroad, (5) au pair program abroad, and (6) volunteer or community service abroad. Given that programs offered by Federation EIL MOs may vary, the category “other” was added to pre-set categories in the questionnaire. As the measurement level of the variable was based on mutually exclusive categories, open-ended responses were included in frequency counts. Within this type of response, those answers falling in pre-set categories were added to frequency counts, whereas those that fell outside the pre-set range were categorized. This process generated six new categories—viz., (7) language study, (8) homestay and language study, (9) language study and work, (10) work program, (11) work and travel, and (12) other programs. The results show that the most attended exchange programs were: (1) high school/semester abroad at 41.9%, (2) homestay and travel at 20.5%, and (3) homestay only at 10.3%. Within-country results also show some variation among observations. According to these results, “high school year/semester abroad” is the most frequently attended program in all but one subsample. In German, Japanese, and American subsamples, this program ranks first by assembling 83.1%, 66.8%, and 83.0% responses, respectively. In Brazil, first place is held by “language study” at 20.7%. It should be noted that this program is exclusive to the Brazilian MO, emerging from the categorization process. The second-most attended exchange program offered by participating countries is “homestay and language study” in Brazil (19.8%), “homestay only in Germany” (16.3%), “homestay and travel” in Japan (18.2%), and “volunteer or community service abroad” in the US (12.6%). Two aspects are worth noting: first, that the program “language study” is exclusive to the Brazilian MO and second, that the next most popular

The Follow-on Research Project

129

exchange program in the total sample (“homestay and travel”) is not offered by the German MO. Finally, the third-most attended exchange program is “high school year/semester abroad” in Brazil (17.5%), “volunteer or community service abroad” in Germany (0.4%), “homestay only” in Japan (13.0%), and “travel only” in the US (1.4%). Question B6 expands upon the previous survey question by ascertaining the incidence of the homestay as a programmatic feature of the exchange experience. Of the 1,601 respondents who answered this question, 90.9% (n = 1,456) had a homestay as part of their program. Those who did not stay with a host family during their exchange experience represent a minority of 9.1% (n = 145). This pattern is replicable in all four subsamples where the majority of alumni had a homestay as part of their program. Brazil is the subsample that registers the greatest proportion of respondents who did not have a homestay at 22.6% (n = 129). Finally, Question B7 ascertains the duration of the homestay. Given the distribution of observations, it was possible to retain the numerical level of measurement in the four subsamples by using two different units of measurement. In Brazilian, German, and Japanese subsamples, the unit of measurement used is “months,” while in the US it is “weeks.” Stated differently, two measurement units emerged: “months” in the former three subsamples and “weeks” in the latter. Results show that homestays lasted on average 5.88 months for Brazilian alumni, 8.77 months for German alumni, and 7.55 months for Japanese alumni. There is a strong variance of observations, particularly in Brazilian and Japanese cases where answers range from 0.5 months (less than 2 weeks) to 48 and 24 months, respectively. Typical homestay duration in the German subsample is more consistent, lasting on average 8.77 months (SD = 2.60). American sojourners had shorter homestays than their peers, lasting on average 2.32 weeks. This result is consistent with results drawn from survey Question B6 wherein most American respondents had sojourns lasting between 1 and 2 months. The minimum duration of homestays in the US subsample was 1 week and the maximum 12 weeks. Questions B8, B9, B10, and B11 seek to understand how respondents assess the contribution of individual programmatic features to their a) overall learning, b) understanding of the host culture, c) learning of the host language, and, finally, d) to creating a sense of safety. Each of the four questions lists the same ten program components while also giving participants the possibility of identifying additional aspects through the open-ended category “other.” The ten pre-set program components include (1) orientation, (2) language study, (3) group or academic leader, (4) homestay, (5) program theme, (6) group travel, (7) service component, (8) educational component, (9) school attendance, and (10) end-ofprogram debriefing. The measurement of each program component occurs through participant assessment ratings based on a six-point numerical scale wherein 1

130

The Follow-on Research Project

(“did not contribute”) represents the lowest point and 6 the highest (“contributed very strongly”).1 All pre-set program components and the open-ended category “other” required the attribution of ratings on this measurement scale. For analysis purposes, central tendency and dispersion measures were calculated for the ratings attributed to the ten pre-set program components. Although the open category “other” had a rank order as well, calculation of the aforementioned univariate measures for this category would most likely bias the results. In effect, after translating and categorizing the full range of open-ended information yielded by this category, two patterns emerged: (1) most of the open-ended responses coincided with the pre-set categories and (2) other responses did not represent programmatic features of the exchange programs. The rank order elicited by all pre-set program components invalidated calculations of central tendency and dispersion measures for open-ended responses that fit into pre-set categories because these answers would replicate previously attributed ratings (Pattern 1). With regard to Pattern 2, not only were respondent open-ended comments too varied but also they did not represent programmatic features of exchange programs. For these reasons, central tendency and dispersion measures were computed only on ratings attributed to the ten pre-set variables. This same procedure was employed with all four questions addressing programmatic features. Question B8 ascertains the extent to which program components contributed to respondent overall learning during the sojourn. Central tendency and dispersion measures are presented for the ten pre-set exchange program components in Table 5.1. The open-ended category “other” is excluded from the statistical analysis for reasons explained earlier. According to central tendency and dispersion measures for the

Table 5.1 QB8. Four Countries: Extent to Which Program Components Contributed to Respondent Overall Learning Program Components

Min

Max

M

SD

Mo

Orientation (n = 1,408) Language study (n = 1,384) Group or academic leader (n = 1,364) Homestay (n = 1,398) Program theme (n = 1,355) Group travel (n = 1,361) Service component (n = 1,334) Educational component (n = 1,367) School attendance (n = 1,352) End-of-program debriefing (n = 1,346)

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

4.53 5.02 4.06 5.21 4.30 3.99 3.56 4.67 4.66 3.98

1.29 1.35 1.59 1.40 1.55 1.89 1.84 1.42 1.66 1.73

6 6 4 6 6 6 1 6 6 6

Note: Highest means are given in bold

The Follow-on Research Project

131

total sample in Table 5.1, the three programmatic features that registered the highest ratings were: (1) the homestay (M = 5.21; SD = 1.40); (2) language study (M = 5.02; SD = 1.35); and, finally, (3) educational and school attendance components. The latter two components yielded practically the same mean values of 4.67 (SD = 1.42) and 4.66 (SD = 1.66), respectively. In all three programmatic components, the most common rating (the mode) was always 6, meaning that most respondents deemed these components as having contributed very strongly to their overall learning. Within-country results show some variation between ratings. With the exception of the homestay, the other two top programmatic features differed by subsample. Additionally, the homestay registered the highest mean for three subsamples—viz., Germany (M = 5.36), Japan (M = 5.63), and the US (M = 5.59). It should be noted, however, that in all three cases not only did the homestay register considerably high mean values but also SDs were relatively small (between 0.78 and 0.99). Interestingly, the Brazilian subsample rates “language study” (M = 5.94; SD = 0.92) in importance over the “homestay,” which ranked in fourth place (M = 4.69; SD = 1.89), reflecting its primary program offering. In second position, the highest mean differed considerably across subsamples. Whereas for Brazilian respondents, the education component featured as the second-highest mean value (M = 5.07; SD = 1.26); for German and American respondents, it was “school attendance” and “group travel” at M = 5.29 (SD = 1.04) and M = 5.41 (SD = 0.84), respectively. In the Japanese group, with the exception of the homestay, average ratings in other program components were quite similar (between 4.02–4.85), making it impossible to distinguish the relative importance of each. The third-place component also varies across countries. This position is held by “school attendance” in Brazil (M = 4.96; SD = 1.42), “language study” in Germany (M = 5.20; SD = 1.13), and “group or academic leader” in the US (M = 5.16; SD = 0.99), evident in Table 5.2. In the Japanese subsample, average ratings are so similar that it may be not very accurate to differentiate between second and third top programmatic features. As mentioned earlier, for cross-country results (Table 5.1), however, the “homestay” was the only component which consistently stood out among the ten programmatic features (M = 5.63; SD = 0.78). Question B9 ascertains the extent to which program components contributed to respondent understanding of the host culture during their sojourn. As in the previous question, answers to the open-ended category “other” were not included in calculations for reasons described in Section A. Of the ten pre-set program components, the top-three features for the total sample are: (1) “homestay” (M = 5.42; SD = 1.33); (2) “language study” (M = 4.94; SD = 1.36); and, finally, (3) “school attendance” (M = 4.63; 1.72), summarized in Table 5.2. These results

132

The Follow-on Research Project

are on par with the mode that yielded the value 6 for all three programmatic features. Finally, the contribution of the “educational component” to understanding the host culture should not be ignored as the top-four programmatic features (M = 4.54; SD = 1.49). Table 5.2 QB9. Four Countries: Extent to Which Program Components Contributed to Respondent Understanding of the Host Culture Program Components

Min

Max

M

SD

Mo

Orientation (n = 1,380) Language study (n = 1,359) Group or academic leader (n = 1,327) Homestay (n = 1,378) Program theme (n = 1,323) Group travel (n = 1,319) Service component (n = 1,290) Educational component (n = 1,331) School attendance (n = 1,315) End-of-program debriefing (n = 1,317)

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

4.46 4.94 4.03 5.42 4.20 3.86 3.43 4.54 4.63 3.68

1.40 1.36 1.68 1.33 1.62 1.88 1.86 1.49 1.72 1.78

6 6 6 6 6 6 1 6 6 6

Note: Highest means are given in bold

Overall, within-country results reproduce the data pattern drawn from the total sample for the top programmatic feature—i.e., the homestay. The homestay is, once again, the programmatic feature registering the highest mean values across subsamples. This tendency is reflected, yet again, in three subsamples: Germany (M = 5.73; SD = 0.76), Japan (M = 5.70; SD = 0.80), and the US (M = 5.75; SD = 0.77). Brazil is the exception where “language study” (M = 5.34; SD = 1.03) assumes importance over the homestay (M = 4.83; SD = 1.86), which comes in third place in Brazil (again reflecting its program offerings). The second-place feature varies across subsamples. Whereas in Germany this feature is “school attendance” (M = 5.66; SD = 0.67), in Japan and in the US, the educational component and group travel assume this position, respectively. In Japan, the average of the educational component is 5.70 (SD = 0.80), and in the US, group travel registers an average of 5.06 (M = 1.13). It is worth noting that in the case of the US, the importance of the two group features toward sojourner understanding of the host culture (from among the ten program components) is essentially on par—to wit, the mean value for group travel is 5.06 and SD is 1.13, while for group or academic leader the mean is one decimal under (5.05) but SD is smaller (1.06). In other words, even though the average for group travel is slightly smaller than for group/academic leader, there is less variance in scores in the former. In Brazil, the educational component ranks third, with a mean value of 4.84 (SD = 1.50), which is quite close to the top-third programmatic feature—the homestay (M = 4.83; SD = 1.86), as evident in Table 5.6.

The Follow-on Research Project

133

Finally, the programmatic feature registering the third-highest mean values across subsamples is “language study” in both Germany and Japan at 5.01 and 1.20, respectively. Standard deviations vary from 1.20 (Germany) to 1.46 (Japan). The top-third programmatic feature in the US is “program theme” (M = 4.69; SD = 1.39). Question B10 ascertains the extent to which program components contributed to respondent learning the host language during their sojourn. Central tendency and dispersion measures for the total sample are reported in Table 5.3. As in previous survey questions, the openended category “other” is excluded from this analysis. According to results in Table 5.3, the three top programmatic features contributing to sojourner development of host language proficiency are: (1) homestay, (2) language study, and (3) school attendance. The homestay stands out, once again, as the component with the highest average (5.35) as well as with the smallest SD (SD = 1.40). Stated another way, not only does the homestay register the highest mean value of importance but also there is high agreement among respondents given the relatively small SD. Language study, while holding second position, has a mean value of 5.19 (SD = 1.41), and school attendance, in turn, has a mean value of 4.78 (SD = 1.74).

Table 5.3 QB10. Four Countries: Extent to Which Program Components Contributed to Respondent Understanding of the Host Language Program Components

Min

Max

M

SD

Mo

Orientation (n = 1,352) Language study (n = 1,348) Group or academic leader (n = 1,314) Homestay (n = 1,366) Program theme (n = 1,309) Group travel (n = 1,303) Service component (n = 1,271) Educational component (n = 1,316) School attendance (n = 1,307) End-of-program debriefing (n = 1,287)

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

3.57 5.19 3.68 5.35 3.77 3.55 3.25 4.50 4.78 3.03

1.76 1.41 1.88 1.40 1.85 1.92 1.91 1.69 1.74 1.94

4 6 6 6 6 1 1 6 6 1

Note: Highest means are given in bold

Within-country results show some variation among respondent groups. The homestay holds first position only in the Japanese and American cases, with mean values of 5.71 and 5.17, respectively. SDs range from 0.81 to 1.52. It should be noted that in the German case, the homestay is on par with school attendance, distanced by one decimal point. Whereas the mean value for school attendance is 5.75 (SD = 0.73);

134

The Follow-on Research Project

for the homestay, it is 5.74 (SD = 0.81). In Brazil, first position is held by “language study” (M = 5.60; SD = 0.93). This programmatic feature ranks second for the three remaining subsamples—to wit, Germany (M = 5.43; SD = 1.23), Japan (M = 4.87; SD = 1.43), and the US (M = 4.29; SD = 1.87). The third position varies substantially across subsamples. In Brazil, this place is held by “school attendance” (M = 5.12; SD = 1.45), whereas in Germany and Japan it is the “educational component,” with mean values of 4.18 and 4.66, respectively. SD in both cases is relatively small (between 1.45 and 1.75). In the American case, the feature of the “group/academic leader” occupies third position (M = 4.17; SD = 1.87)—a tendency already registered in the previous survey question for this subsample. Question B11 ascertains the extent to which program components contributed to respondent sense of safety during the sojourn. Central tendency and dispersion measures for the total sample are reported in Table 5.4. As in the three questions noted earlier, the open-ended category, “other” is excluded from this analysis. According to results in Table 5.4, the three programmatic features that most contributed to sojourner sense of safety are (1) homestay, (2) orientation, and (3) language study. Table 5.4 QB11. Four Countries: Extent to Which Program Components Contributed to Respondent Sense of Safety Program Components

Min

Max

M

SD

Mo

Orientation (n = 1,378) Language study (n = 1,353) Group or academic leader (n = 1,302) Homestay (n = 1,361) Program theme (n = 1,296) Group travel (n = 1,291) Service component (n = 1,275) Educational component (n = 1,308) School attendance (n = 1,299) End-of-program debriefing (n = 1,293)

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

4.92 4.68 4.19 5.00 3.81 4.01 3.46 4.03 4.26 3.56

1.32 1.59 1.72 1.46 1.79 1.89 1.91 1.74 1.78 1.94

6 6 6 6 6 6 1 6 6 1

Note: Highest means are given in bold

Again, “homestay” stands out as the component with the highest average (5.00; SD = 1.46) of perceived contribution, followed by “orientation” and “language study.” The mean value for the former feature is 4.92 and for the latter is 4.68. SDs range from 1.32 to 1.59. Considered together, respondents regarded the homestay, orientation,

The Follow-on Research Project

135

and language study as program components that most contributed to creating a sense of safety. This finding is reinforced by the mode, as the most frequent attributed rating is 6 in these three programmatic features. Within-country results indicate some variation among respondent perceptions regarding features that contributed most strongly to creating a sense of safety during their sojourn experience. The top feature in total sample results is manifest only in the German and Japanese cases, with mean values of 5.18 (SD = 1.16) and 5.00 (SD = 1.34). Among Brazilian and American alumni, however, first place is held by “language study” and “group/academic leader,” with average ratings of 5.06 and 5.49, respectively. The dispersion of scores is relatively small, particularly for “group/academic leader” (SD = 0.89). Language study has a greater SD of 1.38. The second top programmatic feature is “orientation” in Brazil and Japan, “homestay” in the US, and “language study” in Germany. Orientation registers mean values of 4.93 and 4.92 in Brazil and Japan, with SDs of 1.47 and 1.34, respectively. In the American subsample, the average rating attributed to the homestay is 5.26 (SD = 1.04). In the German subsample, the study of language emerges essentially on par with orientation, with average ratings of 4.84 and 4.02 and SDs of 1.37 and 1.20, respectively. Finally, the third top programmatic feature differs in each subsample. In Brazil, it is the “homestay” (M = 4.70; SD = 1.84), in Germany “school attendance” (M = 4.74; SD = 1.25), and in Japan “language study” (M = 4.77; SD = 1.45). For the American subsample, “orientation” and “group travel” have a similar relative importance toward creating a sense of safety. In the former component, the mean value is 5.05 (SD = 1.17); in the latter, it is just one decimal place behind (M = 5.04; SD = 1.25). Questions B12 and B13 ascertain areas which the sojourn and homestay most helped respondents to develop, respectively. To this end, these two questions listed 17 pre-set categories in addition to the open-ended possibility (“other”). Respondents checked the three areas they perceived helped them most. Each category accounts for 100% with percentage shares reflecting the number of positive (“yes”) answers. Frequency counts were only calculated for pre-set categories because the majority of responses in the category “other” overlapped with pre-set categories. Thus, as in other survey questions, these answers were excluded from the frequency counts to avoid duplicating results. Figure 5.1 illustrates the frequency distribution of the 17 pre-set categories in the total sample within Question B12. According to results shown in this chart, the three areas that the sojourn most helped respondents to develop are: (1) communication skills at 50.2%, (2) relationships with others at 49.7%, and (3) confidence/self-esteem at 45.0%.

136

The Follow-on Research Project

Figure 5.1 QB12. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of Areas Developed by the Sojourn

Within-country results yield some variation, as reported in Table 5.5. Communication skills ranked first in only two subsamples—viz., Brazil and Japan at 57.3% and 67.6%, respectively. In Germany and the US, this place was held by “relationships with others” at 61.4% and 63.3%. The second-most common category was the same for Germany and Japan where 52.0% and 43.3% of respondents deemed the sojourn to have helped them develop confidence/self-esteem. American respondents, in turn, deemed communication skills as the second-most developed skillset area, assembling 51.4% of respondent answers. In the Brazilian subsample, 46.5% of respondents selected “dealing with difficult people/situations” (Table 5.5). Table 5.5 QB12. Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of Areas Developed by the Sojourn EIL sojourn: Areas developed

Relationships with others Communication skills Cooperating with others

Brazil (n = 492)

Germany (n = 247)

Japan (n = 238)

USA (n = 259)

N

N

N

N

%

226 45.9 282 57.3 43 8.7

%

262 61.4 180 42.2 58 13.6

%

97 40.8 161 67.6 33 13.9

%

164 63.3 133 51.4 43 16.6

The Follow-on Research Project EIL sojourn: Areas developed

Dealing with difficult people and/or situations Negotiation Creativity Problem solving Decision making Confidence/self-esteem Study skills Research and analytical skills Self-motivation Leadership Time management Presentation skills Critical thinking Stress management skills

137

Brazil (n = 492)

Germany (n = 247)

Japan (n = 238)

USA (n = 259)

N

N

N

N

%

%

229 46.5

136 31.9

23 47 87 117 223 47 13 61 24 38 21 75 69

8 20 44 76 222 65 14 84 3 8 10 75 29

4.7 9.6 17.7 23.8 45.3 9.6 2.6 12.4 4,9 7.7 4.3 15.2 14.0

1.9 4.7 10.3 17.8 52.0 15.2 3.3 19.7 0.7 1.9 2.3 17.6 6.8

% 69 29.0

24 16 47 49 103 20 14 88 20 9 39 13 40

10.1 6.7 19.7 20.6 43.3 8.4 5.9 37.0 8.4 3.8 16.4 5.5 16.8

% 99 38.2

11 24 31 32 129 4 3 46 50 9 4 23 22

4.2 9.3 12.0 12.4 49.8 1.5 1.2 17.8 19.3 3.5 1.5 8.9 8.5

Note: Highest frequencies are given in bold. Each category accounts for 100.0%

The third-most common area that the sojourn helped develop was “relationship with others” in Brazil (46.5%) and Japan (40.8%), “communication skills” in Germany (42.2%), and “confidence/self-esteem” in the US (49.8%). It should be noted that in the Brazilian subsample, the category “relationships with others” (45.9%) was closely followed by “confidence/self-esteem” (45.3%). Question B13 addresses areas the homestay most helped respondents to develop. These skill domains do not necessarily coincide with those drawn from the sojourn. Figure 5.2 shows the frequency distribution of the 17 areas respondents perceived as most helpful with reference to the homestay. Of these, three areas stand out: (1) relationship with others at 62.8%, (2) communication skills at 62.4%, and (3) dealing with difficult people/situations at 37.4%. Interestingly, communication skills ranked first in the previous survey question and relationships with others ranked second. Furthermore, respondent perceptions suggest that the homestay’s distinguishing features pertain mostly to affective and communicative realms. Closer examination of Figure 5.2 shows that while communications skills rank second, the first-, third-, and fourth-most common areas belong to the affective domain of the host culture experience—viz., (1) relationship with others, (2) dealing with difficult people and/or situations, and (3) cooperating with others.

138

The Follow-on Research Project

Figure 5.2 QB13. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of Areas Developed by Homestays

Overall, within-country results of this survey question are similar to data patterns drawn from the total sample just discussed. Table 5.6 reports the frequency distribution of the 17 areas by individual countries. Based on these results, areas that hold first and second places in the total sample remain the same in the individual subsamples—viz., “relationship with others” and “communication skills.” There is, however, slight variation in the first- and second-most commonly developed areas within Table 5.6 QB13. Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of Areas Developed by Homestays Homestay: Areas Developed

Relationships with others Communication skills Cooperating with others Dealing with difficult people and/or situations Negotiation Creativity Problem solving

Brazil (n = 418)

Germany (n = 420)

Japan (n = 233)

USA (n = 256)

N

N

N

N

%

289 222 177 198

69.1 53.1 42.3 47.4

26 6.2 19 4.5 59 14.1

%

248 238 145 157

59.0 56.7 34.5 37.4

25 6.0 26 6.2 72 17.1

%

140 165 66 72

60.1 70.8 28.3 30.9

25 10.7 11 4.7 64 27.5

%

156 203 57 69

60.9 79.3 22.3 27.0

12 4.7 37 14.5 37 14.5

The Follow-on Research Project Homestay: Areas Developed

Decision making Confidence/self-esteem Study skills Research and analytical skills Self-motivation Leadership Time management Presentation skills Critical thinking Stress management skills

139

Brazil (n = 418)

Germany (n = 420)

Japan (n = 233)

USA (n = 256)

N

N

N

N

%

%

%

%

56 13.4 70 16.7 10 2.4 3 0.7

48 11.4 77 18.3 63 15.0 17 4.0

25 10.7 50 21.5 6 2.6 6 2.6

14 5.5 88 34.4 6 2.3 3 1.2

22 5.3 12 2.9 47 11.2 15 3.6 29 6.9 64 15.3

46 11.0 1 0.2 13 3.1 1 0.2 41 9.8 34 8.1

66 28.3 5 2.1 15 6.4 9 3.9 8 3.4 54 23.2

30 11.7 7 2.7 8 3.1 8 3.1 15 5.9 31 12.1

Note: Highest frequencies are given in bold. Each category accounts for 100.0%

American and Japanese subsamples. In both groups, “communication skills” rank first, assembling 70.8% and 79.3% of responses, respectively. “Relationships with others” holds second place, gathering 60.1% of responses in Japan and 60.9% in the US; third place is “dealing with difficult people and/or situations” in Brazil, Germany, and Japan. The percentage shares are 40.4%, 37.4%, and 30.9%, respectively. In the US, the third-most chosen area is “confidence/self-esteem” (n = 88; 30.4%). Section C: Beyond Your Intercultural Sojourn This section of the AICC questionnaire concerns alumni educational and professional or career choices. Section C contains 13 questions, 6 of which elicit contextual information about these choices. The remaining 7 questions relate this information to the potential bearing the sojourn may have had on educational and professional or career choices. Question C1 ascertains the highest level of education completed by alumni, based on a nominal level of measurement. To this end, respondents checked the category that best described their educational attainment out of seven choices—viz., (1) less than high school degree, (2) high school degree or equivalent, (3) some college but no degree, (4) 2-year college/associate degree, (5) 4-year college or university/ bachelor’s degree, (6) master’s degree, and (7) doctorate. As in other survey questions, the open-ended category “other” is also provided. Given individual characteristics of educational systems across the four countries, it was necessary to systematize the original seven categories. For this purpose, the seven pre-set categories were reduced to three taking

140

The Follow-on Research Project

into account the highest level of education completed by subjects—to wit, (1) less than high school degree → less than secondary education, (2) high school degree or equivalent → secondary education, (3) some college but no degree → secondary education, (4) 2-year college/associate degree → higher education, (5) 4-year college or university/bachelor’s degree → higher education, (6) master’s degree → higher education, and (7) doctorate → higher education. Where respondent educational attainment did not match pre-set categories, the open-ended category “other” could be selected and the level of education specified. All open-ended answers were examined and incorporated into one of the three major educational levels. Table 5.7 reports the frequency distribution of the three major educational levels in combined and individual samples. Based on results, the most frequent educational level is higher education which assembles 75% of responses in the German subsample (n = 293), 61.1% in the Brazilian (n = 297), 57.7% in the Japanese (n = 132) and 55.4% in the US (n = 140). Considering the overall sample, the majority of respondents completed higher education (n = 862; 63.4), followed by those who completed secondary education (n = 395; 29.1%). Table 5.7 QC1. Cross and Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of Educational Levels Educational Brazil Levels N

%

Germany

Japan

USA

N

N

N

%

%

Four Countries %

N

%

Less than 25 5.1 15 3.8 28 12.2 34 13.4 102 7.5 secondary education Secondary 164 33.8 83 21.2 69 30.1 79 31.2 395 29.1 education Higher 297 61.1 293 75.0 132 57.7 140 55.4 862 63.4 education TOTAL 486 100.0 391 100.0 229 100.0 253 100.0 1359 100.0

Question C2 ascertains the potential influence of the sojourn experience on three types of subsequent educational choices—viz.: (1) higher education choices, (2) international study, and (3) extracurricular activities. Each category accounts for 100%, with percentage differences reflecting the number of positive and negative responses. Figure 5.3 illustrates the frequency distribution of these three educational categories. Each category accounts for 100%—i.e., the sum of the number of positive and negative responses. In all categories, the number of positive responses outnumbers the negative ones at a) 51.2% for higher education

The Follow-on Research Project

141

choices, b) 74.8% for international study, and c) 72.2% for extracurricular activities. It is worth noting that the proportion of positive and negative answers is nearly balanced for the category “higher education choices,” with a percentage difference of 2.4%. For the remaining two categories, the number of positive responses represents a clear majority of viewpoints.

Figure 5.3 QC2. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of Subsequent Educational Choices

A breakdown of data by country reveals some variation among data patterns, particularly for the category “higher education choices.” Whereas in American and Japanese subsamples, most respondents considered the educational exchange experience to have influenced their higher education choices at 86.4% and 63.1%, respectively; for Brazilian and German respondents, it was the opposite. In the latter two cases, for the majority of respondents, the sojourn did not have a bearing on higher education pursuits—for 65.0% of respondents in Brazil and 57.8% in Germany. For the remaining categories, subsamples behaved in the same way. Most respondents in the four countries considered the sojourn to have influenced their pursuit of international study opportunities as well as activities that fall outside the realm of regular school or university curricula. Questions C3 and C4 elicit the extent to which the sojourn helped respondents gain acceptance to academic programs and fields of study, respectively. Answers to Question C3 are based on a three-point frequency

142

The Follow-on Research Project

scale of usefulness: (1) not helpful, (2) moderately helpful, and (3) very helpful. Figure 5.4 illustrates the frequency distribution for the extent to which the sojourn contributed to respondent access to academic programs (Question C3). The bar chart illustrates that most respondents consider their sojourn experience moderately or very helpful at 47.0% and 45.1%, respectively. The breakdown by country shows that while in Brazilian, German, and American subsamples, most respondents considered the sojourn experience only reasonably helpful in gaining academic entrance, in the Japanese subsample 64.1% of respondents found the sojourn very helpful.

Figure 5.4 QC3. Cross and Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of Extent to Which the Sojourn Influenced Subsequent Educational Choices

Question C3 asked participants to rate the extent to which their sojourn influenced their decision regarding educational pursuits toward a given field of study. Answers are again based on a three-point frequency scale of usefulness: (1) not helpful, (2) moderately helpful, and (3) very helpful. Figure 5.5 illustrates cross and within-country results. Similar to Question C4, respondent viewpoints oscillate between moderate and a great extent. Again, Japan is the only subsample wherein the majority of respondents (55.7%; n = 127) regarded the intercultural experience as having had a great influence on their decision to pursue a given field of study.

The Follow-on Research Project

143

Figure 5.5 QC4. Cross and Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of Extent to Which the Sojourn Influenced Respondent Choices for Fields of Study

Finally, Question C5 seeks to document actual fields of study pursued by respondents. These are a) architecture, b) arts and humanities, c) business, d) education, e) engineering, f) law, g) life sciences, h) medicine and health sciences, i) physical sciences and mathematics, and j) social and behavioral sciences. Of these ten fields of study, the top three are (1) social and behavioral sciences (n = 325; 35.0%), (2) arts and humanities (n = 217; 22.7%), and (3) business (n = 123; 12.9%). Questions C6 and C7 ascertain areas respondents have worked in and their current work positions, respectively. Both variables are based on a nominal level of measurement wherein respondents checked pre-set categories that best described their personal cases (multiple choice allowed). Where respondent personal situations did not match pre-set categories, the open-ended category “other” could be selected and information added. Given the array of responses in this last category and the duplication of responses already given within the range of pre-set categories, it was not accurate to compute frequencies for these types of answers. Therefore, as in survey Questions B8, B9, B10, and B11, answers in the open-ended category “other” were not included in the frequency counts of Question C6.

144

The Follow-on Research Project

Question C6 lists eight categories plus the open category in order to ascertain areas respondents have worked in. Pre-set categories include: (1) business, (2) government, (3) development, (4) international organization, (5) health, (6) public service, (7) education, and (8) NGOs. Each category accounts for 100%, reflecting the number of positive responses. Figure 5.6 illustrates the frequency distribution of the eight categories in the total sample. Based on results, business assembled the greatest percentage of positive responses (31.8%), followed by education (25.0%), and public service (14.0%).

Figure 5.6 QC6. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of Respondent Work Areas

Within-country results show some variation by individual countries. The results show that business was first place only for Brazilian and Japanese alumni at 33.3% and 23.8%, respectively. In Germany and the US, education ranks first at 19.8% and 28.0%, respectively. The secondmost common work area across subsamples is education in Brazil and Japan at 14.9% and 16.1%, respectively, business in Germany (18.2%), and public service in the US (15.8%). The third-most frequent work area

The Follow-on Research Project

145

is common to German and Japanese subsamples, but differs in the remaining groups. To specify further, 10.6% and 5.7 % of German and Japanese respondents work in public service while 10.0% of Brazilian respondents work in NGOs and 15.8% of American respondents work in business. Question C7 lists ten pre-set categories in addition to the openended category “other,” to ascertain respondent current work positions. Respondents checked the category best describing their current work positions—to wit: (1) student, (2) worker, (3) clerk, (4) educator, (5) technician, (6) administrator, (7) manager, (8) executive, (9) volunteer, and 10) not currently a student nor employed. Answers given to the open-ended category “other,” which coincided with pre-set categories were included in the frequency counts. Open-ended answers that fell outside the pre-set range were grouped into two additional categories: 11) health professional and 12) law professional. Figure 5.7 illustrates frequency distribution of the 12 categories in the total sample. Based on results, three work positions stand out: student at 53.7%, clerk at 12.6%, and worker at 9.2%. These results might be expected given the young age range of respondents (M = 17.44) at the time they participated in the sojourn, as reflected in Question B2. Additionally, Question B3 has also shown that many respondents answered the questionnaire while their sojourn experience was still underway.

Figure 5.7 QC7. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of Work Positions

146

The Follow-on Research Project

Within-country results show some variation among observations. This is mostly the case of the second and third most frequent work positions, given that the category “students” emerges first in all subsamples at 41.0% in Brazil, 71.9% in Germany, 50.4% in Japan, and 50.8% in the US. The second most common work position coincides pairwise. In Brazilian and German subsamples, “clerk” ranks second, assembling 23.8% and 9.1% of responses, respectively. In American and Japanese subsamples, the category “worker” is in second place, registering 18.4% and 19.7% of answers, respectively. Finally, the third most frequent work position differs in all respondent groups—to wit: “worker” in Brazil (6.9%), “manager” in Germany (2.2%), “clerk” in Japan (8.3%), and “educator” in the US (10.6%). Question C8 ascertains the potential bearing the sojourn experience had on four categories of professional or career choices—viz.: (1) past employment position, (2) current employment position, (3) participation in a voluntary organization, and (4) international employment position. Each category accounts for 100%, with percentage differences reflecting the number of positive and negative responses. Figure 5.8 illustrates frequency distribution of the four types of professional or career categories. In all categories, negative responses outnumber positive ones at a) 77.6% for past employment positions, b) 68.7% for current employment positions, c) 55.9% for participation in voluntary organization, and d) 53.8% for international employment positions. Interestingly, Question C2 (i.e., the bearing of the sojourn on educational choices) yielded the exact opposite data pattern. A breakdown of data by country discloses some variation among patterns of individual countries. Results show that not all categories behave similarly across subsamples. This is particularly evident in two categories: “participation in a voluntary organization” and “international employment experiences.” Although the category “participation in voluntary organizations” gathers more negative responses than positive in the cross-country analysis (Figure 5.8), individual country analyses do not reproduce this tendency. In all but one subsample, the majority of respondents deemed the sojourn to have influenced their participation in voluntary organizations. Brazil is the exception where 72.8% (n = 315) of respondents considered that their sojourn experience did not affect their decision to participate in volunteer activities. This specific result may have biased the joint analysis since Brazil represents the largest subsample. Stated another way, the 315 Brazilian respondents who answered negatively to Question C8 represent 25.4% of the total number of valid responses (n = 1,238) in the category “participation in a voluntary organization.”

The Follow-on Research Project

147

Figure 5.8 QC8. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of Professional or Career Choices

The category “international employment experiences” also registered a divide of viewpoints. Whereas in Brazilian and German subsamples, the sojourn influenced the pursuit or access to international jobs of most respondents, in American and Japanese groups, this was the case for a minority of individuals. In terms of percentage share, positive responses account for 50.6% and 52.3% in Brazil and Germany, while in Japan and in the US, they represent only 42.3% and 31.3%, respectively. Question C9 seeks to determine if respondents have worked in a previous intercultural situation where they provided education, training, or service to others, based on “yes” or “no” responses. Figure 5.9 illustrates frequency distribution of intercultural work for the total sample and individual subsamples. According to results, 63.6% of respondents in the total sample have not been engaged in previous intercultural work where they provided education, training, or service. Those who had provided such services represent a minority of 36.4%. This data pattern is clearly reproduced within two subsamples: Brazil and Germany. In both cases,

148

The Follow-on Research Project

the majority of respondents have not been engaged in intercultural work at 73.3% and 74.1%, respectively. In Japan and the US, differences are nuanced. In Japan the divide is of 11.4%, while in the US the difference is as nuanced as 2.4%.

Figure 5.9 QC9. Cross and Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of Previous Intercultural Work

Question C11 ascertains the duration of intercultural work for respondents who were engaged in it. As in survey Questions A7 and B4, the measurement level of the variable had to be changed from numerical to ordinal. Three intervals were, therefore, defined to give some indication of the typical duration of previous intercultural work—viz.: a) between 1 and 2 months, b) between 3 and 12 months, and c) more than 12 months. Figure 5.10 illustrates frequency distribution of the three intervals in the total sample. As results show, 45.2% of respondents were engaged in intercultural work for less than 1 year, followed by those involved in this type of work between 1 and 3 years (33.6%). Those who had been involved in intercultural work for more than 3 years represent a minority of 21.2%.

The Follow-on Research Project

149

Figure 5.10 QC11. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of Duration of Previous Intercultural Work

In within-country results, the majority of respondents in all but one sample were engaged in intercultural work for less than 1 year, as reported in Table 5.8. This is the case of 50.9% of respondents in Brazil, 47.4% in Germany, and 45.8% in the US. Japan is the only subsample where most subjects (43.3%) worked in intercultural areas between 1 and 3 years.

Table 5.8 QC11. Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of Duration of Previous Intercultural Work Duration of Respondent First EIL Sojourn Less than 1 year Between 1 and 3 years More than 3 years TOTAL

Brazil

Germany

Japan

USA

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

57 37 18 57

50.9 33.0 16.1 50.9

83 55 37 83

47.4 31.4 21.1 47.4

12 22 17 12

23.5 43.1 33.3 23.5

55 40 25 55

45.8 33.3 20.8 45.8

150

The Follow-on Research Project

Questions C12 and C13 elicit the extent to which the sojourn and gained foreign language abilities helped respondents to obtain employment. As in previous questions, answers are based on a three-point frequency scale of usefulness—viz.: (1) not helpful, (2) moderately helpful, and (3) very helpful. Results in Figure 5.11 indicate that 48.3% and 37.1% of respondents deemed the sojourn to have been moderately or very helpful in obtaining a job. Those who considered the sojourn not helpful in this regard make up a 14.6% share. Of the four subsamples, Brazilian and Japanese participants perceive the sojourn experience as very helpful in facilitating access to job opportunities, with a percentage share of 44.7% and 51.6%, respectively. For most American and German respondents, the experience was moderately helpful at 53. 8% and 61.4%.

Figure 5.11 QC12. Cross and Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of Extent to Which the Sojourn Helped Obtain Employment

Participant viewpoints appear more consensual regarding the role foreign language abilities gained during the sojourn play in enhancing job opportunities, as illustrated by Figure 5.12. According to this chart, not only does the majority of respondents (52.4%) in the total sample deem the development of language abilities very helpful, but this data pattern is also reproduced in all but one subsample. For Brazilian, German, and Japanese subsamples, those who rated their language abilities very helpful comprise a percentage share of 59.1%, 55.8%, and 52.3%, respectively. The US was the only country wherein the majority of respondents rated foreign language ability as having a moderate impact at 44.7%.

The Follow-on Research Project

151

Figure 5.12 QC13. Cross and Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of Extent to Which the Development of Language Abilities Helped Obtain Employment

Section D: Personal Characteristics Section D of the survey questionnaire concerns respondent personal characteristics and their role toward gaining acceptance by hosts. This section contains only one question (D1), assessing the importance of personality characteristics toward intercultural success. To this end, 14 attributes are listed as pre-set categories, plus the open-ended category “other.” These include: (1) tolerance, (2) flexibility, (3) patience, (4) sense of humor, (5) suspending judgment, (6) adaptability, (7) curiosity, (8) openmindedness, (9) motivation, (10) self-reliance, (11) empathy, (12) clear sense of self, (13) perceptiveness, and (14) tolerance for ambiguity. Measurement of personal characteristics occurs via participant selfassessment ratings on a three-point frequency scale of importance—viz., (a) not important, (b) moderately important, and (c) very important. All 14 pre-set personal characteristics and the open-ended category “other” required the attribution of ratings on the measurement scale. Yet, for analysis purposes, frequencies were calculated only for pre-set categories. Similar to survey Questions B8, B9, B10, and B11, translation and categorization of the full range of open-ended answers indicated that these additional responses coincided with pre-set categories. As such, these responses could

152

The Follow-on Research Project

not be included in frequency counts to avoid duplicating ratings previously attributed by respondents. Based on results, the three most important attributes are: (1) open-mindedness at 84.4%, (2) adaptability at 81.7%, and (3) tolerance at 79.4%. Respondents considered all three categories very important toward intercultural success. Overall, within-country results reproduce similar data patterns for the three Western subsamples, but not the Eastern subsample; for example, the same three personal characteristics were attributed great importance (“Very important”) by American, Brazilian, and German respondents, differing, however, in frequency of observations. For American and Brazilian sojourners, “adaptability” ranks first, assembling 89.7% and 88.2% of ratings, respectively. In Germany, 90.7% of sojourners selected “tolerance.” The second-most commonly chosen personal attribute is “openmindedness” for the three Western subsamples. In these three groups, the majority of respondents considered “open-mindedness” to be very important to intercultural success. In Brazil, this personal attribute gathered 83.1% of responses, in Germany 84.6%, and in the US 88.6%. The thirdmost important personal attribute overlaps in Brazil and in the US wherein 74.9% and 82.8% of respondents attributed the rating “very important” to the category “tolerance.” In Germany, this position is held by “adaptability” at 74.5%. Japanese respondents differed in choices to those of their counterparts, attributing nonetheless strong importance to “openmindedness.” Yet this personal characteristic comes in third place at 82.2% in this subsample, closely followed by “motivation” at 81.1%. The two most important attributes cited by Japanese respondents are “flexibility” and “curiosity,” gathering 89.5% and 83.4% of responses, respectively. Section E: Motivation Section E of the survey poses two questions concerning respondent motivation toward aspects of the sojourn experience. The first question elicits participant level of motivation toward the host culture (QE1), while the second question ascertains participant contact with hosts (QE2). Question E1 determines sojourner level of motivation toward the host culture, asking respondents to rate their motivation on a three-point frequency scale across five phases of the sojourn experience. This scale ranges from “not motivated” to “moderately motivated” and “very motivated.” The experience was divided into the following phases: (1) before arriving to the host country, (2) upon entering, (3) midway through the experience, (4) at the end of the experience, and (5) after returning home. Based on results obtained, motivational levels did not vary much during and after the sojourn, remaining consistently very high and always above 64%. The highest level was reached at the end of the experience with 75.3% of respondents selecting “very high motivation.” A breakdown of data by country reproduces the homogeneity of motivational levels yielded previously. The majority of respondents in all

The Follow-on Research Project

153

subsamples considered their motivation levels very high across all phases of the experience. Stated another way, the category “very motivated” was the most selected one in all cases by registering a percentage share consistently above 53%. Nevertheless, this result may have been influenced by the retrospective nature of the research project. This retrospective design may have interfered with respondents’ ability to discriminate meaningfully their motivation along five phases of a past experience. Question E2 seeks to understand with whom sojourners maintained contact after returning home. To ascertain this, the categories listed were: (1) host family, (2) other participants (that respondents traveled with), and (3) other members (of respondents’ host country). Each category, or type of social contact, accounts for 100%, with percentage differences reflecting the number of positive and negative responses. Figure 5.13 illustrates distribution of these three categories for the total sample. Based on the illustrated results, those with whom respondents keep most contact upon returning home are other participants they traveled with, a category that assembles 83.8% of responses. The second-most commonly chosen category is the host family, with 76.3% of respondents selecting this response. Other members of the host country rank third, assembling 75.3% positive responses. It should be noted that the percentage difference between the two latter categories is quite subtle (of 1%).

