Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning: Bridging Theory and Practice [1 ed.] 9781681234199, 9781681234175

Citation preview

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning Bridging Theory and Practice

A Volume in Contemporary Language Education Series Series Editor Terry Osborn, South Florida, Sarasota-Manatee

Contemporary Language Education Series Terry Osborn, Series Editor Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning: Bridging Theory and Practice (2016) by Paula Garrett-Rucks Identifying and Recruiting Language Teachers: A Research-Based Approach (2013) by Peter B. Swanson Demystifying Career Paths after Graduate School: A Guide for Second Language Professionals in Higher Education (2013) edited by Ryuko Kubota Consilio et Animis: Tracing a Path to Social Justice through the Classics (2012) by Antoinette M. Ryan Critical Qualitative Research in Second Language Studies: Agency and Advocacy (2011) edited by Kathryn A. Davis World Language Teacher Education: Transitions and Challenges in the 21st Century (2011) edited by Jacqueline F. Davis Language Matters: Reflections on Educational Linguistics (2009) by Timothy Reagan Spirituality, Social Justice and Language Learning (2007) edited by David I. Smith and Terry Osborn Identity and Second Language Learning (2006) edited by Miguel Mantero Early Language Learning: A Model for Success (2006) edited by Carol M. Saunders Semonsky and Marcia A. Spielberger Teaching Writing Genres Across the Curriculum: Strategies for Middle School Teachers (2006) edited by Susan Lee Pasquarelli Teaching Language and Content to Linguistically and Culturally Diverse Students: Principles, Ideas, and Materials (2006) edited by Yu Ren Dong Critical Questions, Critical Perspective: Language and the Second Language Educator (2005) edited by Timothy Reagan Critical Reflection and the Foreign Language Classroom (2005) by Terry Osborn

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning Bridging Theory and Practice by

Paula Garrett-Rucks Georgia State University

INFORMATION AGE PUBLISHING, INC. Charlotte, NC • www.infoagepub.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

CIP record for this book is available from the Library of Congress http://www.loc.gov

ISBN: 978-1-68123-417-5 (Paperback) 978-1-68123-418-2 (Hardcover) 978-1-68123-419-9 (ebook)

Copyright © 2016 I nformation Age Publishing Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the publisher. Printed in the United States of America

I dedicate this book to my mother, Dr. Mary Garrett

Contents Foreword Alvino E. Fantini............................................................................... xi Preface................................................................................................... xiii Acknowledgments.................................................................................... xv 1. Introduction: Problematizing the Role of Cultural Instruction in Foreign Language (FL) Learning ............................1 Chapter Overview..............................................................................1 The Importance of Language Proficiency and Intercultural Competence in Education..................................................................4 FL Program Advocacy in Light of Global Competition....................6 Instructor Concerns About the Teaching and Learning of Culture......................................................................................... 11 FL Educator Preparation................................................................. 14 Concluding Chapter Remarks......................................................... 15 2. Defining Culture and Its Role in Foreign Language Learning......................................................................... 17 Chapter Overview............................................................................ 17 Defining Culture.............................................................................. 18 Systematic Cultural Models.........................................................20 Kluckhohn’s and Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Models.....................................................................................20 The Onion and Iceberg Cultural Models...............................26 Situating the Individual Within Cultural Models ......................28 Problematizing Learners’ Stereotypes in Second Language Learning................................................................30

vii

viii  Contents

A Historical Review of the Role of Culture in FL Pedagogy: From the Grammar-Translation Method to the Literacy Oriented Instruction........................................................................34 The Connection Between Language, Culture, and Nation.............40 Concluding Chapter Remarks......................................................... 41 3. Defining Intercultural Competence (IC) and IC Assessment Models....................................................................43 Chapter Overview............................................................................ 43 Assessing Intercultural Competence: Identifying the Individual’s IC Development...........................................................44 Terms in the Literature...............................................................44 Predominant IC Models in the Field...........................................46 Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity..................46 Intercultural Communicative Competence Model.................48 Predominant IC Assessment Tools..............................................50 Quantitative IC Assessment Tools...................................... 51 The Behavioral Assessment Scale for Intercultural Competence (BASIC).......................................................... 51 The Intercultural Sensitivity Inventory (ICSI)................... 51 The Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI)................ 51 The Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI) Scales................................................................................... 52 The Assessment of Intercultural Competence (AIC).......... 52 Qualitative IC Assessment Methodologies and Theories: Performance, Portfolio Assessment and Interviews............................................................................ 53 Deconstructing IC Theoretical Approaches With a Comparative Analysis.......................................................... 53 Concluding Chapter Remarks......................................................... 59 4. Fostering Intercultural Competence With Standards-Based Instruction......................................................................................61 Chapter Overview............................................................................ 61 Historical Overview of ACTFL and U.S. National Language Policy................................................................................................62 The (Lack of) Integration of Cultural Instruction in the FL Classroom...................................................................................65 Demystifying the Goals of Cultural Instruction in The Standards-Based FL Classroom............................................... 67 Language and Worldview............................................................68 Worldview and Enculturation............................................. 70 An Historical Overview of the Role of Culture in Linguistics ................................................................................... 72

Contents    ix

Situating Theories of Intercultural Competence Within ACTFL Standards and Position Statements................................ 75 2014 ACTFL Global Competence Position Statement........ 77 Concluding Chapter Remarks.........................................................80 5. An Overview of Intercultural Competence (IC) Projects..............83 Chapter Overview............................................................................ 83 Culture Learning Projects...............................................................84 Cultural Instruction via Multimedia Applications...................... 85 Intercultural Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC)........ 85 CULTURA..........................................................................87 Raison d’ Être.....................................................................88 Intracultural CMC Use.......................................................89 A Dialogic Approach to Intercultural Acquisition......................90 Concluding Chapter Remarks.........................................................92 6. Empirical Evidence of the Intercultural Competence (IC) Developmental Process: Three Case Studies................................95 Chapter Overview............................................................................ 95 Fostering Learners’ Intercultural Competence in Discussions.......96 The Study.........................................................................................98 Methods.......................................................................................99 Participants and Procedures...............................................99 The Pedagogical Task: A Week by Week Overview.......... 101 Pedagogical Materials....................................................... 102 Data Collection and Analysis............................................ 104 Findings..................................................................................... 106 Changes in Learners’ Intercultural Sensitivity at the Group Level ............................................................... 106 Changes in Three Focus Participants’ Beliefs About French People and Culture............................................... 107 Identifying the Focus Participants’ Transformative Processes........................................................................... 109 Brad Overcomes His Monolithic Image of the French in Discussion 1.................................................. 109 Jack Overcomes His Ethnocentric Views Toward Alternate Cultural Practices Discussion 2.................... 113 Lauren Accepts an Alternate Perspective Toward Smiling, Post-Hoc to Discussion 3................................ 117 Discussion.................................................................................. 122 Concluding Chapter Remarks....................................................... 125 7. Moving the Profession Forward...................................................127 Chapter Overview.......................................................................... 127

x  Contents

Reflections on the Need to Foster Language Learners’ Intercultural Competence.............................................................. 128 Moving the Profession Forward..................................................... 131 Linking Intercultural Competence to the Standards in Teacher Preparation Programs................................................. 132 Evaluating the Teacher’s Own Intercultural Competence With Self-Reflection................................................................... 135 Emphasizing Intercultural Learning Projects at Beginning Levels of Foreign Language (FL) Instruction........................... 137 Situating FL Learning as a Critical Element to Internationalization Efforts....................................................... 141 Concluding Chapter Remarks....................................................... 143 References............................................................................................. 145 About the Author................................................................................... 161

FOREWORD The world is in crisis. There is overwhelming human suffering and tragedy taking place right now in many places around the globe. How we respond will reflect the degree of empathy that we feel toward other human beings— no matter their race, their color, their religion, their ethnicity. Yet empathy is a central attribute we aspire to (and seek to promote) in a profession which speaks of global and intercultural competence—a complex of abilities and attributes needed in order to be able to interact effectively and appropriately with peoples of other linguistic and cultural backgrounds. How can we speak of such competence without empathy? Empathy, a central attribute of such competence, suggests the ability to comprehend and feel what others experience. We are all human beings and, in sharing a common humanity, given the enormous crisis affecting the world today, there can be no other response but a humanitarian one. The language-culture classroom provides one small arena where we can begin to explore our common humanity by learning about even just one other language-culture beyond our own. It is also a place where we can seek to expand our intercultural experience. Intercultural contact and interaction provide additional opportunities for many of our learners to explore the languages and cultures of other people; nay, to explore other people. Whereas we do this vicariously in the language classroom, we can also do this directly through our contact with diversity in our neighborhoods and communities. Language-culture teachers can become primary facilitators in such a process of cultural exploration and self-reflection. But for this to

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning: Bridging Theory and Practice, pp. xi–xii Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing xi All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

xii  P. Garrett-Rucks

happen, we need to reconceptualize our roles as language-culture teachers, as linguaculture teachers, as facilitators. We can help draw on the rich cultural diversity within classrooms while considering the need to help the all too common monolingual-monocultural students enter into the wonders of other ways of conceptualizing, expressing, interacting, and communicating; indeed, other ways of perceiving and knowing about the world, other views of the world, other worldviews. As U.S. citizens, English is both our greatest asset and our greatest liability. It is an asset because our language is increasingly the second language of so many people around the world and through our language they can come to know us. It is a liability because too often we do not feel motivated, do not feel the necessity of learning about the languages (and cultures) of other peoples. We lack the experience of grappling with and succeeding in transcending and transforming our own view so as to be able to understand others on their own terms. This, then, is the challenge. As language-culture teachers, we truly have a compelling and important task to perform. This book recognizes that task and is designed to help us understand the challenges and opportunities before us: How to work effectively toward a common goal, how to respond more effectively to the wonders and rewards of intercultural contact, and of becoming increasingly bilingual and bicultural, of learning to see the world anew. Alvino E. Fantini, Professor Emeritus, SIT Graduate Institute, Brattleboro, Vermont

Preface There is pressure on world language educators to prepare learners with 21st century skills to meet the challenges of an increasingly interconnected globalized world. The need for change was summarized in the 2007 report of the Modern Language Association (MLA) Ad Hoc Committee on Foreign Languages that suggested the implementation of curricular reform by developing students’ “translingual and transcultural competence” (p. 3) which allows someone “to operate between languages” (p. 237). However, the integration of such a meaningful cultural component in instructed language learning is a complex topic. This book recognizes the difficulty world language educators face to achieve the goals of the MLA report, particularly at beginning levels of instruction in target language use classrooms. Accordingly, this book informs instructed language learning and teaching by bridging developmental theories from the fields of intercultural competence with second language pedagogies—particularly communicative language teaching (CLT) and literacy-based approaches— providing examples of practical applications inside the classroom and beyond. It is intended to support the many foreign language (FL) educators who have consistently reported that they are struggling to incorporate meaningful cultural instruction into their practice (Fox & Diaz-Greenberg 2006; Phillips & Abbott, 2011; Sercu, 2005). This book provides a framework to foster learners’ deep cultural reflection at beginning levels of instruction while preserving target language use policies, bridging CLT pedagogies to intercultural communicative compe-

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning: Bridging Theory and Practice, pp. xiii–xiv Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing xiii All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

xiv  P. Garrett-Rucks

tence (ICC) literacy-based approaches. It starts by synthesizing prominent definitions of culture and culture learning models and then summarizes disparate sources of research findings on culture learning projects (which primarily take place at advanced levels of language learning) to the Standards-based classroom at all levels of instruction, K–16. Although research on fostering learners’ intercultural competence at beginning levels of language instruction is in its infancy, it is of utmost concern given that the vast majority of U.S. language learners rarely continue to advanced levels of instruction (Zimmer-Lowe, 2008). In addition, this book challenges FL educators to advocate for their FL programs and to give greater visibility and credibility to the profession in institutional internationalization efforts. The theoretical components of this book deconstruct the connections between language, thought, and culture and problematize developmental models in the intercultural competence (IC) field that neglect to consider the important role of language. This book provides K–16 FL educators with the discourse needed to (1) explain to administrators, parents and students how world language study prepares learners to compete in an increasingly global market beyond the learner’s development of linguistic proficiency and (2) convince administrators of the value in and the need for world language study in order to support institutional internationalization efforts. The last chapter of this book provides guidance and suggestions on ways to expand K–12 teacher preparation programs and continuing education training to foster learners’ intercultural communicative competence while preserving a standards-based curriculum. In sum, this book is intended to (1) support all K–16 world language educators with their program advocacy and instruction; (2) serve as a reference manual or course book in teacher preparation programs; (3) serve as a reference manual or course book for research and graduate courses on the teaching and learning of languages.