Figure 5.13 QE2. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of Sojourner Social Contacts after Returning Home

154

The Follow-on Research Project

Within-country results show some variation among individual countries. Thus, for 86.9% of Brazilian respondents, other host country members are those with whom they kept most contact after returning home; for German respondents, host families and host country members seem to be equally important at 92.4% and 91.7%, respectively. For 92.4% of Japanese respondents, host families represent the most commonly retained social contact, while 94.4% of American respondents kept most contact with their sojourner peers. Section F: Language Proficiency Section F of the AICC survey attends to the host language of the sojourn experience. This section contains four questions, addressing different aspects regarding the development of host language proficiency—viz.: (1) host language abilities gained, (2) extent to which the sojourn helped develop host language proficiency, (3) extent to which the homestay helped develop host language proficiency. The fourth question is openended and is not included in the statistical analysis given that the information yielded was too diverse to be transformed into meaningful categories. Question F1 ascertains respondent host language abilities gained during the sojourn. To this end, this survey question offered ten statements representing language development on an ascending scale from “no language ability” to “ability equivalent to an educated native speaker.” Respondents checked the statement which best described their host language abilities from among the following options: (0) no language ability, (1) limited ability, (2) able to satisfy limited survival and courtesy needs, (3) able to satisfy survival and courtesy needs, (4) able to communicate in some concrete topics, (5) able to speak with accuracy in formal and informal situations, (6) able to speak with accuracy in professional areas, (7) able to speak fluently and accurately on all levels, (8) ability approximates an educated native speaker, and (9) ability equivalent to an educated native speaker. For data analysis purposes, these statements are treated as ranking data—i.e., each statement was attributed a rank according to the language proficiency purported and a measurement scale was created based on these ranks. Thus if the first statement “no language ability” represents the lowest point (0) on the measurement scale, then the last statement, “ability equivalent to an educated native speaker,” represents the highest level (9). Results show that participant host language development varies from no ability to advanced command, as demonstrated by the minimum and maximum values of 0 and 9, respectively. Overall, the average degree of proficiency attained by the 1,346 respondents who answered Question F1 is 4.67 (SD = 1.67). That is, most respondents are able to speak with accuracy in formal and informal situations (Rank 5). This result is on par with the mode given that the value that commonly appears in the dataset of the total sample is five. There is, however, variation among proficiency levels attained by individual subgroups. Whereas Brazilian and German respondents attained

The Follow-on Research Project

155

on average intermediate proficiency levels (Ranks 5 and 6), American and Japanese respondents attained beginner levels (Ranks 3 and 4). These results gain greater clarity if one examines the mode, since this univariate measure is not so strongly affected by the distribution as the mean (a hypothetical value that does not have to be actually observed in the data). The most frequent values in data subsets (the mode) are 5 and 7 for Brazil and Germany, 3 and 4 for Japan and the US, respectively. This means that while Brazilian and German respondents attained levels that allowed them to speak accurately or fluently in the host language during the sojourn, American and Japanese respondents attained levels that allowed them only to satisfy survival needs or communicate on some concrete topics. It is important to note that we cannot accurately conclude which subgroup progressed the most because we lack information about respondent host language abilities prior to the sojourn. Questions F2 and F3 asked respondents to rate the extent to which the sojourn and the homestay helped them develop communication abilities in the host language, based on a three-point frequency scale of usefulness: (1) not helpful, (2) moderately helpful, and (3) very helpful. Figure 5.14 illustrates frequency distribution of the extent to which the sojourn contributed to participant development of the host language across these three categories. Based on results, a clear majority of respondents (77.2%) in the total sample deems the experience as very

Figure 5.14 QF2. Cross and Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of Extent to Which the Sojourn Contributed to Respondent Host Communication Abilities

156

The Follow-on Research Project

helpful in developing host communication abilities. This data pattern is reproduced by all subsamples as well; in all four countries, most respondents viewed the sojourn as very helpful in this matter at 80.1% for Brazil, 96.3% for Germany, 65.6% for Japan, 46.7% in the US. It is worth noting that in the US subsample the divide of opinions between those who deemed the sojourn moderately and very helpful is nearly balanced at 46.7% and 42.5%, respectively. Results drawn from Question F3 are similar to those yielded by Question F2, as Figure 5.15 demonstrates. Once again, the majority of respondents (78.4%) in the total sample views the homestay as very helpful in developing host communication abilities. Within-country data is on par with this pattern given that most respondents label the contribution of host families toward enhancing TL communication abilities as very helpful. This is the case for 73.4% of respondents in Brazil, 92.1% in Germany, 80.2% in Japan, and 59.6% in the US. Similar to the previous survey question, the US subsample reveals a divide of viewpoints that is more nuanced. In effect, 59.6% of participants stated that the contribution of the homestay family to the development of host language abilities is very helpful, while for 31.7% this support is cited as moderately helpful.

Figure 5.15 QF3. Cross and Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of Extent to Which the Homestay Contributed to Respondent Host Language Abilities

The Follow-on Research Project

157

Section G: Communication Styles Section G of the survey concerns respondent adaptation of their communication styles during the sojourn and their appropriateness to the sociolinguistic and host cultural context. This section poses three questions addressing several aspects of communication styles: (1) appropriateness of speech with regard to paralinguistic aspects, (2) appropriateness of behavior with regard to extralinguistic features, and (3) appropriateness of speech in accordance with features of sociolinguistic variation. All three questions are based on three-point frequency scales: (1) never, (2) sometimes, and (3) always. Question G1 ascertains the frequency with which sojourners adjusted their speech when communicating in the host language with regard to three paralinguistic features: a) tone and pitch, b) volume and speed, c) affect and emotion. Figure 5.16 illustrates the total sample distribution of the regularity with which respondents adjusted their speech to these three paralinguistic features. Based on results, respondents were able to adjust their speech to host speakers’ tone and speech, volume and speed, affect and emotion on an occasional basis (“sometimes”). In terms of percentage share, the second point on the measurement scale gathers 47.7% of responses for tone and pitch, 50.3% for volume and speech, and, finally, 49.9% for affect and emotion. The paralinguistic feature of speech where the divide of viewpoints between the second and third points on the scale is more subtle is “tone and pitch” with a percentage difference of 6.2%. Stated another way, 47.7% of sojourners were able to adjust their speech to host tone and pitch only on an occasional basis (“sometimes”) and 41.5% claimed to have done so at all times (“always”).

Figure 5.16 QG1. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of Appropriateness of Respondent Speech to Paralinguistic Aspects

158

The Follow-on Research Project

The breakdown of data by country indicates that speech styles vary across subsamples. With regard to tone and pitch, whereas the majority of Brazilian and Japanese respondents were always able to adjust these speech features appropriately, most German and American respondents reported doing so only occasionally. The percentage of responses gathered is 50.8% and 45.6% for Brazil and Japan, respectively and 44.6% and 47.7% for Germany and the US, respectively. The paralinguistic feature of volume and speed yielded less variation than the former (“tone and pitch”) given that most respondents in all subsamples considered they were only able to adjust volume and speed of their speech to those of their hosts on an occasional basis. It should be noted that in Brazilian and Japanese subsamples the proportion of respondents who selected the second (“sometimes”) and third points (“always”) on the measurement scale is nearly equal—to wit: a) 47.2% of responses for “sometimes” and 46.8% for “always” in Brazil; b) 40.2% of responses for “sometimes,” and 39.7% for “always” in Japan. Finally, emotive properties of speech (“affect and emotion”) yielded similar data patterns in all but one subsample. Thus if the majority of American (60.0%), Brazilian (51.4%), and German (48.8%) respondents were only able to adjust the affective realm of speech occasionally, most Japanese respondents (47.4%) stated they were always able to meet those standards—a surprising turnabout. Question G2 determines how frequently sojourners adapted their behavior to six extralinguistic (i.e. non-verbal) aspects of communication—viz.: a) space and distance between speakers (proxemics), b) touch and physical contact (haptics), c) eye contact (oculesics), d) acceptable or offensive smells or aromas (olfactics), e) movement and gestures (kinesics), and, finally, f) pauses and overlaps between comments in discourse (chronemics). According to results, in all but one extralinguistic feature, most respondents considered that they adjusted their behaviors occasionally (“sometimes”) as appropriate with regard to space and distance, touch and physical contact, offensive or acceptable smells/aromas, movement and gestures, and, finally, pauses and overlaps. Patterns of eye contact constitutes the only extralinguistic feature wherein sojourners were always able to adapt their behavior appropriately, assembling 47.3% of responses. Overall, within-country data reproduces the results yielded by the total sample, summarized in Table 5.9. Two exceptions are the Brazilian subsample with regard to patterns of touch and physical contact (haptics) and eye contact (oculesics). Thus, whereas in the former extralinguistic feature, the majority of respondents in the other three subsamples selected “sometimes,” in Brazil the proportion of respondents who chose “sometimes” and “always” is essentially the same at 45.6% and 45.8%, respectively. In other words, these two points on the measurement scale are separated by only one respondent (0.2%). In the latter extralinguistic feature, the Brazilian group was the only subsample where most respondents adjusted

The Follow-on Research Project

159

Table 5.9 QG2. Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of Appropriateness of Respondent Behavior to Extralinguistic Aspects Extralinguistic Features

Brazil

Germany

Japan

USA

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Space and distance between speakers Never Sometimes Always TOTAL

36 223 182 441

8.2 50.6 41.3 100.0

42 155 110 307

13.7 50.5 35.8 100.0

58 83 58 199

29.1 41.7 29.1 100.0

23 114 73 210

11.0 54.3 34.8 100.0

Touch and physical contact Never Sometimes Always TOTAL

38 202 203 443

8.6 45.6 45.8 100.0

36 158 134 328

11.0 48.2 40.9 100.0

52 111 51 214

24.3 51.9 23.8 100.0

21 90 104 215

9.8 41.9 48.4 100.0

Eye contact Never Sometimes Always TOTAL

70 191 170 431

16.2 44.3 39.4 100.0

44 133 152 329

13.4 40.4 46.2 100.0

17 64 142 223

7.6 28.7 63.7 100.0

25 83 99 207

12.1 40.1 47.8 100.0

Offensive or acceptable smells or aromas Never Sometimes Always TOTAL

106 158 130 394

26.9 40.1 33.0 100.0

82 100 87 269

30.5 37.2 32.3 100.0

75 65 38 178

42.1 36.5 21.3 100.0

49 68 65 182

26.9 37.4 35.7 100.0

Movement and gestures Never Sometimes Always TOTAL

46 235 152 433

10.6 54.3 35.1 100.0

35 198 109 342

10.2 57.9 31.9 100.0

14 80 125 219

6.4 36.5 57.1 100.0

22 96 90 208

10.6 46.2 43.3 100.0

Pause and overlaps between comments Never Sometimes Always TOTAL

38 227 152 417

9.1 54.4 36.5 100.0

31 178 88 297

10.4 59.9 29.6 100.0

32 109 57 198

16.2 55.1 28.8 100.0

19 108 71 198

9.6 54.5 35.9 100.0

160

The Follow-on Research Project

their behavior with regard to eye contact patterns on an occasional basis (“sometimes”) at 44.3%. In the three other subsamples, the majority of respondents claimed to have done so at all times (“always”). Question G3 determines how frequently sojourners adjusted their behavior to aspects of sociolinguistic context, particularly with regard to: a) the situation, b) other speakers (e.g., their age, gender), c) social hierarchy (e.g., class, position, roles), d) degree of familiarity between speakers, and, finally, e) topic of the conversation. Based on results, most respondents were always able to adjust their speech appropriately, with percentages that went above 47%. Within-country results in Table 5.10 show some variation in four categories—viz.: (1) situation, (2) other speakers, (3) social hierarchy, and (4) the topic of conversation. In the first category, the opinion of 54.7% of Japanese respondents contrasts with viewpoints of most other respondents in the total sample since Japanese respondents believed they adjusted their speech as appropriate to the situation on an occasional basis only. It should also be noted that the divide between Brazilian respondents who selected the second (“sometimes”) and third points (“always”) on the measurement scale is nearly balanced at 46.6% and 49.9%, respectively. In the categories “other speakers” and “social hierarchy,” the perception of Japanese sojourners differs from their peers, with the former reporting, once again, that they adjusted their speech on an occasional basis at 45.5% and 42.0%, respectively. Finally, it is in the category “topic of conversation” where a divide of opinions is more pronounced. Brazilian and Japanese sojourners view the appropriateness of their speech to the topic of conversation at hand as irregular, with 49.5% and 45.1% having selected the second point on the measurement scale. American respondents oscillated between the second and third points on the scale: 46.9% chose “sometimes” and 45.9% “always” (Table 5.10). Table 5.10 QG3. Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of the Appropriateness of Respondent Behaviors to Aspects of Sociolinguistic Variation Sociolinguistic Variation Brazil Features N % The situation Never Sometimes Always TOTAL Other speakers Never Sometimes Always TOTAL

Germany

Japan

N

N

%

USA %

N

%

15 3.5 5 1.3 19 9.4 9 4.1 199 46.6 120 31.3 111 54.7 96 43.4 213 49.9 259 67.4 73 36.0 116 52.5 427 100.0 384 100.0 203 100.0 221 100.0 50 12.3 5 1.3 37 17.5 13 6.0 167 40.9 127 32.7 96 45.5 86 39.4 191 46.8 256 66.0 78 37.0 119 54.6 408 100.0 388 100.0 211 100.0 218 100.0

The Follow-on Research Project Sociolinguistic Variation Brazil Features N % Social hierarchy Never Sometimes Always TOTAL Degrees of familiarity Never Sometimes Always TOTAL Topic of conversation Never Sometimes Always TOTAL

Germany

Japan

N

N

%

161

USA %

N

%

84 20.0 17 4.5 43 21.5 23 11.3 157 37.4 141 37.0 84 42.0 86 42.2 179 42.6 223 58.5 73 36.5 95 46.6 420 100.0 381 100.0 200 100.0 204 100.0 24 5.6 5 1.3 23 11.1 6 2.8 183 42.7 87 22.4 85 40.9 100 46.5 222 51.7 296 76.3 100 48.1 109 50.7 429 100.0 388 100.0 208 100.0 215 100.0 21 4.9 10 2.6 32 15.7 15 7.2 212 49.5 140 36.7 92 45.1 98 46.9 195 45.6 231 60.6 80 39.2 96 45.9 428 100.0 381 100.0 204 100.0 209 100.0

Section H: Intercultural Areas Section H of the survey addresses intercultural areas related to the sojourn. This section poses three questions to determine how sojourners experienced three dimensions of their intercultural experience—viz.: (1) relationships with host family and other host natives, (2) communication in the host language, and (3) communication in the sojourner’s own language. The three questions are based on three-point frequency scales of quality: (1) not well, (2) moderately well, and (3) very well. Question H1 ascertains how well sojourners established and maintained relationships with two types of social contacts: a) their family and b) other host natives. Each of these categories accounts for 100% within the range of three possible answers on the measurement scale (“not well,” “moderately well,” and “very well”). Figure 5.17 illustrates the total sample distribution of how well respondents established and/ or maintained relationships with host families and other natives. Based on results, in both cases sojourners were able to develop and maintain these social relationships “very well.” Responses spread mostly over the second (“well”) and third (“very well”) points on the measurement scale, with the latter gathering the majority of responses: 63.6% for host families and 56.0% for other host natives. Respondents who considered that they faced difficulties in developing and keeping this kind of relationships constitute a minority of 8.5% for host families and 5.8% for other hosts.

162

The Follow-on Research Project

Figure 5.17 QH1. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of Quality of Respondent Social Contact with Host Families and Host Natives

Within-country data reproduces the pattern yielded by the total sample for the social category “host family” given that in all subsamples most respondents selected the third point (“very well”) on the measurement scale, as summarized in Table 5.11. In contrast to the category “host family,” “other host natives” registered some oscillation of viewpoints. Thus where most Brazilian and Japanese respondents were able to develop and keep relationships with other host natives “very well,” American and German respondents seem to have faced some difficulties. In terms of percentage share, whereas 69.6% and 59.2% of Brazilian and Japanese sojourners selected the third point (“very well”) on the measurement scale, 52.6% of their American counterparts selected the second point (“moderately well”). German sojourners oscillated between these two points, with 40.9% of respondents feeling that they were only able to develop/maintain relationships with host natives moderately well and 53.1% claiming to have done so very well (Table 5.11).

The Follow-on Research Project

163

Table 5.11 QH1. Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of the Quality of Respondent Social Contact with Host Families and Host Natives Social Contacts

Brazil

Germany

Japan

USA

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Host family Not well Moderately well Very well TOTAL

23 98 240 361

6.4 27.1 66.5 100.0

35 93 272 400

8.8 23.3 68.0 100.0

25 59 127 211

11.8 28.0 60.2 100.0

20 88 133 241

8.3 36.5 55.2 100.0

Other host natives Not well Moderately well Very well TOTAL

13 115 293 421

3.1 27.3 69.6 100.0

24 165 214 403

6.0 40.9 53.1 100.0

5 81 125 211

2.4 38.4 59.2 100.0

32 123 79 234

13.7 52.6 33.8 100.0

Question H2 seeks to determine how well respondents were able to communicate in the host language with their host families and other hosts. As in the previous question, answers range from “not well” to “moderately” and “very well.” Figure 5.18 illustrates the total sample distribution of how well respondents communicated in the host language

Figure 5.18 QH2. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of Quality of Respondent Host Language Communication with Host Families and Host Natives

164

The Follow-on Research Project

with host families and other natives. According to overall results, the majority of respondents considered that they communicated with host families and other host members very well. The former category assembled 61.7% of responses and the latter 57.2%. Those respondents who felt they were only able to communicate with the two aforementioned social groups moderately constitute a minority of 30.3% in the case of host families and of 35.1% for other hosts. Finally, those who did not communicate well with these social contacts constitute a small minority of 8.0% (“host families”) and 7.7% (“other host natives”), as evident in Figure 5.18. Within-country results show some dispersion among respondent responses, as Table 5.12 illustrates. Results indicate a divide of viewpoints across subsamples regarding how well sojourners communicated with their host families and other host members. In the two social categories, the majority of respondents in American and Japanese subsamples considered that they communicated in the host language only moderately well (note that most respondents in the remaining two subsamples reproduce the data pattern of the total sample). In terms of percentage share, 52.2% and 50.7% of American and Japanese respondents communicated moderately well with their host families. The second social category reproduces a similar pattern given that 56.3% of American and 55.9% of Japanese again selected “moderately well” when rating the quality of host language communication with host members other than host families (Table 5.12).

Table 5.12 QH2. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of Quality of Respondent Host Language Communication with Host Families and Host Natives Social Contacts

Brazil

Germany

Japan

USA

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Host family Not well Moderately well Very well TOTAL

11 104 257 372

3.0 28.0 69.1 100.0

5 39 361 405

1.2 9.6 89.1 100.0

30 109 76 215

14.0 50.7 35.3 100.0

51 117 56 224

22.8 52.2 25.0 100.0

Other host natives Not well Moderately well Not well TOTAL

8 143 292 443

1.8 32.3 65.9 100.0

1 62 343 406

0.2 15.3 84.5 100.0

36 123 61 220

16.4 55.9 27.7 100.0

54 125 43 222

24.3 56.3 19.4 100.0

The Follow-on Research Project

165

Question H3, as in the previous question, asked respondents to rate the quality of communication with host families and other hosts, but in this case, the focus was on communication, when possible, in the respondent’s own L1. Figure 5.19 illustrates the total sample distribution of how well respondents were able to communicate in their own L1s with host families and other natives. The results yielded by this survey question contrast with those drawn from Question H2 (how well sojourners communicated in the host language). Thus, if for the most part sojourners communicated either moderately or very well in the host language, they were not able to utilize their own languages with hosts. To specify further, 44.3% and 38.6% of the total respondents considered not to have been able to communicate in their own languages with either host families or other host natives, respectively. It is worth noting, however, that the results spread over the three points on the measurement scale, particularly in the social category “other host natives.” In effect, in this category, there are almost as many respondents who considered themselves to have been able to communicate moderately well (35.4%) as those who regarded this communication as poor/not well (38.6%).

Figure 5.19 QH3. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of Quality of Respondent Communication in Their Own Native Language with Host Families and Host Natives

166

The Follow-on Research Project

A breakdown of data by country indicates considerable variation among respondents, as demonstrated by Table 5.13. In the category “host family,” while the majority of Brazilian (48.6%) and German (78.3%) respondents considered not to have been able to communicate well with hosts in their own L1, most American and Japanese respondents did so moderately well (at 36.4% and 48.2%, respectively). With regard to the second social category (“other host natives), the difference is more pronounced—to wit, most Brazilian sojourners (38.7%) selected “very well,” a clear majority (80.4%) of their German counterparts chose “not well,” while most American (43.4%) and Japanese (50.9%) sojourners chose “Moderately well.” Table 5.13 QH3. Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of the Quality of Respondent Communication in Their Own Language with Host Families and Host Natives Social Contacts

Brazil

Germany

Japan

USA

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Host family Not well Moderately well Very well TOTAL

72 44 32 148

48.6 29.7 21.6 100.0

94 15 11 120

78.3 12.5 9.2 100.0

29 53 28 110

26.4 48.2 25.5 100.0

72 82 71 225

32.0 36.4 31.6 100.0

Other host natives Not well Moderately well Not well TOTAL

70 93 103 266

26.3 35.0 38.7 100.0

135 25 8 168

80.4 14.9 4.8 100.0

30 57 25 112

26.8 50.9 22.3 100.0

63 98 65 226

27.9 43.4 28.8 100.0

Psychometric Analysis of the ICC Scale Psychometric analysis of the ICC scale is organized in five sections corresponding to joint (“four countries”) and individual analyses of the ICC scale (I. Intercultural Abilities) across the four subsamples: Brazil, Germany, Japan, and the US. (Ireland is not included given the focus on host families.) The ICC scale used in this FRP is based on the revised theoretical construct of “ICC” developed by Fantini (1995) and revised in 2006 and 2015 for purposes of this research (cf. Appendix B: AICC Form). The latest version used in this study clustered 49 items, as follows: • • • •

Knowledge dimension: ICC1 to ICC9 [9 items] Attitudes dimension: ICC10 to ICC22 [23 items] Skills dimension: ICC23 to ICC31 [8 items] Awareness dimension: ICC32 to ICC49 [17 items]

The Follow-on Research Project

167

Dimensionality and reliability analyses of the ICC scale, as well as correlations between the extracted components, were calculated for individual subsamples and for the total multinational sample. Composite: Four Countries A PCA was conducted of the 49 items that comprise the ICC scale for each of the four participating countries, followed by merging the four complete datasets2 of individual countries. The final sample for the ICC scale analysis is based on responses from a total of 1,189 subjects. The frequency distribution by country is presented in Table 5.14. Table 5.14 ICC Scale: Distribution of Subjects by Country in the Final Sample Country

N

%

Brazil Germany Japan USA Total

222 406 359 202 1189

18.7 34.1 30.2 17.0 100.0

To start with, a PCA was computed for all 49 ICC items and results for the initial solution were analyzed. The Catell’s Scree Test indicated four dimensions, as formulated in the original ICC theoretical model (Fantini 1995, 2006). Subsequently, another PCA, forced to four factors, was conducted using varimax rotation. To reach a final solution, however, five items had to be excluded in sequential steps, with another PCA conducted in each step. The underlying reason was twofold: (1) Two items (ICC25, ICC24) yielded low loadings (inferior to the adopted cutoff) (cf. Tabachnick and Fidell 2007); both items pertained originally to the Skills dimension. (2) Three items (ICC23, ICC18, and ICC27) presented cross loadings (a loading high in more than one factor (cf. DeVellis 2012); two of these items pertained to the Skills dimension and the remaining one belonged to the Attitudes dimension. The final solution retained 44 of the original 49 items and presented indicators that enabled further calculations—viz., the Kaiser-MeyerOlkin Test for Sampling Adequacy (KMO = 0.968) and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (χ2(946) = 34,618.035; p < 0.001). The former measure verifies the sampling adequacy of the analysis and accepts a 0.500 limit. The latter indicates that correlations are sufficiently large for the PCA, provided the results are statistically significant. The four dimensions extracted explain 58.008% of the total variance. The first dimension of the ICC scale (Awareness) explains 21.781% of variance (Eigenvalue = 9.584) and consists of 18 items, with loadings between 0.523 and 0.749. The second dimension (Attitude), comprises 12 items (loadings

168

The Follow-on Research Project

between 0.552 and 0.775) and explains 15.351% of variance (Eigenvalue = 6.754). The third dimension (Knowledge) includes 9 items (loadings between 0.609 and 0.698) and explains 12.555% of variance (Eigenvalue = 5.524). The fourth dimension (Skills) encompasses five items (loadings between 0.481 and 0.620) and explains 8,320% of variance (Eigenvalue = 3.661). Although two items (ICC31, ICC26) load above 0.35 in more than one dimension, these items were not excluded from the database based on two criteria: (1) the loadings are inferior to the chosen cutoff point (0.45) (cf. Tabachnick and Fidell 2007) and (2) the difference between the loadings in the factors is greater than 0.10. For this reason, it will not be considered a cross loading (Table 5.15). Table 5.15 Four Countries: Final Matrix for PCA of Factor Loadings, Commonalities (h2), and Corrected Item-Total Correlation (R) for Each Item (n = 1,189) Items N

Component Content

ICC_41 My values that affected my approach to ethical dilemmas and their resolution. ICC_37 Reactions by host culture members to my identity (e.g., race, class, gender, age). ICC_38 Diversity within the host culture (e.g., differences in class, gender, age, ability). ICC_42 My hosts’ reactions to me that reflected their cultural values. ICC_40 My choices and their consequences (which made me more, or less acceptable, to my hosts). ICC_43 How values and ethics were reflected in specific situations. ICC_36 Myself as a “culturally conditioned” person in terms of my habits and preferences. ICC_47 Factors that helped or hindered my intercultural development and ways to overcome them.

1

2

3

4

h2

R

0.749 0.157 0.137 0.255

0.669 0.781

0.748 0.093 0.112 0.016

0.581 0.685

0.739 0.168 0.186 0.000

0.609 0.711

0.734 0.194 0.185 0.199

0.650 0.775

0.731 0.218 0.153 0.150

0.628 0.753

0.725 0.185 0.235 0.221

0.663 0.786

0.697 0.111 0.143 0.151

0.541 0.690

0.685 0.133 0.220 0.320

0.637 0.761

The Follow-on Research Project Items N

169

Component Content

ICC_44 Varying cultural styles and language use, and their effect in social situations. ICC_33 Negative reactions to these differences (e.g., fear, ridicule, disgust, superiority). ICC_35 How host culture members viewed me and why. ICC_46 The level of intercultural development of others (e.g. other participants, hosts, colleagues). ICC_34 How varied situations in the host culture required modifying my interaction with others. ICC_39 Dangers of generalizing individual behaviors to represent the whole culture. ICC_49 How others perceived me as communicator, facilitator, mediator, in an intercultural situation. ICC_45 My own level of intercultural development. ICC_48 How I perceived myself as communicator, facilitator, mediator in an intercultural situation. ICC_32 Differences and similarities between the host language culture and my own. ICC_11 To learn from my hosts, their language and culture. ICC_15 To show interest in new cultural aspects (e.g., to understand the values, history, traditions). ICC_12 To communicate in the host language and behave appropriately, as judged by my hosts. ICC_16 To try to understand differences in behaviors, values, attitudes, and styles of host members.

1

2

3

4

h2

R

0.680 0.209 0.279 0.218

0.632 0.762

0.676 0.007 0.054 0.089

0.468 0.601

0.675 0.217 0.155 0.150

0.550 0.698

0.665 0.117 0.173 0.252

0.550 0.704

0.662 0.174 0.220 0.188

0.552 0.707

0.661 0.208 0.141 −0.088 0.508 0.609

0.634 0.088 0.229 0.430

0.647 0.737

0.631 0.235 0.254 0.222

0.567 0.715

0.602 0.131 0.262 0.405

0.612 0.719

0.523 0.301 0.253 −0.047 0.431 0.556

0.115 0.775 0.202 −0.052 0.658 0.684 0.140 0.756 0.167 0.087

0.626 0.709

0.106 0.740 0.200 −0.044 0.601 0.645

0.188 0.731 0.151 0.207

0.635 0.745

(Continued)

170

The Follow-on Research Project

Table 5.15 (Continued) Items N

Component Content

ICC_10 To interact with host culture members (I didn’t avoid them or primarily seek out compatriots). ICC_14 To take on various roles appropriate to different situations (e.g., in the family, as a volunteer). ICC_17 To try to communicate appropriately in the host culture (e.g., in non-verbal and other behavioral areas). ICC_13 To deal with my emotions and frustrations with the host culture (in addition to the pleasures offered). ICC_19 To deal with different ways of perceiving, expressing, interacting, and behaving. ICC_22 To suspend judgment and appreciate the complexities of communicating and interacting interculturally. ICC_20 To interact in alternative ways even when different from those I was accustomed. ICC_21 To deal with ethical implications of my choices (in terms of decisions, consequences, results, etc.). ICC_5 I could contrast my behavior with that of hosts (e.g., greetings, routines, time orientation). ICC_7 I could describe stages of cross-cultural adjustment. ICC_8 I could cite strategies for learning about and adjusting to the host culture. ICC_9

I could cite behaviors common among host culture members (e.g., family roles, team work, problem solving).

1

2

3

4

h2

R

0.089 0.707 0.172 −0.032 0.538 0.605

0.169 0.671 0.186 0.243

0.573 0.703

0.193 0.664 0.150 0.255

0.565 0.698

0.188 0.652 0.146 0.233

0.536 0.684

0.279 0.635 0.168 0.391

0.662 0.762

0.217 0.602 0.175 0.325

0.546 0.686

0.246 0.591 0.127 0.378

0.569 0.692

0.288 0.552 0.121 0.420

0.578 0.680

0.169 0.260 0.698 0.046

0.585 0.661

0.246 0.112 0.692 0.266

0.623 0.722

0.252 0.133 0.688 0.310

0.650 0.741

0.231 0.253 0.683 0.173

0.613 0.713

The Follow-on Research Project Items

Component

N

Content

1

ICC_2

I knew basic norms and taboos (e.g., greetings, dress, behaviors). I could contrast historical and socio-political aspects of my culture and the host culture. I could define culture and describe its components. I knew techniques to aid learning the host language and culture. I recognized signs of culture stress and knew strategies to overcome it. I used strategies for adapting to the host culture and reducing stress. I used culture-specific information to improve my style and interaction with hosts. I monitored my behavior and its impact on my learning, my growth, and my hosts. I helped resolve crosscultural conflicts and misunderstandings when they arose. I used strategies for learning the host language and about the host culture.

0.125 0.272 0.677 0.022

ICC_6

ICC_1 ICC_4

ICC_3

ICC_28

ICC_30

ICC_29

ICC_31

ICC_26

171

2

3

4

h2

R

0.548 0.617

0.206 0.163 0.673 −0.020 0.522 0.600

0.243 0.148 0.644 0.169

0.525 0.645

0.173 0.185 0.638 0.276

0.547 0.656

0.242 0.120 0.609 0.232

0.498 0.635

0.288 0.275 0.252 0.620

0.607 0.701

0.270 0.259 0.288 0.615

0.600 0.710

0.313 0.297 0.262 0.613

0.631 0.727

0.255 0.241 0.369 0.483

0.492 0.610

0.222 0.289 0.365 0.481

0.498 0.635

Insofar as the reliability analysis of the ICC scale is concerned, all dimensions yielded Cronbach’s alpha values above 0.70. Cronbach’s alphas for Awareness and Attitudes dimensions are very good (α = 0.953; α = 0.928, respectively), and good for Knowledge (α = 0.899) and Skills (α = 0.860), according to ranges recommended by Nunnally (1978). All correlations among dimensions are positive and statistically significant and express an association of large magnitude between component variables (≥ 0.50) (cf. Cohen et al. 2003) (Table 5.16).

172

The Follow-on Research Project

Table 5.16 Four Countries: Intercorrelation Matrix among Dimensions Extracted on PCA (n = 1,189) Dimension

1

2

3

4

1 Knowledge 2 Attitudes 3 Skills 4 Awareness

1 0.552** 0.654** 0.586**

1 0.639** 0.540**

1 0.639**

1

Note:** p < 0.001

Brazil To carry out the psychometric analysis by individual countries, it was necessary to compute a missing value analysis prior to the PCA. According to this analysis, all participants in the Brazil subsample showing more than 10% of missing values (n = 7) were removed from the dataset (cf. Hair et al. 2006). The remaining missing data were replaced by a regression imputation procedure upon attending to a non-significant Little’s MCAR Test (χ2(2182) = 2,220.609, p = 0.533). This test statistic indicates a complete at random pattern of missing values when yielding a non-significant result (ibid. 2006; Tabachnick and Fidell 2007). The first PCA was conducted for all 49 ICC items and an initial solution was examined. The Catell’s Scree Test gave an unclear indication of the number of factors to retain (the graph did not show a clear inflexion between three and four factors). However, after computing and analyzing the two possible solutions, the solution with four dimensions stood out as the more interpretable one—i.e., closer to the theoretical position and with more retained items. A PCA was repeated, forcing the solution to four components with varimax rotation. Item ICC23 was excluded because it was the only one that did not load in the dimension in which it was originally written (Skills). The final solution, with 48 items, yielded suitable indicators of matrix and sample suitability, which allowed further calculations (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin = 0.959 and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity, χ2(1,128) = 16,672.198; p < 0.001). The PCA extracted four dimensions with 62.377% of variance explained. The first dimension (Awareness) includes 18 items, loading between 0.576 and 0.773, and explains 23.160% of variance (Eigenvalue = 11.117). The second dimension (Attitude) encompasses 13 items, with loadings between 0.636 and 0.756. This component explains 16.799% of variance (Eigenvalue = 8.064). The third dimension (Knowledge) comprises nine items, with loadings between 0.652 and 0.738 and accounts for 12.855% of variance (Eigenvalue = 6.171). Finally, the fourth dimension (Skills) includes eight items loading between 0.510 and 0.718. The percentage of variance explained is 9.562% (Eigenvalue = 4.590) (Table 5.17).

The Follow-on Research Project

173

Table 5.17 Brazil: Final Matrix for PCA of Factor Loadings, Commonalities (h2), and Corrected Item-Total Correlation (R) for Each Item (n = 406) Items N

Component Content

ICC_42 My hosts’ reactions to me that reflected their cultural values. ICC_38 Diversity within the host culture (e.g., differences in class, gender, age, ability). ICC_37 Reactions by host culture members to my identity (e.g., race, class, gender, age). ICC_34 How varied situations in the host culture required modifying my interaction with others. ICC_43 How values and ethics were reflected in specific situations. ICC_41 My values that affected my approach to ethical dilemmas and their resolution. ICC_46 The level of intercultural development of others (e.g., other participants, hosts, colleagues). ICC_44 Varying cultural styles and use, and their effect in social situations. language ICC_47 Factors that helped or hindered my intercultural development and ways to overcome them. ICC_36 Myself as a “culturally conditioned” person in terms of my habits and preferences. ICC_45 My own level of intercultural development. ICC_40 My choices and their consequences (which made me more, or less acceptable, to my hosts).

1

2

3

4

h2

R

0.773 0.241 0.232

0.185 0.486 0.840

0.772 0.203 0.180

0.169 0.699 0.806

0.762 0.195 0.131

0.134 0.654 0.773

0.752 0.107 0.185

0.240 0.669 0.780

0.750 0.278 0.278

0.206 0.760 0.847

0.749 0.199 0.230

0.242 0.713 0.814

0.748 0.140 0.214

0.163 0.651 0.776

0.748 0.249 0.319

0.169 0.751 0.840

0.737 0.263 0.181

0.225 0.697 0.806

0.714 0.151 0.200

0.217 0.620 0.759

0.712 0.303 0.273

0.190 0.710 0.815

0.708 0.308 0.208

0.174 0.670 0.787

(Continued)

174

The Follow-on Research Project

Table 5.17 (Continued) Items N

Component Content

ICC_48 How I perceived myself as communicator, facilitator, mediator, in an intercultural situation. ICC_49 How others perceived me as communicator, facilitator, mediator, in an intercultural situation. ICC_35 How host culture members viewed me and why. ICC_39 Dangers of generalizing individual behaviors to represent the whole culture. ICC_33 Negative reactions to these Differences (e.g., fear, ridicule, disgust, Superiority). ICC_32 Differences and similarities between the host language culture and my own. ICC_16 To try to understand differences in behaviors, values, attitudes, and styles of host members. ICC_15 To show interest in new cultural aspects (e.g., to understand the values, history, traditions). ICC_13 To deal with my emotions and frustrations with the host culture (in addition to the pleasures offered). ICC_11 To learn from my hosts, their language and culture. ICC_17 To try to communicate appropriately in the host culture (e.g., in non-verbal and other behavioral areas). ICC_12 To communicate in the host language and behave appropriately, as judged by my hosts.

1

2

3

4

h2

R

0.689 0.290 0.273

0.259 0.700 0.806

0.680 0.240 0.264

0.267 0.662 0.784

0.676 0.216 0.197

0.180 0.575 0.731

0.676 0.252 0.223

0.063 0.575 0.714

0.641 0.048 0.054

0.163 0.443 0.595

0.576 0.228 0.305

0.096 0.486 0.652

0.263 0.756 0.206

0.141 0.703 0.795

0.183 0.744 0.151

0.204 0.651 0.751

0.170 0.719 0.115

0.119 0.573 0.701

0.178 0.707 0.190

0.099 0.578 0.691

0.173 0.700 0.136

0.263 0.608 0.729

0.084 0.695 0.129

0.138 0.526 0.643

The Follow-on Research Project Items N

175

Component Content

ICC_19 To deal with different ways of perceiving, expressing, interacting, and behaving. ICC_14 To take on various roles appropriate to different situations (e.g., in the family, as a volunteer). ICC_22 To suspend judgment and appreciate the complexities of communicating and interacting interculturally. ICC_10 To interact with host culture members (I didn’t avoid them or primarily seek out compatriots). ICC_20 To interact in alternative ways even when different from those I was accustomed. ICC_18 To reflect on the impact and consequences of my choices on hosts. ICC_21 To deal with ethical implications of my choices (in terms of decisions, consequences, results, etc.) ICC_7 I could describe stages of cross- cultural adjustment. ICC_1 I could define culture and describe its components. ICC_3 I recognized signs of culture stress and knew strategies to overcome it. ICC_9 I could cite behaviors common among host culture members (e.g., family roles, team work, problem solving). ICC_8 I could cite strategies for learning about and adjusting to the host culture.

1

2

3

4

h2

R

0.325 0.694 0.201

0.231 0.680 0.796

0.214 0.685 0.205

0.225 0.608 0.735

0.315 0.669 0.216

0.023 0.595 0.705

0.077 0.669 0.103

0.127 0.480 0.613

0.307 0.655 0.193

0.250 0.624 0.751

0.257 0.649 0.141

0.289 0.591 0.726

0.315 0.636 0.196

0.124 0.558 0.698

0.222 0.209 0.738

0.192 0.674 0.764

0.214 0.132 0.737

0.123 0.621 0.707

0.232 0.206 0.714

0.130 0.623 0.726

0.249 0.316 0.709

0.044 0.667 0.739

0.289 0.214 0.706

0.202 0.668 0.758

(Continued)

176

The Follow-on Research Project

Table 5.17 (Continued) Items

Component Content

1

ICC_2

I knew basic norms and taboos (e.g., greetings, dress, behaviors). I could contrast historical and socio-political aspects of my culture and the host culture. I knew techniques to aid learning the host language and culture. I could contrast my behavior with that of hosts (e.g., greetings, routines, time orientation). I used strategies for learning the host language and about the host culture. I monitored my behavior and its impact on my learning, my growth, and my hosts. I used strategies for adapting to the host culture and reducing stress. I used culture-specific information to improve my style and interaction with hosts. I adapted my behavior, dress, etc., as appropriate, to avoid offending hosts. I demonstrated ability to interact appropriately in different situations in the host culture. I helped resolve crosscultural conflicts and misunderstandings when they arose. I was able to contrast the host culture with my own.

0.234 0.161 0.699

0.156 0.594 0.703

0.252 0.156 0.667

0.096 0.668 0.663

ICC_6

ICC_4

ICC_5

ICC_26

ICC_29

ICC_28

ICC_30

ICC_24

ICC_27

ICC_31

ICC_25

2

3

4

h2

N

R

0.199 0.175

0.658 0.245 0.563 0.679

0.263 0.161

0.652 0.164 0.547 0.672

0.215 0.256

0.298 0.718 0.716 0.774

0.308 0.293

0.214 0.699 0.715 0.762

0.327 0.282

0.218 0.680 0.696 0.761

0.252 0.209

0.273 0.670 0.631 0.710

0.221 0.173 −0.037 0.643 0.493 0.540

0.336 0.365

0.251 0.601 0.671 0.744

0.314 0.173

0.314 0.532 0.510 0.619

0.258 0.301

0.205 0.510 0.460 0.618

The Follow-on Research Project

177

With regard to reliability analysis, all Cronbach’s alphas are above 0.70. The Cronbach’s alphas of each dimension are considered very good; to wit, Awareness (α = 0.967), Attitude (α = 0.941), Knowledge (α = 0.919), and Skills (α = 0.903). Correlations among the four dimensions present an association of large magnitude and have positive and statistically significant coefficients (Table 5.18). Table 5.18 Brazil: Intercorrelation Matrix among Dimensions Extracted on PCA (n = 406) Dimension

1

2

1 Knowledge 2 Attitudes 3 Skills 4 Awareness

1 0.553** 0.598** 0.627**

2 1 0.640** 0.610**

3

4

1 676**

1

Note:** p < 0.001

Germany As in the previous subsample, a PCA was computed to extract underlying ICC dimensions and explore the composition of the scale dimensions (cf. Tabachnick and Fidell 2007; Stevens 1986). Prior to the PCA, a missing value analysis was conducted. According to this analysis, all participants in the German subsample who yielded more than 10% of missing answers (n = 17) in the ICC scale were weeded out from the database (cf. Hair et al. 2006). The remaining missing data were replaced by a regression imputation procedure upon attending to a nonsignificant Little’s MCAR Test (χ2(1,988) = 1,982.142; p = 0.533). Following the missing value analysis, a first PCA was conducted for all 49 ICC items and the results for initial solution analyzed. The Catell’s Scree Test was slightly ambiguous and showed inflexions that would justify retaining three or four dimensions. Given that the theoretical model purports four dimensions, a PCA was conducted, forcing the solution to four factors with varimax rotation. This option did not lead to an adequate solution due to the unbalanced number of items by factor and the high number of cross loadings between items. For these reasons, the procedure was repeated using varimax rotation for a three-dimension solution. This new procedure led to a more accurate solution, even if it implied excluding a considerable number of items. The final configuration yielded three dimensions that were identified as: (1) Attitudes/Skills, (2) Awareness, and (3) Knowledge. In each sequential step, nine items were excluded due to low factor loadings (< 0.45; (cf. Tabachnick and Fidell 2007), meaning that the solution cannot explain an appropriate percentage of variance for the

178

The Follow-on Research Project

following nine items: ICC6, ICC31, ICC25, ICC24, ICC26, ICC32, ICC29, ICC2, ICC28. Of these nine items, six items pertained to the original Skills dimension, two items to the Knowledge dimension, and one to the Awareness dimension. In another four sequential steps, the following items were excluded due to cross loadings: ICC46 (ICC–AW15), ICC45 (ICC–AW14), ICC5 (ICC–K5). These items were written in the original theoretical model to address three dimensions: two for Awareness, one for Knowledge, and one for Attitudes. In a final step, item ICC30 from the original Skills dimension, was excluded in order to keep a structure closer to the original theoretical model and similar to other countries. The final solution retained 35 items and yielded indicators of matrix and sample adequacy which allowed performing the last PCA (KaiserMeyer-Olkin = 0.924; Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (χ2(595) = 6,081.537; p < 0.001). The three extracted dimensions account for 47.329% of the total variance. The first dimension was labeled Attitude/Skills and has 14 items with factor loadings between 0.542 and 0.757 and 19.023% variance explained (Eigenvalue = 6.658). Awareness, the second dimension, explains 17.609% of variance (Eigenvalue = 6.163) and retains 15 items with loadings between 0.511 and 0.710. The third dimension, Knowledge, has six items with loadings between 0.562 and 0.749 and explains 10.696% of variance (Eigenvalue = 3.744) (Table 5.19).

Table 5.19 Germany: Final Matrix for PCA of Factor Loadings, Commonalities (h2), and Corrected Item-Total Correlation (R) for Each Item (n = 359) Items N

Component Content

ICC_11 To learn from my hosts, their language and culture. ICC_12 To communicate in the host language and behave appropriately, as judged by my hosts. ICC_22 To suspend judgment and appreciate the complexities of communicating and interacting interculturally. ICC_15 To show interest in new cultural aspects (e.g., to understand the values, history, traditions). ICC_13 To deal with my emotions and frustrations with the host culture (in addition to the pleasures offered).

1

2

3

h2

R

0.757

0.016

0.011

0.574

0.618

0.696

0.054

0.113

0.500

0.603

0.689

0.197

0.106

0.525

0.675

0.689

0.118

0.168

0.517

0.637

0.681

0.149

0.212

0.532

0.676

The Follow-on Research Project Items N

179

Component Content

ICC_16 To try to understand differences in behaviors, values, attitudes, and styles of host members. ICC_10 To interact with host culture members (I didn’t avoid them or primarily seek out compatriots). ICC_19 To deal with different ways of perceiving, expressing, interacting, and behaving. ICC_14 To take on various roles appropriate to different situations (e.g., in the family, as a volunteer). ICC_17 To try to communicate appropriately in the host culture (e.g., in non-verbal and other behavioral areas). ICC_18 To reflect on the impact and consequences of my choices on hosts. ICC_27 I demonstrated ability to interact appropriately in different situations in the host culture. ICC_21 To deal with ethical implications of my choices (in terms of decisions, consequences, results, etc.) ICC_23 I demonstrated flexibility when interacting with host culture members. ICC_37 Reactions by host culture members to my identity (e.g., race, class, gender, age). ICC_41 I4. My values that affected my approach to ethical dilemmas and their resolution. ICC_38 I4. Diversity within the host culture (e.g., differences in class, gender, age, ability).

1

2

3

h2

R

0.676

0.127

0.181

0.506

0.637

0.672

0.080

0.001

0.458

0.551

0.660

0.296

0.281

0.603

0.736

0.634

0.153

0.175

0.456

0.608

0.627

0.224

0.219

0.491

0.654

0.582

0.235

0.225

0.445

0.624

0.567

0.219

0.278

0.447

0.613

0.558

0.267

0.196

0.421

0.599

0.542

0.215

0.176

0.371

0.555

0.080

0.710

0.079

0.517

0.623

0.184

0.710

0.183

0.572

0.697

0.083

0.673

0.124

0.475

0.604

(Continued)

180

The Follow-on Research Project

Table 5.19 (Continued) Items N

Component Content

ICC_42 My hosts’ reactions to me that reflected their cultural values. ICC_36 Myself as a “culturally conditioned” person in terms of my habits and preferences. ICC_40 My choices and their consequences (which made me more, or less acceptable, to my hosts). ICC_43 How values and ethics were reflected in specific situations. ICC_35 How host culture members viewed me and why. ICC_49 How others perceived me as communicator, facilitator, mediator, in an intercultural situation. ICC_39 Dangers of generalizing individual behaviors to represent the whole culture. ICC_33 Negative reactions to these differences (e.g., fear, ridicule, disgust, superiority). ICC_47 Factors that helped or hindered my intercultural development and ways to overcome them. ICC_34 How varied situations in the host culture required modifying my interaction with others. ICC_48 How I perceived myself as communicator, facilitator, mediator, in an intercultural situation. ICC_44 Varying cultural styles and language use, and their effect in social situations. ICC_8 I could cite strategies for learning about and adjusting to the host culture.

1

2

3

h2

R

0.213

0.669

0.207

0.536

0.668

0.129

0.617

0.150

0.420

0.576

0.220

0.615

0.188

0.462

0.611

0.256

0.597

0.235

0.478

0.623

0.286

0.585

0.107 0.435

0.578

0.113

0.583

0.358 0.481

0.623

0.132

0.562

−0.144 0.354

0.432

0.010

0.561

−0.010 0.315

0.448

0.140

0.556

0.353 0.453

0.594

0.221

0.544

0.221 0.394

0.561

0.109

0.538

0.374 0.442

0.580

0.278

0.511

0.290 0.423

0.576

0.229

0.181

0.749 0.645

0.709

The Follow-on Research Project Items

181

Component h2

N

Content

1

2

ICC_7

I could describe stages of cross-cultural adjustment. I could cite behaviors common among host culture members (e.g., family roles, team work, problem solving). I knew techniques to aid learning the host language and culture. I recognized signs of culture stress and knew strategies to overcome it. I could define culture and describe its components.

0.127

0.097

0.742 0.576

0.593

0.297

0.243

0.623 0.536

0.566

0.256

0.171

0.587 0.439

0.561

0.177

0.171

0.575 0.391

0.515

0.182

0.161

0.562 0.375

0.450

ICC_9

ICC_4

ICC_3

ICC_1

3

R

All Cronbach’s alpha values are above 0.70 and are, therefore, considered good or very good indicators of the construct they purport to measure; viz.: Attitude/Skills (α = 0.915), Awareness (α = 0.903), and Knowledge (α = 0.806) (cf. Nunnally 1978). Correlations between ICC dimensions are positive and with a large magnitude of association, as well as statistically significant (≥ 0.50; cf. Cohen et al. 2003) (Table 5.20). Table 5.20 Germany: Intercorrelation Matrix among Dimensions Extracted on PCA (n = 359) Dimension

1

2

3

1 Knowledge 2 Attitudes/Skills 3 Awareness

1 0.557** 0.533**

1 0.528**

1

Note:** p < 0.001

Japan As with previous subsamples, a PCA was conducted to explore the factorial structure of ICC dimensions in the Japan subsample. In order to conduct this data reduction technique, it was necessary to compute a missing analysis that showed that ten participants yielded more than 10% of missing values in their ICC answers. Consequently, these subjects were removed from the dataset (cf. Hair et al. 2006). The remaining missing

182

The Follow-on Research Project

data were replaced by Expected Maximization (EM) procedure upon attending to a significant Little’s MCAR Test (χ2(1,571) = 1,848.313; p < 0.001) which indicates a non-random pattern of missing values (ibid. 2006; Tabachnick and Fidell 2007). As usual, the first PCA was conducted for all 49 ICC items and the results for the initial solution were analyzed. The Scree plot pointed out four dimensions. However, this solution was not interpretable as a large number of items showed cross loadings. As a result, the procedure was repeated, considering a three-dimension solution with varimax rotation. Although this solution increased interpretability, several items had to be excluded. On the one hand, items were excluded because they presented cross loadings: six items from the original Skills dimension were deleted, ICC29, ICC26, ICC30, ICC28, ICC23, and ICC27. On the other hand, two items were also excluded as they loaded in a dimension different from the original one. One of these items pertained to the Awareness dimension and the other item to the Skills dimension (ICC32 and ICC31). Before computing the final solution for the 41 items, it was necessary to attend to the KMO and to Bartlett’s test indicators, both of which yielded adequate results (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin = 0.913 and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity, χ2(820) = 6,455.997; p < 0.000). The final PCA extracted three dimensions using a varimax rotation. The three dimensions account for 57.978% of variance. The first dimension (Attitude/Skills) explains 21.892% of variance (Eigenvalue = 8.976) and consists of 15 items (loadings between 0.568 and 0.793). Awareness, the second dimension, has 17 items with loadings between 0.554 and 0.797 (21.243% variance explained; Eigenvalue = 8.710). The last dimension (Knowledge) accounts for 14.843% of variance (Eigenvalue = 6.086), and it consists of nine items that load between 0.616 and 0.798 (Table 5.21). Table 5.21 Japan: Final Matrix for PCA of Factor Loadings, Commonalities (h2), and Corrected Item-Total Correlation (R) for Each Item (n = 202) Items N

Component Content

1

ICC_20 To interact in alternative ways 0.793 even when different from those I was accustomed. ICC_16 To try to understand differences 0.783 in behaviors, values, attitudes, and styles of host members. ICC_19 To deal with different ways 0.782 of perceiving, expressing, interacting, and behaving.

2

3

h2

R

0.142 0.131 0.666 0.773

0.134 0.119 0.645 0.759

0.193 0.134 0.667 0.781

The Follow-on Research Project Items N

183

Component Content

ICC_12 To communicate in the host language and behave appropriately, as judged by my hosts. ICC_15 To show interest in new cultural aspects (e.g., to understand the values, history, traditions). ICC_11 To learn from my hosts, their language and culture. ICC_17 To try to communicate appropriately in the host culture (e.g., in non-verbal and other behavioral areas). ICC_14 To take on various roles appropriate to different situations (e.g., in the family, as a volunteer). ICC_18 To reflect on the impact and consequences of my choices on hosts. ICC_21 To deal with ethical implications of my choices (in terms of decisions, consequences, results, etc.) ICC_13 To deal with my emotions and frustrations with the host culture (in addition to the pleasures offered). ICC_24 I adapted my behavior, dress, etc., as appropriate, to avoid offending hosts. ICC_10 To interact with host culture members (I didn’t avoid them or primarily seek out compatriots). ICC_22 To suspend judgment and appreciate the complexities of communicating and interacting interculturally. ICC_25 I was able to contrast the host culture with my own. ICC_43 How values and ethics were reflected in specific situations. ICC_47 Factors that helped or hindered my intercultural development and ways to overcome them.

3

h2

1

2

0.778

0.172 0.154 0.658 0.770

0.777

0.140 0.051 0.626 0.731

0.762

0.114 0.101 0.605 0.718

0.758

0.212 0.147 0.641 0.761

0.752

0.190 0.141 0.621 0.758

0.719

0.303 0.238 0.665 0.779

0.695

0.279 0.143 0.582 0.724

0.663

0.199 0.165 0.507 0.675

0.643

0.154 0.285 0.519 0.665

0.634

0.028 0.140 0.422 0.573

0.614

0.249 0.244 0.499 0.663

0.568

0.159 0.390 0.500 0.614

0.111

0.797 0.274 0.723 0.814

0.178

0.752 0.319 0.699 0.805

R

(Continued)

184

The Follow-on Research Project

Table 5.21 (Continued) Items N

Component Content

ICC_40 My choices and their consequences (which made me more, or less acceptable, to my hosts). ICC_33 Negative reactions to these differences (e.g., fear, ridicule, disgust, superiority). ICC_41 My values that affected my approach to ethical dilemmas and their resolution. ICC_44 Varying cultural styles and language use, and their effect in social situations. ICC_46 The level of intercultural development of others (e.g., other participants, hosts, colleagues). ICC_37 Reactions by host culture members to my identity (e.g., race, class, gender, age). ICC_49 How others perceived me as communicator, facilitator, mediator, in an intercultural situation. ICC_38 Diversity within the host culture (e.g., differences in class, gender, age, ability). ICC_42 My hosts’ reactions to me that reflected their cultural values. ICC_35 How host culture members viewed me and why. ICC_36 Myself as a “culturally conditioned” person in terms of my habits and preferences. ICC_39 Dangers of generalizing individual behaviors to represent the whole culture. ICC_48 How I perceived myself as communicator, facilitator, mediator, in an intercultural situation. ICC_34 How varied situations in the host culture required modifying my interaction with others. ICC_45 My own level of intercultural development.

3

h2

1

2

0.221

0.744 0.157 0.626 0.752

R

−0.027 0.725 0.022 0.527 0.605

0.226

0.709 0.223 0.603 0.742

0.260

0.693 0.338 0.663 0.773

0.291

0.683 0.130 0.568 0.704

0.111

0.682 0.046 0.479 0.610

0.162

0.677 0.321 0.588 0.729

0.222

0.666 0.160 0.518 0.669

0.262

0.665 0.288 0.594 0.736

0.281

0.665 0.184 0.555 0.693

0.116

0.660 0.048 0.451 0.597

0.038

0.612 0.129 0.393 0.550

0.229

0.607 0.408 0.588 0.713

0.330

0.563 0.303 0.517 0.664

0.377

0.554 0.260 0.516 0.653

The Follow-on Research Project Items

185

Component Content

1

2

ICC_8

I could cite strategies for learning about and adjusting to the host culture. I could describe stages of crosscultural adjustment. I knew techniques to aid learning the host language and culture. I recognized signs of culture stress and knew strategies to overcome it. I could define culture and describe its components. I could contrast my behavior with that of hosts (e.g., greetings, routines, time orientation). I could cite behaviors common among host culture members (e.g., family roles, team work, problem solving). I could contrast historical and socio-political aspects of my culture and the host culture. I knew basic norms and taboos (e.g., greetings, dress, behaviors).

0.119

0.225 0.798 0.701 0.780

0.109

0.250 0.770 0.667 0.752

0.206

0.170 0.758 0.646 0.736

0.106

0.240 0.705 0.566 0.672

0.196

0.197 0.692 0.556 0.678

0.150

0.167 0.691 0.528 0.660

0.333

0.221 0.687 0.632 0.725

0.178

0.207 0.677 0.532 0.662

0.325

0.173 0.616 0.515 0.630

ICC_7 ICC_4 ICC_3

ICC_1 ICC_5

ICC_9

ICC_6

ICC_2

3

h2

N

R

Insofar as the reliability of this ICC scale is concerned, Cronbach’s alphas are considered very good for all dimensions as all are above the lower reliability boundary recommended by Nunnally (1978)—to wit: Attitude/Skills (α = 0.947), Awareness (α = 0.947), and Knowledge (α = 0.914). Correlations between dimensions are all positive and statistically significant, and present large magnitude regarding the association between dimensions (≥ 0.50) (cf. Cohen et al. 2003) (Table 5.22). Table 5.22 Japan: Intercorrelation Matrix among Dimensions Extracted on PCA (n = 202) Dimension

1

2

3

1 Knowledge 2 Attitudes/Skills 3 Awareness

1 0.503** 0.578**

1 535**

1

Note:** p < 0.001

186

The Follow-on Research Project

United States As with previous subsamples, the first procedure employed was a missing value analysis of all participants who showed at least one valid answer in the ICC scale. Those participants who yielded more than 10% of missing values in the ICC scale (n = 5) were removed from the dataset. The remaining missing data were replaced by EM procedure upon attending to a significant Little’s MCAR Test (χ2(997) = 1152.778; p < 0.001), which indicates that the pattern of missing values cannot be considered random (cf. Hair et al. 2006; Tabachnick and Fidell 2007). As before, the first PCA was conducted with all ICC items and results for the initial solution were analyzed. Although the theoretical model suggests four dimensions (Knowledge, Attitudes, Skills, and Awareness), the results did not match the original theoretical assumptions. The Catell’s Scree supports this finding by specifying three dimensions only. Another PCA was conducted, extracting a three-dimension solution with varimax rotation. This factorial structure allowed arriving at an accurate solution wherein Attitudes and Skills dimensions overlap, thus resulting in a new categorization: Attitude/Skills. To reach a final solution, three ICC items were excluded on three successive procedures—all three items originally written as separate Skills items. The reasons for excluding these items were as follows: (1) item ICC26 presented low loadings, (2) item ICC28 had cross loadings, and (3) item ICC25 did not load in the Attitudes/Skills dimension. The final solution, therefore, has 46 items and presents indicators of matrix and sample suitability that are suitable to PCA calculations (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin = 0.937 and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity, χ2(1,035) = 8,537.494; p < 0.001). The PCA extracted three dimensions with varimax rotation. These three new variables explain 58.726% of the total variance. The first dimension (Awareness) encompasses 18 items with loadings between 0.577 and 0.835 and explains 24.330% of variance (Eigenvalue = 11.192). The second dimension (Attitude/Skills) accounts for 21.496% of variance (Eigenvalue = 9.888) and has 19 items loading between 0.520 and 0.771. The final dimension (Knowledge) accounts for 12.90% of variance and has nine items which load between 0.654 and 0.769 and (Eigenvalue = 5.934) (Table 5.23). Table 5.23 US: Final Matrix for PCA of Factor Loadings, Commonalities (h2), and Corrected Item-Total Correlation (R) for Each Item (n = 222) Items N

Component Content

ICC_43 How values and ethics were reflected in specific situations. ICC_42 My hosts’ reactions to me that reflected their cultural values.

1

2

3

h2

R

0.835 0.223 0.175 0.778 0.861 0.833 0.206 0.075 0.741 0.821

The Follow-on Research Project Items N

187

Component Content

ICC_41 My values that affected my approach to ethical dilemmas and their resolution. ICC_40 My choices and their consequences (which made me more, or less acceptable, to my hosts). ICC_36 Myself as a “culturally conditioned” person in terms of my habits and preferences. ICC_37 Reactions by host culture members to my identity (e.g., race, class, gender, age). ICC_44 Varying cultural styles and language use, and their effect in social situations. ICC_35 How host culture members viewed me and why. ICC_46 The level of intercultural development of others (e.g., other participants, hosts, colleagues). ICC_38 Diversity within the host culture (e.g., differences in class, gender, age, Ability). ICC_47 Factors that helped or hindered my intercultural development and ways to overcome them. ICC_45 My own level of intercultural development. ICC_34 How varied situations in the host culture required modifying my interaction with others. ICC_39 Dangers of generalizing individual behaviors to represent the whole culture. ICC_33 Negative reactions to these differences (e.g., fear, ridicule, disgust, superiority). ICC_49 How others perceived me as communicator, facilitator, mediator, in an intercultural situation. ICC_48 How I perceived myself as communicator, facilitator, mediator, in an intercultural situation. ICC_32 Differences and similarities between the host language culture and my own.

1

2

3

h2

R

0.820 0.245 0.058 0.735 0.813

0.818 0.242 0.063 0.731 0.810

0.785 0.151 0.245 0.698 0.810

0.784 0.037 0.151 0.639 0.755

0.771 0.192 0.249 0.693 0.811

0.767 0.215 0.118 0.649 0.773 0.763 0.118 0.207 0.640 0.768

0.761 0.191 0.082 0.622 0.750

0.756 0.149 0.305 0.687 0.793

0.751 0.202 0.251 0.669 0.790 0.698 0.222 0.299 0.625 0.757

0.684 0.276 0.001 0.544 0.683

0.658 0.058 0.161 0.462 0.635

0.653 0.125 0.386 0.591 0.704

0.617 0.136 0.341 0.515 0.660

0.577 0.147 0.101 0.365 0.573

(Continued)

188

The Follow-on Research Project

Table 5.23 (Continued) Items N

Component Content

ICC_16 To try to understand differences in behaviors, values, attitudes, and styles of host members. ICC_22 To suspend judgment and appreciate the complexities of communicating and interacting interculturally. ICC_10 To interact with host culture members (I didn’t avoid them or primarily seek out compatriots). ICC_19 To deal with different ways of perceiving, expressing, interacting, and behaving. ICC_15 To show interest in new cultural aspects (e.g., to understand the values, history, traditions). ICC_20 To interact in alternative ways even when different from those I was accustomed. ICC_11 To learn from my hosts, their language and culture. ICC_14 To take on various roles appropriate to different situations (e.g., in the family, as a volunteer). ICC_23 I demonstrated flexibility when interacting with host culture members. ICC_21 To deal with ethical implications of my choices (in terms of decisions, consequences, results, etc.) ICC_13 To deal with my emotions and frustrations with the host culture (in addition to the pleasures offered). ICC_12 To communicate in the host language and behave appropriately, as judged by my hosts. ICC_18 To reflect on the impact and consequences of my choices on hosts. ICC_17 To try to communicate appropriately in the host culture (e.g., in non-verbal and other behavioral areas).

1

2

3

h2

R

0.104 0.771 0.069 0.610 0.707

0.118 0.745 0.128 0.585 0.717

0.129 0.741 0.060 0.569 0.684

0.240 0.730 0.302 0.681 0.792

0.017 0.726 0.087 0.535 0.640

0.263 0.725 0.175 0.627 0.764

0.044 0.724 0.098 0.536 0.656 0.171 0.720 0.233 0.602 0.742

0.120 0.684 0.276 0.558 0.705

0.350 0.683 0.176 0.620 0.748

0.137 0.682 0.245 0.545 0.694

0.098 0.676 0.098 0.476 0.625

0.279 0.664 0.151 0.541 0.708

0.120 0.652 0.201 0.480 0.645

The Follow-on Research Project Items N

189

Component Content

1

2

3

h2

R

ICC_27 I demonstrated ability to interact 0.274 0.649 0.258 0.563 0.721 appropriately in different situations in the host culture. ICC_29 I monitored my behavior and its impact on my learning, my growth, and my hosts. ICC_30 I used culture-specific information to improve my style and interaction with hosts. ICC_24 I adapted my behavior, dress, etc., as appropriate, to avoid offending hosts. ICC_25 I was able to contrast the host culture with my own. ICC_9 I could cite behaviors common among host culture members (e.g., family roles, team work, problem solving). ICC_8 I could cite strategies for learning about and adjusting to the host culture. ICC_7 I could describe stages of crosscultural adjustment. ICC_3 I recognized signs of culture stress and knew strategies to overcome it. ICC_6 I could contrast historical and socio-political aspects of my culture and the host culture. ICC_2 I knew basic norms and taboos (e.g., greetings, dress, behaviors). ICC_4 I knew techniques to aid learning the host language and culture. ICC_5 I could contrast my behavior with that of hosts (e.g., greetings, routines, time orientation). ICC_1 I could define culture and describe its components.

0.325 0.596 0.290 0.545 0.697

0.280 0.590 0.360 0.556 0.698

0.213 0.561 0.223 0.410 0.608

0.258 0.520 0.184 0.371 0.575 0.198 0.205 0.769 0.672 0.746

0.253 0.255 0.752 0.694 0.775

0.297 0.263 0.704 0.652 0.743 0.233 0.195 0.675 0.548 0.680

0.224 0.108 0.675 0.517 0.638

0.097 0.221 0.672 0.510 0.623 0.135 0.304 0.667 0.556 0.693 0.149 0.255 0.667 0.532 0.673

0.221 0.284 0.641 0.540 0.652

Reliability coefficients, Cronbach’s alphas, are above 0.70, the cutoff point suggested by Nunnally (1978) as the minimum acceptable value for psychological constructs. The alphas for all components are considered very good—viz., Awareness (α = 0.963), Attitude/Skills (α = 0.951), and

190

The Follow-on Research Project

Knowledge (α = 0.910). Correlations between the three aforementioned dimensions have a positive and large magnitude of association and are statistically significant (Table 5.24).

Table 5.24 US: Intercorrelation Matrix among Dimensions Extracted on PCA (n = 222) Dimension

1

2

3

1 Knowledge 2 Attitudes/Skills 3 Awareness

1 0.604** 0.530**

1 522**

1

Note:** p < 0.001

Comparative Analysis Comparative analysis is divided into three sections: (1) demographic variables, (2) sociocultural background variables, and (3) sojourn experience. The overall goal of this analysis is to understand in further depth the relation between ICC dimensions and participant profiles, as well as their intercultural experiences. Given these purposes, our focus centered on the results of the ICC scale stemming from the psychometric analysis of the total sample. It should be noted that the solution of the psychometric analysis for the “four countries” in combination is closer to the theoretical model and, as such, the total sample results can help in gaining new insights about those variables that have a bearing on the development of the four dimensions of the ICC scale. Statistical tests were chosen according to the nature of the variables of interest with a twofold purpose: (1) to ascertain group differences between categorical variables and the summated scores of the ICC scale and (2) to understand the level of association of selected numerical variables with ICC scores. These summated scores were calculated based on the PCA depicted in the psychometric analysis. Before carrying out the comparative analysis and to understand further which variables and/or groups are related to or represent differences in attainment levels of ICC dimensions, it is important to examine descriptive results across and within-countries. Given the results obtained in the descriptive analysis, a test statistic was computed. The joint descriptive analysis of the four countries is reported in Table 5.25. Based on results obtained, the mean values in each can be ordered as follows: Attitudes (M = 5.38; SD = 0.74), Skills (M = 4.88; SD= 0.92), Awareness (M = 4.86; SD = 0.87), and Knowledge (M = 4.72; SD = 0.86). Overall, respondents rated themselves positively in all ICC dimensions.

The Follow-on Research Project

191

Table 5.25 Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of ICC Dimensions (n = 1,189) ICC dimensions

M

SD

Knowledge Attitudes Skills Awareness

4.72 5.38 4.88 4.86

0.86 0.64 0.92 0.87

Table 5.26 lists descriptive and inferential results across individual countries. Accordingly, the ICC dimension yielding the highest mean value is Attitudes with mean values above Point 5 in all subsamples. If one bears in mind that the ICC summated scale kept the original range of measurement for individual items, from no competence 1 to very high competence 6, it becomes clear that participants in the four respondent groups assessed their level of competence as very high (Point 6 on the ICC scale—very high competence). Knowledge, in turn, is the variable component wherein participants report lower mean values of competency. More specifically, mean values that range from 4.36 (SD = 0.90) in Japan to 4.80 (SD = 0.83) in Brazil. An interesting side note to recall once again is the thesis of the founder’s book, Intelligence Is Not Enough, in which he stresses the importance of the other three components believing that “knowledge” of a country is of lesser importance than how one feels about its people (cf. Watt 1967). Among the four countries, American and Brazilian respondents rate themselves higher than German and Japanese participants do. These results can be interpreted either as higher levels of attainment in ICC dimensions or as a reflection of individual response patterns in instruments using Likert scales responses (Table 5.26). All four ICC dimensions yield significant differences when comparing variable groupings across subsamples. To determine which groups differ, the Games-Howell test was calculated. Employment of this test statistic attends to a significant result in Levene’s test that indicates that one cannot assume homogeneity of variances (Table 5.26). Based on the Games-Howell test results, the mean scores of Knowledge and Attitudes in Japan are significantly lower when compared with those yielded by the other three countries. Additionally, mean values in Germany, Brazil, and the US do not differ from one another (Table 5.26). In the Skills dimension, Brazil and the US registered the highest averages, without differentiating one from the other. Both Brazil and the US presented significant statistical differences compared to Germany and Japan. Germany presents a mean score significantly higher than Japan

192

The Follow-on Research Project

(Table 5.26). In the last dimension, Awareness, German and Japanese subsamples did not present significant statistical differences from each other but registered lower mean values compared to Brazil and the US. Brazil shows a significant mean score in comparison with the US (Table 5.26). Table 5.26 Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD), and One-Way ANOVA (F) in ICC Dimensions by Country (n = 1,189) ICC Country Dimensions

N

M

SD

F

p

Post Hoc

Knowledge

USA (USA) Brazil (B) Germany (G) Japan (J)

222 406 359 202

4.84 4.80 4.74 4.36

0.83 14.828 < 0.001 J < G, B, USA 0.90 0.74 0.90

Attitudes

USA (USA) Brazil (B) Germany (G) Japan (J)

222 406 359 202

5.45 5.43 5.40 5.17

0.59 0.69 0.53 0.74

Skills

USA (USA) Brazil (B) Germany (G) Japan (J)

222 406 359 202

5.06 5.05 4.81 4.46

0.77 23.668 < 0.001 J < G < B, USA 0.94 0.86 1.00

Awareness

USA (USA) Brazil (B) Germany (G) Japan (J)

222 406 359 202

4.93 5.20 4.63 4.50

0.89 45.789 < 0.001 J, G < USA < B 0.81 0.75 0.90

9.363 < 0.001 J < B, G, USA

Demographic Variables When dividing the research sample by gender and computing an independent samples t-test, significant differences appear in three ICC dimensions; viz.: Attitudes, Skills, and Awareness. In all three cases, female respondents perceive their levels of attainment higher than male participants (Table 5.27). Table 5.27 Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD), and Independent Sample T-Test in ICC Dimensions by Gender (n = 1,178) ICC Dimensions

Gender

N

M

SD

t

p

Knowledge

Female Male

882 297

4.73 4.66

0.86 0.83

1.261

0.208

Attitudes

Female Male

882 297

5.42 5.26

0.61 0.72

3.446

0.001

The Follow-on Research Project

193

ICC Dimensions

Gender

N

M

SD

t

p

Skills

Female Male

882 297

4.92 4.75

0.91 0.94

2.737

0.006

Awareness

Female Male

882 297

4.89 4.77

0.86 0.89

2.107

0.035

To explore the level of association between participant age and ICC scores, Pearson’s correlation coefficient was computed. This statistical procedure yielded non-significant results and even the correlations presented an effect of small magnitude (Knowledge: r = −0.033, p = 0.252; Attitudes: r = −0.033, p = 0.262; Skills: r = 0.002, p = 0.953; Awareness: r = −0.025, p = 0.384). These results suggest that development of ICC dimensions is independent of age and maturity of participants. The analysis of mean differences in ICC dimensions by highest level of education also yields non-significant values, reported in Table 5.28.

Table 5.28 Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD), and One-Way ANOVA (F) in ICC Dimensions by Educational Level (n = 1,153) ICC Dimensions

Educational Level

N

M

SD

F

P

Knowledge

Primary education Secondary education Higher education

90 331 732

4.65 4.76 4.69

0.86 0.89 0.85

1.003

0.367

Attitudes

Primary education Secondary education Higher education

90 331 732

5.39 5.40 5.36

0.60 0.68 0.64

0.345

0.708

Skills

Primary education Secondary education Higher education

90 331 732

4.86 4.89 4.87

0.87 0.93 0.92

0.120

0.887

Awareness

Primary education Secondary education Higher education

90 331 732

4.79 4.94 4.82

0.86 0.84 0.89

2.346

0.096

Sociocultural Background Insofar as sociocultural background variables are concerned, no significant differences are evident between participants who had a cultural immersion experience prior to the educational exchange experience with those who did not have this experience beforehand (Table 5.29).

194

The Follow-on Research Project

Table 5.29 Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD), and Independent Sample T-Test in ICC Dimensions by Previous Intercultural Experience (n = 1,189) ICC Dimensions

Previous Immersion Experience

N

M

SD

t

P

Knowledge

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

414 775 414 775 414 775 414 775

4.71 4.71 5.38 5.39 4.87 4.89 4.80 4.89

0.84 0.86 0.63 0.65 0.91 0.93 0.84 0.88

−0.049

0.961

−0.261

0.794

−0.337

0.736

−1.605

0.109

Attitudes Skills Awareness

Participants who had relationships with people from other cultures prior to their exchange experience had greater scores on average in ICC dimensions when compared with participants who did not have such relationships. These mean differences are significant for Knowledge [t(551.850) = 3.868; p < 0.001], Attitudes [t(534.496) = 2.621; p = 0.009], and Skills [t(1177) = 3.868; p = 0.023] (Table 5.30). Table 5.30 Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD), and Independent Sample T-Test in ICC Dimensions by Previous Intercultural Relationships (n = 1,179) ICC Dimensions

Previous Intercultural Relationships

N

M

SD

t

P

Knowledge

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

849 330 849 330 849 330 849 330

4.78 4.56 5.41 5.30 4.92 4.79 4.88 4.83

0.82 0.91 0.61 0.70 0.90 0.96 0.81 0.98

3.868

< 0.001

2.621

0.009

2.279

0.023

0.805

0.421

Attitudes Skills Awareness

Sojourn Experience With regard to duration of the first educational exchange experience, as might be expected, participants with longer stays attained higher means in ICC dimensions. The four one-way ANOVAs computed for the ICC dimensions present significant results, meaning that there are differences in ICC development when length of program is considered.

The Follow-on Research Project

195

To ascertain differences between groups, post hoc comparisons using the Games-Howell test were carried out. Comparison of the Knowledge means across the three groups of “sojourn duration” shows that the participant group whose immersion experience lasted less than 1 month had lower scores on average than the other two groups. This difference is statistically significant (Table 5.31). In the Attitudes dimension, the participant group immersed for more than 12 months, reported significant higher mean values than those whose immersion lasted less than 1 month, as well as those with a stay between 2 and 12 months duration (Table 5.31). Skills and Awareness dimensions show similar results in the post hoc procedure given that the group with longer stays scored higher than did participants with stays of less than 1 month or between 2 and 12 months. However, it is interesting to observe that the participant group whose immersion lasted between 1 and 2 months attained mean values similar to the means attained by the group of participants with an immersion of more than 1 year in duration. Moreover, the former participant group presents significant differences that are greater than the latter (Table 5.31). Table 5.31 Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD), and One-Way ANOVA (F) in ICC Dimensions by Duration of Sojourn (n = 1,163) ICC EIL Sojourn Duration N Dimensions

M

SD

F

p

Post Hoc

Knowledge Less than 1 month (1) 52 Between 1 and 2 months (2) Between 2 and 12 months (3) More 12 months (4)

4.28 0.98 6.539 < 0.001 (1) < (2), (3), (4) 379 4.78 0.88 682 4.70 0.82 50 4.93 0.95

Attitudes

Less than 1 month (1) 52 5.20 0.90 0.845 Between 1 and 2 379 5.43 0.64 months (2) 682 5.36 0.63 Between 2 and 12 months (3) More 12 months (4) 50 5.58 0.47

0.009 (1), (3) < (4)

Skills

Less than 1 month (1) 52 4.63 1.21 0.282 < 0.001 (1), (3) < (4) Between 1 and 2 379 5.00 0.88 (3) < (2) months (2) Between 2 and 12 682 4.81 0.91 months (3) More 12 months (4) 50 5.23 0.92

Awareness

Less than 1 month (1) 52 4.59 0.99 0.072 < 0.001 (1), (3) < (4) Between 1 and 2 379 4.97 0.94 (3) < (2) months (2) Between 2 and 12 682 4.80 0.82 months (3) More 12 months (4) 50 5.17 0.72

196

The Follow-on Research Project

Given these unexpected results, a two-way ANOVA was computed to explore if these differences could be explained by the interaction effect of the sojourn duration and respondent country upon ICC dimensions. However, the results obtained were non-significant for the interaction effect of these two categorical variables on Skills and Awareness dimensions. With regard to mean differences in ICC dimensions when comparing the group of people who had a homestay during their program and those who did not, no statistical differences were found (Table 5.32).

Table 5.32 Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD), and Independent Sample T-Test in ICC Dimensions by Homestay (n = 1,188) ICC Dimensions

Homestay

N

M

SD

Knowledge

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

1,098 90 1,098 90 1,098 90 1,098 90

4.72 4.60 5.40 5.22 4.88 4.88 4.85 5.02

0.84 1.05 0.60 0.97 0.91 1.08 0.85 1.02

Attitudes Skills Awareness

t

p 1.121

0.265

1.660

0.100

0.004

0.997

−1.831

0.067

The correlation between participant age (at time of participation in their first sojourn) and ICC dimensions presents a non-significant relation with regard to Attitudes and Knowledge. This means that scores in Attitudes and Knowledge dimensions are independent of participant age at the time of participation in the sojourn. A positive and significant association can be observed, however, for Skills and Awareness dimensions. The correlation between Skills and age, although statistically significant, should not be taken into account due to the low value of Pearson’s coefficient (r = 0.056). The correlation between participant age (at time of participation) and Awareness has a small magnitude, suggesting that older participants at the time of participation scored higher in the Awareness dimension (Table 5.33).