Acknowledgments This book project would not have been possible without the support of many people. To begin with, I would like to express my sincere gratitude for the tremendous contributions to the field made by the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, Dr. Alvino Fantini and Dr. Michael Byram. I am particularly grateful to Dr. Fantini for the comments and suggestions he offered me to help shape this book. I am also very grateful to Dr. Sally Magnan who initially prepared me for a research path during my time as a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and for her continued expert advice that helped shape this book. I am extremely grateful to Dr. Terry Osborn for his encouragement to see this book come to fruition. I would like to thank my colleagues at Georgia State University, especially Dr. Peter Swanson who strongly encouraged me to contribute this project to the field. I am extremely grateful for the support of my family and friends, especially Dr. Djurdja Trajkovic with whom I have discussed various aspects of this book at length in many passionate discussions. I am grateful for the patience of my two small children, Anika and Talia, and to my mother, Mary Garrett, who has offered abundant help and invaluable assistance in supporting my career path. Last, I wish to express my love and gratitude to my husband, Brian, for his understanding and endless support through the completion of this book project.

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning: Bridging Theory and Practice, pp. xv–xv Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing xv All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

chapter 1

Introduction Problematizing the Role of Cultural Instruction in Foreign Language Learning

In a globalized market economy […] institutions are progressively more called upon to offer programs that potential clients [e.g., administrators, students, parents] will consider valuable, which more often than not, means “useful” for the economy and career advancement. (Kreber, 2009, p. 5)

CHAPTER OVERVIEW People of diverse nationalities are being asked to communicate and work together in an increasingly mobile and global society. The need to understand languages and cultures other than one’s own has become of paramount importance for both humanitarian and economic reasons in today’s global society. In order to the meet demands of the increasingly globalized economy, educational changes must occur across K–16 institutions. Accordingly considerable academic attention and resources are spent on internationalizing education—integrating intercultural dimensions into educational systems to prepare learners for the challenges of a global workforce in the 21st century. Yet despite reports on the monolingual disadvantage in an increasingly globalized workforce (Tochon, 2009), second

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning: Bridging Theory and Practice, pp. 1–16 Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

1

2  P. Garrett-Rucks

language learning is rarely prioritized in internationalization efforts as exemplified in the Model for Comprehensive Internationalization Report by the American Council on Education (ACE, 2013). This oversight is not surprising given (1) the predominance of intercultural competence (IC) assessment models that fail to include a language component (for a comprehensive review, see Fantini, 2011) combined with (2) reports that foreign language (FL) educators are often confused and anxious about the implementation and assessment of meaningful culture learning in FL instruction (Cutshall, 2012; Fox & Diaz-Greenburg, 2006; Magnan, Murphy, & Sahakyan, 2014; Phillips & Abbott, 2011). The unique contribution of this book to the field is that it responds to the concerns expressed by hardworking FL educators while considering the real world demands of a Standards-based instructional paradigm that will unlikely change in the near future, particularly at the K–12 level given the influence of the Standards on current teacher accreditation programs (Hildebrandt & Swanson, 2015). By exploring the theoretical connections between language, thought and culture and providing examples of successful intercultural communicative competence (ICC) culture learning projects and assessment practices, this book inherently bridges “two pedagogies and theories of language associated with them: communicative language teaching (CLT), with its aim toward communicative competence, and literacy-based approaches, which attempt to take learners beyond communicative competence to symbolic competence” (Magnan et al., 2014, p. 246) in a time where the profession is turning from CLT (Schulz, 2006) toward literacy-based approaches (e.g., Allen & Dupuy, 2011; Byrnes, Maxim, & Norris, 2010; Kern, 2000).The bridge between CLT and literacybased approaches responds to the 2007 Modern Language Association (MLA) report on the need to foster learners translingual and transcultural competence in order to “to operate between languages” (p. 237). Furthermore, by deconstructing the argument for the need to incorporate a second language learning dimension into interculturalists’ theories and developmental models, this book also empowers FL educators with the discourse to skillfully advocate for their language programs in an era where considerable academic attention and resources are spent on internationalization efforts. U.S. educators clearly started preparing for the need to foster the learner’s intercultural understanding in the FL curriculum in the 1999 addition of the Cultures Standards (2.1 and 2.2) to the original version of the national Standards for Foreign Language Learning (SFLL). Despite this cultural turn, there are still substantial issues to be addressed, and clarity needs to be established in the field of Foreign Language Education (FLE) about what the expected learning outcomes of the Cultures Standards look like, and how the Cultures Standards are expected to be implemented in beginning levels

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  3

of instruction with target language use constraints. Drawing insight from the research and theories of interculturalist, a portion of this book provides FL educators examples of successful culture learning projects (Chapter 5) with attention to the instructional design and assessment tools, as well as empirical evidence of shifts in learners’ thinking during their development of critical cultural awareness (Chapter 6). In addition, each culture project demonstrates how to foster learners’ critical cultural awareness with an emphasis on the connectedness of the Standards. The ACTFL Decades Project survey (ACTFL, 2011a, 2011b) revealed that the instructional implementation of the SFLL (1996, 1999, 2006) deviated dramatically from their underlying construct that emphasized the interrelatedness of the five content Standards and their goal areas. Contrary to current FL instructional practices, the connectedness of the Standards appears to be of strong interest to the 16,529 university students surveyed about their language learning expectations (Magnan et al., 2014). Comparing students’ language learning goals to the goals put forth in the Standards, Magnan et al. (2014) claim “an instructional decision to focus on the interrelationship of the Standards’ goal areas is consistent with student thinking and would emphasize the intimate relationship among culture, language, thought, and social interaction” (p. 225). Taking an interculturalist approach to foreign language instruction does just this, elucidating the interrelatedness among goal areas and content Standards with the purpose of fostering learners’ critical cultural awareness. However, the most prevalent finding in Magnan’s study was the high value that students placed on language use, showing learner satisfaction with CLT’s aim toward communicative competence. Herein lies the need for a reconciliation of a literacy-based approach to language instruction with CLT. Drawing insight from interculturalists’ theories and research findings to the design of culture learning projects across multiple levels of language learning responds to educator concerns about the integration of meaningful culture instruction into Standards-based, CLT instruction, which is precisely the goal of this book—to bridge theory and practice without inventing a new teaching methodology. An important element to consider when viewing this book as a bridge from interculturalist theory to practice is the understanding that this bridge is prepared for two lanes of information to flow between fields. While the cliché that language and culture are inextricably intertwined has become well established in the field of FLE, it remains to be fully understood by many prominent interculturalists. To date, there are well established models and theories describing the assessment and development of intercultural competence that mistakenly omit a category of second language development. The theoretical underpinnings and empirical evidence that second language learning is essential to the development of intercultural

4  P. Garrett-Rucks

competence are demonstrated in this book, affording FL educators the discourse needed to convince interculturalists of the need to include a language dimension in their theories and models of cross-cultural understanding. Likewise, and arguably more importantly, this same discourse is needed to defend and promote the value of our programs in efforts to internationalize education. As a profession, we need to understand the paramount role we play in internationalization efforts to not only advocate for our programs in face of administrative decisions on language requirements and the investment of institutional resources, but also to assure that we are providing our learners with the 21st century skills needed to successfully compete in the increasingly globalized workforce. Moreover, teachers have an “ethical responsibility related to the production and expansion of human knowledge that can be addressed through a thoughtful approach to world language education” (Osborn, 2006 p. 9). Intercultural communication skills are necessary not only to equip today’s learners to compete in the increasingly multicultural nature of industrialized societies, but also to prepare learners to become reflective global citizens (Kumaravadivelu, 2003). World language education research, in these terms, can shed light on one major challenge to education systems around the world; how to foster communication, peace, and well-being across the community of nations. THE IMPORTANCE OF LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE IN EDUCATION Educational systems have a responsibility to give students the knowledge and skills necessary to become productive members of society. In the 21st century, this responsibility means preparing U.S. students to become competent world citizens who can communicate effectively in languages other than English. The responsibility to foster global literacy in students in the 21st century means preparing students to be globally literate so that they can “recognize global interdependence, be capable of working in various environments, and accept responsibility for world citizenship” (Spaulding, Mauch, & Lin, 2010, p. 190). International education is a commonly used term in K–12 education when the intention is to meet the goal of creating globally literate students. For decades U.S. policymakers and FL educators alike have called for an international education system (for an historical overview, see Jackson & Malone, 2009). International education efforts infuse globally oriented content that includes the knowledge of world regions, cultures and issues as well the ability to interact successfully with people of different cultural traditions both inside and outside the United States. The commonly shared perspective of internationalizing education

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  5

means to increase awareness and understanding of the diverse world in which we live. At the postsecondary education level, this movement is specifically termed internationalization. At its core, internationalization is “the process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions, or delivery of postsecondary education” (Knight, 2003, p. 2). Intercultural competence is a key goal of internationalization because it indicates awareness and understanding of situations and people from diverse cultures, attitudes that move beyond ethnocentric thinking, as well as the presence of skills and behaviors that promote productive and effective communication among and across cultures (Bennett, 1993; Byram, 1997; Garrett-Rucks, 2014). Despite the emphasis on productive and effective communication, direct mention of FL learning is rarely mentioned in the tenets of internationalization efforts. For example, Thune and Welle-Strand (2005) describe program level efforts of internationalization observed by the contribution of one or more of the following four factors: (1) The recruitment of international students; (2) The teaching process— through the selection of particular course content and forms of delivery or the language of instruction; (3) Resources—in the form of internationally recruited staff members or the use of international course materials; (4) Location—offering courses and/or setting up campuses abroad. Beyond stating value in “the language of instruction” of coursework, little attention is devoted to the value of second language learning. Likewise, in a discussion of strategies and best practices for comprehensive internationalization following a 2013 collaborative meeting by the American Council of Education (ACE) and the Association of International Education Administrators, the need to know a second language is overlooked in the six pillars of internationalization. While one pillar mentions the need to “raise the visibility of courses that includes global perspectives” in the curriculum, no explicit mention of world language learning is stated. Although FL educators understand the value of our courses to encourage global perspectives, the lack of explicit statements linking our discipline to internationalization efforts might explain why our programs are often overlooked in the distribution of university internationalization funds and resources. One possible explanation for why FL educators have not forced our entry into the domain of international education efforts could be due to our humanistic perspective of FLE to serve in building cultural bridges for our students to access, and ideally cherish target cultures rather than to prepare learners to enter the competitive, entrepreneurial workforce of the capitalistic society in which Americans live. While internationalization in higher education is purported to cultivate an intercultural mindset and skillset in learners, internationalization today has become increasingly economically motivated (Grabove, 2009). Kreber (2009) cleverly deconstructs the bound-

6  P. Garrett-Rucks

ary between two commonly misconstrued terms—“internationalization” and “internationalism”—by juxtaposing their definitions found in the literature (Jones, 2000; Stromquist, 2007). Jones (2000) claims that internationalism emphasizes notions such as international community, international cooperation, international community of interests, and international dimensions of the common good” (p. 31). Contrary to internationalism, Stromquist (2007) purports that internationalization is seen to refer to “greater international presence by the dominant economic and political powers, usually guided by principles of marketing and competition” (p. 82) and in higher education, internationalization is therefore closely associated with the “entrepreneurialism” and “academic capitalism.” As FL educators, it is essential to keep our eyesight on internationalism and social justice in the classroom by fostering learners’ critical cultural awareness, yet to familiarize ourselves with the terms and discourse of internationalization that motivate political and educational reform in order to advocate for our programs strategically. In this vein, I caution FL educators that an emphasis on global competitiveness could lead education to easily lose sight of its traditional academic values such as “social criticism, preparation for civic life, and the pursuit of curiosity-driven learning and scholarship” (Kreber, 2009, p. 6). FL educators must be aware that successful language learning holds the potential to fulfill learners’ dreams of their imagined future selves. Specifically, university students in the study by Magnan et al. (2014) reported that they looked to language study “to fulfill dreams of accomplishment, realize ideals of future activity and interaction, build greater self-awareness, and bring personal reward and satisfaction” (p. 245). Similarly, in Kramsch’s (2009) view of why students study languages, she said: The impulse to learn a foreign language, and when learning it, to actually acquire it well or not, might have less to do with the objective demands to get a job, become integrated into a native speaker community, identify with native speakers or with a particular ideology, and more to do with the fulfillment of the self. (p. 75)