Table 5.33 Pearson Product-Moment Correlation among ICC Dimensions and Age at Time of Sojourn Participation (n = 1,180) ICC Dimensions

Age

Knowledge Attitudes Skills Awareness

−0.016 0.010 0.056** 0.119**

Note:** p < 0.001

The Follow-on Research Project

197

To assess host language abilities developed by participants during their sojourn, respondents rated themselves on a numerical scale (ranging from 0 to 9—i.e., “no language ability” to “ability equivalent to an educated native speaker”), as explained earlier in this report (cf. Section B. Descriptive analysis, Question F1; note that the original level of measurement was ordinal). In the current comparative analysis, this variable was correlated with the perceived ICC competence of respondents in the four dimensions. Results show a positive and statistically significant association between language ability and ICC dimensions. All variable dimensions had a small magnitude of association of less than 0.30 (cf. Cohen et al. 2003) with host language ability. The highest correlation (r = 0.239) is between language ability and Knowledge, meaning that people who rate their host language ability levels higher, report greater levels in the Knowledge dimension as well (Table 5.34). Table 5.34 Pearson Product-Moment Correlation between Host Language Ability and ICC Dimensions (n = 1,185) ICC Dimensions

Language Ability

Knowledge Attitudes Skills Awareness

0.239** 0.174** 0.168** 0.114**

Note:** p < 0.001

Comparison of respondents who have worked in intercultural situations (where respondents provided education, training, or service to others) with participants who did not perform this kind of work yields significant differences in Skills, Knowledge, and Awareness dimensions of the ICC construct. Participants in the first group reported higher mean values on average than the latter group (Table 5.35). Table 5.35 Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD), and Independent Sample T-Test in ICC Dimensions by Intercultural Work (n = 1,180) ICC Dimensions

Intercultural Work

N

M

SD

t

P

Knowledge

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

436 744 436 744 436 744 436 744

4.86 4.64 5.43 5.35 4.99 4.82 4.93 4.82

0.81 0.87 0.57 0.68 0.84 0.96 0.81 0.90

4.284

< 0.001

1.942

0.052

3.216

0.001

2.082

0.038

Attitudes Skills Awareness

198

The Follow-on Research Project

5.4

Qualitative Analysis and Discussion

Overview Whereas quantitative analysis is concerned with numerical size, frequency of responses, and statistical patterns, qualitative analysis utilizes open-ended data obtained from telephone conversations conducted with alumni (or host families in the case of Ireland). These conversations (recorded in most cases) are documented narratives about the participants’ personal experiences and introspective accounts, as they remember and recount them in their own words. Interviews often yielded unexpected and interesting responses, producing rich data which contribute significantly to our understanding of both etic and emic perspectives regarding the sojourn experience. To keep these two perspectives distinct, the qualitative analysis is presented in two parts: (1) alumni and (2) host families. In each case, qualitative analysis is conducted by individual countries— based first on interviews with alumni in Brazil, Germany, Japan, and the US, followed by interviews with host families in Ireland. This approach provides summaries of alumni responses by country of origin to obtain a view of characteristics specific to each nationality group. In Chapter 6, subsets are then compiled and examined jointly to provide a composite summary. Both analyses centered on five questions that guided the interviews: Q1. What impact did the educational exchange experience have on your life and work? Q2. What abilities were important to gaining acceptance in the host culture? Q3. What role did a homestay have in your experience? Q4. How important was learning the host language? Q5. Anything else you wish to add? In the composite analysis in Chapter 6, responses were also analyzed again regarding the ten original a priori assertions cited in the IRP to determine whether those assertions still hold true given additional findings from participants in five more countries, providing a multinational perspective representing potentially universal aspects that may apply to all. Alumni Data: Brazil Findings—To complement quantitative data generated by the alumni survey in Brazil, telephone interviews were conducted with 20 randomly selected individuals from among respondents to the AICC survey who indicated willingness to be interviewed (of the total 712 who

The Follow-on Research Project

199

completed the form). This total represents 121 respondents above and beyond the targeted number required to be able to generalize findings to represent the total alumni population of 35,517 participants. Countries where Brazilian alumni had sojourns were as follows (number of respondents indicated in parentheses): Australia (2), Canada (7), Italy (1), US (9), not stated (1). Alumni responses to the five questions are provided next. Figures in the parentheses that follow indicate the number of alumni providing similar responses (of a total of 20). Responses are listed in order of frequency beginning with the most frequently cited item. Selected quotes taken from telephone conversations also follow, as relevant to each of the five questions: Q1. Impact on life and work—[it had a great impact on personal and professional life (11)/changed direction of life/work and job opportunities (5)/overcame shyness/gained confidence/developed and matured (3)/made many new friends (3)/acquired sense of responsibility/independence (2)/changed way of seeing things /world view (2)]. 1) The experience had a huge impact especially on my professional life and how I carry out my day-to-day work. 2) My life experience there was so rich. I even had the opportunity to gain some work experience on the most important Brazilian TV station in New York. 3) The experience in the US changed my personal and professional life dramatically; as I like to say: it went from 0 to 1,000. 4) It was the best time of my life. The experience completely changed my personal and professional life. 5) I learned to be self-sufficient and independent, cleaning the house, and cooking, the basic things; now I appreciate my own mother a lot more for all that she has done and still does for me. 6) It was life changing. My first experience abroad and I grew a lot not only in English but in everything else. Now I can see the world is different. I got to know another culture, another country, another world; so different. 7) Best experience, I made friends for life. I am not afraid of trying to speak English. I had the opportunity to work in a field that I would never have thought I would do. 8) The experience had a great impact on my life. It was such a great experience for me to be in touch with people from other cultures and countries. Q2. Abilities needed for acceptance: [open-mindedness (6)/ability to adjust (3)/understand different points of view (3)/be proactive/

200

The Follow-on Research Project adapt (3)/resilience/motivation (2)/respectfulness (2)/able to communicate/language (2)/interpersonal skills/building relationships/make friends (2)/engage with hosts/stay away from group (2)/observe before acting (1)/not being invasive (1)/learn host qualities: punctuality, respect rules, do things by the book, fulfill obligations (1)/tolerance (1)/predeparture preparation (1)/accept advice/correction (1)/flexibility (1)/willingness to try new things (1)]. 1) You need to be open; you can’t be closed off in your own little world thinking you are going to live under the same conditions you lived in your own country. 2) You need to forget your home country; don’t compare it with the host community; this way you will make the most of your program. Q3. Role of the homestay: [had no homestay (8)/very positive/important (7)/helped enter culture and learn language (6)/family support and guidance important (6)/made to feel part of family and culture (2)]. 1) Living with a host family helped me out a lot with learning the language and overcoming shyness. They were always encouraging and recommending that I go out with people and get to know and explore new places. 2) The family support was very important. The first few days I felt completely lost and their support and guidance were really important for my success. 3) My host family was very receptive and communicative; they made me feel part of the family. They gave me the key to the house . . . They literally took me in as one of their own. 4) I lived with my host parents and four brothers. They were very important to my adaptation process, always trying to make me feel welcome, guiding and helping me with everything I needed and that of which I was not accustomed to in Brazil. 5) My host family was very important to the success of the program. When I got there, they were so thoughtful and helped me with all my needs. I was a little shy at first and didn’t know how to approach them, but they made it really easy and comfortable. 6) My English improved far better living with the host family than living in a student house like the majority of participants abroad. On the personal side, my host family became my family. A wonderful experience and I am still in contact with my family there.

The Follow-on Research Project

201

Q4. Importance of learning the language: [very important (16)/essential (3)/great opportunity (2)]. 1) I felt that as my English got better I started to feel more confident and my interaction with people also improved. 2) Learning English was really important. Going and living abroad, not just for the English but for a whole new person that I became. Q5. Anything else? [a rich experience (6)/recommend to everyone (6)/want to continue to travel (4)/learned about host culture and other ethnicities (2)/became a whole new person/learned and grew (2)/made friends for life (2)/learned more language by being in-country (1)/inspired to learn another language (1)/prepare before your trip (1)/no longer afraid to speak English (1)/don’t compare with your own country (1)/expand your horizons (1)]. 1) Everybody should have the opportunity to experience an exchange program. 2) Go on an exchange program! This is so necessary for us. It was there that I took my first steps in life, as if I were a child starting to crawl. 3) Before you travel, study up a little about the language and about the place where you are going; don’t just fall into it without any knowledge. 4) It was one of the best experiences of my life. I had a remarkable experience and recommend it to everyone. 5) The only bad thing about it was that I got addicted to it. After this experience, I traveled a few more times. I returned to the States to participate in another program. The following year I went to Scotland and England and a year after. I traveled around Europe and the Caribbean, and then I went to New Zealand. Discussion—This cohort of 20 Brazilian respondents provides an overwhelmingly positive reaction to their educational exchange experience. Of 20 respondents, 12 had homestays and eight had other types of living arrangements. All saw their experience as impactful, life changing, and, in most cases, affecting the direction of their life and their work. They were able to articulate an array of qualities one must display to gain acceptance in another culture and their experiences took place in at least four countries plus several others not specified. The homestay stands out as a most significant aspect of the program experience (for those who had one). Its value is described in strong terms: “very positive and important, it provided an entrée into the culture and language, it provided support and guidance, and made sojourners feel

202

The Follow-on Research Project

part of a family and its culture.” Learning and using the host language also plays a role that 19 individuals described as “very important” and “essential.” All interviewees endorsed the experience in strong terms and recommended it for everyone while also recommending that individuals prepare in advance for this life-changing experience. Alumni Data: Germany Findings—The RA in Germany conducted the required 20 telephone interviews to complement the quantitative data generated by the survey, interviewing randomly selected alumni from among the 554 respondents to the AICC survey. This figure represents 28 respondents beyond the targeted number required to allow generalization of results to the total alumni population of 7,127 participants. Countries where German alumni had sojourns (number of participants in parentheses) were China (2), France (1), England (1), Ireland (1), Italy (2), Japan (2), Spanishspeaking country (not specified) (1), US (10). Responses to the five questions are provided next. Figures in parentheses indicate the number of alumni who provided similar responses (of a total of 20). Items are listed in order of frequency beginning with the most frequently cited item first. Selected quotes taken from telephone conversations follow, as relevant to each of the five questions: Q1. What impact did the Experiment experience have on your life and work? On life: [more open-minded (11)/became more independent/more self-confident (8)/motivated to travel more (7)/learned language/improved language skills (4)/know/see a completely different world/broadened horizons (4)/learned to accept people/ situations the way they are (2)/made friends (2)/more flexible (2)/ learned about other people/more interested in people (2)/learned to handle difficult situations (1)/learned about self (1) /more communicative (1)/more active (1)/big part of life (1)]. On school and work: [had impact on my work and study (11)/want to work in intercultural/international area (5)/school grades improved (2)/ on cultural and linguistic interests (1)/did volunteer work (1)]. 1) The experience had a significant impact on my life, and I would be glad if everybody had the chance to go abroad. 2) I learned a lot about other people and got to know a complete different world. 3) An experience like a school exchange program relates always to yourself. The experience changed me, and I got a new view of life. 4) This experience was a big part of my life, and it is still very important for me.

The Follow-on Research Project

203

Q2. What abilities were important to gaining acceptance in the host culture? [openness/open-minded (14)/adaptability/acceptance/integrate (8)/language/communication (7)/tolerance (7)/courage/willing to try new things (6)/curiosity/interest/motivation/initiative (5)/selfconfidence (4)/sensitivity (3) /flexibility (2)/staying power/resilience (2)/self-reflection (2)/sense of responsibility (1)/observant (1)/proactive (but not too much) (1)/ability to be alone (1)/respect (1)/understanding (1)/cooperativeness (1)/diplomatic skills (1)/positive attitude (1)/willingness to work out problems/misunderstandings (1)/thankfulness (1)/reliability (1)]. 1) It is important to be proactive, but not too much, then it could be arrogant. Q3. What role did a homestay have in your experience? [very/most important (20)/became a second family/felt integrated (6)/family provided help/support (6)/best entrée/helped learn about the language and culture (5)/still in contact with host family (4)/made contact with more people/made friends (2)/provided security (2)/ important reference point (1)/learned about self (1)]. 1) The homestay was very important, maybe the most important part of the program. I spent the most time with my host family—more than with friends. I learned a lot from them. I also learned a lot about myself and my own family. 2) The homestay was very important. They supported me a lot. Furthermore, my host mother was my person of trust like my own mother. This good relationship gave me a sense of security. 3) I cannot imagine my stay abroad without a homestay. It was a good experience. 4) The homestay was the main part of the program for me. I felt safe in the family and if something went wrong, the family was my support. 5) My host family taught me a lot about politics and the American way of life and a lot of wisdom. It was like an “addition” to my family in Germany. 6) In my opinion, the homestay is the most important part of the program. Q4. How important was learning the host language? [important/very important (20)/language is culture/needed to understand culture (3)/helped me when I returned to school (2)/helped me feel connected (1)]. 1) It was important for me to learn the language to communicate with other people. The language is a big part of the

204

The Follow-on Research Project culture and only if you understand the language you can understand the culture more. 2) When you learn the language, you understand the culture more and more. 3) Language is culture—therefore, it was important to learn the language. Q5. Anything else? [changed/significant impact on my life/got a new view of life/world (5)/helped me learn about myself and my own family (4)/recommend to all (3)/predeparture orientation important (3)/got to know other exchange students (2)/language helps to find a job (1)/motivated to become a volunteer (1)/want to travel more (1)]. 1) It was a great experience, and I wish everybody had the chance to stay abroad!

Discussion—Among this cohort of 20 respondents, one again sees an overwhelmingly positive reaction to the intercultural sojourn experience. All 20 German respondents had homestays and in a wide variety of countries. In addition, all respondents saw educational exchange as impactful, life changing, and as an important experience that affected the direction of their lives and their work. They expressed an array of qualities needed to gain acceptance in another culture, adding many not cited in the intercultural literature. Again, the homestay component stands out as very important or the most significant aspect of the program for all respondents without exception. The value of the homestay provided an entrée into the culture and language, it provided support and guidance, and it made sojourners feel part of a family and a part of the culture. Ability with the host language also played a significant role, again for all 20 individuals who described it as “important” or “very important.” Moreover, many interviewees recommended the experience for everyone while highlighting how the experience helped to learn about oneself, one’s own family, provide a new view of life and of the world. Alumni Data: Japan Findings—The RA in Japan also conducted the required 20 telephone interviews, complementing the qualitative data generated by the alumni survey, with individuals randomly selected from among 338 respondents to the AICC survey. This number represented 125 respondents below the targeted number of 463 required in order to be able to generalize results to the total alumni population of 2,005 participants. This was due in large part to faulty or out of date email addresses. Countries to which Japanese alumni had sojourns were: Australia (1)/England (1)/France (1)/ Germany (2)/Portugal (1)/US (6)/Others not identified (8).

The Follow-on Research Project

205

Responses to the five questions are provided next. The figure in parentheses indicates the number of alumni who provided similar responses (of a total of 20). Items are listed in order of frequency beginning with the most frequently cited item. Selected quotes taken from the telephone conversations follow, as relevant to each of the five questions: Q1. Impact on life and work—[gained confidence /matured (10)/ affected direction of education and/or career (9)/opened up new options (8)/expanded worldview/turned my world around/ eyes were opened (6)/life changed dramatically (5)/got to know another life/interest in another culture (3)/provided second family for life (1)/married a host (1)]. 1) I married an Australian. My life changed drastically due to the program. 2) I decided my direction for university and graduate school due to the program. 3) The experience turned my world around. 4) I learned that nothing would be impossible, and I found my life’s work and my career. 5) By living abroad, I saw Japan (my own country) with the eyes of the third person. By living abroad for a year, I developed a greater appreciation for my own parents (and culture). 6) I felt my eyes were opened. 7) After living in a foreign country, my personality became hard to adapt to typical Japanese behavior when I returned home. 8) My experience with study abroad at the age of 16 was a great merit for my career, more than I expected. After my experience abroad, I believe I can now survive anywhere in the world. 9) My experience abroad not only helped me to choose my job, but I had more interest in the outside world. I developed an appreciation for people around me more than ever before. 10) I felt that I have matured. By the end of the program I felt that I had found my identity and gained self-confidence which allowed me to enter the university and later study in Vietnam. Q2. Abilities needed for acceptance—[be positive/open/confident/ expressive/engage (9)/smile/friendliness (5)/flexibility (4)/try to enjoy cultural differences (3)/show acceptance/appreciation/ interest (3)/learn host language/ability to communicate (3)/new perspectives/see from new vantage points (3)/willingness to listen and try to understand (3)/motivation (2)/generosity (1)/ humor (1)/be honest (1)].

206

The Follow-on Research Project Q3. Role of homestay—[(best) way/important to understand host culture and learn language (16)/gave confidence/provided security/ support (4)/appreciate own family more (2)/made feel part of the family/culture (2)/felt acceptance (2)/center of my life abroad (1)/made me think what “family” means (1)]. 1) I believe the homestay is the best way to understand the culture of the host country. And I also appreciated my own natural family for the first time of my life while being apart from them. 2) I have a second family in my life by keeping in touch with host families and friends over the years. 3) The homestay is the best way to learn about another culture and its language. 4) The homestay experience gave me the opportunity to learn about a new culture, to learn new customs, to learn the language, and to communicate with people in a safe environment. 5) I learned everything during my homestay like how to discuss, table manners, language. It was just like a baby absorbing anything from the parents without thinking. I believe it was the best way for me to enter the new culture. 6) My host family treated me as a member of the family. Q4. Importance of language—[(very/most) important aspect of living abroad (15)/aids adjustment (2)/learned importance of appreciation as well as love by expressing into the words and actions of host language (1)/certain things (+ feelings) can only be understood in host language (1)]. 1) I learned the importance of appreciation as well as love by being able to express these concepts into the words and actions (of the host culture). 2) Speaking language(s) is the quickest and the most effective way to communicate with other people. The more languages you can speak, the more choices you can obtain for your life. 3) Language is very important. The better I spoke, the better I could adjust to the host country. 4) My ability to communicate in German brought me deeper relationship with the people in the host country. Q5. Anything else? [would like my children to have similar experience (3)/research caused to think of value of study abroad again (1)/difficult to readjust back home (1)]. 1) This research project has made me think of my own study abroad experience once again. After the program, I believed

The Follow-on Research Project

207

it valuable to see things from multiple perspectives. I now want this same experience for my own children. 2) I would like to share my experience (studying abroad) with future students. 3) I cannot express in words how much study abroad during my high school age influenced my life. 4) I would like to have my children participate in the same experience. Discussion—This cohort of 20 Japanese respondents echoes the overwhelmingly positive responses to educational exchange given by previous groups. All 20 respondents had homestays in a variety of countries. All respondents described how the experience impacted their lives in important ways: dramatic changes in life and lifestyle, intercultural marriage, learning about oneself and one’s own culture, and as expressed by one individual, “It turned my world around.” Sojourners also commented that they not only learned about other cultures and other worldviews and in the process gained self-awareness and learned more about themselves and their own culture—a recurrent theme. Again, they identified an array of attributes one must display in order to gain acceptance in another culture. The homestay continues to stand out as “the best way to learn about another culture and its language.” Moreover, it provided sojourners with a sense of belonging, a feeling of security, and many cited the continuing relationship they maintain with host families long after the sojourn has ended. Host language ability was cited for its significance toward learning and adjusting to the host culture, toward enhancing a deeper understanding, and fomenting stronger relationships. All 20 interviewees described language as “important” or “very important.” In addition, many interviewees recommended the experience for everyone, highlighting how the experience helped to learn about oneself, one’s own family, provide a new view of life and of the world. In the end, many added comments regarding their hope that others (including their own children) might also benefit from similar experiences. One respondent alluded to the “difficulty of readjusting” upon return home and the re-entry issue, often overlooked. Alumni Data: United States Findings—The RA in the US also conducted 20 telephone interviews to complement qualitative data produced by the alumni survey with randomly selected individuals from among the 384 respondents to the AICC survey. This number represented 200 respondents below the targeted of 584 responses required to be able to generalize results to the total alumni population of 18,464 participants (unfortunately, concurrent surveys

208

The Follow-on Research Project

and fundraising efforts with alumni possibly interfered with this research effort). Countries where US alumni had sojourns were quite varied: Australia (1)/Belize (1)/Botswana (1)/Ecuador (4)/England (1)/France (2)/Japan (2)/ Mexico (1)/Mongolia (1)/Poland (1)/Scotland (1)/Spain (2)/Thailand (1)/ Turkey (1). Responses to the five questions are provided next. The figure in parentheses indicates the number of alumni providing similar responses (of a total of 20). Items are listed in order of frequency beginning with the most frequently cited item. Selected quotes taken from telephone conversations follow, as relevant to each of the five questions: Q1. Impact on life and work—[influenced life and work choices (13)/significant/deep impact/tremendous/dramatic (10)/influenced educational plans (8)/opened my eyes to other values and customs/ broadened perspectives (6)/changed view of self and worldview (5)/boosted confidence, independence (4)/enjoyed the program/ amazing (3)/motivated me to study/travel abroad (3)/experience was foundational, increased cultural awareness (2)/completely different person (2)/contributed to interest in Spanish and Latin America (1)/improved language ability (1)/developed many life skills (1)/wanted to make difference in someone else’s life (1)/met my wife (1)]. 1) Studying abroad, particularly during high school/adolescence, is quite important and can contribute greatly to our understanding of the world and other cultures. 2) I met my wife due to my Spanish language skills, as we met when she only spoke Spanish. We now raise our children bilingually. This experience motivated me to study abroad in college and graduate school in Spain, Mexico, and Argentina. 3) My positive experience contributed to my continued study of Spanish and interest in Latin America. It somewhat influenced my career trajectory in foreign service and as an immigration attorney with the state department. 4) The experience deeply impacted my life. I have returned to Turkey many times since my Experiment experience and I am still in touch with my rural homestay village and continue to visit frequently. 5) This experience had a significant impact on my life and work. It was the beginning of developing lifelong goals of travel and learning new languages. 6) After returning from my experience, my parents said that I was a completely different person and had grown into my own. Getting to know other students and my homestay

The Follow-on Research Project

7) 8)

9)

10)

11)

12)

13)

14)

209

families influenced my life, broadening my perspective and boosting my confidence. This experience changed both how I viewed myself and how I viewed the world. My experience was life changing, one of the most spectacular experiences of my life. My experience was very foundational. It gave me more of a perspective on other cultures and also helped me learn how to appreciate being where you are in the moment. I am now a physician and continue to work with disenfranchised people, people of diverse cultural backgrounds, and I work in a diverse, urban hospital. My sojourn in Poland had a large impact on my life and prompted a lot of personal growth. The experience also opened up the post-Soviet bloc of Eastern Europe to me as a region to be explored and to learn more about. I later studied German in college and studied abroad in eastern Germany. I majored in international relations, a decision partially attributed to my exchange experience. I now work for a non-profit focused on international gender and literacy issues. My experience in Thailand had a dramatic impact on my life and was truly a turning point . . . a transformative experience. The experience totally opened up my eyes to my own privilege (which I hadn’t considered privilege before. Before this experience, I hadn’t really considered how most people in the world live without running water, electricity, etc. My experience sparked interest in International Relations and international development (and I became) very interested in global women’s health. The experience absolutely had an impact. It is a major part of my memory, part of the stories that I tell other people. It was probably the highlight of my life so far. I learned not just about the culture and people of Scotland and of those in my group, but also about myself. It absolutely changed my life. I learned a lot about myself. I started to understand that I’m a strong person. I still plan on traveling and I work in a job that I had never imagined. I gained confidence, freedom, and independence. The experience had a pretty large impact. It inspired me to be a lifelong learner, even outside of an educational environment. I now work in education and I did a lot of traveling since my first experience. The skills I learned have informed my life now and my path through college. I learned so many life skills. I really learned a lot from the other group members. They all came from different parts of the US, and I learned a lot

210

The Follow-on Research Project about their cultures in those parts of the nation. I learned a lot about acceptance for everyone and accepting differences, listening to other’s opinions and ideas. Q2. Abilities needed for acceptance—[openness/open mind (10)/ willingness to try new things/learn (8)/adaptable/flexible/accepting (7)/language ability (3)/observation (3)/respect (3)/willingness to spend time with hosts/engage/outgoing (3)/trust (2)/nonjudgmental (2)/curious, inquisitive (2)/tolerance (1)/patience (1)/ liberal (1)/introspective (1)/sense of humor (1)/recalibrate perspective (1)/move beyond comfort zone (1)/humility (1)/gratefulness (1)/non-verbal skills (1)]. 1) Tolerance, patience, learning to observe what’s going on without passing judgment or jumping to conclusions, learning to be aware of other possible points of view on situations/topics, learning the host language, trying new things, and being open, are all abilities important to gaining acceptance in the host culture. 2) To gain acceptance in a host culture, you need to be openminded and brave enough to put yourself out there and to speak a new language. Being respectful and an open mind are the two most important traits to have when entering a new/host culture. 3) My group developed the motto “embrace the awkward.” Q3. Role of homestay—[very/positive, important, amazing, rewarding, wonderful, powerful, transformative (19)/helped learn language and culture (6)/still in touch with family/visits (5)/not the best, not welcoming, disappointing, challenging (had other good homestays) (3)/very welcoming (2 / supportive, patient (2)]. 1) The homestay was a positive part of my experience. It helped me get a better understanding of family life and what “real French citizens” are like in their home communities. 2) My homestay experience as an Experiment leader in Spain was an extremely positive experience. I could not say enough positive things about that homestay family; they were truly amazing. 3) My homestay was wonderful. I wish it could have been longer. I enjoyed experiencing on a daily basis what it is like to live with a Japanese family and be “Japanese.” Q4. Importance of language—[very/important (10)/improved language skills (3)/difficult language to learn (3)/important in engaging/integrating with the host community (2)/helped to understand new culture (2)/learning language favorite part (2)/

The Follow-on Research Project

211

learned how to communicate in alternative ways (2)/reinforced passion for language learning (1)/fun (1)/attempts appreciated (1)/ difference between learning in the classroom and using it in daily life (1)/had far reaching effects on education, life and work (1)]. 1) Studying in another country/culture during high school was very significant as it opened my eyes to other values and customs. Learning the host language was very important. There’s a big difference between learning a language in the classroom and using it in daily life and in a new culture. It was an eye-opening experience and important for engaging with the host community. The development of language skills has had some of the furthest reaching effects into my later education, life, and work. 2) Learning the host language was very important. I had an easier time integrating into the host community and understanding the new culture because I developed strong host language skills. 3) A willingness to try the new language, to try new things, showing host community members that you’re willing to make the effort to learn/try, being open, and learning to trust that things would go well, were all important for gaining acceptance. 4) We received basic language training during orientation. Learning the language was one of my favorite parts . . . and a huge part of being better able to understand the culture. 5) I found that Polish people greatly appreciated any attempt at speaking Polish, no matter how little of the language you knew. Q5. Anything else?—[positive/best experience of her life, amazing, spectacular, thankful. grateful (7)/impact/life changing (4)/ recommend to others (3)/gained confidence, independence/now feels capable of traveling (2)/leader was supportive and friendly (1)/upset by new “sexy” program direction, looks more like vacation (1)/learned from other group members (1)/contributes greatly to our understanding of the world and other cultures (1)/a perfect program format (1)]. 1) [At this point in the interview, the interviewee started crying and became quite emotional], stating that her exchange experience changed her life. The opportunity to study abroad was amazing and life changing. She was thankful for the opportunity and the experience. 2) Participating in the educational exchange helped me come out of my shell. I learned that I wanted to share my

212

The Follow-on Research Project experience with others. I want other people to do what I did. I want other people to see what I saw. I want other people to be able to make a difference in someone’s life. 3) I would like to help other people get the opportunity to experience life abroad on similar programs as I did. The experience changed my life for the better! The experience was eye opening. My host family’s home was very small. The house was pieces of plywood put together. Members of the greater family were always there. They were very loving. The family made me feel like I was part of the community, not just on vacation.

Discussion—The cohort of 20 American respondents again supports the very positive responses expressed by previous groups regarding the educational exchange experience. All 20 American respondents had homestays and in a great variety of countries. All respondents commented on how the experience abroad impacted their lives in “significant, deep, tremendous, dramatic” ways—it influenced their lives, educational plans, and work choices; it “opened their eyes, broadened perspectives, boosted confidence, and changed their view of themselves and of the world.” They identified many of the same attributes voiced by others as necessary to gain acceptance in another culture. At the top of their list was “openness, a willingness to try new things, adaptability, flexibility, acceptance, and language ability,” among others. Nineteen of the 20 spoke of their homestay as “very positive, important, amazing, rewarding, wonderful, powerful, and transformative,” in addition to describing how and why the homestay is at the core of intercultural entry and learning “on someone else’s terms.” Host language proficiency was again cited as “very important” and necessary for “engaging, integrating into the host community” and “helping to understand a new culture.” Even in cases where the language was difficult to learn, such as Polish and Japanese, alumni spoke of the importance of being “willing to try the new language, to show host members that you’re willing to make the effort.” The result described was that it allowed for an “easier time integrating into the host community and understanding the new culture,” “a huge part of being better able to understand the culture,” and that efforts were “greatly appreciated . . . no matter how little of the language you knew.” In conclusion, alumni described the sojourn as “positive, spectacular, the best experience of my life,” and they were thankful and were grateful for the experience, recommending it to others, and described how the experiences “contributed greatly to our understanding of other cultures and the world;” in short, it was a “perfect program format.” Many interviewees recommended the experience for everyone while highlighting how the experience helped to learn about oneself, one’s own

The Follow-on Research Project

213

family, providing a new view of life and of the world. In the end, many added comments regarding their hope that others (including their own children) might also benefit from similar experiences. One respondent alluded to the “difficulty of readjusting” upon return home, and the re-entry challenge. One respondent was so overwhelmed by the experience, although years later, that the RA reported, “She started crying and became emotional, describing how her sojourn changed her life.” She was thankful for the opportunity and the experience. Another added that she wanted “other people to do what I did. I want other people to see what I saw. I want other people to be able to make a difference in someone’s life.” Host Family Data: Ireland Findings—Ireland represents a different case from the four countries discussed earlier given that the focus of research was on the impact and outcomes of intercultural contact upon host families. Host natives are of special interest since in most educational exchange programs, there are normally at least two parties involved: the sojourner who visits and the hosts who provide the homestay. Whereas sojourners cross a border and often an ocean to have an intercultural experience, host families remain at home and receive a visitor from another culture. Both experience intercultural contact, and although the onus is normally upon the sojourner to adjust, it often occurs that host family members also make adjustments to their visitor. In other words, it is often an intercultural experiment for all parties in contact. In the case of host families, of course, it often involves not only a host parent or two but also children. Yet most research fails to investigate the impact of this experience on host members who are also likely to develop aspects of ICC, albeit to differing degrees and in different ways. This section investigates the response of hosts to their intercultural contact. Ireland presents an excellent case study for this purpose given that it is a country that receives large numbers of sojourners. Often, families receive several sojourners over time, and so their intercultural experience may be varied in terms of their exposure to individuals, often students, from a variety of countries. Aside from a focus on hosts (rather than sojourners), the research procedure in Ireland differed in that survey questionnaire forms were distributed through mailings rather than in electronic format. The respondent, often a host mother, was also in a few cases, another parent, a son, or a daughter. The RA compiled results manually and then uploaded them onto SM. The qualitative part was conducted, as with the other countries involved, through telephone conversations with a host member (and in person in a few cases). The Irish RA conducted 11 interviews to complement quantitative data produced by the survey, accessing randomly selected individuals from among the 111 respondents. This

214

The Follow-on Research Project

number represented 89 respondents below the targeted number of 200 required in order to be able to generalize findings to the total host family population of 1,660 participants. Countries of origin of sojourners having homestays in Ireland were varied and are as follows: Australia (1)/Belgium (1)/Brazil (2)/France (1)/ Germany (8)/Italy (6)/Japan (1). Naturally, the questions asked of host families were modified, differing slightly from those used with sojourners. The revised questions were as follows: 1. What impact did the sojourner have on your family? 2. What abilities did hosting the international student require of your family? 3. What did you learn about communicating with a student whose language is not English? 4. Did you maintain contact with him/her after s/he returned home? 5. Anything else? Responses to these questions are given next. Figures in parentheses indicate the number of host members who provided similar responses (of a total of 11). Responses are listed in order of frequency beginning with the most frequently cited item. Selected quotes taken from conversations with hosts follow, as relevant to each of the five questions: Q1. What impact did the sojourner have on your family?—[it was good for the kids (8)/it was positive social interaction for the children (7)/it opened my child’s mind about new cultures (4)/ my family and friends are accepting of the students (3)/it had a negative impact on my child (1)]. 1) Host mother: Any students I have had have interacted well in the family. It’s been an enjoyable experience. As for myself, it’s interesting to hear about the different cultures and different ways of life—the differences and similarities, really. I’ve been lucky that we’ve had nice people to stay, we’ve never had any problems. 2) Host mother: I suppose understanding another culture, that’s the main one. Also, how to get along with others from the kids’ point of view, because it is somebody different in your house. 3) Host mother: Well I have just one daughter, a teenager, so I thought it would be good for her to have someone else to talk with and be social. I have really noticed the difference in her, most definitely. It has given her more confidence and it’s brought her out of herself and getting her to share.

The Follow-on Research Project

215

4) Host mother: I thought it was very, very important for my children not to have tunnel vision where they thought there was only one race, one color, one language, one religion. Purely from an educational purpose I thought that it was very important to experience different cultures. 5) Host mother: I love the students coming. I love their different cultures. I have been taking students for years, and I love to have them in the house. My children would have great respect for the students. One of my sons actually married one of the students, a Spanish girl. Discussion—Responses to this first question were all provided by host mothers who provided one perspective of the sojourner experience. Clearly, responses provided by other family members, especially host siblings, may be quite different. In this case, all host moms responded entirely in terms of the benefits of hosting upon their children with one exception where a mom claimed “a negative effect” (unfortunately, details behind this particular incident were not given). Although we acknowledge the possibility that this may occur, happily the incidence was very low; nonetheless, it serves as a reminder of the importance of selection, orientation, and monitoring the sojourn experience by the local MO, the group leader, and the local representative. Incidences where sojourners are moved to other families or returned home are rare but may occur. Q2. What abilities did hosting the international student require of your family?—[it was good for us to understand a new culture (7)/I learned that I am very patient 5)/child’s languages improved with help from a student (4)/my child is more confident and independent (3)/my child wants to go traveling (3)/we learned how to cook some new foods (3)/we learned about the student’s city (3)/we had to get used to having someone else in the house (3)/I learned about teenagers and young people (2)/we showed the student how to cook Irish food (2)/we talk a lot more now as a family (1)/my child took up one of the hobbies of the student (1)/we brought the student around Ireland and showed her cultural sights (1)]. 1) Host mother: My son, it has opened his mind about the different culture. He said he likes Italians. He likes it; it’s company for him socially, and it’s something different. 2) Host sibling: I had a student once from Germany who taught me some of the language, and I am doing German now in school and I find it easy . . . She used to tell me about Germany . . . I know a bit of the language that’s why I picked German in school.

216

The Follow-on Research Project 3) Host mother: My daughter is only 14. She’s a social butterfly, and I don’t know whether that’s a consequence of always having students here (since she was 3), she’s never really had just her own family in the home. She is doing German in school now and that is 100% influenced by the German student we had. 4) Host mother: I know they come here for learning, our culture, our language and adapt to our way of life, but I think it’s so important for host families to learn to adapt as well. 5) Host mother: I learned something, like I learned that there is a difference between the nationalities. Like the Germans would be fairly hard. Their parenting is very different to ours. They are given more freedom from their parents. I wouldn’t allow a lot of things. I treat them exactly how I treat my own. 6) Host mother: So it makes you very compassionate. It makes you more aware of other people and their feelings, and how to deal with their problems. It’s all about education. 7) Host mother: I think communication is one. I find we talk a lot more about what goes on. When we had students at dinnertime we would all talk about our days. We would interact a lot more. I find if you keep talking to them; they feel at home. They would be more comfortable and more open to you.

Discussion—With one exception, where a host sibling was interviewed, the remaining ten respondents were all host mothers. Whereas most focused on the impact upon host siblings, several respondents framed the discussion in terms of “we”—that is, the entire family. Let us consider first the impact described upon children in the family. This included: the child became more confident and independent, improved language ability, took up new hobbies, and desired to travel. Effects framed in terms of “we” included: learning about new places and new cultures, learning to cook new foods, learning about teenagers, and developing patience. All comments suggested positive outcomes; no comments reflected negative effects of hosting an international sojourner. Q3. What did you learn about communicating with a student whose language is not English?—[the student’s English was very good (8)/I encouraged the student to use their English more (4)/could see improvement in their language over time (4)/be open and patient (3)/I am able to teach English (3)/the students are very quick to learn (3)/a lot of communication is done through gesture and body language (3)/sometimes it’s necessary to be more direct (2)/don’t be too sensitive (don’t take the literal meaning)

The Follow-on Research Project

217

(1)/the student sometimes tries to get away with things so you have to confront them about it]. 1) Host mother: Their English was always good enough for us to get by and when there was confusion I would change the phrasing or use a different word to explain what I was saying. 2) Host mother: They spoke to my 5-year-old in Italian and she kept talking away to them in English and they would end up laughing at each other. Somehow, they seem to get by. Instead of dictating this is the word for Fridge, I would ask them what is the word for Fridge in Italian; then I would say the English word. You learn how to teach them rather than just dictating to them. Discussion—Surprisingly, no response indicated that hosts developed a greater interest in learning another language. All comments focused on the communicative abilities of their sojourners and actions that hosts took to help them develop TL skills. For instance, eight respondents commented that the sojourner’s language level was very good and several commented on improvements they observed as the sojourner’s fluency improved over time and how quickly they were able to learn. Comments that reflected insights or strategies developed by hosts during this experience were learning to be open and patient, encouraging sojourners to use the host tongue, using non-verbal means to enhance communication, and learning how to teach. Despite not learning anything about their sojourner’s language, hosts clearly did learn something about how to communicate more effectively when dealing with individuals whose native tongue was not their own. All of these are good strategies and good skills for use during intercultural encounters. Q4. Do you maintain contact with the sojourner after s/he returned home?—[yes via Skype, Snapchat, Facebook or email (14)/yes with cards and gifts (5)/yes via message (4)/yes we’ve met up (3)/I would like to (1)/I don’t think so, we have nothing in common (1)/girls tend to keep in touch more than boys (1)]. 1) Host mother: I’d hate if they didn’t come back. Ciara is going home now, and it’s like “oh God” you know what food they like, get used to what television programs she likes. It’s like part of your family is missing. We are always on Facebook. 2) Host mother: I stay in touch with a lot of the students and they keep coming back to me. Maybe once or twice a year they come and visit. We have a very good relationship. We stay in touch using emails mostly on Facebook. And they would phone. They want to keep in touch as much as we do.

218

The Follow-on Research Project

Discussion—With the exception of one respondent, all others indicated a desire to maintain contact with their sojourners after their departure. They accomplished this in a variety of ways: through cards, gifts, messages, email, Skype, Snapchat, and Facebook, and, in one instance, through an actual visit. Whatever the means, however, what is significant is that one clear outcome of a homestay sojourn is the development of a relationship between sojourners and hosts, one that may last a lifetime and, indeed, that is exactly what happened in many cases. Said another way, the family really provides the entrée into an experience that far outlasts the program duration itself. Intercultural exchanges that do not foster lasting relationships miss a promising and important potential. Q5. Anything else?—[glad I hosted, it was a positive experience (11)/I will host again (8)/it was nice to have the extra money in the family (3)/it was nice to have company in the house (2)/I think the students are brilliant (2)/it was our first hosting experience (2)/this time round was a learning curve (1)/we would not volunteer to host (1)]. 1) Host mother: It’s good in a way but you have to look at it from a financial perspective as well. We have to put down some ground rules to keep the costs down. It has been a learning experience the whole way. We wouldn’t volunteer to do it just because of the learning the family gets from it. 2) Host mother: It’s nice and interesting to have a new person in the family and obviously the extra money. 3) It’s good in the family; it affords us to do nice things. 4) Host sibling: I love having students. It’s nice to have someone here, to be able to show them around and teach them things. I think when I am older I will definitely take on students when I have my own house. 5) Host mother: Just that I love it. Everyone should do it. If you have the right frame of mind. It’s very rewarding if you do it for the right reasons. You get long-term friends, new family members; you’re educated in their way of life. Brilliant! 6) Host mother: I think opening your home and living in such close quarters to someone else be they Irish or from another country, can only be an education. I really do. Even the ups and downs are an education in themselves. 7) Host mother: I think they are very brave, those kids that come to a strange family, strange country, strange school, different cultures, different students that came wanted photographs, and they sent photos to me, and I have them framed all around. Lots of good memories. I love the students. I think they’re great.

The Follow-on Research Project

219

Discussion—Here again, all respondents were host mothers with the exception of one host sibling. What is very telling is that all 11 respondents stated that they were glad they hosted: “It was a positive experience.” Eight respondents stated that they want to host again; one expressed that this time around, it was a learning curve; and one said she would not volunteer to host again (no details given). A few added some explanations such as it was nice to have company in the house, the students are brilliant, and three were candid with the fact that “it was nice to have the extra money in the family” (in some MOs, stipends are given to assist families while hosting). In such cases, of course, one must take care that financial assists do not become a principal motive for hosting and thereby overshadow the primary purpose of the experience for both sojourners and hosts—intercultural contact through which they learn about each other, develop intercultural competencies, and develop lasting relationships. To summarize, the analysis of research data presented thus far represents findings that characterize and contrast the profiles of alumni from four countries, assessing the impact of their educational exchange experience, and assessing the impact on host families in a fifth country. These findings are “particularist,” representing views of individual nationalities or cultural groups of sojourners. To further our inquiry, it is instructive to learn also what aspects were common to all groups, collectively, and what experiences people might share as the result of intercultural contact regardless of nationality and background. This attempt at a multinational perspective is taken up in the chapter that follows, which investigates the commonalities that emerged.

Notes 1. In the original survey questionnaire, the Likert scale used in questions B7, B8, B9, and B10, considered 0 as the lowest point on the measurement scale and 5 the highest. However, as the online survey software used in this research project assumed 1 as the lowest point and 6 the highest, it was necessary to maintain this codification during statistical analysis. 2. A complete dataset is a database without missing values upon computing a missing values imputation.

References Baiutti, M. (2017) Competenza interculturale e mobilità studentesca: Riflessioni pedagogiche per la valutazione, Pisa, Italy: Edizioni ETS. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S., and Aiken, L. (2003) Applied Multiple Regression/ Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd edn., Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Deardorff, D.K. and Arasaratnam-Smith, L.A. (2017) Intercultural Competence in Higher Education: International Approaches, Assessment, and Application, New York, NY: Routledge.

220

The Follow-on Research Project

DeVellis, R. (2012) Scale Development: Theory and Applications, 3rd edn., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Fantini, A.E. (1995) “Language, culture, and worldview: Exploring the nexus,” in A.E. Fantini (Guest ed.) International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 19(2):143–53. ——— (2006) “About intercultural communicative competence: A construct,” in Exploring and Assessing Intercultural Competence, Appendix E, pp. 243–6. Online. Available: World Learning, SIT Digital Collections website: http:// digitalcollections.sit.edu/wordlearning_publications/1/ (accessed 20 January 2018). ——— (2015) Exploring Intercultural Communicative Competence: A Multinational Perspective, Brattleboro, VT: Federation of the Experiment in International Living, pp. 85–6. Field, A.P. (2009) Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 3rd edn., London: Sage Publications. Hair, J., Black, B., Anderson, R., and Tatham, R. (2006) Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th edn., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall International. Howell, D. (2006) Statistical Methods for Psychology, 6th edn., Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Kealey, D.J. (1990) Cross-Cultural Effectiveness, Hull, Quebec, Canada: Canadian International Development Agency. Muñiz, J. (2001) Teoría de los Tests, 7th edn., Madrid: Ediciones Pirámide. Nunnally, J. (1978) Psychometric Theory, 2nd edn., Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill. Stevens, J. (1986) Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Tabachnick, B. and Fidell, L. (2007) Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th edn., London, England: Pearson Education. Taguchi, N., Xiao, F., and Li, S. (2017) “Assessment of study abroad outcomes in Chinese as a second language: Gains in cross-cultural adaptability, language contact, and proficiency,” in International Education, Oxford, England: Taylor and Francis. Watt, D.B. (1967) Intelligence Is Not Enough, Putney, VT: The Experiment Press.

6

6.1

Toward a Multinational Perspective

Overview

Chapter 6 begins with a review of aspects of the exchange experience that were common to the four alumni groups participating in the Follow-on Research Project (FRP), collectively. Their combined views represent a multinational perspective—one that moves a step closer toward understanding the potentially “universal” aspects that all people might share as the result of intercultural contact. This is followed by an updated review of the ten original a priori assumptions underlying both research projects, based on additional responses from the multinational population involved in the second research project. What emerges clearly throughout is the indisputable importance of the host family homestay as the salient core of the experience plus the importance and value of developing host language proficiency as a fundamental component of ICC. Discussion of the assumptions is followed by a review of the implications and applications of the composite findings for multiple aspects of educational exchange programs to ensure that the research data are turned into practice. Areas discussed are participant selection, program design, cross-cultural orientation, interventions, assessment, and post-program follow-up. A final section looks ahead, shifting the focus from theory to practice, and suggesting select models and techniques to enrich the implementation of future exchange programs. Lessons learned are discussed, new questions posed, and areas for further research are suggested. The work is summarized in the hope that the research findings will serve not only other researchers but also educators and trainers interested in ensuring quality educational exchange efforts. Most importantly, it is hoped that this work will be of benefit for their students, future program participants, and their hosts.

6.2

Universal Aspects

The quantitative and qualitative analyses of research data presented in the previous chapter represent findings that summarize profiles of alumni involved in this study—assessing the impact on sojourners from

222

Toward a Multinational Perspective

four countries and assessing the impact on host families in one country. Findings based on individual countries are characterized as “particularist” aspects, representing views of a given nationality or cultural group of sojourners—Brazilians, Germans, Japanese, Americans, and Irish in the case of host families. To further our inquiry, it is instructive to learn also what aspects were common to all groups, collectively. Their combined views represent a multinational perspective—one that moves a step closer toward understanding potentially “universal” aspects that all people might share as the result of intercultural contact. Following is a discussion of the commonalities that emerged. Combined qualitative alumni data obtained from interviews revealed that aside from the four countries which participants represent, alumni experienced intercultural sojourns in over 22 host countries. Host countries included the following (figures in parentheses after each country indicate the number of sojourners to each): Australia (4)/Belize (1)/Botswana (1)/Canada (7)/China (2)/Ecuador (4)/England (3)/France (4)/Germany (2)/Ireland (1)/Italy (3)/Japan (4)/Mexico (1)/Mongolia (1)/Poland (1)/ Portugal (1)/Scotland (1)/Spain (2)/Spanish-speaking country (not specified) (1)/Thailand (1)/Turkey (1)/US (25)/not stated (9). The combination of sojourner origins and countries visited is of interest in that it provides even more diverse multinational perspectives on which their experiences are based. Following is a composite of comments made by alumni in response to five questions posed to all: Q1. What impact did the sojourn experience have on your life and work? Q2. What abilities were important to gain acceptance in the host culture? Q3. What role did a homestay have in the experience? Q4. How important was learning the host language? Q5. Anything else the respondents wished to add? Letters and numbers following each comment that follows indicate the country of origin and number of respondents making similar comments from the four groups—for example, B11 = Brazil/11 respondents, G3 = Germany/3 respondents. Figures at the end of each statement represent the combined number—i.e., the total number of persons who made similar comments, or the multinational perspective. Where possible, statements are grouped around common themes: Q1. What impact did the sojourn experience have on your life and work? • •

it changed the direction of life, study, and work opportunities (B5)(G13)(J14)(US21) = 53 gained confidence/overcame shyness/developed and matured/ more independent (B3)(G8)(J10)(US4) = 25

Toward a Multinational Perspective •

223

changed way of seeing things/broadened horizons/expanded worldview (B2)(G5)(J6)(US11) = 24 more open-minded/more accepting/flexible (G15)(US2) = 17 made many new friends/learned about other people/interest in other cultures (B3)(G4)(J3)(US3) = 13 a great impact on personal and professional life (B11)(G1) = 12 learned about self/significant/deep impact/dramatic (G1) (US10) = 11 motivated to travel more (G7)(US3) = 10 opened up new options/developed many life skills (J8)(US1) = 9 want to work in intercultural/international area/volunteer work (G6)(US1) = 7 learned language/improved language skills/more communicative (G5)(US1) = 6 learned to handle difficult situations/more engaged (G2) (US3) = 5 acquired sense of responsibility (B2) = 2 married a host (J1)(US1) = 2

• • • • • • • • • • •

Discussion—This combined summary of responses to the question “impact which the sojourn experience had on life and work” reveals a totally positive and enthusiastic response from alumni in all four countries. In their words, an intercultural sojourn brings many benefits and no negative outcomes. Moreover, the experience exerted a powerful impact in many areas of their personal and professional life, affecting the direction of their studies, of job choices, and opportunities. On a personal level, they speak of gaining confidence, developing and maturing, becoming more independent. They also cite qualities they developed such as becoming more open-minded, more accepting, more flexible. In the process, they made many new friends, learned about other people, developed interest in other cultures. At the same time, they also changed their way of seeing things, broadened their horizons, and expanded their worldview. Having learned about others and the cultures of others, they state that they also learned about themselves (self-awareness). They developed language skills, learned to handle difficult situations, acquired a sense of responsibility, and, in two cases, married a member of the host culture, continuing their intercultural experience on an intimate and lifelong journey. Q2. What abilities were important to gaining acceptance in the host culture? Attitudes/Affect • •

open-mindedness (B6)(G14)(J9)(US10) willingness to understand new points of view/to try new things (B3)(G6)(J6)(US9)

224

Toward a Multinational Perspective • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

resilience/motivation/curiosity/interest (B2)(G7)(J2)(US2) respectful/sensitivity/humility (B2)(G4)(US4) willingness to engage with hosts/stay away from group (B2)(G1)(US3) tolerance (B1)(G7)(US1) flexibility/adaptable/accepting (B1)(G2)(J4)(US7) positive attitude (B1)(G1)(J3) sense of responsibility/reliability (G2) cooperativeness (G1) thankfulness/gratefulness (G1)(US1) show acceptance/appreciation/interest (J3) smile/humor/honesty/friendliness (J7)(US1) generosity (J1) trust (US2) non-judgmental (US2) patience (US1) liberal (US1) willingness to accept advice/correction/willing to work out problems (B1)(G1)

Skills • • • • • •

ability to adjust/acceptance (B6)(G8) ability to communicate/learn host language (B2)(G7)(J3) (US4) interpersonal skills/building relationships/make friends (B2) observational skills/not being invasive (B2)(G1)(US3) ability to be alone (G1) diplomatic skills (G1)

Knowledge • • •

learn host qualities: punctuality, respect rules, do things by the book, fulfill obligations (B1) predeparture preparation/orientation (B1) understanding (G1)

Awareness • •

self-reflection/introspective (G2)(US2) self-confidence (G4)

Discussion—Responses in this section are grouped in accordance with the four areas of the ASK+A framework (Attitudes/Affect, Skills, Knowledge, and Awareness), although it is clear that the preponderant amount of responses fell within the category of Attitudes/Affect. This might suggest that Attitudes/Affect are a key starting point to allow whatever else might happen to occur. Stated another way, one might have Skills, Knowledge, and Awareness, but their development might not be

Toward a Multinational Perspective

225

prompted if one’s initial attitude is negative. Positive attitude may be the single most important initial quality that contributes to one’s development in other areas. This may explain why so many respondents provided an extensive list of attitudinal characteristics that echo and expand upon those commonly cited in the intercultural literature: open-mindedness, flexibility, tolerance, adaptability, and so forth. Given these attributes, knowledge of the host language and culture is not a pre-condition of a successful sojourn experience, but rather a consequence. In other words, knowledge can develop given appropriate attitudes. This again supports the thesis expressed in the founder’s publication Intelligence Is Not Enough (Watt 1967), where he describes why intelligence and knowledge alone are not good predictors of a successful intercultural experience. Skills, as well as knowledge, can develop during a sojourn given a positive disposition and attitudes. In addition, respondents from all four countries identify specific skills they developed—the ability to adjust and accept, to communicate in the host language, interpersonal skills, observational skills, and diplomatic skills. Finally, during and after the experience, the most powerful and pervasive development, perhaps, is self-awareness, purported (in our model) to be at the core of the intercultural experience. Although not specifically cited in responses given, four individuals allude to the process that leads to awareness—i.e., self-reflection and introspection. Moreover, numerous comments provided earlier following Questions 1 and 2 also point to awareness development where alumni speak of changes in the direction of their life (53 persons), changed ways of seeing things, broadened horizons, and an expanded worldview (24 persons). These comments reflect the development of awareness of self and others through comparisons, contrasts, reflection, and introspection. Q3. What role did a homestay have in your experience? • • • • • • • • • • •

no homestay (B8) very/most important/positive/transformative/powerful (B7) (G20)(J1)(US19) best entrée/helped enter culture and learn language (B6) (G5)(J16)(US6) family support/guidance/security (B6)(G8)(J4)(US2) made to feel part of family and culture (B2)(J2)(US2) still in contact with host family (G4)(US5) became a second family/felt integrated (G6)(J2)(US1) made contact with more people/made friends (G2) important reference point (G1) learned about self/appreciate own family more (G1)(J3) initial family not welcoming, challenging (but had other good homestays) (3)

226

Toward a Multinational Perspective

Discussion—A clear result of the sojourn that consistently stands out is that a stay with a host family is a “very or most important” element, one that is “positive, powerful, and transformative” (47 persons). An additional 33 alumni describe the homestay as the “best entrée into a new culture; it helped entrance into the culture and learning the language.” Others point to the homestay as helping to make them feel not only “part of the family but also of the culture.” Moreover, a most positive result is the fact that many remain in contact with their hosts for many years after the program is officially over. In this sense, the experience often lasts a lifetime. While a homestay constitutes the most powerful component of the program, there is also some indication, however, that not all family experiences were of the same quality. Three individuals from among the 80 indicated disappointment with their host families and eight individuals had no homestay. Clearly, families must be carefully selected, properly oriented to the goals of the program, monitored to assure a quality experience for all, and interventions must be made with families as with the sojourners. Where “quality control” measures are maintained and ensured, a homestay experience is central to a rich and powerful intercultural sojourn. Q4. How important was learning the host language? • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

very/most important (B16)(G20)(J15)(US10) essential/aids adjustment (B3)(J2) great opportunity/improved language skills (B2)(US3) language is culture/needed to understand culture (G3)(US2) helped me when I returned to school (B2) helped to feel connected/helps integration into host community (B1)(US2) learned new concepts in the words and actions of host language (J1) certain things (+ feelings) can only be understood in host language (J1) difficult language to learn (US3) fun/learning language favorite part/reinforced passion for language learning (US4) learned how to communicate in alternative ways (US2) attempts to learn were appreciated (US1) great difference between classroom learning and using it in daily life (US1) far reaching effects on education, life, and work (US1)

Discussion—Developing proficiency in the host language and the ability to communicate with hosts “in their own tongue” (even in cases where hosts may have known the sojourner’s language, especially where English is

Toward a Multinational Perspective

227

concerned) is identified as an important aspect of the sojourner experience. Most alumni from all four countries described ability in the host language as “very or most important,” as “essential, an aid to adjustment,” and “needed to understand culture.” In addition, it “helped to feel connected, to integrate into the host community,” while a few (in particular, the Japanese) pointed to the fact that they “learned new concepts in the words of the host language” and acknowledged that “certain things can only be understood in the host language.” This last statement is indeed a powerful insight. The role of host language aside, a few pointed to the challenges and difficulty in learning certain languages (Polish, Japanese), adding that their attempts were nonetheless appreciated. In the end, learning another tongue provided benefits in education, life, and work. Acknowledgment by sojourners regarding the importance of learning to communicate in the host language is particularly significant, especially since it contrasts dramatically with the fact that interculturalists seldom cite language when discussing intercultural competencies. It is clear that language is a fundamental ICC component and a direct pathway to gaining access to another worldview. It also adds further evidence for maintaining the word “communicative” explicitly within the concept of ICC. Q5. Additional Comments? On program format • •

a rich experience/perfect program format (B6)(US1) upset by EIL’s new “sexy” program direction, looks more like vacation (US1)

On program components • •

predeparture orientation important (G3) leader supportive and friendly (US1)

On program impact • • • • • •

learned about host culture and other ethnicities (B2) became a whole new person/learned and grew (B2) life-changing/significant impact on my life/got a new view of life/world (B1)(G5)(US4) helped me learn about myself and my own family (G4) positive/best experience of her life, amazing, spectacular, thankful, grateful (US7) gained confidence, independence/now feel capable of traveling (US2)

On language • •

learned more language by being in-country (B1) inspired to learn another language (B1)

228

Toward a Multinational Perspective • •

no longer afraid to speak English (B1) language helps to find a job (G1)

On outcomes and recommendations • • • • • • • • • •

prepare before your trip (B1) recommend to other students/my children/everyone (B6) (G3)(J3)(US3) want to continue to travel (B4)(G1) motivated to become a volunteer (G1) difficult to readjust back home (J1) got to know other exchange students (G2) learned from other group members (US1) made friends for life (B2) don’t compare with your own country (B1) research caused to think of value of study abroad again (J1)

Discussion—In most cases, respondents from the four countries were keen to talk about their experience in great detail, often offering additional comments regarding their experience regardless of whether it was 5, 10, or 20 years ago. Several commented on the richness of the program format while one respondent (US) recommended that the program maintain the high quality, which she experienced some time ago. Some pointed to the importance of the orientation process as well as to the role of the group leader as “educator” in making their experience a success. Many reiterated in this section once again the impact that the experience had on their lives: they became a new person, learned and grew, described the sojourn as life changing, resulting in a new view of the world. Others pointed to the dual aspect of the experience—learning about other cultures and learning about themselves and their own culture. Still others described the benefits as amazing, positive, and spectacular, and pointed to increased confidence, independence, and an interest in further travel. A few felt compelled to add comments regarding their language learning experience, citing how much more language they learned in-country than in a classroom setting, how this experience inspired them to go on to learn still another language, and how their language ability was helpful later when seeking employment. Many proffered suggestions for future participants: first of all, recommending the experience to other students and to their own children, the need to prepare before the trip, the desire to continue traveling, the difficulty of adjusting upon returning home, the friendships they made, and how the experience motivated them to work in service or to become a volunteer. Finally, one individual also pointed out that this research inquiry caused him to reflect on the value of educational exchange all over again.

Toward a Multinational Perspective

6.3

229

Assertions Revisited

To add to the combined responses noted earlier and to provide further attempts at a multinational perspective, the ten a priori assertions explored in the IRP regarding intercultural exchange and its impact and outcomes were re-examined. Assertions were slightly modified, as follows, and they are followed by a discussion of each, based on the additional data generated in this FRP: • • • • • • • • • •

Assertion No. 1: ICC is a complex of abilities. Assertion No. 2: Intercultural experiences are life altering. Assertion No. 3: A family homestay is a compelling core component of the intercultural experience. Assertion No. 4: Learning the host language affects ICC development. Assertion No. 5: All parties in intercultural contact are affected to some degree and in various ways. Assertion No. 6: People are changed (presumably in positive ways) as a result of this experience. Assertion No. 7: Some returnees lean toward specific life choices, life partners, lifestyles, values, and jobs as a result of this experience. Assertion No. 8: Alumni often engage in activities that impact on others. Assertion No. 9: There are often surprising and unexpected other benefits. Assertion No. 10: These activities further the organizational mission.

Assertion No. 1: ICC is a complex of abilities—Attributes listed in the IRP were based on commonly recurring attributes identified in the review of 238 publications about ICC. These attributes were repeated on the revised AICC Form, followed by an open-ended option allowing participants to provide additional attributes, if they wished, based on their own experiences (cf. Appendix B: AICC, Part II). Section (a.) lists attributes derived from the literature search, Section (b.) indicates how alumni responded to attributes identified by researchers, and Section (c.) lists additional attributes not cited in the literature that alumni added based on their own experience. Section (a.)—Attributes based on the literature and cited on the AICC Form (in no particular order) were: tolerance, flexibility, patience, sense of humor, appreciation of differences, suspending judgment, adaptability, curiosity, open-mindedness, motivation, self-reliance, empathy, clear sense of self, perceptiveness, and tolerance of ambiguity Section (b.)—Alumni reactions to these attributes (in order of frequency of citations): [open-minded (B6)(G14)(J9)(US10) = 39 / flexibility/ adaptability (B7)(G10)(J7)(US7) = 31 / appreciate differences (B3)(G6) (J6)(US9) = 24 / curiosity, motivated (B2)(G7)(J2)(US2) = 13 / tolerance

230

Toward a Multinational Perspective

(B1)(G7)(US1) = 9 / sense of humor (J7)(US1) = 8 / perceptive (observational skills) (B2)(G1)(US3) = 6 / self-reliant (self-confidence) (G4) = 4 / clear sense of self (self-reflection/introspective) (G2)(US2) = 4 / suspend judgment (non-judgmental) (US2) = 2 / patience (US1) = 1 / empathy = 0 / tolerance of ambiguity = 0]. The number following each attribute cited earlier indicates how many alumni confirmed that same attribute based on their own experiences. Note that in some cases words interpreted as related or synonymous, were combined—e.g., flexibility/adaptability, curiosity/motivation. In the end, alumni confirmed most literary attributes as relevant to their own experiences with two exceptions: empathy and tolerance of ambiguity. The former, empathy, however, might be interpolated from other comments such as “respectful/sensitivity/humility” (B2)(G4)(US4) and tolerance of ambiguity might likewise be inferred from comments such as: “learn host qualities: punctuality, respect rules, do things by the book, fulfill obligations” (B1), “willingness to engage with hosts” (B2)(G1) (US3), “understanding” (G1), and “positive attitude” (B1)(G1)(J3). Section (c.)—Additional attributes suggested by respondents (under the “other” category): [ability to communicate/learn host language (B2) (G7)(J3)(US4) = 16 / sense of responsibility/reliability (G2) = 2 / thankfulness/gratefulness (G1)(US1) = 2 / willingness to accept advice/correction/ willing to work out problems (B1)(G1) = 2 / interpersonal skills/building relationships/make friends (B2) = 2 / trust (US2) = 2 / generosity (J1) = 1 / liberal (US1) = 1 /cooperativeness (G1) = 1 / ability to be alone (G1) = 1 / diplomatic skills (G1) = 1]. Alumni considered these additional attributes relevant to successful intercultural experiences. Most items, however, were cited by only one or two individuals except the “ability to communicate/learn host language,” which 16 alumni from four countries added to their list. The obvious conclusion is that they considered language an important factor for intercultural success (more on this under Assertion No. 4). Guided by response frequency given for each item, the attributes (or personal characteristics) were rearranged hierarchically to reflect their relative importance, suggesting that some factors may be perceived to contribute more than others to intercultural success. In general, however, the intercultural literature does not suggest a hierarchy among relevant attributes. Moreover, it may also be that the relative importance of attributes could vary depending on the host culture in question. Cultural differences between Germany and Japan, for example, might well alter the hierarchy of attributes, giving a different order of importance to each. Whereas alumni identified certain attributes they considered relevant to their experience, it is difficult to know the degree to which their development was caused or heightened because of their experience. Psychologists distinguish between attributes such as traits (innate qualities) and characteristics (qualities developed in specific cultural contexts

Toward a Multinational Perspective

231

and experiences). Combining the identification of traits and characteristics with attributes ordered hierarchically in terms of intercultural success might produce an interesting tool for selection, monitoring, and assessing candidates’ preparedness and development in intercultural situations (in other words provides a normative, formative, and summative assessment approach). In the end, however, what is quite clear is that ICC is complex and not easily reduced to a single factor (such as “sensitivity,” highlighted, for example, in one well-known ICC model) (cf. Bennett 1993). In the end, these findings support and reinforce findings also reported in the IRP. Assertion No. 2: Intercultural experiences are life altering—The data leave no doubt regarding the profound and provocative nature of an intercultural experience. A total of 119 individuals from all four countries address this point in powerful and eloquent terms: [the experience “changed the direction of my life, study, work opportunities/I gained confidence, overcame shyness, become more independent, developed and matured/the experience changed my way of seeing things, it broadened my horizons, expanded my worldview/I am now more open-minded, more accepting, flexible]. Developments occur in all areas of ICC, affecting attitude and affect, developing skills, producing knowledge, and enhancing (self) awareness. Few educational experiences can claim to produce such holistic and dramatic results. These developments carried over into other areas of the sojourners’ lives and lifestyles as well, long after their experience abroad ended. They “made many new friends, learned about other people, became interested in other cultures.” In short, it had a “great impact on their personal and professional life, they learned more about themselves, are motivated to travel more, developed many life skills, and want to work in intercultural, international areas” (more on this next). In summary, responses from all respondents in all countries were positive and enthusiastic. In other words, we may conclude that an intercultural sojourn brought many benefits and produced no negative outcome (i.e., none were expressed). Once again, the findings in this FRP reinforce and support similar findings in the IRP. Assertion No. 3: A family homestay is a compelling core component of the intercultural experience—Fully 72 respondents had homestays as part of their intercultural sojourn; 8 did not. The homestay, in fact, has remained the core component of Federation EIL programs since the second year of its founding in 1932 and it continues to be under examination. Given the increase of exchange and study abroad program options now offered by other institutions, programs with a homestay component are increasingly difficult to promote. Young people are often reluctant to commit to living with a family; a homestay obviously signals commitments and obligations that do not exist if living in a pensión or dormitory. Yet to enter a new culture “on its own terms,” does indeed raise

232

Toward a Multinational Perspective

questions of commitment, obligations, and motivation. Hence selection and orientation of candidates for this type of sojourn must keep this clear purpose in mind, especially given its significance as revealed by alumni from eight countries who experienced homestays in even more countries. In the end, for all alumni who had a homestay, the results were conclusive. Findings indicate that they described the experience as “very or most important, positive, powerful, transformative.” They added that a family homestay was the “best entrée into another culture and as a way to learn the language.” They were appreciative of the “family support, guidance, and sense of security.” Most importantly, when they returned home, they had more to take with them than a suitcase full of souvenirs. They left with a relationship with people in another culture, a relationship with a family, often lasting a lifetime. The program ended, but relationships endure. Assertion No. 4: Learning the host language affects ICC development— It is surprising how infrequently intercultural literature mentions communication in terms of specific host language ability as a criterion for intercultural success. Yet at a recent conference on IC, a speaker describing her students during a study abroad program started by saying, “The main problem was communication.” Clearly, the importance of host language development did not go unnoticed by alumni in these exchange programs either. Indeed, developing host language proficiency and the ability to communicate with hosts “in their own tongue” (despite the fact that some hosts may also have spoken the sojourner’s language) was cited as an important aspect of the experience. Fully 61 respondents from all 4 countries described development of host language ability as “very or most important,” “essential,” an “aid to adjustment,” and “needed to understand culture.” Some added that it “helped to feel connected, to integrate into the host community,” while a few (in particular, the Japanese) pointed to the fact that they “learned new concepts in the words of the host language,” and acknowledged that “certain things can only be understood in the host language.” In addition, beyond the sojourn itself, learning another tongue provided benefits in education, life, and work. Their grasp of the relevance and importance of speaking the host language was eloquent, insightful, and these opinions came from many who were initially unsophisticated with foreign languages. Their thoughts derived not from linguistic study but from their own direct field experiences. They stated not only why knowledge of the host language was important to success but spoke also of limitations without the ability to speak. This acknowledgment by sojourners regarding the importance of learning the host language is particularly significant. Clearly, language is a fundamental component of ICC and needed to gain access to another worldview. This clarification has important implications in preparing future intercultural sojourners in terms of requirements for selection, preparation,

Toward a Multinational Perspective

233

and program development. It also raises many important questions: Can the sojourner transcend his/her native worldview without also grappling with the process of entering another tongue? Alternatively, is it adequate for interculturalists to “know about” other worldviews only intellectually and vicariously, but not also experientially? Indeed, is it sufficient to be monolingual and monocultural in today’s world? What is clear is that lack of proficiency in the host tongue most certainly constrains one’s entry, adaptation, and understanding of the host culture on various levels and in many ways (unless, of course, one assumes interactions through English, albeit not qualitatively the same). While increased proficiency enhances entry possibilities, it alone is also not the sole guarantee of success since other factors come into play. These findings support and reinforce those reported in the IRP. Assertion No. 5: All parties in intercultural contact are affected to some degree and in various ways—The previous assertions contribute to our understanding of how sojourners were affected by their experience and enriched and enhanced through homestays, and by developing proficiency in the host tongue. What is not often addressed is the impact that their own presence may exert upon host natives with whom they have contact. Indeed, intercultural contact has the potential to affect all parties in the interaction. This research obviously did not survey all of the individuals interacting with the alumni under study, but it did attempt to learn how the experience affected host family members. For evidence in this regard, we draw from data obtained from host family respondents in Ireland, an aspect that deserves more attention in future studies. The impact and effect upon host families have already been described earlier; nonetheless, we repeat the main points here: Many benefits accrued for the children who “became more confident and independent, improved language ability, took up new hobbies, and desired to travel.” Other general effects upon host families included learning about new places and new cultures, learning to cook new foods, learning about teenagers, and developing patience. In other areas, family members developed insights or strategies such as learning to be open and patient, encouraging sojourners to use the host language, learning to use non-verbal means to enhance communication, learning how to teach, learning how to communicate more effectively with individuals whose native tongue was not their own. Most respondents indicated their desire to continue their relationship with sojourners after their departure, suggesting continuing contact between sojourners and hosts. In the end, all host respondents described their experience as positive. Assertion No. 6: People are changed (presumably in positive ways) as a result of this experience—Even when alumni and hosts acknowledge challenges and difficulties (both are intrinsic aspects of the intercultural experience and often constitute the most significant learning opportunities), they gave few negative comments about the experience. Comments

234

Toward a Multinational Perspective

concerned growth, development, expansion, opening, learning, and changing. Moreover, despite occasional comments regarding what individuals learned about their host cultures, most comments were really about themselves and their own societies—not unusual for intercultural sojourners who, while learning about others, are surprised by what they also learn about themselves. In the end, of the four ICC dimensions (Attitude/Affect, Skills, Knowledge, and Awareness), Awareness is perhaps the most powerful development that takes place and one that continues to serve participants for the rest of their lives. Indeed, self-awareness may well be the most important aspect of human development and the reason it is cited by the world’s great religions—“know thyself”—as well as figures at the core of Paulo Freire’s approach to education: “conscientização” (cf. Freire 1970). Assertion No. 7: Some returnees lean toward specific life choices, life partners, lifestyles, values, and jobs as a result of this experience— Although this question was not asked explicitly, there is, nonetheless, some evidence in support of this assertion. Numerous indicators suggested that alumni were (re)oriented because of their experience. Much of these data were inferred from the five basic questions concerning impact, attributes, language development, and the request for additional information. A review, then, of evidence embedded in these other areas provided examples for this claim in comments such as the following: • • • • • •

It changed the direction of my life, study, and work opportunities (53). It had a great impact on my personal and professional life (12). I am motivated to travel more (10). It opened up new options and I developed many life skills (9). I want to work in an international, intercultural area, do volunteer work (7). I married a host (2).

These 93 comments provided evidence for the impact the experience had upon life choices and jobs. Two individuals married host members. Lifestyles and values of course were more difficult to substantiate but were revealed by the fact that many alumni spoke of changes in personal behaviors, social abilities, and attitudes. Developments that influenced other areas of sojourners’ lives and lifestyles are inferred from responses where they stated that they “made many new friends, learned about other people, became interested in other cultures.” In short, they learned more about themselves, were motivated to travel more, developed many life skills, and wanted to work in intercultural, international areas (more on this next). Clearly, their interests in learning other languages, foreign travel and work abroad, meeting foreigners, getting to

Toward a Multinational Perspective

235

know other cultures, marrying someone from abroad, and wanting to make new friends from other cultures, were all consistent with individuals who have undergone intercultural experiences and were affected in positive and transformative ways. No comments suggested retreat or withdrawal from intercultural contact; all comments pointed in the direction of wanting to expand further upon what was already experienced. Assertion No. 8: Alumni often engage in activities that impact on others—Although the number of persons that alumni may have affected or influenced upon their return home is difficult to ascertain, it was clear that most alumni had some impact on others. This was inferred based on their experiences in another culture, the impact on their own lives and lifestyles, their intercultural friendships and spouses, and their newfound competencies, not to mention their enthusiasm when talking about their educational exchange experiences. This aside, alumni engaged in areas such as teaching, counseling, health, social work, development, and service, will indeed have further impact on others. Assertion No. 9: There are often surprising and unexpected other benefits—It is obvious that most sojourners did not foresee nor anticipate the changes and other benefits that occurred as a result of their intercultural experience. This was probably the reason they often responded with a sense of surprise and excitement while recounting their experiences. Who could anticipate that a sojourn abroad would become “a life-changing event, alter the direction of one’s study and work, produce a transformative experience, develop an expanded worldview, open up new work opportunities” and more? It would seem bold to publish such statements in brochures that promote educational exchange programs, yet these were precisely the results that alumni reported. These and many other benefits cited earlier in other sections together constitute a long list of “surprising and unexpected” benefits. On the other hand, organizations providing such programs, ones with commitment, experience, quality, and purpose, do so precisely because this has been the pattern exhibited (and expected), based on years of experience. Anecdotal comments made by alumni over the years confirm that this is the case and both research projects substantiate and document the same, quantitatively and qualitatively. Assertion No. 10: These activities further the organizational mission— The organization’s vision is one of world peace; its mission is to help build it. As a prominent organization in international, intercultural education, service, and development, Federation EIL maintains academic and project capabilities dedicated to promoting intercultural understanding, social justice, and world peace. Since its founding, these values have become ever more relevant in today’s world, and their combined programs have grown in scope, diversity, and intensity. Through distinctive methods based on experiential approaches to education and training and the integration of theory and practice (praxis), Federation

236

Toward a Multinational Perspective

EIL’s diverse programs are designed to provide life-changing experiences that develop ICCs, create leaders, contribute to global development, and effect positive change. These research findings show that this is indeed the case. The approach to developing world peace, one person at a time, echoes Gandhi’s challenge when he said, “Change yourself. You must be the change that you wish to see in the world.” In other words, change occurs from the inside out, one person at a time. Educational exchange experiences promote this in the context of quality intercultural programs. These experiences involve selection, orientation, language study, a homestay, and often an additional thematic or service component. Most importantly, each individual intercultural sojourn is conducted in-country “on that culture’s own terms.” This means that participants learn in the way of the culture of the host society, working toward the development of an emic perspective—one that ultimately results in providing new options and in transforming the view of the world one has always held. Finally, to findings supporting these assertions, we add results from a similar project, conducted by other researchers for the Institute of International Education (IIE) between 1999–2000 and 2016–17. Their project was a national study conducted within the US involving over 4,500 alumni of U.S. higher education institutions who participated in study abroad programs. Their key findings reinforce many similar ideas (Farrugia and Sanger 2017:5–6): • • • • •

• •

Study abroad has an overall positive impact on the development of a wide range of twenty-first century job skills. Study abroad expands career possibilities. The skills gained through study abroad have a long-term impact on career progression and promotion. Longer periods of study abroad have a high impact on subsequent job offers and the development of most skills. STEM majors (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) highly value the gains made in skills outside of their majors during study abroad. Choosing a less familiar destination was positively associated with skill development and sense of career impact. Student intentionality and highly structured programs contribute to skill development.

It is clear that educational exchange constitutes a most profound educational experience. Moreover, changed participants return to live their lives differently, affecting others in the process. In addition, it also brings many benefits to participants in terms of job skills and employability. This is what one sees consistently throughout all of the reports provided in this study and bolstered by the IIE study.

Toward a Multinational Perspective

6.4

237

Implications and Applications

While research findings are both exciting and promising, they are promising only insofar as they are used to promote, design, and conduct quality educational exchange programs. The findings suggest numerous implications that need to be turned into applications of value to practitioners, both trainers and educators. Following are areas where the findings can help: 1. Marketing and promotion—To promote educational exchange programs, providers can refer to and utilize the quantitative data and statistics. They may also cite quotes from alumni that are contained in the qualitative data to communicate the value of the experience and its benefits to future participants. 2. Selection of participants and host families—This experience may not be for everyone; moreover, living with a host family requires a serious commitment to adjust to life on someone else’s terms. For those who choose to participate, however, it is clearly a life changer. Selection and orientation are critical for both sojourners and hosts to ensure a quality intercultural experience. Where host families may need fee assistance in some cases to accept a sojourner, care must be taken not to turn the homestay into a pensión-like stay and families should not be overused. 3. Orientation and ongoing interventions—Orientation must be viewed as an ongoing educational process (for both sojourners and hosts)— predeparture, during, and for re-entry. Consider also the important and central “educational” role of leaders and local representatives (in addition to their other responsibilities). Recognize the importance of “interventions” during the sojourn (both direct and virtual) to address intercultural issues and to maximize intercultural learning. 4. Program design—Review and assess the relative importance of each program component. Consider the role of a family homestay as the core of the experience, enhanced by intercultural orientation, the educational role of the leader, learning the host language, relevant themes, service projects, interventions, group travel, and group discussion and reflection. 5. Assessment—Consider assessment as an ongoing process, utilizing multiple strategies for formative assessment followed by individual and group discussions as an ongoing method of self- and peer assessment. View assessment as integral to the learning process by involving and engaging those being assessed, followed by brainstorming strategies to further their learning and growth. 6. Post-program follow-up—Prepare participants for re-entry to their home cultures. Stress the importance of maintaining contact with hosts after the program is over and maintain continued contact with

238

Toward a Multinational Perspective and engagement of alumni. Discuss the relevance of their intercultural sojourn abroad and their newly developed ICCs, with issues and diverse neighbors at home. Consider developing a support system of alumni to aid in promotion, selection, orientation, and more.

6.5

Looking Ahead

Intercultural programs commonly attract individuals who already have an interest or inclination to explore the world. Where, when, and how they developed this interest would be difficult to track but clearly not everyone is equally inclined to travel across an ocean to experience the cultures of Bolivia, Germany, Japan, or Nepal. And, certainly, not in a structured international, intercultural educational exchange program that involves a family homestay and emphasizes learning about other cultures on their terms. These conditions already suggest pre-selection criteria for applicants. Those who do choose such an experience undergo an application process, selection, often pay a sum of money (unless scholarship recipients), undergo orientation, language study, travel halfway around the world, and brave the challenges of an intercultural experience. Indeed, their motivation must lean heavily toward the integrative rather than the instrumental motivational type in which sojourners desire to go beyond mere acceptance. As a result, they seek to emulate their hosts and work toward higher degrees of bilingualism and biculturalism than might otherwise be possible by others within the same timeframe and circumstance. Integrative motivation does more than sustain them through difficult and challenging moments. They find pleasure in “becoming” like their hosts and “becoming” part of their host society and culture—certainly not a disposition shared by all who are in contact with other cultures. They undergo voluntary acculturation and welcome efforts by their hosts to “assimilate” them. The result, at whatever their level of attainment, is normally a satisfying, rewarding, and enriching experience in which positive aspects far outweigh the negative, as they perceive them. They seek to move beyond the etic and into an emic posture insofar as possible. They transcend and transform their native paradigm as they seek to comprehend and enter another. This is a key point commonly expressed by individuals returning from an intercultural journey: They learn a lot about their hosts and the host culture, and they learn about themselves and their own culture. These are all reasons successful intercultural sojourners seek to perpetuate and extend this significant, provocative, and life-altering experience long after the program is over and long after they return home (and not all return; many go on to still other experiences). They reflect these sentiments through their own words and actions. After re-entry, many wish to speak of their experience (but finding others willing to listen is often a

Toward a Multinational Perspective

239

challenge). Many continue to study the host language (or go on to study still other tongues), most have developed new intercultural friendships, some now work in related fields, most continue to use their intercultural abilities to advantage (since intercultural abilities are not dissimilar from interpersonal abilities), and many maintain ongoing contact with hosts and friends abroad in various ways.

Lessons Learned and Questions Posed These research efforts presented many challenges, yet they yielded (and confirmed) many insights regarding both the process and content of intercultural issues. Both are shared next for those engaged in designing, implementing, and assessing intercultural research and experiences. In addition to lessons learned, new questions also arose. Comments are offered regarding both: 1. Process •

• • •

•

•

•

•

•

Despite challenges involved in conducting collaborative international research efforts on several levels—administratively, interculturally, and linguistically—the promises and possibilities are quite attractive. Contracting and supervising RAs emerged as an important factor (as opposed to contracting employees within local MOs). Guiding untrained RAs presents certain challenges to ensure that their efforts will result in producing reliable results. Participating MOs need to prepare and update alumni files with current contact information (especially email addresses, where possible). There are challenges and benefits to working through diverse languages (and the native tongues of the subjects involved as required in intercultural survey methods) and to ensuring that surveys and documents are properly translated. There is a special challenge in designing questionnaires for respondents from a variety of cultural backgrounds who may be inexperienced with surveys or who may hold differing attitudes about participation. It is a challenge to produce a comprehensive assessment tool that covers all relevant areas, yet one that is balanced and brief to assure an appropriate response rate. Item analysis may help to reduce an admittedly lengthy questionnaire (albeit important initially) into the briefest possible instrument, yet one that yields the desired results. It is desirable to administer the AICC Form repeatedly to obtain several samples in order to understand whether its component

240

Toward a Multinational Perspective

• •

•

•

variables behave in the same way over time (i.e., if a similar factorial structure can be devised). Follow-on interviews (in person, by telephone, or Skype) are important toward producing rich qualitative data. Combining quantitative and qualitative data is of extreme value to assure results that are as complete and accurate as possible and that show not only patterns but convey the voice of respondents. It is important to help providers to consider the implications and applications derived from research findings for program promotion, selection, design and implementation, orientation, and assessment of outcomes. Research must be used to support and enhance quality international, intercultural exchange programs.