Phipps and Levine (2010) contend that this affective side of humanism is at the heart of a liberal education. None-the-less, the reality of the current global market demands that we promote our FL programs with attention to ways in which our work is central and vital to internationalization efforts across K–16 language programs. FL PROGRAM ADVOCACY IN LIGHT OF GLOBAL COMPETITION Given the global environment of the 21st century, there is a heightened need to foster programs that promote intercultural competence. Second

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  7

language proficiency and global competence of students in classrooms today is vital if the United States is going to maintain its status in the world of the 21st century. Whereas only 9.3% of Americans are fluent in another language, 52.7% of Europeans are bilingual in at least one language other than their mother tongue (Trimnell, 2005). The Council of Europe responded to the belief that one must at least partly master the language of the country in which one intends to work and negotiate business transactions by creating the Europass, a language passport to document European Union citizens’ mastery of language skills to support professional mobility in 2002. Similarly, Asia is largely opening to English (Tsui & Tollefson, 2007) and establishing educational reform to support its multilingualism. In Africa, Maurais and Morris (2003) report a general adaptation of populations to multilingualism and code switching based on issues of language and power during and after colonization. Contrary to the evidence of an increasing emphasis to foster multilingualism across the globe, a 2011 report from the U.S. Center for Applied Linguistics found that world language instruction has decreased over the past decade based on the survey results of a nationally representative sample of more than 5,000 U.S. public and private elementary and secondary schools (Pufahl & Rhodes, 2011). This trend must be addressed by the FLE profession. Monolingual speakers often discount the utility of world languages, but such disinterest is usually uninformed. Language is the mediator of all human experience, reflecting and affecting one’s view of the world (Fantini, 2011). As described in detail in Chapter 4, developing proficiency in another language affords learners an opportunity to (1) develop an insider’s perspective toward target cultures’ traditions, customs, beliefs and ways of behaving; (2) expand one’s own worldviews; (3) build intercultural sensitivity toward alternate perspectives and cultural differences, thus possibly reducing racism; (4) and strengthen and expand one’s identity as a global citizen (Byram, 1997; Noels, Pelletier, Clement, & Vallerand, 2003; Norton, 2006; Risager, 2006). Languages have social functions—such as identifying ranks among social groups, as much as they are ways of communicating (Schmidt, 2006). Several sociolinguistic studies from the late 1980s and 1990s highlighted the close relationship between language and culture by deconstructing how language development and socialization contribute to the development of cultural identities and cultural models of the world (for a comprehensive review, see Risager, 2006). The American anthropologist Michael Agar is among those who have explored the concept of lAnguageculture—a term used to imply the indivisible nature of language and culture. He writes about his view of the inseparable relationship between language and culture:

8  P. Garrett-Rucks Language, in all its varieties, in all the ways it appears in everyday life, builds a world of meanings. When you run into different meanings, when you become aware of your own and work to build a bridge to the others, “culture” is what you are up to. Language fills the spaces between us with sound; culture forges the human connection through them. Culture is in language, and language is loaded with culture. (Agar, 1994, p. 28)

As a profession, FL educators have come to accept that language and culture are inextricably intertwined, yet to date administrators and policymakers—particularly those who are monolingual and have not yet had the experience of grappling with the development of another language to subsequently reflect critically on the learning of one’s own worldviews— tout their support for internationalization efforts that all too often exclude a FL component. Interest in internationalization has increased drastically since the 1990s. Several U.S. policymakers have collaborated with educators, research organizations and business leaders to form policies intended to prepare students to become competent world citizens (e.g., Committee for Economic Development, 2006; Goals 2000: Educate America Act, 1994; National Research Council, 2007; Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2004; U.S. Department of Defense, 2005; U.S. Department of Education, 2008). Former U.S. Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan had repeatedly emphasized the importance of a global approach to education. On May 26, 2010, Secretary Duncan spoke to the Council on Foreign Relations about the importance of a global approach to education, noting that the United States was experiencing both increased competition from and collaboration with other countries. In this speech, Duncan stated that one of the top three goals of internationalizing education was to “increase the foreign language fluency and cultural awareness of all our students” (Duncan, 2010, para. 2). However, if money speaks louder than words, then there is evidence to counter his emphasis on foreign language proficiency. In 2011, the year following Arne Duncan’s speech there was a budget reduction of 40% to the Department of Education’s International and Foreign Language Programs—HEA-Title VI and Fulbright-Hays. The National Humanities Alliance (NHA) described the U.S. Department of Education’s International Education and Foreign Language Studies programs, including HEA-Title VI and Fulbright-Hays programs, as “the vital infrastructure of the federal government’s investment in the international service pipeline” (NHA, 2014, para. 1). The Center for Advanced Language Proficiency Education and Research (CALPER) claims that the Title VI and Fulbright-Hays programs “support foreign language, area and international studies and infrastructure building at U.S. colleges and universities. And they ensure a steady supply of graduates with expertise in less commonly taught languages, world areas, global issues, and

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  9

transnational trends” (CALPER, 2010, para. 8). Funding cuts continued in subsequent years—reduced by 40% in fiscal year (FY) 2011, 2% in FY 2012, and 5.5% in FY 2013, despite a proven record of success (NHA, 2014, para. 1). Recently, President Obama urged Congress to increase the budget for the Department of Education’s International and Foreign Language Programs (HEA-Title VI and Fulbright-Hays), including $74.1 million for Title VI and $8.06 million for Fulbright-Hays for the FY 2015, yet based on past voting records, Congress is unlikely to support the President. Contrary to the decline in government funds to support foreign language learning, funds for study abroad have remained intact. The internationaleducation corollary Senator Paul Simon Study Abroad Act continues to provide many challenge grants to incentivize colleges and universities to make study abroad an integral part of higher education. In 2007, the Paul Simon Study Abroad Foundation ACT—designed to dramatically expand and democratize study abroad by funding thousands of study abroad scholarships—passed in Congress. The goal of the Simon Act was to increase the number of U.S. students studying abroad, providing access for one million U.S. college students, focusing particularly on underrepresented groups including lower-income students and underrepresented destinations like the Middle East and the developing world, by the year 2020. This goal is not unrealistic, as growth rates on U.S. students going abroad are rapidly increasing. The Institute of International Education’s (IIE) Fall 2011 Open Doors report claimed that study abroad has more than tripled over the past two decades, with the exception of 2008–09, when world economic conditions had caused a slight dip. Likewise, the IIE 2013 Fun Facts reports a continued increase in study abroad of 3.4% over the previous year. Interestingly, the largest increase in academic majors doing study abroad in 2013 came from Engineering with an increase of 16.1%, yet the number of FL majors doing study abroad decreased by 3% from the previous year. Moreover, nearly 60% of all of the study abroad students for 2013 participated in short-term study abroad, meaning they spent less than 8 weeks in the host country. Study abroad is a significant component of internationalization strategies intended to promote the development of students’ intercultural competence. However, we cannot count on short-term study abroad experiences alone to cultivate a sense of cross-cultural understanding (Garrett-Rucks, 2013a). While not without value, short-term study abroad experiences provide a more superficial view of the culture and thus limit students’ opportunity to develop a deep understanding of cultural differences. In fact, a lack of preprogram intercultural sensitivity development has been found to be an obstacle to students’ growth—both in language learning and intercultural competence development—during their time abroad (Magnan & Back, 2007; Martinsen, 2008; Twombly, 1995). Magnan

10  P. Garrett-Rucks

and Back (2007) found students in France with low intercultural sensitivity “to band together” during study abroad, limiting their opportunities for growth. Similarly, Twombly (1995) discovered that the students in Costa Rica who found local cultural differences and practices offensive, annoying, or simply confusing, also avoided interactions with locals and retreated under the ‘‘gringo tree.’’ Martinsen’s (2008) study found preprogram levels of cultural sensitivity showed a strong correlation with gains in oral language skills with a high level of significance. Martinsen (2008) hypothesizes that students with greater cultural sensitivity are likely able to focus more on the language than students with lower levels, increasing the quality of their interactions. Similar to Cushner’s (1986) view that cultural sensitivity includes the ability to understand the thoughts and feelings of others, Martinsen purports that people with greater empathy or more positive attitudes toward others tend to “pay more attention to how others express themselves, leading to deeper processing and improved language learning” (p. 518). The strong correlation Martinsen found between the lack of language learning gains of students with preprogram low cultural sensitivity might explain previous findings over the past two decades (Brecht, Davidson, & Ginsberg, 1993; Martinsen, 2008) that also report around 20% of study abroad participants to have no linguistic gain, or even language loss during their time abroad. Despite the increasing number of students studying abroad, the 2013 report from the Institute for International Education (IIE), found that only 17.4% of U.S. students receiving a bachelor’s degree in 2012 studied abroad. The percentage of university students learning second languages is even lower. Statistics from the most recent MLA enrollment report (MLA, 2010) showed that only 9% of students at the college/university level study a foreign language, and at the advanced level, the percentage is 1.6% (Zimmer-Loew, 2008, p. 625). Such findings reveal not only the need to increase enrollment in university FL programs, but also the need to integrate meaningful cultural reflection into introductory K–16 FL courses in order to prepare the vast majority of students learning a foreign language (and possibly one day participating in study abroad) for the challenges of today’s complex global society. It is time to search for ways to entice all U.S. learners to study world languages and to facilitate FL students’ understanding of cultures around the world as cultural understanding will no doubt be one of the most important skills graduates everywhere will need to possess in this century. Marketing our FLE programs in a way that affords us the opportunity to attach language learning to internationalization efforts can bring attention to the need for more learners to enroll in our programs, and ideally to one day make second language learning a compulsory element in K–12 instruction as our European counterparts in this increasingly global economy.

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  11

INSTRUCTOR CONCERNS ABOUT THE TEACHING AND LEARNING OF CULTURE U.S. FL educators have concurred cultural understanding needs to start in FL classes as evidenced in the Cultures Standards in the national SFLL (1999, 2006). The Standards have been implemented into the K–12 classroom and incorporated into many preparation programs for world language teachers (ACTFL Program Standards for the Preparation of Foreign Language Teachers, 2002). As noted in the original SFLL (1996): Even if students never speak the language after leaving school, for a lifetime they will retain the cross-cultural skills and knowledge, the insight, and the access to a world beyond traditional borders. (p. 24)

Yet despite the professional consensus on the importance of culture in FL learning, there remains a lack of consensus regarding instructional content, appropriate assessment in the area of cultural knowledge, as well as definitions of culture for classroom instruction (Schulz, LaLande, Dykstra-Pruim, Zimmer-Loew, & James, 2005). Pedagogical practices vary from an approach which leaves students to read the cultural notes in the textbook while the instructor focuses on linguistic instruction, to a curriculum centered on cultural acquisition with little attention to linguistic instruction (Fox & Diaz-Greenburg, 2006). Robin-Stuart and Nocon (1996) categorized the different theoretical perspectives on how culture is acquired in a foreign language classroom as the following: (1) culture as an automatic outcome of language instruction; (2) culture as knowledge or skills that may be objectified; and (3) culture as a meaning making process. Contrary to Glisan’s (1999) belief that the profession had moved cultural instruction beyond anecdotes to a more systematic approach, the recent analysis of over 16,000 student surveys revealed that learners still rely heavily on the stories told by their instructors, particularly native speakers, as ways “to learn about cultural attitudes and beliefs, practices, and perspectives, almost as if these stories provided them a historical memory or vicarious personal experience” (Magnan et al., 2014, p. 234). The problem with these aforementioned approaches, with the exception of “culture as a meaning making process,” is their exclusion of learner reflection on their own culture and cultural identity—an essential developmental component of cross-cultural understanding (Byram, 1997; Fantini, 2011; Garrett-Rucks, 2013b; Kramsch, 1993, 2009). The emphasis on the close relationship between language and culture from sociolinguists starting in the 70s may have influenced the belief that cultural understanding is an automatic outcome of language instruction. Despite arguments that language and culture are inextricably

12  P. Garrett-Rucks

intertwined (e.g., Agar, 1994), several researchers are speaking against this oversimplification and emphasizing the complexity of the language-culture relationship (Byram, 1997; Kramsch, 2002, 2009; Libben & Lindner, 1996; Risager, 2006). Libben and Lindner (1996) specifically argued against the belief that cultural acquisition is inherent to FL language learning and emphasized the differences between second language acquisition (SLA) and second culture acquisition (SCA) as follows: the inherent modularity and boundedness of language make it possible for dual non-interfering systems to develop. Culture, on the other hand, appears to be less bounded and the possibility for the development of dual non-interfering cultural systems is therefore relatively low. Unlike SLA, therefore, SCA involves the expansion of an existing system rather than the development of a new one. (p. 1)