2. Content Some objectives proposed for those participating in an intercultural experience may be unrealistic and deserve further examination. Unrealistic and questionable expectations must be avoided—to wit: •

•

•

Global competence? Developing “global competence” (i.e., ability in all cultures around the globe) is quite impossible. One can learn to participate appropriately and effectively in another culture (or two or three) but not in all the cultures of the world. Whereas ICC and multiple ICCs enhance one’s ability to participate in still others, one starts anew with each linguaculture (although perhaps with better insights and strategies to accelerate that process anew). Non-judgmental? An appropriate attribute? Human beings are judgment-making machines, making judgments at all times and in all places (whether to engage or not, where to sit in a classroom, what to wear for an occasion, and so forth). When entering new cultures, we continue to make judgments, based on previous experience in our own contexts. Knowing that judgments made in unfamiliar contexts may not be well founded, we must be willing to reconsider them and, therefore, we must be willing to “suspend” and “revisit” our judgments, especially from an emic point of view, one that we are still seeking to grasp. It is impossible to be non-judgmental. Ethnorelativity? Whereas we can grasp the notion that perspectives based on other worldviews differ (and therefore the concept of ethnorelativity), we cannot be “ethno-relative” by the very fact that we already hold a particular view of the world, a native paradigm. We may expand that view, and possibly transcend and transform that paradigm, but we cannot grasp all worldviews or even multiple worldviews. Ultimately, given a broader and

Toward a Multinational Perspective

•

•

•

•

241

changed view of the world, we may come to settle upon new circumstances, but we are incapable of accepting everything, all worldviews, all the time. Stereotypes and generalizations: Most people reject “stereotypes,” which indeed are generalizations about some diverse phenomena. Yet humans everywhere stereotype (i.e., generalize) all the time. It is a human way of behaving. In fact, nouns in language (except proper nouns signaling one individual), for example, are generalizations (or stereotypes)—i.e., they are abstractions of phenomena. When we say “dog” or “chair,” for example, we generalize about numerous animals or objects that share certain characteristics but are not alike. There are many types of “dogs”—from Chihuahuas to St. Bernards—very different, yet they share certain attributes that allow us to classify them together. The same holds for chair. What offends, perhaps, is when one’s generalizations or stereotypes do not yield or change when important distinctions exist or are revealed (especially when one’s prejudice/prejudgment prohibits the shift). It is the prejudice (and unwillingness to reconsider) that is often the problem, less so the generalization that can be reconfigured. Language as a component of ICC: Language, culture, and worldview are inextricably intertwined and support and reinforce each other. For this reason, entering another culture with the hope of coming to see the world from their perspective requires also entering the host language, which names and labels the things of their universe in their particular way. A new language also presents variations as well in paralinguistic, extralinguistic, and sociolinguistic aspects, in addition to differing discourse styles. All of this is inaccessible and eludes one who is ignorant of another communication system. Monolingualism versus bilingualism or multilingualism within the individual (or plurilingualism as designated by Europeans): A monolingual person can learn about other cultures and “know” about them only in certain aspects. Unless one also has some degree of proficiency in the language of that culture, one cannot directly “experience” how the semantic component reflects and affects the culture. Moreover, a monolingual can only comprehend the world through one linguistic system and can never grasp the possibility of reconfiguring thought and concepts in another way. Intercultural on a continuum with diversity: Intercultural competencies are not dissimilar from interpersonal competencies (although the amount of variables that mediate relationships obviously increases significantly across cultures). In other words, many ICC attributes are just as applicable within one’s

242

Toward a Multinational Perspective

•

•

own culture. This being so, ethnic minorities who live their lives developing dual sets of abilities to operate within a mainstream culture may be well prepared to apply these same abilities when crossing an ocean. Conversely, the abilities developed through intercultural experience elsewhere often apply when returning home to deal with others in a diverse society. Conceptual versus experiential: Since the intercultural field has become a well-developed academic discipline (with MA and PhD degrees now offered at many universities), study alone of this subject matter would be inadequate. One must also have direct intercultural experience through living, study, or travel abroad and the development of proficiency in another language. Without both, one can only intellectualize, know vicariously and hypothetically, about many aspects of intercultural contact, but not experientially. Multicultural “man” (i.e., person): This notion, promulgated through Adler’s well-known article (1976) published more than 50 years ago, suggests a person who is at home in the world (i.e., in all cultures). Whereas one can become comfortable entering and living in many cultures, and one can also become interculturally competent in several, one cannot have the same ability with all. One starts anew each time although subsequent experiences may be aided and accelerated by earlier experiences.

Areas for Further Work While research furthers our understanding of our field, it also raises new questions. Following are several areas to consider for future research: 1) General relationships across and within subgroups: The IRP and the FRP provided important insights regarding this question by analyzing data by individual countries and then combining data. The compilation of data based on sojourners in multiple countries provided initial insights into commonalities shared by eight cultural groups; hence, a multinational perspective. Future studies may expand further on this approach by incorporating questions already researched and adding others: • • • •

How do different subgroups compare in a number of areas? What do they share? What comparisons can be made by gender? By age? What comparisons can be made based on type and length of sojourn? Based on previous intercultural experiences?

Toward a Multinational Perspective • • • •

243

Based on monolingual versus bilinguals or multilinguals? Development in areas of ASK+A? What other etic-emic comparisons can be made? What specific changes occur in worldview?

Other questions and areas of interest to explore further are as follows: 2) Assertions • • •

Which assertions might coalesce? How should assertions be reframed or restated? What new assertions might be added?

3) ICC attributes • • • •

Which attributes might cluster or coalesce? Is there a hierarchy or order of importance? Are attributes viewed the same from etic and emic points of view? Are attributes (and possible hierarchies) variable according to cultural contexts?

4) Language and communication • • •

How does language and communication affect other ICC components? What is the role of language to ICC development in general? How to use and relate communicative and discourse styles to this area?

5) Etic-emic viewpoints • •

How do sojourner and host assessments differ? How do they compare? How do sojourners perceive host natives? How do host natives perceive sojourners?

6) The AIC and AICC instruments • • •

Perform an item analysis to determine which items to retain, eliminate, or combine Revise and shorten the instruments accordingly Revise the survey questionnaire based on insights gained from this study

7) Comparisons with a control group • •

How do findings based on intercultural sojourns compare with developments among peers who have not gone abroad? What attributes do sojourners demonstrate that may make them a select group favorably inclined to intercultural experiences?

244

Toward a Multinational Perspective

8) Finally, several more charts and graphs may help to illustrate further some of the information noted earlier—for example, charts of • • • • •

correlations of host language proficiency levels with other aspects of ICC development correlations of type and length of stay with the development of ICC abilities comparisons and contrasts among additional cultural groups impact on alumni life choices impact of alumni on others (the multiplier effect)

From Research to Practice Research has the ability to inform practice and practice has the ability to raise new questions for researchers to investigate; hence, the important relationship that exists between researchers, trainers, and educators. Multiple perspectives will help develop a more comprehensive and universal grasp of ICC, its components, and approaches to its development and assessment. This work will not have served its purpose if the findings are not utilized by other researchers as well as by trainers and educators (both interculturalists and language educators), especially colleagues from diverse language and cultural backgrounds. Happily, works by scholars and practitioners suggesting techniques and activities to foster ICC development are on the increase. Following are examples of scholars and educators who have published a variety of well-known works over the years that may help: Hall (1977), (Kohls 1979), Bennett (1986), Paige (1993), Kohls and Knight (1994), Banks (1997), Fantini (1997b), Fowler and Mumford (1999), Almeida (2017), and many others. We conclude this work by suggesting some selected studies, models, and activities that will help practitioners promote ICC development through implementation in education and training activities and programs: 1. A survey of IC courses (cf. Fantini and Smith 1997:125–48)—This survey was conducted to learn about the evolving nature of IC courses through a review of 50 courses in 11 countries (38 universities in the US and 12 in other countries). The survey identifies course goals and objectives, curriculum design, content areas, approaches to implementation, materials and resources, and assessment procedures. The questionnaire instrument used in this survey also serves as a self-study guide for examining one’s own approach to the task by reviewing the 70 questions contained in the survey questionnaire. 2. Intercultural orientation model—Many approaches exist to intercultural orientation. This model, based on a survey of over 100 orientation models, identifies 10 orientation components commonly

Toward a Multinational Perspective

245

included in a 3-day predeparture orientation plan (15–30 hours), followed by suggested activities related to each component (Fantini et al. 1984a). The model is described in an orientation guide, complemented by a supplement of language-culture lessons that support the activities (Fantini and Hawkinson 1984) and a student field guide (Fantini et al. 1984b). In this model, orientation is viewed as an ongoing process that continues in-country through interventions, prepares participants for re-entry, and extends beyond their return home. The ten areas are as follows: • • • • • • • • • •

Introduction and an overview to orientation (presentation followed by an exercise) About field learning (activity followed by discussion) Fears and expectations (re the forthcoming experience) (activity followed by discussion) Program and trip information (presentation and question/answer period) Host country information and language (role play and presentation) Intercultural simulation (simulation activity followed by discussion) Cultural awareness and skills (presentation, activity, and discussion) Exploring the community (presentation, a field exploration activity, and discussion) Cultural entry and adjustment (presentation and activity) Evaluation and plan for field exploration

3. A curriculum design model—The gemstone model introduced earlier (Chapter 3) is designed to help in curriculum and program design (cf. Fantini 2001). It depicts eight components to consider—from initial needs assessment to educational precepts, goals and objectives, curriculum/syllabus design, implementation, resources, assessment and long-term assessment aspects. This model configures components around a circle with intersecting lines to show that all components must be connected. As one conducts the initial needs assessment and clarifies educational precepts on which a course or program is based (e.g., inductive/deductive, teacher-centered/student-centered, traditional/experiential), one also establishes clear goals and objectives. Clear goals and objectives in turn determine the curriculum design and syllabus, its implementation (the content and process of each lesson unit or activity), the resources required, and the assessment content and process. Long-term assessment is included in this model to suggest post-course or post-program assessment be conducted by departments or institutions to ascertain the impact of a program upon participants over time. Educational quality arises from the degree to which all curriculum components cohere. Quality is further enhanced when all components are appropriate for the context for which they are designed.

246

Toward a Multinational Perspective

4. The Lewinian experiential learning model—Approaches to intercultural education are often quite innovative, relying heavily on activities that engage participants. The experiential learning model, developed by Lewin (cf. Kolb 1984:21), does just that by proposing that learners have direct and concrete experiences as the basis upon which they observe, reflect, and discuss. Based on this model, they then discuss and make generalizations about their experience, which, in turn, they attempt to apply to the next situation. Although the process is commonly inductive (from experience to articulation), one can also proceed deductively as well (from articulation by the teacher to direct experiences). What is most important, in the end, is the combination of articulation and experience, or experience and articulation (the latter sequence less common in more traditional educational approaches). 5. Contrastive educational approaches—Educational exchange programs provide excellent opportunities for an experiential approach to education—that is, to learn from direct experience rather than primarily from reading books or listening to lectures. Figure 6.1 (cf. Fantini et al. 1984a:72) summarizes main differences between experiential activities, such as occur in a field situation, and those in more traditional classrooms.

Figure 6.1 Contrastive Educational Approaches

6. Aspects of educational approaches and strategies—In addition to contrastive educational approaches cited earlier, it is useful to consider ways to enrich the implementation of intercultural orientation and interventions. These include contrastive approaches such as inductive/ deductive, theoretical (conceptual)/applied, whole person, humanistic/congruent, structured/unstructured, directed/non-directed, saying

Toward a Multinational Perspective

247

versus doing, ASK+A (Attitudes, Skills, Knowledge + Awareness), sequenced versus organic curriculum, teacher-centered versus student-centered, small/large group work (individuals, pairs, triads, etc.), and monitoring/assessment (self, peer, teacher) strategies. Depending on the approach, there are also a variety of techniques that can be utilized; many of which are favored in accordance with the educational approach utilized. These include activities such as lecture/debate/panel/ reporting/fishbowl/skits/dramatizations/20 questions/imagery/readings/ discussion/case study/roleplay/simulation/pantomime/make an audio or video recording/non-verbal activity/oral presentations/written presentations/reports/brainstorming/round robin/paraphrasing/give understanding responses/demonstration/operation/visual presentations (drawings/ sketch/graph/etc./investigation/research/observation/group work (entire class/sub-groups/pairs/individuals)/sequence/organize/structure/ synthesis/outline/test (direct/indirect/synchronic/diachronic)/audio-visual/ ethnographic research/interview/question/answer/individual/group memory reconstruction/read and discuss. Depending on the activities chosen, specific and varied mental operations will be activated. These include operations such as enumerate/ evaluate/compare/contrast/explain/describe/define/discuss/summarize/ synthesize/critique/justify/trace/interpret/prove/illustrate/sequence. 7. A Process Approach (PA) Framework for language teachers (Fantini 1977:47–54)—This framework suggests a plan to ensure the integration of culture into the language curriculum. While language educators are accustomed to integrating “big C” culture in their teaching (i.e., art, history, literature, etc.), inadequate attention is often given to “small c” cultural aspects (i.e., interactions and behavioral patterns appropriate to the TL). Yet the latter aspects that include paralinguistic, extralinguistic, and sociolinguistic dimensions are precisely those that make an individual acceptable when dealing with host culture speakers. It is common experience that when dealing with speakers of another culture, greater tolerance is allowed for grammatical mistakes, much less for inappropriate or impolite interactions and behaviors. The PA Framework ensures that these cultural dimensions are included—the ability to interact and behave effectively and appropriately when dealing with those from another culture. The PA model outlines a sequence of stages for inclusion in every lesson unit. Following a warm-up and review, four common stages conducted by teachers are: (1) presentation, (2) practice, (3) grammar exploration, and (4) transposition. These stages, however, only address linguistic aspects. The inclusion of three additional stages is needed:

248

Toward a Multinational Perspective

(5) sociolinguistic exploration, (6) culture exploration, and (7) intercultural exploration. Whereas most language educators are familiar with the first four stages and know techniques for addressing them, the last three are often omitted and specific techniques are generally lacking. Each unit of material includes all seven stages with appropriate activities for each before proceeding to the next unit of material and through the entire cycle once again. In the process, all dimensions of communication are addressed, from linguistic to interaction and behaviors as appropriate to the TL culture. 8. Aba-Zak, a worldview exercise—Aba-Zak is an experiential activity designed to explore the notion of worldview and potential variations (cf. Fantini 1995:297–302). In the first phase, participants (in small groups of about five to six) explore the relationship of language and culture to worldview by creating their own “worldview” with various shaped objects provided and then naming and labeling the configurations they created within their world. In the second phase, one member of each group “visits” another (cultural) group, simulating an intercultural sojourn experience. Upon arrival, the sojourner attempts to learn as much as possible about the new cultural group and their worldview. This is done initially with no common language between visitors and hosts, simulating what a sojourn might be like under these circumstances. Later, the visitor and the host group are permitted to use a common language and the visitor continues to explore the host culture and its language (the host group answers questions but does not explain). Finally, after returning to their “native” cultures, sojourners reflect on their experience and recount it to their home group. The sojourner discusses his/her experience first with and then without a common language, followed by discussion of the strategies attempted, the reactions of hosts, and the results obtained. In the final phase, all groups convene to discuss, compare, and contrast their reactions of each other’s “cultures” and to compare and contrast etic and emic views presented of the two cultures and their worldviews. 9. Culture exploration—NAPI-KEPRA (Fantini 1997a:53–6; Figure 6.2) is a framework that serves as a map of culture to provide a way of tracking various aspects of culture to ensure a more holistic view of the target culture at the present moment (synchrony) and through time (diachrony)—from the present to the historical past and the future. The activity requires participants to explore their local community (domestically and again while abroad) and thereby engage in interactions with native speakers outside of a classroom context. For the exploration abroad, participants with low host language proficiency may assume more passive roles (through observation) while more advanced students may take more active roles (inquiring and interacting with locals).

Toward a Multinational Perspective

249

Figure 6.2 A NAPI-KEPRA Framework

The acronym “NAPI” refers to givens in any physical context (e.g., Natural environment, Artifacts, People, and Information/communication); “KEPRA” refers to cultural systems such as Kinship relations, Economic and Political systems, Religious systems, and Associations. Boxes in the framework are checked off during the group discussion that follows cultural exploration to indicate which areas have been explored or ignored. A follow-on activity can redirect the exploration to ensure that all areas are investigated. This activity can occur at home as a practice run before departure abroad and also conducted at various times during the sojourn in-country in order to learn about multiple aspects of culture—both the givens and its system, at the present moment and through time (past and future). 10. Culture activities for the language classroom—ACTFL (2003) makes available a video library for K–12 foreign language teachers. The collection includes a series of videos, a library guide, and website. Videos are filmed in exemplary language classrooms across the US, depicting culture activities displayed by teachers in a variety of foreign languages, from elementary to high school, and at various proficiency levels (cf. www.learner.org/resources/series185.html). 11. NCSSFL-ACTFL Can-Do Statements—These “Statements for Language” were produced through collaboration between the National Council of State Supervisors for Foreign Languages (NCSSFL) and ACTFL. They guide (1) language learners to identify and set learning goals and chart their progress toward language and intercultural proficiency; (2) educators to write communication learning targets for

250

Toward a Multinational Perspective

curriculum, unit, and lesson plans; and (3) stakeholders to clarify how well learners at different stages can communicate. In essence, they provide a set of sample tasks for learners to demonstrate what they can do with language and broaden that spectrum to show how language can be used to express interculturality. These statements are a tool intended to support the World-Readiness Cultures Standards and assist learners toward developing ICC (cf. URL in Reference List). 12. The Assessment of Language Teacher Development (ALTD) Form— A self-assessment form designed to aid teachers in tracking their own professional development, providing explicit objectives, guidelines, and assessment criteria on which to assess their competencies in several professional areas: interpersonal relations, language/ linguistic knowledge, language acquisition and learning, language teaching, professionalism, and cultural and intercultural knowledge (cf. Appendix C: ALTD Form; also Fantini in Freeman 1993:43–8.) In addition to these studies, models, and activities, it is important to recognize the many innovative developments in intercultural practices and field interventions during educational exchange that make increasing use of technology. The brochure of a recent conference on the “Development and Assessment of Intercultural Competence,” organized by CERCLL, University of Arizona, in Tucson, Arizona, in January 2018, read: As the opportunity and need to move between physical and virtual spaces has increased, more people experience the world as mobile and interconnected. On the one hand, this has enabled participation in dispersed communities and markets; on the other hand, as communication, meaning making, and culture have become deterritorialized, interculturality has revealed itself as more complex than the ability to mediate across cultural differences. At the same time, patterns of mass migration and economic globalization have meant local contexts are also shaped by transnational flows of capital, knowledge, practices, and modes of communication. As a result, people in today’s world must develop the capacity to negotiate and navigate dynamic demands . . . [this conference] focuses on these themes, featuring presentations and workshops that consider intercultural competence in connection with global trends of migration, travel, and digitally-enabled mobility. The large number of session presentations and workshops at the conference which addressed these areas exemplified the wide use of technology with titles such as: • •

Designing Telecollaborative Projects to Foster Interculturality Toward ICC: Virtual Mobility and Decentering Strategies

Toward a Multinational Perspective • • • • • • •

251

Developing ICC through Video and Film: Guidelines for Telecollaboration Projects Moving from Intercultural Contact to Intercultural Learning in Virtual Exchange Intercultural Digital Storytelling: Collaborate, Create, Curate, and Reflect Significant and Transformative Learning through Telecollaboration Development of Intercultural Awareness through Virtual Exchange A Facebook-Mediated Learning Design for Learners’ Developing ICC Using Virtual Interactions to Support Intercultural Development during Study Abroad

In summary, new approaches and resources are available for language and intercultural educators and trainers, not least of all is the support provided by the major professional societies. ACTFL and TESOL represent and support teachers of foreign languages and English as a second language, respectively, whereas SIETAR represents and supports the work of interculturalists. Numerous publications also continue to expand our knowledge of both theory and practice in these fields as well, such as The Sage Handbook of Intercultural Competence (Deardorff 2009), The Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural Communication (Jackson 2012), Intercultural Language Teaching and Learning (Liddicoat and Scarino 2013), Intercultural Competence in Higher Education (Deardorff and Arasaratnam-Smith 2017), Intercultural Interventions in Study Abroad (Jackson and Oguro 2017), Teaching Intercultural Competence across the Age Range (Wagner et al. 2018), Interculturality in International Education (Jackson 2018), and Study Abroad and Interculturality: Perspectives and Discourses (Borghetti and Beaven 2018), among others.

Conclusion The need to develop ICC, including multiple language abilities, in today’s world is quite clear. Indeed, policies that value and support the development of multilingual, multicultural individuals and societies, were adopted at the 2017 Salzburg Global Seminar session in support of the Sustainable Development Goals, adopted by 193 countries in 2015 to “end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for all” (salzburgglobal.org/go/586). Happily, educational exchange is on the rise and contributes greatly to this end. The last half century has seen continual growth in such programs in various parts of the world and predictions indicate that the number of students who choose to study abroad will only increase (cf. British Council Report 2017). In its June 2017 report, the British Council cited various trends in global higher education that will impact the future of international higher education. These trends include shifting global demographics, national strategies for higher education, and labor market

252

Toward a Multinational Perspective

demands for specific skills as just a few of the issues. The future of international higher education presents opportunities and challenges; how we approach both will depend to a large extend on our understanding of the value of educational exchange in helping to prepare interculturally minded citizens through educational exchange experiences. Educational exchange programs, however, must be of high quality. To ensure quality, agencies such as the Forum on Education Abroad (cf. URL in Reference List), focus on developing and implementing standards of good practice, encouraging and supporting research initiatives, and offering educational programs and resources to its members. The Forum’s institutional members include colleges and universities in the US and abroad, consortia, agencies, provider organizations, and foundations. The Forum’s mission is to help to improve education abroad programs in order to benefit the students who participate in them. It achieves this goal by establishing good practice and quality assurance standards, improving education abroad curricula, and promoting data collection and outcomes assessment, all to ensure high quality educational exchange programs. The present study is also designed to contribute data relevant to good practice, quality programs, data collection, and outcomes assessment. The findings—based on the search of the literature in several languages, spanning many years, and two multinational research projects—strongly reinforce anecdotal and statistical reports accumulated over more than three-quarters of a century within Federation EIL regarding the value of intercultural educational exchange. Because the nature of intercultural encounters is so provocative, it promotes deep introspection and reflection within participants. In addition, one normally develops deep attachments to the place where the sojourn occurred. This is captured in the words of one well-known participant in EIL’s exchange programs, Sargent Shriver, who participated in 1934 to Germany and Austria and later led student groups to both countries in 1936 and to France in 1939. At an event years later, in October 2000, Shriver joined hundreds of alumni in Brattleboro, Vermont, as honorary chair of a reunion to engage in substantive discussions on international developments and participate in a dialog about future directions of educational exchange. He spoke of his experience with these words (Fantini 2000:1): The Experiment was among the great learning experiences . . . It changed us and taught us some very important truths about people, about peace, and about change in the world. The Experiment taught us that the way to find out about your own world is to discover somebody else’s world. I developed attitudes and convictions that I put to a worldwide test years later.” Learning about others indeed provides new vantage points for learning about oneself. As the research findings attest, the sojourner typically

Toward a Multinational Perspective

253

remarks, “I learned so much about my host country, but I learned even more about myself.” The maxim commonly heard among interculturalists acquires a deeper meaning in light of the research findings: “Looking out is looking in.” As well as the verse by the fourth century BC Chinese philosopher, Chung Tsu: How shall I talk of the sea to the frog if it has never left its pond? How shall I talk of the frost to the bird of the summerland, if it has never left the land of its birth? How shall I talk of life with the sage, if he is prisoner of his doctrine? Understanding and changes of perspective occur for most participants in educational exchange experiences and, as a result, they return home deeply changed. These sentiments are clearly echoed as well in a document published by UNESCO titled Intercultural Competences: Conceptual and Operational Framework (2013:5–6) which states: Intercultural competences aim at freeing people from their own logic and cultural idioms in order to engage with others and listen to their ideas, which may involve belonging to one or more cultural systems . . . . Acquiring intercultural competences is a thrilling challenge since no one is, naturally, called upon to understand the values of others. This challenge is a unique opportunity in the history of humankind. It invites everybody to avoid all phenomena of confinement or ghettoization by offering new opportunities of multiple interpretations and unexpected discoveries. These opportunities sometimes lead to rediscovering one’s own identity under the deciphered forms of the “other.” Therefore, intercultural competences empower the participating groups and individuals and enable them to interact with cultural “others” with a view to bridging differences, defusing conflicts and setting the foundations of peaceful coexistence. In the end, it is hoped that these research findings will be of interest and value and use to all those engaged in the fields of language education and IC as well as those involved in student exchange, study abroad, education, business, and government. Our collective hope, indeed, is for increased tolerance, respect, and understanding across cultures. Our hope is for increased social justice. Our hope is for a better world. Our hope is for peace.

References Adler, P.S. (1976) “Beyond cultural identity,” in L.A. Samovar and R.E. Porter (eds.) Intercultural Communication, 2nd edn., Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co. Almeida, J. (2017) “Intercultural seminars: An educational intervention with sojourners at a Portuguese University,” in D.K. Deardorff and

254

Toward a Multinational Perspective

L. Arasaratnam-smith (eds.) Intercultural Competence in Higher Education: International Approaches, Assessment, and Applications, London: Routledge, pp. 144–50. ACTFL. (2003). ACTFL Teaching Foreign Languages K-12 Series: A Library of Classroom Practices. Online. Available: www.learner.org/resources/series185. html (accessed 20 January 2018). Banks, J.A. (1997) “Multicultural education: Characteristics and goals,” in J.A. Banks and C.A. McGee Banks (eds.) Multicultural Education: Issues and Perspectives, 3rd edn., Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, pp. 3–31. Bennett, J.M. (1986) “A developmental approach to training for intercultural sensitivity,” in International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10(2):179–96. Bennett, M.J. (1993) “Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental approach to training for intercultural sensitivity,” in R.M. Paige (ed.) Education for the Intercultural Experience, Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press, pp. 21–71. ——— (2017) The British Council Report. Online. Available: www.eaie.org/ blog/10-trends-changing-global-higher-education/ (accessed 4 January 2018). Borghetti, C. and Beaven, A. (2018) Study Abroad and Interculturality: Perspectives and Discourses, New York, NY: Routledge. Deardorff, D.K. (2009) The Sage Handbook of Intercultural Competence, Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. Deardorff, D.K. and Arasaratnam-Smith, L.A. (2017) Intercultural Competence in Higher Education, London: Routledge. Fantini, A.E. (1977) “Focus on process: An examination of the learning and teaching of communicative competence,” in D. Batchelder and E.G. Warner (eds.) Beyond Experience: The Experiential Approach to Cross-Cultural Education, Brattleboro, VT: The Experiment Press, pp. 47–54. Fantini, A.E. and Hawkinson, A.K. (1984) Cross-Cultural Orientation Supplement: Language-Culture Lessons, Brattleboro, VT: The Experiment in International Living. Fantini, A.E., McCoy, M.V., Soquet, J., Tannenbaum, E., and Wright, L. (1984a) Cross-Cultural Orientation: A Guide for Leaders and Educators, Brattleboro, VT: The Experiment in International Living. ——— (1984b) Getting the Whole Picture: A Student’s Field Guide to Language Acquisition and Culture Exploration, Brattleboro, VT: The Experiment in International Living. Fantini, A.E. (1993) “Teacher assessment,” in D. Freeman (ed.) New Ways in Teacher Education, Alexandria, VA: TESOL, pp. 43–8. ——— (1995) “Aba-Zak: A world view exercise,” in International Journal of Intercultural Relations:297–302, Alexandria, VA: TESOL. ——— (1997a) “Culture exploration: A NAPI-KEPRA framework,” in New Ways in Teaching Culture, Alexandria, VA: TESOL, pp. 53–6. ——— (1997b) New Ways in Teaching Culture, Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Fantini, A.E. and Smith, E.M. (1997) “A survey of intercultural communication courses,” in D. Landis (ed.) International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 21(1). Fantini, A.E. (ed.) (2000) About Our Institution: Inaugural Issue on the Occasion of SIT’s 35th Anniversary, Brattleboro, VT: School for International Training. ——— (2001) “Designing quality intercultural programs: A model and a process,” in Interspectives: A Journal on Transcultural Education, 18:100–5. Farrugia, C. and Sanger, J. (2017) Gaining an Employment Edge; The Impact of Study Abroad on 21st Century Skills Career Prospects in the United States, New York, NY: Institute of International Education. ——— Forum on Education Abroad. Online. Available: https://forumea.org/ resources/standards-of-good-practice/standards-guidelines/ (accessed 10 January 2018).

Toward a Multinational Perspective

255

Fowler, S.M. and Mumford, M.G. (1999) Intercultural Sourcebook: CrossCultural Training Methods, Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed, New York, NY: Bloomsbury. Hall, E.T. (1977) Beyond Culture, New York, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday and Co. Jackson, J. (ed.) (2012) The Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural Communication, London: Routledge. Jackson, J. and Oguro, S. (2017) Intercultural Interventions in Study Abroad, London: Routledge. Jackson, J. (2018) Interculturality in International Education, London: Routledge. Kohls, L.R. (1979) Survival Kit for Overseas Living, Chicago, IL: Intercultural Network, SYSTRAN Publications. Kohls, L.R. and Knight, J.M. (1994) Developing Intercultural Awareness, Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Liddicoat, A.J. and Scarino, A. (2013) Intercultural Language Teaching and Learning, Wiley Online Library. Online. Available: onlinelibrary.wiley.com. ——— NCSSFL-ACTFL Can-Do Statements: National Council of State Supervisors for Foreign Languages (NCSSFL) and the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). Online. Available: www.actfl.org/sites/ default/files/CanDos/Novice%20Can-Do_Statements.pdf (accessed 20 January 2018). Paige, M.R. (ed.) (1993) Education for the Intercultural Experience, Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. ——— (2013) Intercultural Competences: Conceptual and Operational Framework, Paris, France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Wagner, M., Perugini, D.C., and Byram, M. (2018) Teaching Intercultural Competence across the Age Range, Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters. Watt, D.B. (1967) Intelligence Is Not Enough, Putney, VT: The Experiment Press.

Appendix A AIC Form

Assessing Intercultural Competence A Research Project of the Federation EIL AIC Survey Questionnaire Form

About This Survey This questionnaire form is part of a research project conducted by the Federation of The Experiment in International Living (Federation EIL), with funding provided by the Center for Social Development at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri. This initial phase research project focuses on volunteers participating in intercultural service programs in Ecuador. This survey seeks to learn about the nature of intercultural communicative competence and various outcomes of intercultural experiences— the level of intercultural competence developed by volunteers, effects on their lifestyle choices, and their impact, in turn, on communities and on other individuals after returning home. This information will help us better understand how participants contribute to EIL’s vision and mission. Hopefully, this initial survey will eventually be followed by an expanded survey to include EIL participants worldwide. Survey Components There are seven parts to this form that take about 30 minutes to complete: Part I. Part II. Part III. Part IV. Part V. Part VI. Part VII.

About the Respondent [37 questions] Personal Characteristics [28 questions] Motivation and Options (18 questions) Language Proficiency (15 questions) Communication Styles (47 questions) Intercultural Areas [12 questions] Intercultural Abilities [54 questions]

© Alvino E. Fantini, Brattleboro, Vermont, USA, 1995; Revised 2001, 2002, 2005

258

Appendix A

Completing and Returning This Form Complete all Parts of this form to the best of your ability. You may fill out these Parts in any order and at different moments, but please complete all seven Parts, following directions given for each. Return the form promptly when completed, preferably by email; otherwise, fax or mail to the designated research assistant in your country. Finally, your permission is required to use the information you provide. Please read the “Informed Consent” Form that follows. This must be signed and returned with the completed questionnaire to allow us to include your data in our study. Thank you for your help in this important effort.

Appendix A

259

INFORMED CONSENT FORM FOR PARTICIPANTS IN THE AIC RESEARCH PROJECT Instructions: Before filling out the survey questionnaire, first read carefully and sign this “Informed Consent” Form. This form must be returned with the completed questionnaire to allow us to include your comments in our study. All information will be kept confidential and names will not be used. Also print this form and keep a copy for yourself. Title of Research Project: Assessing Intercultural Competence (AIC) 1. You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by the Federation EIL. Your participation is voluntary. Before agreeing to participate, you should know enough about the project to make an informed decision. If you have any questions, please ask, and be sure you are satisfied with the answers before participating. 2. The purpose of this study is to learn how international educational exchange programs impact the intercultural development of participants and others. We are contacting you to learn about your experience as part of your program in another culture. 3. Participation in this study involves the following: •

Alumni complete a confidential questionnaire form after program completion. Current participants and host mentors will complete a questionnaire form at the beginning and at the end of your program. Your completion of the form(s) will contribute data to this study and be of eventual use by future participants worldwide.

•

The AIC questionnaire form is a self-evaluation that asks about the development of your intercultural competence and communication abilities. It takes approximately 30 minutes to complete.

•

Interview—A percentage of those who return the questionnaire form will be invited, if they consent, to participate in a personal or telephone interview. During the interview you will be asked questions based on the AIC Form related to your experiences in the host culture.

•

Host country mentors/supervisors will also be asked to complete this form, both on themselves and on current participants. This

260

Appendix A will provide an external perspective on participant development. Copies will be coded to preserve individual privacy.

4. No known risks are associated with this research project other than possible discomfort with the following: •

You will be asked to be completely honest about yourself when completing the form.

•

You will be asked questions about personal experiences as a participant or mentor in the host country.

5. Possible benefits from participation in this project are: •

You will have an opportunity to reflect on your experiences.

•

You will contribute to knowledge about the impact of intercultural programs.

•

You will help to improve the program for future participants.

6. Remember, participation is voluntary. You may choose not to participate, and you may withdraw at any time during the project. In addition, you may choose not to answer any question with which you are not comfortable. There is no penalty should you choose not to participate or to withdraw. 7. Your privacy will be protected. Your identity will not be revealed in any publications resulting from this study. Individual information will be kept completely confidential. Individual data will be stored securely and will be available only to persons conducting the study. No reference will be made in oral or written reports that could link you to the study. 8. If you have questions or concerns about the study or the procedures, you may contact the researcher in your country, the Federation EIL office, or email: [email protected] ==========================================================================

Appendix A

261

A. I have read and understand this consent form. I hereby grant permission to use the information I provide as data in this research project, knowing that it will be kept confidential and without use of my name. I may also retain a signed copy of this consent form for my own personal records. B. Participant’s Signature _______________________

Date __________

C. I am willing to be contacted for a telephone or personal interview to discuss my experience further: Yes

No

D. I am interested in learning about the research report when available: Yes

No

262

Appendix A

AIC PART I ABOUT THE RESPONDENT [37 Questions] Please complete all of the following questions: 1. First name, last name ________________________________________ 2. Email address ______________________________________________ 3. Address (street, number, city, zip code, country) _________________ 4. Telephone _________________________________________________ 5. My nationality is ___________________________________________ 6. My native language is _______________________________________ 7. I also speak ________________________________________________ 8. I participated in an intercultural program during (list dates and year) ______________________________________________________ 9. The program I participated in was (please name or describe) _________ ___________________________________________________________ 10. Gender

Male

Female

11. What is your current age in years? ____________________________ 12. Education level (check highest level that applies) No formal education Secondary School College/University (4 years)

Elementary School 2-year college Master’s

Doctorate 13. Occupation or field(s) (check any that apply) Student Worker Clerk Social worker Technician Educator Executive Health Practitioner Administrator Other (specify) ___________________________________________ 14. My current company or organization (check any that apply) Business Government Development International Organization Health Public Service Education NGO Other (Specify) ___________________________________________________________ 15. The number of years I have been in this field/these fields is _________

Appendix A

263

16. Prior to your intercultural experience, did you have any other significant intercultural experiences outside of your country? Yes

No

17. If yes, where and for how long? (please specify) _________________ ___________________________________________________________ 18. Prior to this intercultural experience in your host country, did you develop any significant intercultural relationships? Yes

No

19. If yes, what type of intercultural relationships did you have? Friends Work colleagues Spouse Other (specify) __________________________________________ 20. Were these relationships developed through contact at home or abroad? ___________________________________________________ 21. On the whole, would you say this was a positive experience? Yes

No

22. Did these intercultural relationships influence in any way your decision to participate in a program in your host country? Yes

No

23. If you had prior intercultural experience before going to your host country, had you developed any intercultural abilities that were useful in your service experience abroad? Yes

No

24. If yes, list which specific intercultural abilities ___________________ ___________________________________________________________ 25. As a result of your intercultural experience in your host country, did you go on to study/learn any languages? Yes

No

26. If yes, list which languages. ___________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ 27. As a result of your intercultural experience, did you go on to pursue any related field(s) of study? Yes

No

28. If yes, state which. __________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________

264

Appendix A

29. As a result of your intercultural experience in your host country, did you develop any new intercultural relationships? Yes

No

30. If yes, list which type: Friends Work colleagues Spouse Other (specify) ___________________________________________________________ 31. As a result of your intercultural experience in your host country, did you choose to work in any related field(s)? Yes

No

32. If yes, state which ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ 33. Do you currently work in an intercultural or multicultural situation where you provide education, services, or training to others? Yes

No

34. If yes, answer the following: • • •

Type of work or project __________________________________ For approximately how many people? ______________________ For how many years? ____________________________________

35. Do you currently use any of the intercultural abilities in your life or work that were developed as a result of your service experience abroad? Yes

No

36. If yes, list which specific intercultural abilities. __________________ ___________________________________________________________ 37. Any other relevant information you wish to add? ________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________

(Please go on to AIC Part II.)

Appendix A

265

AIC PART II PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS [32 Questions] Please answer all of the following questions. Using a scale of 0 to 5 (highest), rate yourself on each characteristic listed below by checking the number that best represents how you perceive yourself in your own culture. Then also rate yourself, as you believe your hosts perceived you during your stay in your host country. Perception of Self in Your Own Culture 1. Intolerant

0

1

2

3

4

5

2. Flexible

0

1

2

3

4

5

3. Patient

0

1

2

3

4

5

4. Lacks sense of humor

0

1

2

3

4

5

5. Tolerates differences

0

1

2

3

4

5

6. Suspends judgment

0

1

2

3

4

5

7. Adaptable

0

1

2

3

4

5

8. Curious

0

1

2

3

4

5

9. Open-minded

0

1

2

3

4

5

10. Motivated

0

1

2

3

4

5

11. Self-reliant

0

1

2

3

4

5

12. Empathetic

0

1

2

3

4

5

13. Clear sense of self

0

1

2

3

4

5

14. Perceptive

0

1

2

3

4

5

15. Tolerates ambiguity

0

1

2

3

4

5

16. Other qualities you possess that are relevant to your performance in your own culture? (List and then rate with a number from 0 to 5.) __________________________

0

1

2

3

4

5

__________________________

0

1

2

3

4

5

266

Appendix A How You Were Perceived in Your Host Country?