Lazaraton (2003) recognized the boundless nature of culture, and further suggested a subjective approach to integrating cultural instruction into the FL classroom as follows: it may be more important for teachers and students to negotiate cultures and cultural knowledge rather than to transmit and assimilate any one predefined, prescribed construct of culture about which the teacher knows and the students learn. (p. 217)

The importance of a subjective negotiation of cultural understanding is emphasized in the SFLL (1999, 2006): Standard 2.1 focuses on cultural practices and perspectives, Standard 2.2 addresses cultural products and perspectives, and Standard 4.2 explains importance of cultural comparisons. It is necessary for FL educators to move beyond the Communication Standards, to a deliberate emphasis on the interrelationship of all the culture standards in order to foster students’ cross-cultural understanding. In addition to understanding the arguments for language learning programs to foster learners’ intercultural competence (Chapters 1 and 2), it is essential for FL educators to be familiar with culture learning assessment models (Chapter 3) and to see how the development of intercultural competence relates directly to an integrated approach to the standards (Chapter 4). It is crucial that educators be familiar with how to integrate meaningful cultural instruction into their Standards-based curriculum, particularly at beginning levels of instruction where instruction is still primarily focused on the mechanics of language skills (Phillips & Abbott, 2011). Advocates for a shift to literacy-based approaches from communicative language teaching noted that the emphasis on oral use and functionally based materials in CLT often leave the learning of culture to emphasize products and practices more than it emphasizes perspectives or relationships (Barnes-Karol

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  13

& Broner, 2010). Seen in this way, culture might be seen as additive in the CLT curriculum, as Byrnes (2002) warned. Researchers have pointed out that FL teachers in K–16 classrooms find it particularly difficult to integrate cultural reflection into beginning levels of instruction (Fox & Diaz-Greenburg, 2006; Garrett-Rucks, 2013b; Hoyt & Garrett-Rucks, 2014; Phillips & Abbott, 2011; Sercu, 2005). This difficulty may be in part due to teachers’ reluctance to use English during class time—a practice that reflects ACTFL’s position statement on the use of the target language, which recommends maintaining classroom interactions in the target language for more than 90% of the time. Unfortunately, particularly in introductory and intermediate courses, students’ limited proficiency in the target language prohibits them from engaging in deep cultural analysis during classroom instructional time with target language use constraints (Garrett-Rucks, 2013b). This book provides a framework to support deep cultural reflection at beginning levels of instruction while preserving target language use classroom policies, bridging the gap between CLT and literacy-based approaches. The challenge of integrating the standards at the postsecondary level extends beyond the issue of target language use. Several educators have questioned the applicability of the entire Standards framework in higher education (Byrnes, 2012; Knight, 2000; Magnan, 2008a; Paesani & Allen, 2012; Terry, 2009). This is particularly disconcerting given the finding that “ students’ expectations for achievement align with the Standards” (Magnan et al., 2014, p. 227) as documented in the surveys of over 16,000 students from 11 postsecondary institutions across the United States. Furthermore, students in this study expressed a strong desire to use the target language in social interaction and commonly evoked an ideal self (Dornyei, 2009) “who would interact with target language speakers easily in a variety of situations” (Magnan et al., 2014, p. 224) as an outcome of their language learning, indicating a sense to accomplish the goals of the Communities Standards in addition to the goal areas within Communication, Cultures and Comparisons Standards. Several students in this study described pleasure in gaining the cultural knowledge expressed in the Standards from courses outside the FL classroom, suggesting their interest in a FL curriculum with integrated Connections Standards. In sum, it seems university students share the same expected learner outcomes expressed in the goals of the Standards that also correspond with the goals of U.S. policymakers in internationalization efforts. For these reasons, it is necessary to bring attention to the field on how to achieve these critical cultural awareness goals. Now is the time to demystify not only the teaching, but also the assessment of cultural knowledge, which is a particularly dauntingly subjective task (Fantini, 2011) and thus remains a commonly overlooked component in the assessments of student learning and world language teacher training.

14  P. Garrett-Rucks

FL EDUCATOR PREPARATION The crisis with FL instructors’ perceived difficulty in integrating meaningful cultural instruction and assessment into their curriculum, particularly at beginning levels of instruction, may be in large part due to inadequate training. A recent study (Hoyt & Garrett-Rucks, 2014) on the integration of culture standards (Standards 2.1, 2.2, and 4.2) in preservice teachers’ lesson plans from students enrolled across two different Standards-based FL Teacher Preparation programs revealed a lack of cultural instruction in the majority of the 177 plans. Further analysis revealed the following concerns: (1) a lack of examples illustrating effective ways to teach culture with a perspective-taking approach; (2) little discussion on the complexity of culture, leaving preservice teachers and their (future) students with a superficial and artificial representation of culture; and (3) missed opportunities for methods students to examine their belief systems about the teaching of culture or to explore the diverse belief systems of their peers within the same classroom setting. These findings suggest the need to reconsider the teaching of culture in Teacher Preparation programs. On a postsecondary level, Kinginger (1996) has long argued that TA training programs should integrate a more theoretical component that prepares TAs to exploit the classroom’s potential for negotiating cross-cultural difference and dealing with interrelated issues of language, culture, and identity. Byram (1997) described that the goal of foreign language teaching should be to prepare learners to become intercultural speakers in encounters with otherness and argued that “much acquisition of Intercultural Communicative Competence is tutored and takes place within an educational setting” (p. 43). Yet, more than ten years later pedagogical approaches to foster cultural acquisition in FL learning remain vague, and the richness of diverse cultural perspectives within the classroom remains largely untapped (Garrett-Rucks, 2013a; Kumaravadivelu, 2003; Osborn, 2006). Over a decade ago, Allen (2004) summarized the failed internationalization efforts announced in the 2003 ACE report by stating, despite good intentions, high standards, improved instructional materials, and hard work, we language teachers, as a profession, have somehow fallen short—and continue to fall short—when it comes to helping our students understand the connection between studying the languages and cultures of other peoples. (p. 286)

Nearly a decade later, the ACTFL Task Force on the Decade of Standards Project found that the Cultural Framework with the 3Ps (products, practices, perspectives) is still “neither taught nor assessed by a sizable number

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  15

of teachers” (Phillips & Abbott, 2011, p. 7). As a result, many educators, including myself, believe we are failing to respond to the challenges of living in an increasingly interdependent, multilingual, multicultural world. Conversely, as noted by Magnan (2008b) there must be “a massive commitment and involvement from the many educational entities involved in foreign language and international education to promote cross-cultural understanding and global literacy” (p. 628). For these reasons, it is imperative to involve FL teaching and research communities with international education communities in the decision making for the preparation of learners that affects the larger U.S. educational and business sectors. CONCLUDING CHAPTER REMARKS The aim of this book is to bridge theories from the field of intercultural competence and second language acquisition to Standards-based teaching practices in instructed FL learning. It synthesizes disparate sources of culture learning research findings that are beginning to emerge in the FL education literature. In addition, this book serves as a challenge to FL educators to advocate for their FL programs and to give greater visibility and credibility to the profession in institutional internationalization efforts. Furthermore, an analysis of intercultural competence research in the language learning literature reports that the majority of research on culture leaning projects in the FL classroom takes place in upper division university courses and fails to consider the lack of generalizeablity of findings to beginning levels of instruction due to learners’ limited level of linguistic mastery. Although research on fostering beginning language learners’ intercultural competence in FL instruction is in its infancy, it is of utmost concern given that the vast majority of our language learners rarely continue to advanced levels of instruction (Zimmer-Lowe, 2008). The first four chapters of the book prepare educators and researchers with terms and theories that situate the role of culture in world language instruction from multiple perspectives, demystifying the professional turn toward literacy-based approaches to language instruction. Specifically, this first chapter reported the demands made by U.S. policymakers and leading world language education organizations to prioritize the development of learners’ intercultural competence in educational practices. This demand is in sharp contrast with research findings that revealed FL educators’ struggle to integrate meaningful cultural reflection into their curriculum. The next chapter (Chapter 2) familiarizes the reader with diverse definitions of culture, explores the relationship between culture and language, and provides an historical overview of the changing role of cultural instruction in FL education over the past century in relation to socioeconomic and

16  P. Garrett-Rucks

political changes. This chapter takes a critical perspective of the dichotomy presented in traditional foreign language instruction—the learners’ culture versus a monolithic target culture—and argues the need for an intercultural approach to foreign language instruction that requires an exploration of the diverse perspectives within one’s own culture as well as the multiple perspectives found across the diverse cultures where the target language is spoken. The following chapter (Chapter 3) succinctly provides an overview of current definitions and predominant developmental models associated with intercultural competence (IC) in order to afford the reader a familiarity with the discourse needed to assess learners’ IC development within these models and to explain, in objective terms, the systematic assessment criteria used to evaluate learners’ worldviews. Chapter 4 theorizes the role of language learning in intercultural competence models by exploring the fundamental nature of language, mind and the brain with a sociolinguistic lens, then deconstructs the elements of IC models that correspond with the interrelated content Standards. The next three chapters are intended to bridge theory and practice, and to provide readers with an overview of existing research findings on culture learning projects aimed at fostering learners’ intercultural competence. The Chapter 5 provides an extensive overview of culture learning projects that fostered or impeded learners’ ICC developmental processes and includes a summation of the critical elements to consider in effective cultural instruction that support the inclusion of a literacy-based approach to language instruction. Fantini’s (1997) Process Framework Approach is discussed as a point of reference of how to infuse cross-cultural training into an existing curriculum. The following chapter (Chapter 6) provides educators an example of how to communicate to learners the ways in which their worldviews are being assessed with findings from a study on the changes detected in three learners’ perspectives over the course of a semester as they encountered alternate worldviews in an introductory French language course. In addition to providing educators examples of four diverse learners’ journey of self-discovery and intercultural reflection, this chapter is intended to serve as a model of how to apply IC models, such as Byram’s (1997) ICC model and ACE’s (2007) definitions of intercultural competence to real world learning situations. The final chapter (Chapter 7) summarizes where we are as a profession on culture learning in relation to second language acquisition and theorizes what remains needed to achieve visibility in institutional internationalization efforts. The primary emphasis of this chapter is to emphasize what is needed in teacher training programs and continuing education workshops in order for educators to prepare FL learners for success in an increasingly global society starting from the beginning levels of instruction.

chapter 2

Defining culture and its role in Foreign Language learning The desire to make sense of and cope with the differences and connections in worldviews, international patterns, and discourse preferences of people who didn’t use to come into contact with one another, but now increasingly do, both in real or virtual environments, is what makes the concept of intercultural communication so timely but so difficult to define. (Kramsch, 2002, p. 276)

CHAPTER OVERVIEW This chapter will start by exploring different constructs of culture as defined in the literature and then question what culture means at different societal levels—individual, group formation, nation forming and human universals—considering how culture reflects and informs behaviors and attitudes at each level. Next, widely accepted frameworks for systematizing culture will be introduced, such as Kluckhohn’s (1962) and Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) models of culture which classify cultures based on established essentialized perspectives toward diverse aspects of life such as a sense of time and social relations. Next the Onion and Iceberg models of culture are discussed, exploring the ways in which they consider observable behaviors

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning: Bridging Theory and Practice, pp. 17–41 Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing 17 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

18  P. Garrett-Rucks

and underlying mental aspects of culture. Traditional monolithic views of culture are put into question and juxtaposed to the concept of stereotype formation. Herein, the chapter takes a critical perspective of dichotomous cultural comparisons that inadvertently perpetuate stereotypes. Rather, a discussion ensues on the need to extend systematic views of “a culture” to describe the diverse, and at times conflicting perspectives found among members of one’s own culture as well as within and across diverse cultures where the target language is spoken. An historical review of the role of culture in foreign language (FL) pedagogy is then explored, leading to current trends that emphasize the importance of intercultural learning in literacy-based approaches to language learning. This chapter concludes by stating that intercultural competence is needed by language learners to not only foster their intercultural communicative competence (cross-cultural communication and interpersonal relations), but also to help learners to become responsible global citizens. DEFINING CULTURE As Block (2003) pointed out, the definition of culture is vast and “the sociological literature is full of definitions and even full-length treatments of culture” (p. 128). Likewise, Seelye (1993) acknowledged that culture is “a broad concept that embraces all aspects of human life, from folktales to carved whales” (p. 22). Omaggio-Hadley (2001) echoed Brooks’ (1968) earlier definition of culture which emphasized the beliefs, behaviors and values of a cultural group in her definition of culture as “the patterns of everyday life, the ‘do’s’ and ‘don’ts of personal behavior, and all the points of interaction between the individual and the society” (p. 349). Galloway (1992) further described the influence of culture on individuals’ attitudes and beliefs because it provides “a cohesive framework for selecting, constructing, and interpreting perceptions, and for assigning value and meaning in consistent fashion” (p. 88). It is in this sense that foreign language education had previously focused primarily on culture in terms of the arts, classic literature and great accomplishments of speakers of the target language. Modern definitions of culture focus on its subjective nature and include concepts such as patterns of thought (Brown, 1994) and “software of the mind” (Hofstede, 1980; Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010). The software of the mind model views culture as mental programming. Hofstede (1980) introduced the concept of culture as a type of mental programming contrary to the common meaning of culture in Western languages where culture was synonymous for “civilization” or “sophistication of the mind,”

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  19

results of such refinement as education, art and literature. This is culture in the narrow sense; commonly known in the field of Foreign Language Education (FLE) as “Big C” culture. Culture as mental software, however, corresponds to a much broader use of the word which is common among social anthropologists; referred to as “Little c” in FLE. In social anthropology, “culture” is a catchword for all those patterns of thinking, feeling and acting and the ordinary and menial things in life; greeting, eating, showing or not showing feelings, keeping a certain physical distance from others or maintaining body hygiene. It is a collective phenomenon, because it is at least partly shared with people who live or have lived within the same social environment where it was learned. Similar to the software of the mind theory, Block (2003) also emphasized the importance of socialization within culture as it “enables individuals to engage in acts of symbolic representation” (p. 128). Geertz (1975) has long suggested that culture is essentially between individuals and is understood in the interpersonal ways in which collectively held beliefs, values, and opinions are internalized by individuals. In this sense, culture is learned, not inherited. It derives from one’s social environment, not from one’s genes. Likewise, the definition of culture provided by the Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition for the purpose of their Intercultural Studies Project follows: Culture is defined as the shared patterns of behaviors and interactions, cognitive constructs, and affective understanding that are learned through a process of socialization. These shared patterns identify the members of a culture group while also distinguishing those of another group. (http://www. carla.umn.edu/culture/definitions.html, retrieved May 26, 2015)

An important element to consider in viewing culture as a process of socialization is that almost everyone belongs to a number of different groups and categories of people at the same time corresponding to different levels of culture. For example, there is an element of socialization at (1) the nation-state level according to one’s country, or countries for people who migrated during their lifetime; (2) regional, ethnic, religious or linguistic affiliation levels, as most nations are composed of culturally different groups; (3) a gender level, according to whether a person was born as a girl or as a boy and their sexual preferences; (4) a generation level, which separates grandparents from parents from children; (5) a social class level, associated with educational opportunities and with a person’s occupation or profession. Culture should be distinguished from human nature on one side, and from an individual’s personality on the other, rather it the collective socialization which distinguishes the members of one group or category

20  P. Garrett-Rucks

of people from another. Some believe that culture is a response to ecological and environmental context (DeKay & Buss, 1992; Matsumoto & Hwang, 2012) to meet biological needs and social motives (Matsumoto & Hwang, 2012). As noted by Minkov, Blagoev, and Hofstede (2013) cultural phenomena are usually viewed as “possessing some temporal stability. Measured properly, the dimensions that they yield have convincing predictive properties” (p. 1094). Many of the predictive properties of cultures have been deconstructed in models intended to systematically classify a cultural group, as outlined in the following section. Systematic Cultural Models Cultural models are intended to develop a system that categorizes and compares societies. Classifying cultures typically involves comparative measures of either single cultural aspects or considering multiple societal attributes. Examples of one-dimensional ordering of societies include assessing the degree of economic development, such as the prevalence of labeling a society as “traditional” or “modern” after the industrial revolution, or dividing cultures according to their communication styles such as Hall’s (1976) categorization of high-context (much of the information is implicit) or low-context (nearly everything is explicit) cultures. Many current cultural models encompass multiple aspects of societal interactions, beliefs and values (for a comprehensive overview, see Hofstede, 2001). Kluckhohn’s and Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Models The ability to categorize a social group according to the shared assumptions about the ways one should behave and how things ought to be is based on examining the choices social groups make and their shared preferences for social order. Much of the understanding of cultural variation has been achieved in reductive analyses in the study of values. In this sense, the essence of cultural difference is described through a comparison of the basic mental representations, or shared worldviews, members of particular social groups share. Models representing a group’s cultural values and worldviews commonly follow the belief that there are a limited number of ways in which a society can manage the finite number of problems with which all people must deal in social relations and in response to their environment (Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961). Early U.S. comparative anthropologist Clyde Kluckhohn (1962) described some of the generalities of the human situation cultures respond to as follows: Every society’s patterns for living must provide approved and sanctioned ways for dealing with such universal circumstances as the existence of two

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  21 sexes; the helplessness of infants; the need for satisfaction of the elementary biological requirements such as food, warmth, and sex; the presence of individuals of different ages and of differing physical and other capacities. (pp. 317–318)

In this same vein, U.S. anthropologists Florence Kluckhohn and Fred Strodtbeck (1961) ran a field study across five small communities in the Southwestern United States: Mormons, Spanish Americans, Texans, Navaho Indians, and Zuni Indians. They distinguished these communities on the following six value dimensions along which they purported a society can be organized: 1. Beliefs about human nature: People are inherently good, evil or a mixture of good and evil. 2. Relationships to nature: People have a need or duty to control or master the surrounding natural environment (domination), to submit to nature (subjugation) or to work together with nature to maintain balance (harmony). 3. Orientation to time: People should make decisions with respect to traditions or events in the past, events in the present or events in the future. 4. Nature of human activity: People should concentrate on living for the moment (being), striving for goals (achieving) or reflecting (thinking). 5. Relationships between people: The greatest concern and responsibility is for one’s self and immediate family (individualist), for one’s own group that is defined in different ways (collateral), or for one’s groups that are arranged in a rigid hierarchy (hierarchical). 6. Conception of space: The physical space we use is private, public or a mixture of public and private. While ground breaking for understanding cultural influences on worldviews, this theoretical model provided no means to measure societal differences and lacked scientific rigor to show validity on the suggested dimensions. Another framework that has received a great deal of research attention is Hofstede’s (1980) empirical study of national values. Using a factor analysis of 117,000 attitude surveys from employees working for a U.S. multinational corporation, later identified as IBM, Hofstede identified four distinct dimensions with which he could classify the different countries represented. Each country could be positioned relative to other countries through a score on each dimension with statistical significance. By giving each of the 40 countries a score ranging from 0 to 100 on each of the 4

22  P. Garrett-Rucks

dimensions, Hofstede derived a classification of national cultures (for a comprehensive overview of traits, see Hofstede, 2001) around four original dimensions: (1) Individualism-Collectivism; (2) Power Distance; (3) Uncertainty Avoidance; (4) Masculinity-Femininity. A fifth dimension was added later: (5) Long Term versus Short Term Orientation, as explained below. Each dimension of the five dimensions is described below followed by an adaptation of Hoftede’s (2011) tables that include only five salient features to illustrate the oppositional categories as they pertain to education. Following each table, countries found to exhibit characteristics for each of the oppositional categories described in the tables are noted, based on findings from a 2010 study by Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov from surveys conducted in 76 countries. Additional information about the five dimensions is found on the Hofstede Center website (http://geert-hofstede.com/ the-hofstede-centre.html), including a Cultural Compass Assessment for individuals to purchase for a small fee to “make you aware of the potential cultural pitfalls and to increase your effectiveness in dealing with those being born and raised in your country of interest.” Although the Hostede Center appears to be geared toward international business managers, it is a helpful website to understand the five dimensions of culture described below in more depth. (1) Individualism-Collectivism Individualism-collectivism describes the extent to which one’s self-identity is defined according to individual characteristics or by the characteristics of the groups to which the individual belongs on a permanent basis, and the extent to which individual or group interests dominate. On the individualist side, everyone is expected to look after the self and one’s immediate family. On the collectivist side, one is integrated into strong, cohesive groups—often extended families—that protecting each other in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. Table 2.1 provides five societal examples for both of the oppositional categories. In Hofstede et al. (2010), findings indicate that individualism tends to prevail in developed and Western countries, while collectivism prevails in less developed and Eastern countries. However, Hofstede notes that Japan takes a middle position on this dimension. (2) Power Distance This category describes the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions (like the family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. It suggests that a society’s level of inequality is endorsed by the followers as much as by the leaders. Table 2.2 provides five examples for both of the oppositional categories.

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  23 Table 2.1.  Five Differences Between Collectivist and Individualist Societies Individualism

Collectivism

• Everyone is supposed to take care of him- or herself and his or her immediate family only.

• People are born into extended families or clans which protect them in exchange for loyalty.

• “I” – consciousness.

• “We” – consciousness.

• Right of privacy.

• Stress on belonging.

• Speaking one’s mind is healthy.

• Harmony should always be maintained.

• Task prevails over relationship.

• Relationship prevails over task.

Source:  Adapted from Hofstede (2011, p. 11).

Table 2.2.  Five Differences Between Small- and LargePower Distance Societies Small Power Distance

Large Power Distance

• Parents treat children as equals.

• Parents teach children obedience.

• Student-centered education.

• Teacher-centered education.

• Subordinates expect to be consulted.

• Subordinates expect to be told what to do.

• Corruption rare; scandals end political careers.

• Corruption frequent; scandals are covered up.

• Income distribution in society rather even.

• Income distribution in society very uneven.

Source:  Adapted from Hofstede (2011, p. 9).

In Hofstede et al. (2010), Power Distance scores are reported to be higher for East European, Latin, Asian, and African countries and lower for Germanic and English-speaking Western countries. (3) Uncertainty Avoidance The extent to which societies focus on ways to reduce uncertainty and create stability, related to the level of stress in a society in the face of an unknown future. Table 2.3 provides five examples for both of the oppositional categories. In Hofstede et al. (2010), Uncertainty Avoidance Index scores tend to be lower in East and Central European countries, in Latin countries, in Japan and in German speaking countries, and much higher in English speaking, Nordic and Chinese culture countries.

24  P. Garrett-Rucks Table 2.3.  Five Differences between Weak- and StrongUncertainty Avoidance Societies Weak Uncertainty Avoidance

Strong Uncertainty Avoidance

• The uncertainty inherent in life is accepted and each day is taken as it comes.

• The uncertainty inherent in life is felt as a continuous threat that must be fought.

• Ease, lower stress, self-control, low anxiety.

• Higher stress, emotionality, anxiety, neuroticism.

• Teachers may say “I don’t know.”

• Teachers supposed to have all the answers.

• Dislike of rules—written or unwritten.

• Emotional need for rules—even if not obeyed.

• In politics, citizens feel and are seen as competent towards authorities.

• In politics, citizens feel and are seen as incompetent towards authorities.

Source:  Adapted from Hofstede (2011, p. 10).

(4) Masculinity-Femininity This category refers to the extent to which traditional male orientations of ambition and achievement are emphasized over traditional female orientations of nurturance and interpersonal harmony, related to the division of emotional roles between women and men. Table 2.4 provides five examples for both of the oppositional categories. Table 2.4.  Five Differences Between Feminine and Masculine Societies Femininity

Masculinity

• Minimum emotional and social role. differentiation between the genders.

• Maximum emotional and social role differentiation between the genders.

• Balance between family and work.

• Work prevails over family.

• Sympathy for the weak.

• Admiration for the strong.

• Both fathers and mothers deal with facts and feelings.

• Fathers deal with facts, mothers with feelings.

• Many women in elected political positions.

• Few women in elected political positions.

Source:  Adapted from Hofstede (2011, p. 12).

Hofstede et al. (2010) report findings that masculinity is high in Japan, in German speaking countries, and in some Latin countries like Italy and Mexico; it is moderately high in English speaking Western countries; it is low in Nordic countries and in the Netherlands and moderately low in

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  25

some Latin and Asian countries like France, Spain, Portugal, Chile, Korea, and Thailand. Due to concern that Hofstede’s (1980) study might contain cultural bias because it was developed in the West, a group of researchers conducted a subsequent study on Asian values. Based on research with Bond’s Chinese Values Survey across 23 countries, Hofstede  added a fifth dimension (Hofstede & Bond, 1988) to his earlier four dimensions of national cultures. (5) Long Term Versus Short Term Orientation This orientation relates to the choice of focus for people’s efforts; the future or the present and past. Values associated with Long Term Orientation are thrift and perseverance. Values associated with Short Term Orientation are respect for tradition, fulfilling social obligations, and protecting one’s “face.” Table 2.5 provides five societal examples for both of the oppositional categories. In Hofstede et al. (2010), long-term oriented values were found for East Asian countries, followed by Easternand Central Europe. A medium term orientation is found in South- and North-European and South Asian countries. Short-term oriented values were found for the United States and Australia, as well as Latin American, African, and Muslim countries. Table 2.5.  Five Differences Between Short- and Long-Term-Oriented Societies Short-Term Orientation

Long-Term Orientation

• Most important events in life occurred in the past or take place now.