17. Intolerant

0

1

2

3

4

5

18. Flexible

0

1

2

3

4

5

19. Patient

0

1

2

3

4

5

20. Lacks sense of humor

0

1

2

3

4

5

21. Tolerates differences

0

1

2

3

4

5

22. Suspends judgment

0

1

2

3

4

5

23. Adaptable

0

1

2

3

4

5

24. Curious

0

1

2

3

4

5

25. Open-minded

0

1

2

3

4

5

26. Motivated

0

1

2

3

4

5

27. Self-reliant

0

1

2

3

4

5

28. Empathetic

0

1

2

3

4

5

29. Clear sense of self

0

1

2

3

4

5

30. Perceptive

0

1

2

3

4

5

31. Tolerates ambiguity

0

1

2

3

4

5

32. Other qualities you possess that were relevant to your performance in your host country? (List and then rate with a number from 0 to 5.) __________________________

0

1

2

3

4

5

__________________________

0

1

2

3

4

5

(Please go on to AIC Part III)

Appendix A

267

AIC PART III MOTIVATION AND OPTIONS [18 Questions] What was your level of interest and motivation toward the host culture? None Extremely High 1. Before arriving in your host country

0

1

2

3

4

5

2. Upon first entering the host culture

0

1

2

3

4

5

3. Midway through the experience

0

1

2

3

4

5

4. At the end of the experience

0

1

2

3

4

5

5. After returning home

0

1

2

3

4

5

6. Today

0

1

2

3

4

5

How would you characterize your motivation toward the host culture while there? 7. Sometimes wanted to return home

0

1

2

3

4

5

8. Felt not learning very much

0

1

2

3

4

5

9. Felt forced or obliged to adjust

0

1

2

3

4

5

10. To survive as best you could

0

1

2

3

4

5

11. Desired to get along well

0

1

2

3

4

5

12. Desired to adjust as best you could

0

1

2

3

4

5

13. Admired hosts so much that you worked to become as bicultural as possible

0

1

2

3

4

5

14. Admired hosts so much that you worked to become as bilingual as possible

0

1

2

3

4

5

15. After returning home, did you maintain contact with people from the host culture Yes

No

16. If yes, for how many years? (state number) _____________________

268

Appendix A

17. What type of contact do you now have? (check as many apply): Correspond by letter or email Speak occasionally on the telephone Exchange gifts I visit them They visit me 18. As a result of your experience, how do you feel you changed? (please comment): _________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________

(Please go on to AIC Part IV)

Appendix A

269

AIC PART IV LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY [15 Questions] Mark with an (X) the one item that best describes your host language ability at the BEGINNING and at the END of your intercultural sojourn. BEGINNING

END

1. No ability at all 2. Unable to function in the spoken language 3. Able to communicate only in a very limited capacity 4. Able to satisfy immediate needs with memorized phrases 5. Able to satisfy basic survival needs and minimum courtesy requirements 6. Able to satisfy some survival needs and some limited social demands 7. Able to satisfy most survival needs and limited social demands 8. Able to satisfy routine social demands and limited work requirements 9. Able to communicate on some concrete topics and to satisfy most work needs 10. Able to speak with sufficient structural accuracy and vocabulary to participate effectively in most formal and informal situations 11. Able to speak with sufficient structural accuracy and vocabulary to discuss relevant professional areas 12. Able to speak the host language fluently and accurately on all levels 13. Speaking proficiency sometimes equivalent to that of an educated native speaker, but not always able to sustain performance 14. Proficiency equivalent to that of an educated native speaker 15. Anything else you want to add? _______________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ (Please go on to AIC Part V)

270

Appendix A

AIC PART V COMMUNICATION STYLES (47 Questions) What have you learned about styles of communicating in your own culture as contrasted with those in your host country? Check off your responses to the following questions in terms of how you would most likely respond in the situations cited: 1. In my own culture, I consider courtesy conventions and protocols a. b.

unimportant important

2. In the host culture, I believe they consider courtesy conventions and protocols a. b. c.

unimportant important not sure

3. When meeting people in my own culture, I think it is important to a. b.

get to know each other well before getting down to business get down to business as soon as possible

4. When meeting people in the host culture, I think they consider it important to a. b. c.

get to know each other well before getting down to business get down to business as soon as possible not sure

5. When in a conflict situation in my own culture, I prefer exchanges that are a. b.

dispassionate reveal people’s true feelings and emotions

6. When in a conflict situation in the host culture, I believe they prefer exchanges that are a. b. c.

dispassionate reveal people’s true feelings and emotions not sure

7. In work situations in my own culture, I prefer that information be a. b.

presented by first clearly stating a purpose followed by logical and sequenced points presenting a lot of information that allows me to draw my own conclusions

Appendix A

271

8. In work situations in the host culture, I believe they prefer that information be a. b. c.

presented first by clearly stating a purpose followed by logical and sequenced points presenting a lot of information that allows one to draw one’s own conclusions not sure

9. When involved in a group task in my culture, I consider it important to a. b.

first get to know all those involved first clarify the task and get to work as soon as possible

10. When involved in a group task in the host culture, I believe they consider it important to a. b. c.

first get to know all those involved first clarify the task and get to work as soon as possible not sure

11. When faced with a task in my own culture, I prefer a. b.

first to understand the big picture before working on my part to work on my part of the task without needing to know its relation to the whole

12. When faced with a task in the host culture, I believe they prefer a. b. c.

first to understand the big picture before working on individual parts to work on parts of the task without needing to know its relation to the whole not sure

13. In my culture, I generally prefer a. b.

a quiet working environment one in which there is a lot of verbal and other interaction

14. In the host culture, I believe they generally prefer a. b. c.

a quiet working environment one in which there is a lot of verbal and other interaction not sure

15. When disagreeing in my culture, I prefer a. b.

to be told directly and openly about the problem no matter the consequences not to speak openly so as not to offend anyone

272

Appendix A

16. When disagreeing in the host culture, I believe they prefer a. b. c.

to be told directly and openly about the problem no matter the consequences not to speak openly so as not to offend anyone not sure

17. In a difficult or embarrassing situation in my culture, I prefer to a. b.

avoid saying anything that will embarrass either party discuss the issue in hopes of resolving it

18. In a difficult or embarrassing situation in the host culture, I believe they prefer to a. b. c.

avoid saying anything that will embarrass either party discuss the issue in hopes of resolving it not sure

19. When speaking to superiors about a concern in my culture, I prefer to a. b.

speak directly on my own behalf express my concern through an intermediary

20. When speaking to superiors about a concern in the host culture, I believe they prefer to a. b. c.

speak directly on one’s own behalf express one’s concern through an intermediary not sure

21. When negating someone’s comment or request in my culture, I usually a. b.

say so directly and unambiguously try to convey this without saying so directly

22. When negating someone’s comment or request in the host culture, I believe they usually a. b. c.

say so directly and unambiguously try to convey this without saying so directly not sure

23. When things are not right in my culture, I generally a. b.

refrain from giving feedback or criticism speak my mind openly

24. When things are not right in the host culture, I believe they generally a. b. c.

refrain from giving feedback or criticism speak their mind openly not sure

Appendix A

273

25. When discussing an issue with others in my culture, I like to a. b.

be sure they understand the background and general context feel they only need to know the part that concerns them directly

26. When discussing an issue with others in the host culture, I believe they like to a. b. c.

be sure they understand the background and general context feel they only need to know the part that concerns them directly not sure

27. When working with those in my charge in my culture, I prefer to a. b.

be direct and tell them exactly what they need to do present things in a way to gain their support for the task at hand

28. When working with those in someone’s charge in the host culture, I believe they prefer to a. b. c.

be direct and tell them exactly what they need to do present things in a way to gain their support for the task at hand not sure

29. When engaged in conversation in my culture, I like to a. b.

make it interesting by using nuance or innuendo tell it straight and plain

30. When engaged in conversation in the host culture, I believe they like to a. b. c.

make it interesting by using nuance or innuendo tell it straight and plain not sure

31. When speaking with others with a “foreign” accent in my culture, I a. b.

sometimes treat them differently generally treat them the same

32. When speaking with others with a “foreign” accent in the host culture, I believe they a. b. c.

sometimes treat them differently generally treat them the same not sure

33. When foreigners speak my language, I a. b.

sometimes treat them differently generally treat them the same as other native speakers

274

Appendix A

34. When foreigners speak the host language, I believe they are a. b. c.

sometimes treated differently generally treated the same as other native speakers not sure

35. When speaking with people of other cultural backgrounds, I generally a. b.

adjust the distance between us accordingly stand at the same distance from them as I do with people of my own culture

36. When people in the host culture speak with others of different cultural backgrounds, I believe they generally a. b. c.

adjust the distance between them accordingly stand at the same distance from them as they do with others of their culture not sure

37. When speaking with people of other cultural backgrounds, I generally a. b.

adjust the type of physical contact I have with them accordingly make the same type of physical contact I do with people of my own culture

38. When people in the host culture speak with people of other cultural backgrounds, I believe they generally a. b. c.

adjust the type of physical contact they have with them accordingly make the same type of physical contact they do with people of their own culture not sure

39. When speaking with people of other cultural backgrounds, I generally a. b.

adjust the type of eye contact I make with them accordingly make the same type of eye contact I do with people of my own culture

40. When people in the host culture speak with people of other cultural backgrounds, I believe they generally a. b. c.

adjust the type of eye contact they make with them accordingly make the same type of eye contact they do with others of their own culture not sure

41. When speaking with people of other cultural backgrounds, I am generally a. b.

concerned about smells or aromas they may consider offensive don’t consider smells or aromas a sensitive issue

Appendix A

275

42. When people in the host culture speak with people of other cultural backgrounds, I believe they are generally a. b. c.

concerned about smells or aromas others may consider offensive don’t consider smells or aromas a sensitive issue not sure

43. When speaking with people of other cultural backgrounds, I generally a. b.

adjust the type of gestures I use with them accordingly use the same gestures I do with people of my own culture

44. When people in the host culture speak with people of other cultural backgrounds, I believe they generally a. b. c.

adjust the type of gestures they use with them accordingly use the same gestures they do with others of their own culture not sure

45. When speaking with people of other cultural backgrounds, I generally a. b.

adjust the pauses and overlap between our comments accordingly use the same conversational patterns I use with people of my own culture

46. When people in the host culture speak with people of other cultural backgrounds, I believe they generally a. b. c.

adjust the pauses and overlap between their comments accordingly use the same conversational patterns they use with others of their own culture not sure

47. Please add other comments here, if you wish. ___________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________

(Please go on to AIC Part VI)

276

Appendix A

AIC PART VI INTERCULTURAL AREAS [12 Questions] Check the number from 0 (= Not at all) to 5 (= Extremely well) that best describes your situation: During my stay in the host country, I established and maintained good relationships with 1. my host family

3 3 3

4 4 4

5 5 5

3 3 3

4 4 4

5 5 5

I was also able to communicate in my own language with 7. my host family 0 1 2 3 8. my host colleagues 0 1 2 3 9. other host natives 0 1 2 3

4 4 4

5 5 5

2. my host colleagues 3. other host natives

0 0 0

1 1 1

2 2 2

I was able to communicate in the host language with 4. my host family 5. my host colleagues 6. other host natives

0 0 0

1 1 1

2 2 2

I cooperated with others, as needed, to accomplish tasks of mutual interest with 0 1 2 3 4 5 10. my host family 11. my host colleagues 0 1 2 3 4 5 12. other host natives 0 1 2 3 4 5

(Please go on to AIC Part VII)

Appendix A

277

AIC PART VII INTERCULTURAL ABILITIES [54 Questions] Please respond to questions in each of the four categories, using the scale from 0 (= Not at all) to 5 (= Extremely High). Mark each item TWICE: First, mark with a (B) to indicate your ability at the BEGINNING of your stay in the host culture. Then, mark the same item with an (E) to indicate your ability at the END of your stay. This will provide a basis for comparison BEFORE and AFTER.

Knowledge 1. I could cite a definition of culture and describe its components and complexities

0

1

2

3

4

5

2. I knew the essential norms and taboos of the host culture (e.g., greetings, dress, behaviors)

0

1

2

3

4

5

3. I could contrast important aspects of the host language and culture with my own

0

1

2

3

4

5

4. I recognized signs of culture stress and some strategies for overcoming it

0

1

2

3

4

5

5. I knew some techniques to aid my learning of the host language and culture

0

1

2

3

4

5

6. I could contrast my own behaviors with those of my hosts in important areas (e.g., social interactions, basic routines, time orientation)

0

1

2

3

4

5

7. I could cite important historical and socio-political factors that shape my own culture and the host culture

0

1

2

3

4

5

8. I could describe a model of crosscultural adjustment stages

0

1

2

3

4

5

278

Appendix A

9. I could cite various learning processes and strategies for learning about and adjusting to the host culture

0

1

2

3

4

5

10. I could describe interactional behaviors common among people in the host culture in social and professional areas (e.g., family roles, team work, problem solving)

0

1

2

3

4

5

11. I could discuss and contrast various behavioral patterns in my own culture with those in the host culture

0

1

2

3

4

5

Attitude While in the host country, I demonstrated willingness to 12. interact with host culture members (I didn’t avoid them or primarily seek out my compatriots)

0

1

2

3

4

5

13. learn from my hosts, their language, and their culture

0

1

2

3

4

5

14. try to communicate in the host language and behave in appropriate ways, as judged by my hosts

0

1

2

3

4

5

15. deal with my emotions and frustrations with the host culture (in addition to the pleasures it offered)

0

1

2

3

4

5

16. take on various roles appropriate to different situations (e.g., in the family, as a volunteer)

0

1

2

3

4

5

17. show interest in new cultural aspects (e.g., to understand the values, history, traditions)

0

1

2

3

4

5

18. try to understand differences in the behaviors, values, attitudes, and styles of host members

0

1

2

3

4

5

Appendix A

279

19. adapt my behavior to communicate appropriately in the host culture (e.g., in non-verbal and other behavioral areas, as needed for different situations)

0

1

2

3

4

5

20. reflect on the impact and consequences of my decisions and choices on my hosts

0

1

2

3

4

5

21. deal with different ways of perceiving, expressing, interacting, and behaving

0

1

2

3

4

5

22. interact in alternative ways, even when quite different from those to which I was accustomed and preferred

0

1

2

3

4

5

23. deal with the ethical implications of my choices (in terms of decisions, consequences, results, etc.)

0

1

2

3

4

5

24. suspend judgment and appreciate the complexities of communicating and interacting interculturally

0

1

2

3

4

5

25. I demonstrated flexibility when interacting with persons from the host culture

0

1

2

3

4

5

26. I adjusted my behavior, dress, etc., as appropriate, to avoid offending my hosts

0

1

2

3

4

5

27. I was able to contrast the host culture with my own

0

1

2

3

4

5

28. I used strategies for learning the host language and about the host culture

0

1

2

3

4

5

29. I demonstrated the ability to interact appropriately in a variety of different social situations in the host culture

0

1

2

3

4

5

Skills

280

Appendix A

30. I used appropriate strategies for adapting to the host culture and reducing stress

0

1

2

3

4

5

31. I used models, strategies, and techniques that aided my learning of the host language and culture

0

1

2

3

4

5

32. I monitored my behavior and its impact on my learning, my growth, and especially on my hosts

0

1

2

3

4

5

33. I used culture-specific information to improve my style and professional interaction with my hosts

0

1

2

3

4

5

34. I helped to resolve cross-cultural conflicts and misunderstandings when they arose

0

1

2

3

4

5

35. I employed appropriate strategies for adapting to my own culture after returning home

0

1

2

3

4

5

Awareness While in the host culture, I realized the importance of 36. differences and similarities across my own and the host language and culture

0

1

2

3

4

5

37. my negative reactions to these differences (e.g., fear, ridicule, disgust, superiority)

0

1

2

3

4

5

38. how varied situations in the host culture required modifying my interactions with others

0

1

2

3

4

5

39. how host culture members viewed me and why

0

1

2

3

4

5

40. myself as a “culturally conditioned” person with personal habits and preferences

0

1

2

3

4

5

Appendix A

281

41. responses by host culture members to my own social identity (e.g., race, class, gender, age)

0

1

2

3

4

5

42. diversity in the host culture (such as differences in race, class, gender, age, ability)

0

1

2

3

4

5

43. dangers of generalizing individual behaviors as representative of the whole culture

0

1

2

3

4

5

44. my choices and their consequences (which made me either more, or less, acceptable to my hosts)

0

1

2

3

4

5

45. my personal values that affected my approach to ethical dilemmas and their resolution

0

1

2

3

4

5

46. my hosts’ reactions to me that reflected their cultural values

0

1

2

3

4

5

47. how my values and ethics were reflected in specific situations

0

1

2

3

4

5

48. varying cultural styles and language use, and their effect in social and working situations

0

1

2

3

4

5

49. my own level of intercultural development

0

1

2

3

4

5

50. the level of intercultural development of those I associated with (other program participants, hosts, co-workers, etc.)

0

1

2

3

4

5

51. factors that helped or hindered my intercultural development and ways to overcome them

0

1

2

3

4

5

52. how I perceived myself as communicator, facilitator, mediator, in an intercultural situation

0

1

2

3

4

5

282

Appendix A

53. how others perceived me as communicator, facilitator, mediator, in an intercultural situation

0

1

2

3

4

5

54. is there anything else you would like to add? ___________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________

(End of survey questionnaire. If working by email, be sure to copy this document and save before closing. Then return it as an attachment. Otherwise, you may wish to make a photocopy for yourself and fax or mail the original to the research assistant in your country. Thank you.)

Appendix B AICC Form

Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence (AICC Form) A Research Project of Federation EIL and the Center for Educational Resources in Culture, Language, and Literacy (CERCLL) About This Survey This questionnaire is part of a research project conducted by the Federation of the Experiment in International Living (EIL), with funding provided by the Center for Educational Resources in Culture, Language, and Literacy (CERCLL) at the University of Arizona in Tucson, Arizona, USA, one of 15 National Resource Centers supported by the U.S. Department of Education. This research project focuses on individuals who have participated in an intercultural educational exchange program. This survey seeks to learn about the outcomes of educational exchange experiences on participants—the nature of intercultural communicative competence (ICC), the level of ICC developed, effects on their sojourner lifestyle choices, and their impact, in turn, on other individuals and on communities after returning home. This information will help us better understand how participants contribute to Federation EIL’s vision and mission. This project involving Brazil, Germany, Ireland, Japan, and the US, expands on an earlier survey conducted in 2005–2006 with three other Federation EIL member countries—Ecuador, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Survey Components This form contains seven parts that take approximately 35 minutes to complete: Part I. Part II.

About the Respondent [38 questions] Personal Characteristics [28 questions]

© Alvino E. Fantini, Brattleboro, Vermont, USA, 1995; Revised 2001, 2005, 2015

284

Appendix B Part III. Part IV. Part V. Part VI. Part VII.

Motivation and Options [18 questions)] Language Proficiency [3 questions)] Communication Styles [47 questions] Intercultural Areas [12 questions] Intercultural Abilities [54 questions]

Completing and Returning This Form Complete this form to the best of your ability, but please complete all seven Parts, following directions given for each. Return the form promptly when completed, preferably by email; otherwise, mail to the designated research assistant in your country. Finally, your permission is required to use information you provide. Please read the “Informed Consent” Form that follows. This form must be signed and returned together with the completed questionnaire to allow us to include your data in our study. Thank you for your help in this important effort.

Appendix B

285

INFORMED CONSENT FORM FOR PARTICIPANTS IN THE AICC RESEARCH PROJECT Instructions: Before completing the survey questionnaire, read and sign this “Informed Consent” form. This form must be returned with the completed questionnaire to allow us to include your comments in our study. All information is confidential, and your name will not be used. You may print this form and keep a copy for yourself. Title of Research Project: Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence (AICC) 1. You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by the Federation EIL. Participation is voluntary, but before participating, you should be clear about the nature and scope of the project. 2. The purpose of this study is to learn how international sojourns impact the lives of participants and their intercultural development. For this reason, we wish to learn about your experience while on an intercultural sojourn in another culture. 3. Participation in this study involves the following: •

Completion of a confidential questionnaire form. This information will contribute to this study and be of eventual benefit to future participants worldwide.

•

The Form is a self-evaluation that asks about the impact of your intercultural sojourn and the development of your IC.

•

When returning the Form, you will be invited, if you consent, to participate in a subsequent telephone or personal interview. During this interview, you will be asked further questions about your experiences in the host culture.

•

Host family members may also be asked to complete this Form to help us also ascertain effects upon those who host international visitors.

4. No known risks are associated with this research other than possible discomfort with the following: •

You will be asked to be candid about yourself when completing the form.

286 •

Appendix B You will be asked questions about your personal experiences as a participant or host.

5. Possible benefits from participation in this project are •

You will have an opportunity to reflect on your experiences.

•

You will contribute to knowledge about the impact of intercultural sojourns.

•

You will help to improve program offerings for future participants.

6. Remember, your participation is voluntary. Your identity will not be revealed in publications resulting from this study. Data will be available only to persons conducting the study and will be kept confidential. 7. If you have questions or concerns about the study or procedures, please contact the researcher in your country, the Federation EIL office, or email the project director directly: [email protected]. ========================================================================== A. I have read and understand this consent form. I hereby grant permission to use the information I provide as data in this research project, knowing that it will be kept confidential and without use of my name. I may also retain a signed copy of this consent form for my own personal records. B. Participant’s signature _______________________

Date __________

C. I am willing to be contacted at a later time for a telephone or Skype interview to discuss my experience further: Yes

No

Appendix B

287

AICC PART I ABOUT THE RESPONDENT [38 Questions]

Please complete all of the following questions: About Yourself 1. First name, last name ________________________________________ 2. Email address ______________________________________________ 3. Home address (street, number, city, zip code, country) ___________ ___________________________________________________________ 4. Home telephone _______________ 5. Gender:

Male

Cell telephone ____________

Female

6. My age is __________________________________________________ 7. My nationality is ___________________________________________ 8. My native language is _______________________________________ 9. Growing up, I also spoke ____________________________________ 10. Prior to your intercultural sojourn, did you have any significant intercultural experiences abroad? Yes

No

11. If yes, where and for how long (please specify)? _________________ 12. Prior to your intercultural sojourn, did you have any significant intercultural relationships? Yes

No

13. If yes, what type of intercultural relationships did you have? Friends

Classmates

Other (specify) ___________________

14. Were these relationships a positive experience?

Yes

No

15. Did these relationships influence your decision to participate in an intercultural program abroad? Yes

No

288

Appendix B

16. If you had prior intercultural experience, had you developed any intercultural abilities that you found useful during your intercultural sojourn? Yes

No

17. If yes, list which specific intercultural abilities ___________________ About Your Intercultural Sojourn 18. Give the following information regarding the program you participated in Country _____________________ Year ________________________ Duration of sojourn in months _______________________________ 19. The name of the program I participated in was __________________ 20. The type of program I participated was Summer homestay and travel Academic Semester Abroad Other (specify) _____________________________________________ 21. At the time I participated, my age was _________________________ 22. Check all program components that applied and rate the value of each to you on a scale of 0 to 5: Orientation Language Study Group or Academic Leader Homestay Program Theme Service Component Educational Component Post-program follow-up Other (specify)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

And Beyond 23. Your highest education level achieved 2-year college

College/University (4 years)

Master’s

Doctorate

Other _________________________________

Appendix B

289

24. As a result of your intercultural experience, did you pursue any related field(s) of study? Yes

No

25. If yes, state which ___________________________________________ 26. As a result of your intercultural experience, did you choose work in any relevant intercultural/international field(s)? Yes

No

27. If yes, state which ___________________________________________ 28. Do you currently work in an intercultural or multicultural situation where you provide education, service, or training to others? Yes

No

29. If yes, answer the following: • • •

Type of work or project __________________________________ For approximately how many people? ______________________ For how many years? ____________________________________

30. My present field of work is (check any that apply) Business Government Development International Organization Health Public Service Education NGO Other (Specify) ___________________________________________________________ 31. My present work position is (check any that apply) Student Worker Clerk Educator Social worker Technician Administrator Executive Health Practitioner Other (specify) ___________________________________________ 32. As a result of your intercultural experience, did you study/learn any additional languages? Yes

No

33. If yes, list which language(s). _________________________________ 34. As a result of your intercultural experience, did you develop any new intercultural relationships? Yes

No

290

Appendix B

35. If yes, list which type: Friends

Work colleagues

Spouse Other (specify) ______________________ ___________________________________________________________ 36. Do you currently use any of the intercultural abilities in your life or work that were developed as a result of your experience abroad? Yes

No

37. If yes, list which specific intercultural abilities ___________________ ___________________________________________________________ 38. Please include any additional information you wish to add about how your intercultural sojourn may have affected your life and/or career choices ______________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________

(Please go on to AICC Part II)

Appendix B

291

AICC PART II PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS [32 Questions] Please answer all of the following questions. Use a scale of 0 to 5 (highest) to rate yourself on each characteristic listed next by checking the number that best represents how you perceive yourself in your own culture. Then also rate yourself, as you believe your hosts perceived you during your stay in your host country. Perception of Self in Your Own Culture 1. Tolerant

0

1

2

3

4

5

2. Flexible

0

1

2

3

4

5

3. Patient

0

1

2

3

4

5

4. Good sense of humor

0

1

2

3

4

5

5. Tolerates differences

0

1

2

3

4

5

6. Suspends judgment

0

1

2

3

4

5

7. Adaptable

0

1

2

3

4

5

8. Curious

0

1

2

3

4

5

9. Open-minded

0

1

2

3

4

5

10. Motivated

0

1

2

3

4

5

11. Self-reliant

0

1

2

3

4

5

12. Empathetic

0

1

2

3

4

5

13. Clear sense of self

0

1

2

3

4

5

14. Perceptive

0

1

2

3

4

5

15. Tolerates ambiguity

0

1

2

3

4

5

16. Other qualities you possess that are relevant to your performance in your own culture? (List and then rate with a number from 0 to 5.) __________________________

0

1

2

3

4

5

__________________________

0

1

2

3

4

5

292

Appendix B How You Believe You Were Perceived in Your Host Country?

17. Tolerant

0

1

2

3

4

5

18. Flexible

0

1

2

3

4

5

19. Patient

0

1

2

3

4

5

20. Good sense of humor

0

1

2

3

4

5

21. Tolerates differences

0

1

2

3

4

5

22. Suspends judgment

0

1

2

3

4

5

23. Adaptable

0

1

2

3

4

5

24. Curious

0

1

2

3

4

5

25. Open-minded

0

1

2

3

4

5

26. Motivated

0

1

2

3

4

5

27. Self-reliant

0

1

2

3

4

5

28. Empathetic

0

1

2

3

4

5

29. Clear sense of self

0

1

2

3

4

5

30. Perceptive

0

1

2

3

4

5

31. Tolerates ambiguity

0

1

2

3

4

5

32. Other qualities you possess that were relevant to your performance in your host country? (List and then rate with a number from 0 to 5.) __________________________

0

1

2

3

4

5

__________________________

0

1

2

3

4

5

(Please go on to AICC Part III)

Appendix B

293

AICC PART III MOTIVATION AND OPTIONS [18 Questions] What was your level of interest and motivation toward the host culture? None Extremely High 1. Before arriving in your host country

0

1

2

3

4

5

2. Upon entering the host culture

0

1

2

3

4

5

3. Midway through the experience

0

1

2

3

4

5

4. At the end of the experience

0

1

2

3

4

5

5. After returning home

0

1

2

3

4

5

6. Today

0

1

2

3

4

5

How would you characterize your motivation toward the host culture while there? 7. Sometimes wanted to return home

0

1

2

3

4

5

8. Felt not learning very much

0

1

2

3

4

5

9. Felt forced or obliged to adjust

0

1

2

3

4

5

10. To survive as best you could

0

1

2

3

4

5

11. Desired to get along well

0

1

2

3

4

5

12. Desired to adjust as best you could

0

1

2

3

4

5

13. Admired hosts so much that you strived to become as native-like as possible.

0

1

2

3

4

5

14. Admired hosts so much that you strived to become as bilingual as possible.

0

1

2

3

4

5

15. After returning home, did you maintain contact with people from the host culture? Yes

No

16. If yes, for how many years? __________________________________

294

Appendix B

17. What type of contact do you now have? (check as many apply): Occasional communication by letter, greeting cards Communicate occasionally by telephone, email, or social media Exchange gifts I visit them They visit me 18. As a result of your experience, how do you feel you changed? (please comment): _________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________

(Please go on to AICC Part IV

Appendix B

295

AICC PART IV LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY [3 Questions] 1. and 2. Mark with an (X) the one statement that best describes your host language ability at the BEGINNING and again at the END of your intercultural sojourn. BEGINNING •

No language ability at all

•

Unable to function in the spoken language

•

Able to communicate in a very limited capacity

•

Able to satisfy needs with memorized phrases

•

Able to satisfy basic survival needs and minimum courtesy requirements

•

Able to satisfy some survival needs and some limited social demands

•

Able to satisfy most survival needs and limited social demands

•

Able to satisfy routine social demands

•

Able to communicate on some concrete topics

•

Able to speak with sufficient accuracy and vocabulary to participate effectively in most formal and informal situations

•

Able to speak with sufficient accuracy and vocabulary to discuss relevant professional areas

•

Able to speak the host language fluently and accurately on all levels

•

Speaking proficiency sometimes equivalent to that of an educated native speaker, but not always able to sustain performance

•

Proficiency equivalent to that of an educated native speaker

END

3. Anything else you want to add? ________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________

(Please go on to AICC Part V)

296

Appendix B

AICC PART V COMMUNICATION STYLES [47 Questions] What have you learned about styles of communicating in your own culture as contrasted with those in your host country? Check off your responses to the following questions in terms of how you would most likely respond in each situation cited: 1. In my own culture, I consider courtesy conventions and protocols a. b.

unimportant important

2. In the host culture, I believe they consider courtesy conventions and protocols a. b. c.

unimportant important not sure

3. When meeting people in my own culture, I think it is important to a. b.

get to know each other well before getting down to business get down to business as soon as possible

4. When meeting people in the host culture, I think they consider it important to a. b. c.

get to know each other well before getting down to business get down to business as soon as possible not sure

5. In a conflict situation in my own culture, I prefer exchanges that are a. b.

dispassionate reveal people’s true feelings and emotions

6. In a conflict situation in the host culture, I believe they prefer exchanges that are a. b. c.

dispassionate reveal people’s true feelings and emotions not sure

7. In work situations in my own culture, I prefer that information be a. b.

presented by first clearly stating a purpose followed by logical and sequenced points presenting a lot of information that allows me to draw my own conclusions

Appendix B

297

8. In work situations in the host culture, I believe they prefer that information be a. b. c.

presented first by clearly stating a purpose followed by logical and sequenced points presenting a lot of information that allows one to draw one’s own conclusions not sure

9. When involved in a group task in my culture, I consider it important to a. b.

first get to know all those involved first clarify the task and get to work as soon as possible

10. When involved in a group task in the host culture, I believe they consider it important to a. b. c.

first get to know all those involved first clarify the task and get to work as soon as possible not sure

11. When faced with a task in my own culture, I prefer a. b.

first to understand the big picture before working on my part to work on my part of the task without needing to know its relation to the whole

12. When faced with a task in the host culture, I believe they prefer a. b. c.

first to understand the big picture before working on individual parts to work on parts of the task without needing to know its relation to the whole not sure

13. In my culture, I generally prefer a. b.

a quiet working environment one in which there is a lot of verbal and other interaction

14. In the host culture, I believe they generally prefer a. b. c.

a quiet working environment one in which there is a lot of verbal and other interaction not sure

15. When disagreeing in my culture, I prefer a. b.

to be told directly and openly about the problem no matter the consequences not to speak openly so as not to offend anyone

298

Appendix B

16. When disagreeing in the host culture, I believe they prefer a. b. c.

to be told directly and openly about the problem no matter the consequences not to speak openly so as not to offend anyone not sure

17. In a difficult or embarrassing situation in my culture, I prefer to a. b.

avoid saying anything that will embarrass either party discuss the issue in hopes of resolving it

18. In a difficult or embarrassing situation in the host culture, I believe they prefer to a. b. c.

avoid saying anything that will embarrass either party discuss the issue in hopes of resolving it not sure

19. When speaking to superiors about a concern in my culture, I prefer to a. b.

speak directly on my own behalf express my concern through an intermediary

20. When speaking to superiors about a concern in the host culture, I believe they prefer to a. b. c.

speak directly on one’s own behalf express one’s concern through an intermediary not sure

21. When negating someone’s comment or request in my culture, I usually a. b.

say so directly and unambiguously try to convey this without saying so directly

22. When negating someone’s comment or request in the host culture, I believe they usually a. b. c.

say so directly and unambiguously try to convey this without saying so directly not sure

23. When things are not right in my culture, I generally a. b.

refrain from giving feedback or criticism speak my mind openly

24. When things are not right in the host culture, I believe they generally a. b. c.

refrain from giving feedback or criticism speak their mind openly not sure

Appendix B

299

25. When discussing an issue with others in my culture, I like to a. b.

be sure they understand the background and general context feel they only need to know the part that concerns them directly

26. When discussing an issue with others in the host culture, I believe they like to a. b. c.

be sure they understand the background and general context feel they only need to know the part that concerns them directly not sure

27. When working with those in my charge in my culture, I prefer to a. b.

be direct and tell them exactly what they need to do present things in a way to gain their support for the task at hand

28. When working with those in someone’s charge in the host culture, I believe they prefer to a. b. c.

be direct and tell them exactly what they need to do present things in a way to gain their support for the task at hand not sure

29. When engaged in conversation in my culture, I like to a. b.

make it interesting by using nuance or innuendo tell it straight and plain

30. When engaged in conversation in the host culture, I believe they like to a. b. c.

make it interesting by using nuance or innuendo tell it straight and plain not sure

31. When speaking with others with a “foreign” accent in my culture, I a. b.

sometimes treat them differently generally treat them the same

32. When speaking with others with a “foreign” accent in the host culture, I believe they a. b. c.

sometimes treat them differently generally treat them the same not sure

33. When foreigners speak my language, I a. b.

sometimes treat them differently generally treat them the same as other native speakers

300

Appendix B

34. When foreigners speak the host language, I believe they are a. b. c.

sometimes treated differently generally treated the same as other native speakers not sure

35. When speaking with people of other cultural backgrounds, I generally a. b.

adjust the distance between us accordingly stand at the same distance from them as I do with people of my own culture

36. When host culture members speak with others of different cultural backgrounds, I believe they generally a. b. c.

adjust the distance between them accordingly stand at the same distance from them as they do with others of their culture not sure

37. When speaking with people of other cultural backgrounds, I generally a. b.

adjust the type of physical contact I have with them accordingly make the same type of physical contact I do with people of my own culture

38. When host culture members speak with people of other cultural backgrounds, I believe they generally a. b. c.

adjust the type of physical contact they have with them accordingly make the same type of physical contact they do with people of their own culture not sure

39. When speaking with people of other cultural backgrounds, I generally a. b.

adjust the type of eye contact I make with them accordingly make the same type of eye contact I do with people of my own culture

40. When host culture members speak with people of other cultural backgrounds, I believe they generally a. b. c.

adjust the type of eye contact they make with them accordingly make the same type of eye contact they do with others of their own culture not sure

41. When speaking with people of other cultural backgrounds, I am generally a. b.

concerned about smells or aromas they may consider offensive don’t consider smells or aromas a sensitive issue

Appendix B

301

42. When host culture members speak with people of other cultural backgrounds, I believe they are generally a. b. c.

concerned about smells or aromas others may consider offensive don’t consider smells or aromas a sensitive issue not sure

43. When speaking with people of other cultural backgrounds, I generally a. b.

adjust the type of gestures I use with them accordingly use the same gestures I do with people of my own culture

44. When host culture members speak with people of other cultural backgrounds, I believe they generally a. b. c.

adjust the type of gestures they use with them accordingly use the same gestures they do with others of their own culture not sure

45. When speaking with people of other cultural backgrounds, I generally a. b.

adjust the pauses and overlap between our comments accordingly use the same conversational patterns I use with people of my own culture

46. When host culture members speak with people of other cultural backgrounds, I believe they generally a. b. c.

adjust the pauses and overlap between their comments accordingly use the same conversational patterns they use with others of their own culture not sure

47. Please add other comments here, if you wish ____________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________

(Please go on to AICC Part VI)

302

Appendix B

AICC PART VI INTERCULTURAL AREAS [12 Questions] Check the number from 0 (= Not at all) to 5 (= Extremely well) that best describes your situation: During my stay in the host country, I established and maintained good relationships with 1. my host family 2. my host colleagues 3. other host natives

0 0 0

1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3

4 4 4

5 5 5

3 3 3

4 4 4

5 5 5

3 3 3

4 4 4

5 5 5

I was able to communicate in the host language with 4. my host family 5. my host colleagues 6. other host natives

0 0 0

1 1 1

2 2 2

I was also able to communicate in my own language with 7. my host family 8. my host colleagues 9. other host natives

0 0 0

1 1 1

2 2 2

I cooperated with others, as needed, to accomplish tasks of mutual interest with 10. my host family 11. my host colleagues 12. other host natives

(Please go on to AICC Part VII)

0 0 0

1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3

4 4 4

5 5 5

Appendix B

303

AICC PART VII INTERCULTURAL ABILITIES [54 Questions]

Please respond to questions in each of the four categories, using the scale from 0 (= Not at all) to 5 (= Extremely High). Mark each item TWICE: First, mark with a (B) to indicate your ability at the BEGINNING of your stay in the host culture. Then, mark the same item with an (E) to indicate your ability at the END of your sojourn. This will provide a basis for comparison BEFORE and AFTER.

Knowledge 1. I could cite a definition of culture and describe its components and complexities

0

1

2

3

4

5

2. I knew the basic norms and taboos of the host culture (e.g., greetings, dress, behaviors)

0

1

2

3

4

5

3. I could contrast important aspects of the host language and culture with my own

0

1

2

3

4

5

4. I recognized signs of culture stress and some strategies for overcoming it

0

1

2

3

4

5

5. I knew some techniques to aid my learning of the host language and culture

0

1

2

3

4

5

6. I could contrast my own behaviors with those of my hosts in important areas (e.g., social interactions, basic routines, time orientation)

0

1

2

3

4

5

7. I could cite important historical and socio-political factors that shape my own culture and the host culture

0

1

2

3

4

5

8. I could describe the stages of cross-cultural adjustment

0

1

2

3

4

5

304

Appendix B

9. I could cite various strategies for learning about and adjusting to the host culture

0

1

2

3

4

5

10. I could describe interactional behaviors common among host culture members in social and formal areas (e.g., family roles, team work, problem solving)

0

1

2

3

4

5

11. I could discuss and contrast various behavioral patterns in my own culture with those in the host culture

0

1

2

3

4

5

Attitude While in the host country, I was willing to 12. interact with host culture members (I didn’t avoid them or primarily seek out my compatriots)

0

1

2

3

4

5

13. learn from my hosts, their language, and their culture

0

1

2

3

4

5

14. try to communicate in the host language and behave in appropriate ways, as judged by my hosts

0

1

2

3

4

5

15. deal with my emotions and frustrations with the host culture (in addition to the pleasures it offered)

0

1

2

3

4

5

16. take on various roles appropriate to different situations (e.g., in the family, as a volunteer)

0

1

2

3

4

5

17. show interest in new cultural aspects (e.g., to understand the values, history, traditions)

0

1

2

3

4

5

18. try to understand differences in the behaviors, values, attitudes, and styles of host members

0

1

2

3

4

5

19. try to communicate appropriately in the host culture (e.g., in nonverbal and other behavioral areas, as needed for different situations)

0

1

2

3

4

5

Appendix B

305

20. reflect on the impact and consequences of my choices on my hosts

0

1

2

3

4

5

21. deal with different ways of perceiving, expressing, interacting, and behaving

0

1

2

3

4

5

22. interact in alternative ways, even when quite different from those to which I was accustomed and preferred

0

1

2

3

4

5

23. deal with the ethical implications of my choices (in terms of decisions, consequences, results, etc.)

0

1

2

3

4

5

24. suspend judgment and appreciate the complexities of communicating and interacting interculturally

0

1

2

3

4

5

25. I demonstrated flexibility when interacting with persons from the host culture

0

1

2

3

4

5

26. I adjusted my behavior, dress, etc., as appropriate, to avoid offending my hosts

0

1

2

3

4

5

27. I was able to contrast the host culture with my own

0

1

2

3

4

5

28. I used strategies for learning the host language and about the host culture

0

1

2

3

4

5

29. I demonstrated ability to interact appropriately in different social situations in the host culture

0

1

2

3

4

5

30. I used appropriate strategies for adapting to the host culture and reducing stress

0

1

2

3

4

5

31. I used strategies and techniques that aided my learning of the host language and culture

0

1

2

3

4

5

Skills

306

Appendix B

32. I monitored my behavior and its impact on my learning, my growth, and especially on my hosts

0

1

2

3

4

5

33. I used culture-specific information to improve my style and interaction with my hosts

0

1

2

3

4

5

34. I helped to resolve cross-cultural conflicts and misunderstandings when they arose

0

1

2

3

4

5

35. I employed appropriate strategies for adapting to my own culture after returning home

0

1

2

3

4

5

Awareness While in the host culture, I realized the importance of 36. differences and similarities between my own and the host language and culture

0

1

2

3

4

5

37. my negative reactions to these differences (e.g., fear, ridicule, disgust, superiority)

0

1

2

3

4

5

38. how varied situations in the host culture required modifying my interactions with others

0

1

2

3

4

5

39. how host culture members viewed me and why

0

1

2

3

4

5

40. myself as a “culturally conditioned” person with personal habits and preferences

0

1

2

3

4

5

41. responses by host culture members to my own social identity (e.g., race, class, gender, age)

0

1

2

3

4

5

42. diversity in the host culture (such as differences in race, class, gender, age, ability)

0

1

2

3

4

5

43. dangers of generalizing individual behaviors as representative of the whole culture

0

1

2

3

4

5

Appendix B

307

44. my choices and their consequences (which made me either more, or less, acceptable to my hosts)

0

1

2

3

4

5

45. my personal values that affected my approach to ethical dilemmas and their resolution

0

1

2

3

4

5

46. my hosts’ reactions to me that reflected their cultural values

0

1

2

3

4

5

47. how my values and ethics were reflected in specific situations

0

1

2

3

4

5

48. varying cultural styles and language use, and their effect in social situations

0

1

2

3

4

5

49. my own level of intercultural development

0

1

2

3

4

5

50. the level of intercultural development of those I associated with (other program participants, hosts, colleagues, etc.)

0

1

2

3

4

5

51. factors that helped or hindered my intercultural development and ways to overcome them

0

1

2

3

4

5

52. how I perceived myself as communicator, facilitator, mediator, in an intercultural situation

0

1

2

3

4

5

53. how others perceived me as communicator, facilitator, mediator, in an intercultural situation

0

1

2

3

4

5

54. is there anything else you would like to add? ___________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________

(End of questionnaire. If working by email, copy this document and save before closing. Return it as an attachment. Otherwise, you may wish to make a copy for yourself and fax or mail the original to the research assistant in your country. Thank you.)