• Most important events in life will occur in the future.

• Immediate need gratification expected.

• Need gratification deferred until later.

• What one thinks and says should be true.

• What one does should be virtuous.

• Children should learn tolerance and respect.

• Children should learn to be thrifty.

• Social spending and consumption.

• Saving, investing.

Source:  Adapted from Hofstede (2011, p. 12).

Although the Hofstede model has been criticized as essentialized, reducing vibrant and fluid cultures to a few static characteristics, while ignoring regional, ethnic and personal distinctiveness and cultural change (see Mader & Camerer, 2010), recent validations show no loss of validity, indicating that the country differences these dimensions describe are, indeed, basic and long-term. External validations are found in the second edition of Culture’s Consequences (Hofstede, 2001), listing more than 400 significant

26  P. Garrett-Rucks

correlations between the IBM-based scores and results of other studies. Despite strong evidence to support Hofstede’s value dimensions, there are comparable studies of national values that compete with Hofstede’s framework including (Hall & Hall, 1990; Schwartz, 1992; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998). None-the-less, Hofstede’s models hold the potential to stimulate discussions in the foreign language learning context of reasoning behind alternate perspectives toward cultural practices and products, a sorely missing component in FLE classroom practices (Hoyt & Garrett-Rucks, 2014). The Onion and Iceberg Cultural Models A cultural model that is a great tool to understand the layers of a country’s culture beyond its national values—as previously described in detail with Hofstede framework—is the Onion Model of Culture. There are a number of interpretations of this model but the simplest one consists of three key layers surrounding the core (the fourth and innermost layer), as seen in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1.  The Culture Onion Model.

Figure 2.1 shows how cultural practices emerge from the core layer, transecting the other layers. Definitions and examples for each layer in the Onion Model follow:

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  27

1. CORE: The core stands for the values of a certain culture, which are slow to change and are heavily influenced by the history of that country or culture. Even if something seems to be outdated, it still can subconsciously play a role in a modern society. 2. RITUALS AND TRADITIONS: The first layer around the core is described as rituals. Rituals are conventionalized behavior patterns that occur in particular situations. For example, there are language rituals—greeting, small-talk, agreeing and disagreeing, personal hygiene rituals—bathing times of day and frequency, personal odor preferences (fragrances, personal scent, or no scent), eating rituals—number of times per day, selection of food, table manners. 3. HEROES: The second layer around the core are the “heroes.” A hero can be a fictitious person, national heroes, photo-models or scientists—all people, who have characteristics that are highly prized in the culture. They are commonly associated with politics, sports, classic arts, media (music or movie starts, cartoons), or oral traditions. 4. SYMBOLS: The third layer is composed of symbols, such as flags, architecture or traditional clothing. Symbols can be any kind of pictures, objects (pins, clothes, hair style), gestures or words (idioms, jargon, accent) which carry a particular meaning only recognized by the members of one culture. This layer can change over a short time. For example, brands can serve as symbols like BMW, Apple or Louis Vuitton, but they change with the trends. Within the Onion Model of culture, there is greater variation within a cultural norm at the layers the furthest from the core. This is not to say that individual differences may not occur at the core, or that all members of the culture must abide by the societal rules. A significant amount of research on a wide array of social organizational topics, particularly in the field of international business, provides additional insight into the individual’s adherence to cultural norms as discussed below in the section “Situating the Individual within Cultural Models.” Similar to the Onion Model where symbols, heroes and rituals are extensions of the cultural core is the Iceberg Model of Culture (Hall, 1976) which presents a visual representation of cultural influences on behavior. As seen in Figure 2.2, observable behaviors of a group such as rituals, language, gestures, clothing, music and food are placed in the small visible part of an iceberg. The much larger portion of the iceberg, below the water surface, represents the mental aspects—such as a culture’s beliefs, values and attitudes—that influence the symbols, heroes and behaviors that are visible, above the water.

28  P. Garrett-Rucks

Figure 2.2.  The Iceberg Model.

Hall (1976) extends this metaphor to habits of the mind stating that the external portion of the iceberg is part of the conscious mind, whereas the invisible portion is part of the subconscious mind, influenced by multiple aspects of cultural conditioning. When crossing cultural boarders, Hall purports that it is difficult to make sense of the visible aspects of a culture without understanding the invisible underlying elements from which they originate. He further suggests that interactions with members of the new culture help to demystify their beliefs, values and thought patterns in order to make their alternate behaviors appear less foreign, and possibly less threatening. Gaining an understanding of the relationship between visible and subconscious aspects of culture in the FLE context is a fundamental part of understanding cultural conditioning—a key component to consider during intercultural comparisons. However, the need to explore the diversity of perspectives within cultural models and norms, both within one’s own culture and the target cultures, is crucial to avoid perpetuating stereotypes. Situating the Individual Within Cultural Models While Hofstede defines culture as, “the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another” (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005, p. 400), he placed a great deal of emphasis on the prevalence of individual variations found within

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  29

a cultural norm. It is particularly important to point out that Hofstede’s research on cultural norms at the national level considered only the average score for all participants in each country in the national scores on the cultural dimensions. Hofstede (1980) called making the mistake of applying the scores at the country level to individuals ecological fallacy. While research findings from the field of Cross-Cultural Psychology support the premise that members of a specific culture will internalize grouplike characteristics and develop a corresponding personality structure (Mesquita, 2003; Shweder, Haidt, Horton, & Joseph, 2008), they also recognize that as cultures vary, so too will individuals. While Hostede’s work has influenced the field of psychology where personality traits have been correlated with Hofstede’s cultural dimensions (Hofstede & McCrae, 2004; Lee, McCauley, & Draguns, 1999; McCrae, 2001), Hofstede strongly differentiates between the different levels of culture at the national level, the group or organizational level, and personality at the individual level (Hofstede et al., 2010). According to Triandis (1995) the degrees of cultural tightness and complexity are indicators of the degree of individualism or collectivism in a society and subsequent adherence to cultural norms. He defines tightness as the extent to which members of a culture agree about what is correct behavior according to cultural norms. In a tight culture, individuals believe they should give or receive severe criticism for even small deviations from cultural norms. Homogeneous cultures with a high population density are commonly characterized to be tight. On the other hand, loose cultures have diverse, and sometimes conflicting norms about appropriate behavior. Cultural complexity is the amount of variance across diverse societal aspects available to individuals that result in the formation of subcultures based on religion, gender, socioeconomic status, the size of communities, as well as the per capita gross national product of a country. The Individualism-Collectivism dimension on Hofstede’s work is of particular interest to understanding cultural cohesion and the degree to which cultural norms are typically abided. Individualism appears as a result of cultural looseness and increased cultural complexity, whereas collectivism is a result of tightness and simplicity (Tirandis, 1995). Tirandis describes Japan as an example of a tight culture, whereas the United States is a loose culture. Thus, the variations of each layer found within the aforementioned Onion Model for rituals, heroes, and symbols would be expected to be more consistent across Japanese culture, and have greater variation within U.S. culture. Additional research has revealed variants from the national norm across distinct communities or subcultures within nation states. In general, collectivism is maximized in tight, simple cultures, such as might be found in the subcultures of closed religious communities like the Amish in North America, whereas individualism is maximized in loose complex

30  P. Garrett-Rucks

cultures such as metropolitan areas where anonymity and/or subculture formations are prevalent in major U.S. cities. While recognizing that cultural norms vary at different societal levels—individual, group formation and nation forming— Triandis (1995) notes that the degrees of cultural tightness and complexity provide insight on the degree to which culture reflects and informs behaviors and attitudes at each level of the Onion Model. Without an understanding of the cultural tightness of a culture, nor the agency and autonomy of an individual within the cultural norms, there is a risk to view other cultures as monolithic. The role of cultural identity and subjectivity are the two key concepts to consider when portraying target cultures to foreign language learners, particularly given the preconceptions learners may carry of target culture members due to the societal stereotypes to which they have been exposed prior to their language studies, as described in the next section. Problematizing Learners’ Stereotypes in Second Language Learning Geertz (1975) described the coherence culture creates within social groups through “transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols” (p. 89) which creates “a system of inherited conceptions expressed in a symbolic form by means of which men communicate, perpetuate and develop their knowledge about and attitudes toward life” (p. 89). Bennett (1998) adds that members of the same culture may “take for granted some basic shared assumptions about the nature of reality” (p. 2). Constraints can be formed within groups, and across groups at different societal levels, of what is thought to be appropriate behavior (Libben & Lindner, 1996). Libben and Lindner (1996) described appropriate cultural behaviors within a group on peripheral and contextual levels. They described peripheral aspects of culture as being easily modified and contextualized versus central aspects of culture which are associated with identity, and unable to be contextualized. They provided a clear example of the distinction between central and peripheral cultural elements within North American culture by describing North Americans’ perceptions of the appropriateness of eating stew with their fingers instead of a spoon compared to their perceptions of cannibalism. We can conceive of situations in which a North American would, perhaps out of politeness in a foreign country, cheerfully dip his fingers into a gooey stew. It seems very unlikely, however, that the same North American would adopt a “when in Rome” view of eating fellow humans for dinner. (p. 7)

From this example, eating stew with one’s fingers is clearly a peripheral aspect of North American culture that can be modified and contextualized,

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  31

whereas not eating humans is a central aspect of North American culture, a collectively held belief which Libben and Lindner describe as associated with North Americans’ identity. The groups of individuals who do not reflect the characteristics of the dominant group or culture are often subject to misrepresentation or misunderstanding. Smith (1991) terms the process that leads to being marked as out-group members through complex strategies as Othering. In the process of Othering, a group constructs a shared Us versus Them representation. For example, minority groups often are recognized as outsiders to the majority norm in spite of the fact that everyone has a shared national identity. As noted by Smith (1991), the majority’s ethnic identity becomes invisible due to its normality and the identity of others becomes a marked identity. When marked behavior is repeatedly perceived by members of a defined other group, stereotypes, or fixed mental images of members from another group can form whether these images are real or imagined. The formation of stereotypes across linguistic boundaries, nation-states or imagined communities can be detrimental to the learning of a second language. Anderson (1991) coined the concept imagined communities in his work on the role of language in the creation of nation-states “because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion” (p. 6) that is linked together by a shared language. The process of Othering is related to the formation of imagined communities as it is central to the creation of terms Us versus Them in any action by which an individual or group becomes mentally classified in somebody’s mind as “not one of us,” commonly dismissing them as being in some way less worthy of respect and dignity than we are. In stereotype formation and its dichotomist language, the nation constructs its own self-image as an imagined community. According to Verdaguer (1996) stereotypes are maintained by the media including movies, television commercials, books, cartoons and the press. For example, Verdaguer’s review of the representation of France in the U.S. media found a common negative portrayal of French people as rude, sexually promiscuous and dirty, yet a positive portrayal of the country itself as full of renowned arts, perfume, fashion, and desirable wines and food. By the dichotomist nature of Othering, the media is essentially claiming that the U.S. is polite, displays sexually appropriate behavior and hygienic, yet that we lack in arts, fashion and the culinary indulgence of the French. As foreign language educators, it is difficult to combat the stereotypes perpetuated in the media when attempting to transmit to students cultural aspects that influence the identity of members of the target culture. As previously established in the section on cultural models, most members of a collective cultural group respond to situations through “the

32  P. Garrett-Rucks

shared knowledge and schemes created by a set of people for perceiving, interpreting, expressing, and responding to the social realities around them” (Lederach, 1995, p. 9). The process of being adapted to a new culture was defined by Brown (1994) as acculturation which involves a new orientation of thinking and feeling on the part of a language learner. As noted earlier, cultural understanding creates a cohesive framework among members, and a shared language is part of the aforementioned cultural models. In this vein, Schumann’s Acculturation Model of SLA (1978) contends that learners will succeed in learning a second language only to the extent they acculturate into the group that speaks the target language natively. As foreign language educators, we attempt to prepare our learners for encounters with members of the target culture, and in doing so, we often focus on the visible portion of the Iceberg Model, or the outer layers of the Onion Model to prepare learners to “fit in” with the visible parts of the target cultures’ expectations. This is especially true in communicative language teaching where the goal is to prepare learners for real world interactions (Ommagio-Hadely, 2001) in contexts such as greeting and meeting new people, talking about one’s family or daily activities, including a school schedule, ordering food at a restaurant, or buying clothes. In preparation for the rituals of these contexts, it is common for instructors to point out the observable differences in behavior across cultures to prepare learners to do things differently than they would within their own culture. The primary danger in presenting target cultures in contrast to one’s own—particularly in light of the shared positive and negative stereotypes about the target cultures that are perpetuated within a society—is through creating a sense of cultural exclusion. When contrasting cultural phenomenon from target cultures to our own, psychological and emotional membership barriers are established. Related to his earlier Acculturation Model, Schumann (1998) later extended his cross-cultural theories to include an evolutionary informed, biological aspect that describes the ways in which a sense of cultural exclusion can provoke a sense of physical discomfort. Schumann suggested the existence of an evolutionary sociostatic regulatory system, in the same vein as a homeostatic system that is an innate, survival-enhancing tendency that drives human organisms to seek out interactions with members of likecommunities. He further describes sociostatic regulation as “the inherited drives for attachment and social affiliation, which are initially directed toward the infant’s mother or caretaker and are gradually extended to others in the individual’s network of social relations” (p. 3). Schumann explains that group cohesion was crucially important in the early days of human civilization, and required strong demarcation between our allies and our enemies. To thrive, we needed to be part of a tribe that would look

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  33

out for each other, and likely share genes. As a result, there is a powerful evolutionary drive to identify in some way with a tribe of people who are like you and to feel a stronger connection and allegiance to them than to anyone else. Conversely, those who are not like you can be dangerous and threatening, and affiliation with them can be anxiety provoking. Extending the theory of sociostatic regulation to the language learning experience, students may cling to their own imagined national identity, as a speaker of their first-language, and interpret membership into the imagined target language communities as threatening to the membership of their own culture. This phenomenon has been particularly noted in instances of study abroad where there is a lack of pre-program intercultural sensitivity development (Martinsen, 2008; Magnan & Back, 2007). Likewise, as language learners encounter alternate cultural practices and perspectives in classroom instruction, they may form images of target language speakers as offensive, annoying or simply confusing and create psychological barriers that limit their proficiency development, avoiding social affiliation with the target language cultures. Although Schumann separated instruction from acculturation, it is argued that a responsive teacher can increase learner receptivity to the target language by alleviating emotional barriers and societal distance factors between the students and the target culture by including a subjective dimension to cross-cultural understanding. Although some scholars have argued that culture is in many ways “who you are” (Libben & Lidner, 1996, p. 7), others have recognized the autonomy of the individual within the “predictability that emerges when reducing the apparent chaos of human interaction” (Lakoff, 1974, p. 16). Geertz (1975), too, acknowledged that “historically transmitted pattern of meanings” (p. 89) may vary within a culture group, because members have not all had the same experiences. Differences may also occur among members of a cultural group as the culture evolves. As noted by Hall and Hall (1990), cultural codes and frames of references are not static because “far from being eternally fixed in some essentialized past, they are subject to the continuous ‘play’ of history, culture and power” (p. 225). As FL educators, it is difficult to transmit to students the cultural aspects that influence the identity of members of the target culture when recognizing the multitude of individual differences within the cultural group, and when considering that cultural codes and frames of reference are continually changing. These are some of the issues that have complicated cultural instruction, which has received increased attention in FL learning. The following section reviews a variety of pedagogical perspectives of how culture has been situated within foreign language instruction from the grammar-translation method to the communicative language approach leading to current literacy-based, intercultural positions in the field.

34  P. Garrett-Rucks

A HISTORICAL REVIEW OF THE ROLE OF CULTURE IN FL PEDAGOGY: FROM GRAMMAR-TRANSLATION METHODS TO LITERACY ORIENTED INSTRUCTION As witnessed in Table 2.6, foreign language pedagogy has changed considerably over the past century as our conceptions of language and culture evolve. Table 2.6.  History and Context: Culture in Language Curriculum Period

Trends & Movements

Nature of Culture

Role of Culture in FL Classroom

1950s–1960s

Grammar-translation

Big “C” Facts

Cultural knowledge for reading literature

Late 1960s

Audio-lingual movement

Little “c” facts

Knowledge of culture necessary for building vocabulary

1970s–1980s

Sociolinguistics, communicative competence & proficiency. CLT emerges.

Language pragmatics, sociolinguistic facts

Knowledge of culture to avoid communication breakdowns

1990s–present

CLT continues with trends toward teaching for intercultural competence. ICC and literacy-based approaches emerge

Culture learning as a process, essential integration of language and culture

Context and purpose for authentic language instruction

The historical grammar-translation method was modeled on the teaching of classical languages like Latin and Greek and was considered “the almost unrivalled method of foreign language teaching” in the 19th and early 20th centuries” (Neuner, 2003, p. 19). This method concentrated on the presentation and analysis of correct linguistic forms, by tedious translations of literary masterpieces and grammar drills to exercise and strengthen the grammar knowledge without much attention to content. Notions of the target culture in the grammar-translation method were primarily defined by the target culture’s products, or sociocultural achievements in the arts or as history represented in literature until the emergence of the audio-lingual method in the late 1960s (Kramsch, 2002). In the 1960s, discussions of culture in language teaching began to focus on the distinction between culture in the sociologists’ and anthropologists’ notion of practices in daily life as opposed to the products, or artistic and literary achievements of a particular civilization (Brooks, 1968; Lado, 1957).

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  35

The audiolingual method became prevalent in foreign language classrooms with an emphasis on teaching in the target language and restricting student language production to what students could control well, such as memorizing dialogues concerning useful phrases as a tourist or daily life in the target culture. Within the audiolingual method, socioculture as a topic of foreign language teaching, was relegated to the background of situations and settings of dialogues in the target country and was “subordinated to the memorization of useful phrases and the reproduction of typical social roles in everyday (model) dialogues” (Neuner, 2003, p. 20). Brooks (1971, as cited in Omaggio-Hadley, 2001) proposed a shift from prior elitist conceptions of culture, which he deemed as “Olympian culture,” to an emphasis of beliefs, behaviors, and values (BBV) of the target culture in the classroom and promoted the inclusion of “Little C” culture, in addition to elements of “Big C” culture into the FL curriculum. “Little C” culture represents aspects of lifestyle or patterns of daily living, whereas “Big C” culture represents a civilization’s accomplishments in literature and the fine arts, its social institutions, history, geography, and political systems. There has been growing attention on the role of understanding the target culture’s beliefs, behaviors, and values in helping students develop the proficiency that would enable them to communicate effectively and appropriately with target language speakers in various social settings and circumstances since the late 1960s. In the early 70s, Hymes (1974) introduced the notion of communicative competence, which he defined as “the ability to participate in society as not only a speaking, but also a communicating member” (p. 75). Hymes departed from the Chomskian focus on linguistic competence to focus more broadly on sociolinguistic competence, or on how meaning is made in social interactions within speech communities. Yet Hymes’ primary interest was in the social interaction and communication within a social group using one language, and thus did not take into consideration cross-cultural communication. Canale and Swain (1980) built on Hymes’ communicative competence model for FL instruction in North America creating an influential model which still informs the conventional framework for curriculum design and classroom practices associated with Communicative Language Teaching (Alptekin, 2002) today. Canale and Swain’s communicative competence model entails four competencies referred to as grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence and strategic competence. The Proficiency Movement of the 1980s emphasized communicative abilities defined in the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines (1986) which Bachman and Savignon (1986) applauded as “establishing professional standards, accountability, and a common metric for measuring communicative language proficiency” (p. 388). Yet Bachman and Savignon also recognized

36  P. Garrett-Rucks

the limitations of the Guidelines, and questioned “the appropriateness of adapting to the academic setting an entire system that was developed for specific foreign language use contexts that may be quite different from those encountered by students in American colleges and universities” (p. 388). Bachman and Savignon further suggested the inclusion of a definition of communicative language proficiency in the Guidelines that included “grammatical, discourse, and sociolinguistic competence” and rating scales based on each of these components. In the European context, van Ek (1986) presented a model of six competences called “a framework for comprehensive foreign language learning objectives” (p. 33) which added sociocultural competence and social competence to competences similar to Canale and Swain’s (linguistic competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence, and strategic competence). Van Ek defined the need for sociocultural competence as follows: “every language is situated in a sociocultural context and implies the use of a particular reference frame which is partly different from that of the foreign language learner; sociocultural competence presupposes a certain degree of familiarity with that context” (p. 35). The importance of context framed Communicate Language Teaching (CLT). The focus of CLT is the oral use of the language within transactional communicative activities of everyday social encounters grounded within contexts of situations that one may encounter during travel framed by thematic unit contexts such as transportation, places in a town, weather and family descriptions. Recognizing the importance of cultural understanding in intercultural communicative competence, Omaggio (1986) advocated that the study of culture be an integral part of FL study if students were to derive lasting benefits from their FL learning experience. Yet interpretations of meaningful cultural study remain unclear today in instructional paradigms with the exclusive use of CLT methods. The emphasis on cultural understanding in the FL classroom continued to increase from the late ‘80s into the ‘90s. The American Association of Teachers of French (AATF) National Commission on Cultural Competence (1996) suggested that a consensus should be reached on a common core of cultural information offered in French language programs. This core was intended to fill in the void left in the ACTFL Proficiency Testing Guidelines after 1986. According to the Commission, a core stressing cultural competence completed the necessary requirements and skills needed for students to communicate effectively in French (Singerman, Nostrand, & Grundstrom, 1996). The Commission argued that the core would ensure cross-cultural competence, vital to avoid the dangers of ethnocentrism. The 1990s offered a variety of approaches on how to develop cultural understanding into foreign language learning, and the promotion of intercultural learning emerged. Hamburger (1990) questioned previous

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  37

practices that suggested juxtaposing the C1 to the C2 (e.g., Bakhtin, 1981; McLeod, 1976) stating that overemphasizing foreignness and the differences between cultures without attention to individual differences risks a reinforcement of stereotypes and ethnocentrism among learners. Byrnes (1991) also suggested an emphasis on the subjective component of culture, serving as a precursor to current literacy-based pedagogical approaches of intercultural learning. Also recognizing the learner’s identity in cultural instruction, Kramsch (1993) suggested that the process of cultural reflection take place in a negotiated space, which she refers to as a third place, the location between the C1 and the C2 where all behavior (both that of others and that of oneself) is seen as being grounded in a particular cultural context. In the European context, Byram (1997) provided one of the most exhaustive and influential definitions of intercultural competence in the foreign language learning context. Intercultural communicative competence, according to Byram, is based on five components—attitudes, knowledge, skills of interpreting and relating, skills of discovery and interaction (e.g., interpreting, relating, discovery, interaction), and critical cultural awareness—all of which are part of one’s social identity. A fundamental notion in the development of intercultural competence, according to Byram is critical cultural awareness, which he defines as “an ability to evaluate, critically and on the basis of explicit criteria, perspectives, practices and products in one’s own and other cultures and countries” (p. 63). In theory, the learner’s new evaluative orientation toward difference should foster a readiness to become an intercultural speaker, with the ability to defer his or her own beliefs, practices, values, and meanings when faced with those of the other. Furthermore, the intercultural speaker, “produces effects on a society which challenge its unquestioned and unconscious beliefs, behaviours and meanings, and whose own beliefs, behaviours and meanings are in turn challenged and expected to change” (p. 1). In sum, learners with some degree of intercultural competence should have a critical understanding of their own and other cultures and be conscious that their own perspective is culturally determined. Increased criticism of CLT was reported in the literature in tandem with increased interest in intercultural communicative competence, particularly in European context where Byram’s work changed the shape of European language instruction. In early attempts to expand the limited focus on learners’ oral language production in CLT, Kern (2000) argued the need to introduce literacy-based approaches to instructed language learning as follows: Aims of teaching face-to-face verbal interaction [associated with CLT] and developing learners’ ability to read, write, and think critically about texts

38  P. Garrett-Rucks [associated especially with literacy-based approaches] are not incompatible goals, but, in fact, mutually interdependent … there is a symbiotic, mutuallyreinforcing relationship between literacy and communicative ability. (p. 45)