Appendix C ALTD Form

Assessment of Language Teacher Development (ALTD Form) Developed by Alvino E. Fantini, Ph.D. SIT Graduate Institute, Brattleboro, Vermont, USA

This form is designed to help you become a more effective language teacher, committed to a process of continual learning. It does this by specifying competencies in six distinct areas: (1) Interpersonal Relations, (2) Culture/Intercultural, (3) Language/Linguistics, (4) Language Acquisition and Learning, (5) Language Teaching, and (6) Professionalism. Although these areas do not automatically translate into a competent teacher, they can help to produce a more effective educator when combined with an artful blend of other qualities. The form can serve in three ways: (1) by identifying objectives for your teaching experience, (2) by providing guidelines for periodic reference and evaluation, and (3) by serving as a formative assessment tool for use by both the teacher and an external observer. It is suggested that you evaluate yourself periodically over time (using a different marking system on each occasion) and compare your assessments with those of your observer(s) as an aid to the conferencing which follows. Additional spaces are provided in each area to add other factors you and/or your observer identify that may not already be accounted for in the form. The rating system is designed to help chart your development over time. There should be evidence of a) minimal acceptable performance, b)

© Alvino E. Fantini, 1986, 1993, Brattleboro, VT, USA; revised 2010

Appendix C

309

movement or progress, and c) improvement in specific directions/areas, agreed upon by you and your assessor. The last page is designed to encourage synthesis and to produce an action plan for further development. Finally, either numbers or descriptors may be used as a rating system, in accordance with the user’s own preference. Although numbers are used in the current form, those who prefer word descriptors may wish to use the equivalents provided in the key that follows. Pluses (+) and minuses (−) can also be inserted should finer gradations be desired, providing a total of ten steps on the continuum. Key 0 = NA (Not applicable), NO (Not observed), or see written comment(s) (which users may insert, as needed) 1 = Minimal acceptable performance 2 = Good 3 = Excellent (Student) Teacher ______________________ Academic Year 20___–20___ Language(s) Taught ____________________ Term: ___________________ (Internship) Location ____________________________________________ Level: Pre-school _________ Elementary _________ Secondary _________ College _________ Adult _________ Dates Observed _______________ Total Hours of Teaching _____________ Certification/ + level(s) __________________________________________ Other Information

I. Interpersonal Relations Dynamic, enthusiastic, confident about his/her teaching, the students, the subject matter

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Creates a positive, secure, comfortable classroom ambiance (where students can take risks) 0/−1+/−2+/−3+ Effective classroom management (e.g., deals with discipline, personality conflicts, student expectations) 0/−1+/−2+/−3+

310

Appendix C

Rapport with students: •

knows students and their names

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

•

listens and understands what students are saying (on affective and cognitive levels)

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

attentive and responsive to all students versus particular types (e.g., most vocal, brightest)

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

clarifies boundaries for appropriate behaviors and responds to transgressions

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

•

•

Promotes good student relationships (e.g., encourages pair and group work, collaboration, sharing)

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Encourages student responsibility for own learning and for contributing to class experience

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Works well with other teachers, supervisor, administrators

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

______________________________________________

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

______________________________________________

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

II. Culture/Intercultural Aspects Inclusion of cultural dimension in the lessons: •

aware and attentive to sociolinguistic variables

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

•

uses appropriate target language (TL) social interactional activities

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

•

addresses TL culture in content areas: readings, discussions, topics, etc. 0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Presence of cultural dimension in classroom dynamics: • • • •

•

sensitive/respects student cultural differences uses the cultural diversity of students to advantage fosters students’ interest in and understanding of the target culture creates opportunities for students to experience the TL culture (not just the “methodological” culture) fosters students’ respect for cultural diversity

0/−1+/−2+/−3+ 0/−1+/−2+/−3+ 0/−1+/−2+/−3+

0/−1+/−2+/−3+ 0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Appendix C

311

Inclusion of intercultural dimension • • •

compares and contrasts target and native culture(s)

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

explores intercultural processes (stages, options, consequences)

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

responds to intercultural conflicts if they arise

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Aware/sensitive/responsive to intercultural challenges of the teaching situation: •

in the institution

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

•

in the community

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

•

and in the homestay (if applicable)

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

___________________________________________

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

___________________________________________

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

III. Language/Linguistics TL mastery (for non-native speakers): fluency, pronunciation, and accuracy of grammar

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Knowledge of TL phonology and grammar

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Uses natural and comprehensible language, varying appropriately for different contexts/needs

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Able to •

present rules clearly and appropriately

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

•

present appropriate amounts of structured material

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

draw effectively on students’ knowledge of and intuition about the language

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

respond effectively to students’ questions on linguistic points

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

research linguistic problems/conduct linguistic analysis

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

recycle grammar periodically to reinforce students’ mastery

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

• • • •

312

Appendix C

Uses students’ native tongue(s) effectively and judiciously

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

___________________________________________

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

___________________________________________

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

IV. Language Acquisition and Learning Identifies and responds to individual student factors (social, psychological, personality) affecting learning

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Devises lessons that reflect what is known about successful language learning strategies

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Adapts teaching to varied learning styles (individual and cultural)

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Helps students understand purpose of lesson or activity and relates to student interests/needs

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Helps students increase awareness of their own acquisition process and what facilitates/hinders their learning

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Uses varied, timely and appropriate error detection and diagnosis strategies, including selfmonitoring

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Promotes self-learning skills for independent field learning

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

______________________________________________

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

______________________________________________

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

V. Language Teaching Re Course Design Needs assessment • • •

addresses the institution or program’s pedagogical requirements (as applicable) adds own needs/requirements (based on the field) considers students’ needs, interests, prior knowledge

0/−1+/−2+/−3+ 0/−1+/−2+/−3+ 0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Appendix C

313

Clearly identifies course goals and objectives 0/−1+/−2+/−3+ • •

includes objectives in areas of attitude, skills, knowledge, and awareness (ASKA)

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

addresses skill areas (listening, speaking, reading and/or writing), as appropriate

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Develops an appropriate syllabus •

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

course design and sequence reflect the goals and objectives

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

considers both course process and content

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Designs lesson plans appropriate to course design/ objectives

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

_____________________________________________

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

•

Re Classroom Environment Attentive to appearance/physical condition of room

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Organizes room in varied ways as appropriate to activities

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

_____________________________________________

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Re Lesson Plans and Implementation Develops lessons with clear objectives which students understand

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Provides appropriate content, level and amount of work (e.g., varied, challenging, engaging)

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Initiates lesson with warm-up and review activities

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Implements lessons effectively, utilizing inductive/ deductive approaches as appropriate

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Works effectively with class size (from tutorial to small/ large groups) and levels (homogeneous to multi-levels)

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Uses appropriate and varied teaching techniques/activities, passive and active (with clear purposes)

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Displays good timing, pacing, flow, transitions, progression

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

314

Appendix C

Engages all sensory modes, as appropriate, to aid cognitive, affective, and psychomotor development

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Addresses skill areas as appropriate (comprehension, speaking, reading, and writing)

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Addresses varied aspects of communicative competence (linguistic, paralinguistic, and non-verbal)

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Includes 7 phases of “Process Approach” (e.g., presentation, practice, grammar, transposition/use, sociolinguistic, and cultural/intercultural exploration), as appropriate

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Provides clear instructions (with students paraphrasing, as appropriate)

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Adjusts plan appropriately based on how things are going

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Moves around room/uses gestures, as appropriate

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Maximizes student involvement/participation

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Varies groupings as appropriate to activities (individual/ pair/small to large group work)

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Effectively uses resources (blackboard, texts, audiovisuals, realia, etc.)

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Establishes good balance between teacher control and student initiation

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Uses appropriate correction techniques (amount, type, timing, students, and peers)

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Designs appropriate homework tasks (related to course plan, lesson, amount, quality, timing, etc.)

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

______________________________________________

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

______________________________________________

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Re Assessment and Feedback Conducts appropriate placement/diagnostic/entry and exit evaluations

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Assessment is congruent with course objectives, content, and process

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Insures students understand the evaluation process

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Appendix C

315

Uses effective approaches to student assessment (direct and indirect measures/discrete and global, ongoing)

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Fosters student self (and peer) evaluation

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Develops reliable/valid measures, properly weighted and expressed in terms students understand

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Uses effective ways of providing feedback to students

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Establishes appropriate mechanisms to elicit student feedback on teacher’s performance and course

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Evaluation measures students’ attainment of course objectives

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

______________________________________________

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

______________________________________________

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

VI. Professionalism Expresses self clearly in oral and written communication

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Complies with policies, procedures, requirements, etc.

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Exhibits professional conduct (punctuality, reliability, appearance, behavior, etc.)

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Able/willing/interested in assessing own performance

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Can identify internal/external factors that help/hinder development

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Seeks/accepts feedback from colleagues, supervisor/ observer

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Develops and pursues action plan for future development

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Maintains appropriate relations with students, colleagues, department, institution, supervisor, host culture

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Aware and responsive to the style, philosophy, needs of the institution, the community, the culture in which working

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Open/shares with others, contributes to the field

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Promotes general welfare of the teaching profession

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Participates in relevant professional societies at the local, state, national, and/or international levels

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

316

Appendix C

Contributes to the relevant professional societies at the local, state, national, and/or international levels through presentations, workshops, and/or volunteer work

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

______________________________________________

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

______________________________________________

0/−1+/−2+/−3+

Appendix C

317

Synthesis and Recommendations Strong points:

Areas for further exploration/development:

Additional comments/observations:

Teacher’s signature Observer’s signature

Date _____________

Appendix D ALD Form

Assessment of Language Development (ALD Form) in a YOGA Format (Your Objectives, Guidelines, and Assessment)

Student

Term ________________________

Teacher/Mentor

Academic Year 20_____–20_____

Language

Level ________________________

Background and Purpose Foreign language instruction begins a process of language and intercultural development which may continue well beyond the scope of the course and on into a field situation, especially abroad. The goals of instruction, therefore, are to help learners to learn to communicate effectively and appropriately in another language and culture, to insure their continued learning beyond the end of the course, and to become independent learners. This form is designed to aid in monitoring and measuring your language development on a continuing basis. It seeks to help in three ways: 1. By identifying Objectives for language learning 2. By serving as Guidelines throughout the learning process 3. By providing an Assessment tool for periodic evaluation by the learner and a mentor Hence the acronym YOGA stands for Your Objectives, Guidelines, and Assessment, and the form itself provides a framework that encompasses

© Alvino E. Fantini, Brattleboro, VT, USA, 1976, Revised 1986, 1996, 2004, 2012

Appendix D

319

important areas related to your competence and performance on the road to bilingualism and biculturalism.

Components There are several parts to this form: Part I.

Functions—citing tasks or situations and stressing what you can do with what you have learned. Part II. Language Proficiency—listing specific linguistic features such as grammatical structures, vocabulary, and pronunciation. Part III. Attitudes (toward the Host Language and Culture)—exploring your feelings toward the host language culture, which may affect your motivation to learn. Part IV. Next Steps—to help you synthesize and document your learning as well as to identify future actions to be taken to further your learning.

Using the Form Use this form to assess yourself periodically, monitoring your development at various stages (especially before, during and at the end of a course or program, or more often, if desirable). Also, continue to use it subsequently in a field situation and/or in the host culture. A progressive scale (from 0 to 5) will help chart your progress as your language ability develops. Use various markings, or different color pencils each time you evaluate yourself to note progress. For example, • • •

at the beginning of the language course, use a check mark[ √ ] 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /− 4 + /−5 at the end of the language program, use an [ X ] 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /− 4 + /−5 at the end of a stay abroad, use a circle [ O ] 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /− 4 + /−5

At each stage, consider a) acceptable performance (given the time lapsed), b) movement or progress, and c) areas to work on next. It is helpful to have another person—a teacher, mentor, peer, and/or hosts— also assess your language progress using a separate form. Then compare results. Differences of opinion provide an opportunity to discuss your language development and what you may need to do to enhance future learning.

320

Appendix D

Key The scale ranges from 0 to 5 and corresponds to FSI and ACTFL Oral Proficiency Scales (Liskin-Gasparro, ETS Oral Proficiency Testing Manual, Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, 1982), as shown next: Government Academic (FSI) Scale (ACTFL/ETS) Scale

Definition

0

Novice-Low

0

Novice-Mid

0+

Novice-High

No ability whatsoever in the language Unable to function in the spoken language Able to operate in only a very limited capacity Able to satisfy immediate needs with learned utterances

1−

Intermediate-Low

1

Intermediate-Mid

1+

Intermediate-High

2

Advanced

2+

Advanced Plus

Able to satisfy routine social demands and limited work requirements Able to satisfy most work requirements and show some ability to communicate on concrete topics

Superior

Able to speak the language with sufficient structural accuracy and vocabulary to participate effectively in most formal and informal conversations

Distinguished

Able to speak with a great deal of fluency, grammatical accuracy, precision of vocabulary and idiomatically

3 3+ 4 4+ 5

Native

Able to satisfy basic survival needs and minimum courtesy requirements Able to satisfy some survival needs and some limited social demands Able to satisfy most survival needs and some limited social demands

Able to speak like an educated native speaker

Appendix D

321

Assessment of Language Development in a YOGA Format (Your Objectives, Guidelines, and Assessment)

Part I. Functions When completing the following items, think of your ability to perform each of the tasks cited. Your markings should reflect whether you have had experience with the situation and your relative ability to accomplish the task as compared with that of a native. I can •

use appropriate greetings, leave-taking expressions and gestures 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /− 4 + /−5

•

handle myself in social interactions (introductions, etc.)

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /− 4 + /−5

•

ask for or give directions

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

ask and tell the time of day/day of week/date

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

order a simple meal

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

talk about the weather

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

make purchases (food, clothing, souvenirs, train tickets)

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

respond to biographical questions (nationality, marital status, occupations, date and place of birth, etc.)

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

give a brief autobiography

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

ask for, obtain, and understand biographical information from others

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

get around by myself by bus/train/ taxi, etc.

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

take and give simple messages over the telephone

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

• •

322 •

• •

Appendix D assist someone else who does not know the language in coping with the situations or problems described earlier

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

describe my present or most recent job or activity in some detail

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

provide detailed information about my family, home, hometown, and country

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

tell of my immediate plans and hopes 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

speak of my experiences in my host family/community/ country/culture

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

I can • •

use measurement systems of the TL (distance/time/weight, etc.)

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

describe the purpose or function of my visit and/or organization

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

follow and contribute to an everyday conversation among native speakers 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

handle myself with a group of educated native speakers 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

participate in social situations with my hosts, without offending them linguistically or culturally

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

take notes and summarize an informal discussion

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

take notes and summarize a formal lecture

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

• •

I can talk about my experience with and impressions of various aspects of life in my native country. For example, •

social relationships (family, friendship/ courtship, hierarchies, taboos, etc.) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

business relationships (procedures, hierarchies, etc.)

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

Appendix D •

323

the natural environment (climate, geography, resources, flora and fauna, etc.)

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

the human-made environment (architecture, transportation systems, etc.)

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

population (numbers, location, ethnic makeup, etc.)

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

religious beliefs and practices

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

education

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

political organization

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

the economy

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

art forms/public entertainment

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

history

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

•

(Add other topics of interest and/or relevance to you). •

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /− 4 + /−5

•

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /− 4 + /−5

•

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /− 4 + /−5

I can obtain information about and discuss various aspects of life in my host country. (Refer to the list of examples noted earlier.) •

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /− 4 + /−5

•

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /− 4 + /−5

•

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /− 4 + /−5

I can discuss in detail topics of special interest to me: •

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /− 4 + /−5

•

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /− 4 + /−5

•

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /− 4 + /−5

I can serve as an informal interpreter on any of the aforementioned topics

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /− 4 + /−5

324

Appendix D

Part II. Language Proficiency Complete the following items, considering your relative ability to control the language content of communication. As you progress toward the higher levels, you will find that it takes considerably more time to move from one point to another. Listening I can understand the TL spoken to me at conversational speed by a native speaker

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

I can understand native speakers talking among themselves 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5 At this point in my language development, I can understand •

greetings and courtesy expressions

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

social talk directed at me

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

commands directed at me

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

directions given to me

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

instructions given to me

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

a dialog, discussion, or argument that includes me

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

a dialog, discussion, or argument that excludes me

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

“small talk”

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

taboo words and euphemisms

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

some slang and colloquial expressions

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

songs, jokes in the TL

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

a TV program in the TL

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

a movie in the TL

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

a radio program in the TL

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

a telephone conversation

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

emergency situations

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

Appendix D

325

At this point in my language development, I can maintain •

a brief exchange on subjects familiar to me

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

a short conversation on selected topics

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

conversation on most topics

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

a prolonged conversation on any subject

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

Speaking I can participate in a conversation in the TL spoken at the speed of native speakers

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

I can use a range of vocabulary and expressions in the following areas: •

social expressions

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

interrogatives

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

expressions of time/place

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

cardinal numbers (one, two, three, etc.)

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

ordinal numbers (first, second, third, etc.)

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

geographical directions

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

days, months, seasons

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

family relationships

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

parts of the body

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

parts of the house

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

articles of clothing

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

I can use the following sentence types: • •

simple affirmative statements (Yes, I can do it.)

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

simple negative statements (No, I don’t remember.)

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

326 • •

Appendix D command statements (Come back again.)

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

complex sentences (John, a friend of mine, left today.)

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

Other aspects of oral expression: •

pronunciation

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

intonation

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

correct word order

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

fluency

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

Grammatical Features I can use the following features of the host language (check only those applicable to the language in question): •

personal pronouns (I/you/she/us)

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

verbs—simple present (We speak English.)

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

present progressive (We are speaking English.)

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

definite articles (the)

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

indefinite articles (a, an)

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

gender and number of nouns (e.g., las casas/el libro in Spanish)

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

•

verbs—simple past (I spoke English.) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

possessive adjectives (my/your/her)

•

possessive pronouns (mine/hers, ours) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

noun/adjective case endings (e.g., Der gute Mensch/zu dem guten Menschen in German)

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

prepositions (with/for/at)

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

verbs—simple future (She will write a letter.)

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

“going to” future (She is going to write a letter.)

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

Appendix D •

327

expressions of time (I’m late. It’s now or never.)

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

noun-verb agreement (Time flies.)

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

contractions (It is not—It isn’t.)

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

reflexive verbs (levantarse in Spanish; se souvenir de in French

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

direct object pronouns (I learned the lesson—I learned it.)

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

indirect object pronouns (to him, to us)

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

verbs—conditional (We would travel if . . .)

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

adjectives—comparative, superlative forms (big, bigger, biggest)

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

verbs—imperfect (J’avais l7 ans in French; Estudiaba siempre in Spanish)

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

• • • • • •

relative pronouns (who, which, whose) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

verbs—present perfect (She has written a letter every day this week.) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

demonstrative pronouns (Those are mine.)

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

demonstrative adjectives (That table) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

verbs—subjunctive (Il faut que je parte in French; Espero que te diviertas in Spanish)

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

indirect speech (“I’m going,” said Nancy. Nancy said that she was going.)

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

passive voice (We all did it. > It was done by all of us.)

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

•

Reading/Writing •

reading

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

•

writing

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

328

Appendix D

Part III. Attitudes toward the Host Language and Culture There are no specific goals in this section; rather, the questions that follow may help you to reflect on your feelings and attitudes toward the host culture, how they may be changing, and how they affect your learning. l. I feel I am adjusting to the host culture

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

2. My feelings toward my hosts are favorable

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

3. I get along with my host family/friends

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

4. I attempt to be with host nationals

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

5. I really want to use the host language

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

6. I use the host language as much as possible

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

7. I think I am accepted by the host nationals

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

8. I like being with host nationals (even without my compatriots)

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

9. I feel relaxed and comfortable in my new environment

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

10. I would like to return to the host country

0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5

Some things I appreciate about my host culture are _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ Some things I find difficult to understand/accept about my host culture are _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ Some contrasts I see between my host culture and my home culture are _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________

Appendix D

329

Part IV: Next Steps Follow-Up to Language Assessment You are encouraged to review the ALD Form periodically as a way of bringing continuing awareness and structure to your everyday learning opportunities. You may also want to use a notebook or keep a journal to track your language development process. Here are some examples of things to note: 1. List your strengths and areas to be improved at this point Strengths ___________________________ ___________________________ ___________________________

Areas for Improvement _____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________

2. Cite factors that help or hinder your language development ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ 3. List specific strategies for moving beyond this point and developing further ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ 4. List new vocabulary and phrases needed/learned Needed

Learned

___________________________ ___________________________ ___________________________

_____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________

5. List tasks You want to be able to do

You can do

___________________________ ___________________________ ___________________________

_____________________________ _____________________________ _____________________________

6. List people and other resources that can help you. ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________

330

Appendix D

7. Finally, make a recording of your speech on a periodic basis. Note the date of the recording and use this form to guide you in topics to discuss. Keep a cumulative speech diary of your language development so that you can go back and listen to earlier recordings. You will be surprised to note the progress you have made! 8. Additional comments/observations. ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________

Index

Aba-Zak: worldview exercise 247; see also studies, models, and activities about ICC assessment 54–5; Learning about Language Assessment 55; Teaching and Testing Intercultural Competence 54; and Testing the Untestable 54 academic study abroad programs see educational exchange programs Adler, P.S. 241 Agresti, A. and Finlay, B. 71 Akande, Y. and Slawson, C. 58 Alizadeh, S. and Chavan, M. 31 Almeida, J. 6, 23, 51, 243 Almeida, J. et al. 58 Alpetkin, C. 31 American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) 22, 32, 39–41, 250; and ACTFL Foreign Language Video Series 40; ACTFL Proficiency Scale 19, 20, 53; see also World-Readiness Standards for Learning Languages American Field Service (AFS) 6 Andrade, H.G. 47 Anglin, J. 16 artifacts, sociofacts, and mentifacts see Three P’s assertions/alumni and volunteer perspectives (IRP) 82–102; and activities further mission 101–2; all parties affected 97; alumni impact others 100–1; host language affects ICC development 87–92; ICC is complex 82–7; intercultural consequences 95–7; life-altering 92–5; people are changed 97–9; returnees lean toward specific

choices 99–100; service programs unique 97; see also Initial Research Project (IRP) assertions/host perspectives of self (IRP) 105–10; and activities further mission 110; all parties affected 107; alumni/mentors impact others 110; host language affects ICC development 106–7; ICC is complex 105–6; intercultural consequences 107; life-altering 107; people are changed 108; returnees lean toward specific choices 108–9; service programs unique 107–8; see also Initial Research Project (IRP) assertions/host perspectives of volunteers (IRP) 102–5; and activities further mission 101–2; all parties affected 104; host language affects ICC development 103–4; ICC is complex 102–3; intercultural consequences 104; life-altering 104; people are changed 104; returnees lean toward specific choices 104; service programs unique 104; volunteers impact others 100–1; see also Initial Research Project (IRP) assertions revisited (FRP) 228; and activities further mission 234–5; all parties affected 232; alumni impact others 234; homestay compelling 230–1; host language 231–2; ICC is complex 228–30; intercultural consequences 234; life-altering 230; people are changed 232–3; returnees lean toward specific life choices 233–4; unexpected benefits 234 assessment: challenges 57–9; and evaluation 46; formative vs.

332

Index

summative 46–8, 49, 51–3; goals/ objectives 47, 48; modes and strategies 46, 50, 49–51; process/ content 47–9; quality assessment 60; quantitative/qualitative indicators 50; rubrics/benchmarks 38, 46, 47; self-assessment 51 assessment instruments/tools 32, 47, 51, 114; and digital storytelling 52; external instruments 51; portfolios 52; reflective journals 51–2; survey 51, 66, 114; triangulation 52; see also AIC Forms; AICC Forms Assessment of Intercultural Communicative Competence (AICC) 33, 46, 52, 55–6, 59, 114, 118–19, 121, 123, 238, 242; about yourself 123–6; about your sojourn 126–39; and AICC Form 276–97; Beyond your sojourn 139–51; communication styles 157–61; intercultural areas 161–6; language proficiency 154–6; motivation 152–4; personal characteristics 151–2; translations 66; see also Follow-on Research Project (FRP), research instrument Assessment of Intercultural Competence (AIC) 33, 46, 52, 55–6, 59, 112, 242; and AIC Form 255–75; design and pilot 66, 71; translations 66; validity 71 Assessment of Language Development (ALD Form) 307–16 Assessment of Language Teacher Development (ALTD) 249; and ALTD Form 298–306 Baetens-Beardsmore, H. 20 Bai, R. 23 Bailey, K.M. 54 Baiutti, M. 120 Banks, J.A. 243 Barber, E.G. 58 Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity 167, 172, 178, 182, 186 Bennett, J.M. 31, 243 Bennett, M.J. 22, 34, 42 bilingual-bicultural 1, 8, 13, 18, 20–1, 25, 30, 42; and proficiency levels/ degrees 20–1; profiles 21–9; types 20–1 bilingualism-biculturalism see bilingual-bicultural

Bolen, M. 58 Borghetti, C. and Beaven, A. 250 British Council 6 British Council Report 250 Brown, H.D. 23 Byram, M. 31 Byram, M. et al. 23, 34, 40 C1 8, 21; see also culture C2 21; see also culture Camerer, R. 54 Carroll, J.B. 42 Case, R.S. 3, 5 Castaneda, C. 43 Catell’s Scree test 167, 172, 177 CC 18, 21, 28–31; see also communicative competence CC1 29–30; see also communicative competence CC2 24, 29–31; see also communicative competence Center for Educational Resources in Culture, Language, and Literacy (CERCLL) Conference 51, 68–9, 249 Children’s International Summer Villages (CISV) 6–7 Chung Tsu 41, 252 Clapp, E.B. 3, 5 Cohen, A.D. et al. 61 Cohen, J. et al. 122, 171, 185, 197 communicative competence (CC) 28–30; see also CC; CC1; CC2 Comp, D. 58 cooperative overseas programs (COPs) see The Experiment in International Living (EIL) Council of Europe 54 culture: “big C/little c” culture 23; can-do statements 248–9; culture activities 248; culture exploration (see NAPI-KEPRA Framework) curriculum 40, 48–9, 243, 244, 246, 249; see also gemstone model Curtiss, S. 14 Damen, L. 23 Deardorff, D.K. 8, 31, 34, 53, 55, 120, 250 Deardorff, D.K. and ArasarathamSmith, L.A. 5, 53, 56, 58, 120, 250 DeVellis, R. 122, 167 diversity 7, 24, 25, 240 Drewelow, I. 23

Index Edelstein, R. 31 education 37, 40, 243; and aspects of educational approaches 245–6; contrastive educational approaches 48, 99, 245; educational quality 49; experiential education 245; program components 48; see also curriculum; gemstone model; Lewinian experiential model; Process Approach framework; studies, models, and activities educational exchange programs 1–2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 13, 14, 18, 24, 25, 29, 41, 42, 43, 47, 60, 78, 102, 115, 236, 250, 251, 252; and service programs 25, 63–5, 97 educational impact studies 3–4, 57–8, 67, 115 educators 19, 24, 25; see also intercultural educators/trainers; language educators English 3, 6, 11, 12, 13, 15, 20, 23, 24, 31, 34, 40, 41, 69, 232; and English-speakers 20, 23, 24; lingua franca 23 ERASMUS 6 Esperantic studies foundation 41 Esperanto 41 ethnic minorities 24 etic/emic 34, 52, 59, 79, 96, 102, 104, 111, 120, 198, 235, 237, 239, 242, 247 European Commission 6 evaluation see assessment The Experiment in International Living (EIL) 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 235; and cooperative overseas programs (COPs) 7 Fantini, A.E. 7, 13, 17, 20, 24, 33, 34, 40, 47, 48, 51, 59, 166, 167, 243, 244, 246, 247, 251 Fantini, A.E. and Fantini, B. 40 Fantini, A.E. and Hawkinson, A.K. 244 Fantini, A.E. and Smith, E.M. 22, 31, 41, 243 Fantini, A.E. and Tirmizi, A. 34 Fantini, A.E. et al. 1, 13, 14, 20, 32, 33, 47, 51, 244, 245 Fantini, A.E. in Freeman, D. 249 Fantini, A.E. in Jackson, J. 25n1 Farrugia, C. and Sanger, J. 235 Federation EIL 1, 2, 3, 4, 63–4, 67, 115, 251; and Member

333

Organizations (MOs) 2, 3, 4, 14, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 101, 110, 115, 118, 219, 238; see also Follow-on Research Project (FRP), participating Member Organizations (MOs); Initial Research Project (IRP), participating Member Organizations (MOs) feral children 14, 21; and Amala and Kamala 14; Genie 14; Kaspar Hauser 14; Victor, the wild child 14 Field, A.P. 122 field interventions 249–50 Follow-on Research Project (FRP) 113–220; and advantages and limitations 119–20; comparative analysis 190–7; data compilation and organization 120–1; description 115–16; descriptive analysis 123; design and plan 113–15; findings 166–96; objectives 114–15; overview 113; participating Member Organizations (MOs) 116–18; psychometric analysis of ICC scale 166–90; research instrument 118–19; statistical procedures 121=3; see also AICC; qualitative analysis (FRP); quantitative analysis (FRP); research; SurveyMonkey Foreign Service Institute see U.S. Foreign Service Institute Forum on Education Abroad 251 Fowler, S.M. and Mumford, M.G. 243 Freire, P. 37 Garrett-Rucks, P. 23 gemstone model 48, 48–9, 244; and curriculum components 48–9 global competence 31, 32, 239 globalization 5, 18, 249 Graddol, D. 41 Hair, J. et al. 172, 177, 181, 186 Hall, E.T. 18, 243 Hammer, M.R. 57 Hannouchi, S. 69 Heifetz, R.A. 34 Hett, E.J. 57 hierarchy/hetararchy 16, 23; see also semantic component homestay 2, 3, 7, 25, 63, 64, 102, 113, 114, 130, 131, 132

334

Index

host family see homestay Howell, D. 122 Humphrey, D. 31 Hurd, R. 58 ICC assessment: comprehensive approach 59; instrument search 66; selection criteria 55; see also ICC assessment instruments ICC assessment instruments 55; and Assessment of Intercultural Communicative Competence (AIC and AICC) 55–6, 59; Behavioral Assessment Scale for Intercultural Communication (BASIC) 56; Beliefs, Events, and Values Inventory (BEVI) 56; CrossCultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI) 56; Cross-Cultural Assessor (CCA) 56; Cultural Orientations Indicator® (COI) 56; Development Communication Index 56; Global Mindedness Scale (GMS) 57; Intercultural Competence Questionnaire 57; Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) 57; Peterson Cultural Awareness Test (PCAT) and Peterson Cultural Style Indicator (PCSI) 57; Schwartz Value Survey (SVS) 57 ICC construct see intercultural communicative competence (ICC) Initial Research Project (IRP) 63–112; and advantages and limitations 68–9; areas for further work 111–12; data compilation and organization 69–70; description/stages 65–7; findings/host perspectives 102–9; lessons learned 110; objectives 67; overview 70–1; participating Member Organizations 67–9; research design and plan 63–5; see also assertions (IRP); qualitative analysis (IRP); quantitative analysis (IRP); Volunteers for International Partnership (VIP)/VIP Programs intercultural abilities see intercultural competence intercultural communication (IC) 6, 8, 14, 18, 21–2, 33, 38, 41; and IC courses 22, 51, 243; orientation model 23, 243–4 intercultural communicative competence (ICC) 1, 14, 28–9, 30, 31, 33, 34,

41, 47; and areas or domains 36; characteristics 35–6; components 28, 34, 35, 35–8; definition 34; dimensions 36, 36–7; host language proficiency 14, 37–8, 42; levels of attainment 38; models 34 intercultural competence 24–5, 31, 32, 33, 42, 249, 252; and constructs 18, 28–9; varied terms 28, 32 intercultural education 2, 40, 41, 101, 234, 245 intercultural educators/trainers 20, 22, 23, 250 interculturalists 1, 22, 23, 25, 28, 33, 41, 91, 103, 104, 226, 232, 243, 250, 252 intercultural literature 28, 29, 31, 32, 35, 66, 113–14 intercultural sojourns see educational exchange programs internationalization 6 Jackson, J. 25n1, 250 Jackson, J. and Oguro, S. 250 Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Test 167 Kealey, D.J. 58, 120 Kelley, C. and Meyers, J. 56 Kelly, L.G. 22 Kennesaw State University 6 Kim, J.O. and Muller, C.W. 71 Kimmelman, M. 41 Kohls, L.R. 243 Kohls, L.R. and Knight, J.M. 243 Kolb, D.A. 245 Kramsch, C. 23 Krashen, S.D. 18 Krueger, J. and Dunning, D. 51 L1 8, 21; see also language L2 21, 22, 30, 37, 40, 42, 43; see also second language Lane, H. 14 language 14, 15, 16, 20, 28; and acquiring vs. learning 18, 39; dual nature 16–17, 21; extra-linguistic/ non-verbal component 8–9, 20, 28; linguistic component 8, 20, 28; para-linguistic component 8, 20, 28; proficiency levels 19–20; projection chart 19, 20; relation of language to ICC 17; roles of language 17–18, 21; see also

Index language proficiency assessment; sociolinguistic component language education/approaches 12, 14, 20, 21–2, 38; and Audio-lingual 38; communicative approach 20, 40; Community language learning (CLL) 38; competency-based 39; creative technology 40, 249–50; Direct method 38; four skill areas 20; Grammar-translation 38; Notionalfunctional syllabus 38; Silent Way 38; Situational Reinforcement 38; Suggestopedia 38; Total Physical Response (TPR) 38 language educators 1, 13, 20, 22, 23, 24, 29, 32, 39, 104, 243, 246, 247 language proficiency assessment 53–4; and ACTFL Proficiency Scale and Guidelines 19, 53; Assessment of Language Development (ALD Form) 53; Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) 19, 54; criteria and strategies 53; European Language Portfolio 54; International Second Language Proficiency Ratings (ISLPR) 54; MAXSA (Maximizing Study Abroad) 54; U.S. Foreign Service Institute system 19, 53 language technology see field interventions; language education/ approaches LC1 21, 30, 36 LC2 7, 21, 30, 31, 36 Levin, I.P. 71, 77 Lewinian experiential model 245 Lewis, R. 56 Liddicoat, A.J. and Scarino, A. 250 Lima, R.R. and Guimarães, J.E. 23 linguaculture 10, 12, 13, 18, 21, 24, 34, 41, 42, 96, 239; see also LC1; LC2 linguaculture teachers see language educators lingua franca 6, 40, 43 Liskin-Gasparro, J.E. 19 Littlemore, J. and Low, G. 23 Little’s MCAR Test 172, 177, 182, 186 Lusting, M.W. and Koester, J. 31 Maathai 4 MacNeil, R. and Cran, W. 11 Mader, J. 54 Martin, J.N. 31

335

Martin, J.N. and Nakayama, T.K. 31 Masgoret, A.M. et al. 58 Mason 20 Masson, J. and Feuerbach, P.J. 14 McGury, S. et al. 47 meaning see semantic component Member Organizations (MOs) see Federation EIL monochronic/polychromic 9 monolingual 18, 21, 23, 43; see also monolingualism/monoculturalism monolingualism/monoculturalism 12, 20, 21, 42 motivation 13, 21, 38, 50, 86, 89, 95, 96, 123, 137, 139, 151, 152, 200, 203, 205, 224, 228, 229, 231, 237; and integrative vs. instrumental 13, 38, 96, 237 multilingualism-multiculturalism 8, 20, 30, 41, 58, 90, 111, 240, 242, 250 multilingual-multicultural see multilingualism-multiculturalism multinational perspective 4, 34, 38, 67, 115, 121, 198, 219, 221, 222, 228, 241 Muñiz, J. 122 Nadeem, M.U. et al. 31 NAPI-KEPRA Framework see culture, culture exploration National Council of State Supervisors for Foreign Languages (NCSSFL) 248 National Foreign Language Standards see World-Readiness Standards Nunnally, J. 122, 171, 181, 185, 189 Olebe, M. and Koester, J. 56 one-way ANOVA 71, 122, 192, 193, 194, 195 operational standards 3; see also educational exchange programs Paige, M.R. 243 paradigm 7, 8, 12, 13, 18, 21, 23, 28, 40, 41, 42, 96, 237, 239; and paradigm shift 8, 42; see also worldview particulars/universals 13, 58, 69; and universal aspects 221–8 Peace Corps see U.S. Peace Corps Pearce, J.C. 43 Perseus Express 70 Peterson, B. 57

336

Index

Phillips, J.K. 23 Pinker, S. 8 Plato 34 plurilingualism see multilingualismmulticulturalism Process Approach Framework 40, 246–7 psycholinguists 30 qualitative analysis (FRP) 198–219; and alumni data Brazil 171–7, 198–202; alumni data Germany 176–81, 202–4; alumni data Japan 181–5, 204–7; alumni data US 186–90, 207–13; combined alumni data 22; host family data Ireland 213–19; see also assertions (FRP); Follow-on Research Project (FRP) qualitative analysis (IRP) 79–82; and British alumni and volunteers 80–2; data compilation 80–2; etic/emic perspectives 79; Swiss alumni and volunteers 80–2; see also assertions (IRP); Initial Research Project (IRP) quantitative analysis (FRP) 121–3; and A. About yourself 123–6; B. About your sojourn 126-39; C. Beyond your intercultural sojourn 139–51; D. Personal characteristics 151–2; E. Motivation 152–4; F. Language proficiency 154–6; G. Communication styles 157–61; H. Intercultural areas 161–6; see also Follow-on Research Project (FRP) quantitative analysis (IRP) 70–1; reliability testing of assessment tool 71–5; reliability testing of ICC construct 76–9; and Spanish language development 78–9; see also Initial Research Project (IRP) research: areas for further work 241–3; challenges 58–9; implications and applications 236–7; 236–7; lessons learned 238–41; looking ahead 237–8 research to practice 243; see also studies, models, and activities to promote ICC development Salzburg Global Seminar 250 Samovar, L.A. and Porter, R.E. 31 Saporta, S. and Bastian, J.R. 30

School for International Training see SIT Graduate Institute Schwartz, S.H. 57 second language 7, 21, 54; see also L2 semantic component 9, 10, 30, 240; and associative/referential meaning 10; see also worldview Serban, A.M. and Friedlander, J. 58 Sercu, L. 40 Sercu, L. et al. 40 Shealy 62 Shealy, C.N. 56 Sheth, A. et al. 23 Shriver, S. 4, 251 SIETAR (Society for Intercultural Education, Training, and Research) 22, 31, 41, 250 Singh, J.A.L. and Zingg, R.M. 14 SIT Graduate Institute 3, 4 Smith, S.H. and Paracka, D.J. 6 sociolinguistic component 15, 16, 20, 28; see also language; worldview sociolinguistic context 10; and appropriateness 9, 11, 34, 157, 157, 158, 159, 160–1; determinants/variants 11; sociolinguistic research 11 Spanish language development 78, 79 Spinthourakis, J.A. et al. 23 Stevens, J. 122 Stevens, J.O. 37, 177 Stronkhorst, R. 58 studies, models, and activities to promote ICC development 243–9; and Aba-Zak, worldview exercise 247; Assessment of Language Teacher Development Form (ALTD) 249; contrastive educational approaches 245; culture activities for the language classroom 248; culture exploration-NAPI-KEPRA 247–8; curriculum design model 244; educational approaches and strategies 245–6; intercultural orientation model 243; NCSSFLACTFL Can-Do Statements 248; Process Approach framework 246–7; survey of ICC courses 243–4; see also Lewinian experiential model study abroad see educational exchange programs

Index SurveyMonkey 113, 114 symbol systems 8, 9, 12, 15–16, 18, 29; see also language; worldview Tabachnick, B. and Fidell, L. 122, 167, 168, 172, 177, 182, 186 Taguchi, N. et al. 120 target language/culture see C2; L2; LC2 Taylor, C. 8, 15 technology 40; 249–50 TESOL (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages) 22, 41, 250 Three P’s (products, practices, and perspectives) 40 Todeva, E. and Cenoz, J. 20 trilingualism 40, 42; see also bilingualism-biculturalism; multilingualism Trivedi, A. 4 t-test 71, 77, 122, 192, 192–3, 194, 196, 197 two-way ANOVA see one-way ANOVA UNESCO 252 Ungar, S. 5 universal/particular aspects see particulars/universals U.S. Experiment 2 U.S. Foreign Service Institute 19, 53 Usó-Juan, E. and Martínez-Flor, A. 40 U.S. Peace Corps 3, 4, 22, 25, 34

337

values, beliefs, and attitudes 8, 9–10, 13, 29; see also worldview Van de Vijver, F.J.R. and Leung, K. 58 Volunteers for International Partnership (VIP)/VIP Programs 63–5, 67; and VIP Projects 64–5 Wagner, M. et al. 250 Wallace, D.H. 58 Wallace, J.A. 58 Wangari, M. 5 Watt, D.B. 2, 5, 225 Whorf, B.L. 8, 42 Wight, A.J. et al. 22, 25, 31 Williams, J. 4 Wiseman, R.I. and Koester, J. 31 wolf children see feral children World Learning 2 World-Readiness Standards for Learning Languages 23, 39; and five goal areas 23, 39 worldview 1, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13–14, 18; and components 8–10, 12, 13; configurations 12, 13, 247; contrasting worldviews 12, 21, 31; worldview exercise 247; see also AbaZak; semantic component; symbol systems; values, beliefs, and attitudes Wylie E. and Ingram, D.E. 62 Youth for Understanding (YFU) 6 Zamenhof, L.L. 41