Schulz (2006) further critiqued CLT in her essay on reevaluating communicative competence as a major goal in postsecondary language requirement courses. The seminal 2007 MLA report echoed previous concern expressed in the field about CLT such as Byrnes (2005) call for attention to the social embeddedness of language ability. The 2007 MLA report emphasized the goal of translingual and transcultural competence which allows someone “to operate between languages” (p. 237). Consistent with recommendations from the recent Modern Language Association (2007) report on foreign languages in higher education, the integrated literacy-based approach develops students’ translingual and transcultural competence by examining target language narratives from multiple perspectives. Furthering this notion, Kramsch (2008) noted the lack of consideration for the history and subjectivity of others in contrived speaking activities in the CLT approach. Terry (2011) remarked the shift in views of language study in the field from instrumental (language consists of communicative and information-gathering skills) to constitutive (language represents what we are, think, and reveal about ourselves). Similarly, a literacy-based approach encourages a symbolic competence of language “through all of its facets—conversational, functional, literary, cultural—and all its modalities—spoken, written, filmic, virtual” (Kramsch, 2008, p. 403) that extend beyond the exclusive use of literary texts. The primary critique of CLT, as noted by Barnes-Karol and Broner (2010) is that the learning of culture in CLT emphasizes products and practices with disregard for perspectives or relationships. Literacy-based approaches highlight the centrality of discourse and dialogue in all human meaning-making (Byrnes, 2005), encouraging the development of the learner’s discursive flexibility while finding positions of self and other in language. Language use in literacy-based approaches is a social semiotic praxis in which interactants are construers of reality and language learning is a participatory experience (Byrnes, 2002; Hasan, 1995; Kramsch, 2009). Aligning this understanding with the interrelatedness of the Standards would mean to go beyond transactional language to deal with multiple interpretations of meaning conveyed in social encounters through different disciplines (Magnan Murphy, & Sahakyan, 2014). The role envisioned for teachers in a literacy-based approach would evolve from conveyors of culture with presentations of practices and products to coconstruers of meaning, which is relational and multidimensional (Kramsch, 2008). Such visions of a literacy-based approach to instructed language learning align

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  39

with ICC instructional practices and research projects found in the literature (review found in Chapter 5 of this book). Many scholars have criticized the Standards for a lack of fit with literacybased notions, finding more harmony between literacy and the 2007 MLA report (see Magnan et al., 2014) for a comprehensive review). Dhonau and McAlpine (2011) expressed their concern that the Standards lack sufficient substance for higher education. Similarly, Lafford (2012) expressed concern that enforcement of the Standards at the university level impinges faculty autonomy and academic freedom, thus claiming a preference for the traditional emphasis on literary and cultural studies found in a literacybased approach to instruction. Troyan (2012) warned that the Standards are primarily reduced to the Communication goal area because the only form of assessment developed for them is the Integrated Performance Assessment (IPA), which features the three modes of that goal area. Also noting a lack of assessment measures to build on a pedagogy that would respond to both the Standards and the MLA call for translingual and transcultural competence, Hammer and Swaffar (2012) offered rubrics that build on the Standards’ relationship between language and culture that could also serve to direct learning in an ICC or literacy-based approach to language instruction. That is the position of this book—that the Standards are sufficient to support an ICC literacy-based approach to instructed language learning. U.S. National Standards for Foreign Language Learning The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages first published the National Standards for Language Learning: Preparing for the 21st Century in 1996. The Standards were described as “an unprecedented consensus among educators, business leaders, government, and the community on the definition and role of foreign language instruction in American education” (SFLL, 1996, p. 1). The Standards promote a learner-centered personalized communicative approach to language learning encouraging consideration of the discourse and sociocultural features of language use (Savignon & Sysoyev, 2005). The Standards, revised in 1999 and 2006, state learner outcomes around eleven standards categorized in to five different goal areas called the “Five Cs:” (1) Communication; (2) Cultures; (3) Connections; (4) Comparisons; (5) Communities. The Cultures Standards invite students not only to identify cultural practices and products, but also to demonstrate their understanding of the differing perspectives (meanings) underlying the practices. The ACTFL website provides an annotated version of the expected foreign language learner outcomes for cultural understanding in the Cultures Standards:

40  P. Garrett-Rucks CULTURES Gain Knowledge and Understanding of Other Cultures •

Standard 2.1: Students demonstrate an understanding of the relationship between the practices and perspectives of the culture studied

•

Standard 2.2: Students demonstrate an understanding of the relationship between the products and perspectives of the culture studied

The Cultures Standards echoe previous notions of communicative competence models that demanded sociocultural competence to communicate effectively with members of the target community. By emphasizing that the learner demonstrates an understanding of the relationship between the perspectives of the culture studied and the products and practices of members of the target culture, the Cultures Standards implicitly state the need for foreign language educators to include a sociocultural component into the communication practices of the classroom. In addition to enhancing learners’ communicative competence, the Standards have the potential to prepare U.S. learners to become cross-culturally sensitive global citizens. Unfortunate recent events have brought attention to the need to increase intercultural skills in the United States. THE CONNECTION BETWEEN LANGUAGE, CULTURE, AND NATION The events of 9/11 may have greatly accelerated American interest in developing cross-cultural understanding. Accordingly, FL learning has received increased attention as part of the need to strengthen homeland and national security. Our nation’s lack of language abilities and international expertise became apparent as representatives of the FBI, the Department of Defense, and the Federal Immigration Courts voiced their concerns to lawmakers about the serious problems this lack of language abilities posed in areas such as terrorism, peacekeeping, immigration, drug interdiction, and judicial hearings (Edwards, 2004). The connection between language, culture, and nation became a primary interest to national security. As Shohamy (2003) noted, Languages express national (or other) identities that are often embedded in shared history and cultures; they are also ideological because they are associated with aspirations of unity, loyalty and patriotism; they are social because they are perceived as symbols of status, power, group identity, and belonging. (p. 279)

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  41

These reasons and more necessitate the inclusion of an intercultural dimension in education, particularly in foreign language instruction today. CONCLUDING CHAPTER REMARKS It has long been recognized that the ability to evaluate what someone from another culture understands of a given situation and how he therefore reacts to it is fundamental to the ability to communicate effectively with speakers of another language (Furstenberg, Levet, English, & Maillet, 2001). There is also an increasing need to develop an understanding of linguistic and cultural differences in the conflicts facing us abroad and at home. A growing number of educators today believe that the mission of foreign language education extends beyond performance of language acts and should include reflection upon the ways in which culturally situated discourse systems create and reproduce social as well as individual meanings. (Guthrie, 2000 p. 29)

The call for the need to help our students learn to see the world through others’ eyes through the study of another language is becoming more prevalent. An ICC literacy-based approach to foreign language instruction offers solutions to concerns about CLT’s traditional emphasis on the Communication Standards. Furthermore, an ICC literacy-based approach encourages emphasis on the interrelatedness of the Standards in instruction, as originally intended. Intercultural competence is needed by language learners to not only foster their intercultural communicative competence (cross-cultural communication and interpersonal relations) to operate as informed agents between languages, but also to help learners overcome stereotypes and become responsible global citizens. The next chapter provides an extensive overview of current models and definitions of intercultural competence in the literature.

chapter 3

Defining intercultural competence (IC) and IC assessment models If you see in any given situation only what everybody else can see, you can be said to be so much a representative of your culture that you are a victim of it. (S. I. Hayakaw)

CHAPTER OVERVIEW This chapter starts with an overview of related terms used across the literature to describe intercultural competence (IC), which all essentially account for the ability to step beyond one’s own culture and function with individuals from linguistically and culturally diverse backgrounds. Next, predominant IC models in the field are presented, drawing heavily from Bennett (1993), Byram (1997), and the American Council on Education (ACE, 2007). IC assessments tools found in the literature in the quantitative and qualitative traditions are then reviewed, as well as their use—primarily to measure change found in participants who had engaged in cultural immersion experiences or cross-cultural encounters such as study abroad, the Peace Corps or international business. The last section in this chapter identifies

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning: Bridging Theory and Practice, pp. 43–59 Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing 43 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

44  P. Garrett-Rucks

discrepancies between IC models by Byram and Bennett when applied to an instructed language learning environment, putting into question the value of IC assessment tools that do not consider a language component. ASSESSING INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE: IDENTIFYING THE INDIVIDUAL’S IC DEVELOPMENT Terms in the Literature Interest in intercultural competence emerged in the literature out of research into the experiences of Westerners working abroad in the 1950s and expanded greatly with the formation of the Peace Corps in the early 1960s and early 1970s in response to perceived cross-cultural communication problems that hampered collaboration between individuals from different backgrounds. From the late 1970s on, the contexts for intercultural competence research expanded to include international business, cross-cultural training and study abroad. According to Ruben (1989) early research on intercultural competence centered around four main goals: “(1) to explain overseas failure, (2) to predict overseas success, (3) to develop personnel selection strategies, and (4) to design, implement and test sojourner training and preparation methodologies” (p. 230). Interest in preparing learners for cross-cultural encounters has increased tremendously since the formation of the World Wide Web in the late 1990s as people increasingly come into contact with others from diverse cultural backgrounds in both real and virtual environments. The broad concept of intercultural competence has led to a range of definitions and models that have served as the basis for different approaches to its assessment. In a review of 138 articles and books, Fantini (2006) provided a comprehensive list of related terms used across the literature to describe intercultural competence including intercultural communicative competence, cross-cultural awareness, intercultural sensitivity, ethnorelativity and global competencies (see Fantini, 2006, p. 81 for a comprehensive list of the terms found for IC in his review) which all essentially account for the ability to step beyond one’s own culture and function with other individuals from linguistically and culturally diverse backgrounds. Torres and Rollock (2007) defined intercultural competence in cultural psychology as “proficiency regarding culturally relevant areas and group-specific skills that facilitate cultural interactions” (p. 11). Sercu (2005) defined intercultural communicative competence (ICC) in foreign languge (FL) education as a learner’s ability to cope with intercultural experiences. She further described the intercultural competencies and characteristics as:

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  45 the willingness to engage with foreign culture, self-awareness and the ability to look upon oneself from the outside, the ability to see the world through the others’ eyes, the ability to cope with uncertainty, the ability to act as a cultural mediator, the ability to evaluate others’ point of view, the ability to consciously use culture learning skills and to read the cultural context, and the understanding that individuals cannot be reduced to their collective identities. (p. 2)

Likewise, Byram (2000) described the attributes of a person with intercultural competence as someone who is able to see relationships between different cultures—both internal and external to a society—and is able to mediate, that is interpret each in terms of the other, either for themselves or for other people. It is also someone who has a critical or analytical understanding of (parts of) their own and other cultures—someone who is conscious of their own perspective, of the way in which their thinking is culturally determined, rather than believing that their understanding and perspective is natural. (p. 9)

Both Byram and Sercu are among our European language educator counterparts who have concurred on the use of the term intercultural communicative competence as demonstrated in the Common European Framework of References for Languages (CEFR) (Council of Europe, 2001). The CEFR takes a multilanguage approach that establishes and describes the competence levels that the speaker of a language can achieve as well as multiple types of knowledge and linguistic experiences that contribute to the development of the general communicative competence, including an aspect of intercultural competence. Contrary to our European counterparts, FL educators in the United States still use disparate terms. In 1999, the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) stressed the need for FL learners to understand target culture members’ perspectives toward their ways of life and their contributions to the world by adding the Cultures Standards (2.1 and 2.2) to the National Standards for Foreign Language Learning. Similarly, the 2007 report by the Modern Language Association Ad Hoc Committee on Foreign Languages emphasized the need to train FL learners to reflect on the world through the lens of another language and culture with transcultural competence. Most recently, ACTFL reports the need to foster learners’ intercultural competence in the 2014 Global Competence Position Statement claiming that global competence is “vital to successful interactions among diverse groups of people locally, nationally, and internationally” (para. 1). In its broadest sense, intercultural competence can be defined following Fantini (2006) as “a complex of abilities needed to perform effectively and

46  P. Garrett-Rucks

appropriately when interacting with others who are linguistically and culturally different from oneself ” (p. 12, emphasis in original). There currently exist a large number of practices that have been recommended and implemented for assessing intercultural competence, depending considerably on the particular definition or model of intercultural competence adopted. The next section in this chapter describes predominant IC models in the field drawing heavily from Bennett (1993), Byram (1997) and the American Council on Education’s (2007) model which Deardorff (2009) claims essentializes the common components found across models—intercultural attitudes, knowledge, and skills. Predominant IC Models in the Field Whereas the term intercultural communicative competence (ICC) is increasingly used in the field of intercultural communication, it represents only one term among many that are still used to address what transpires during intercultural encounters. And even those who use the term ICC in the literature do not necessarily intend to signify the same abilities, thus reference to the author is essential. In Fantini’s (2006) review of 138 books and articles in the intercultural literature, he notes “most existing terms, definitions, and concepts in use do not adequately capture all that occurs when individuals engage in intercultural contact” (p. 11). In light of the diverse terms used around the concept of intercultural competence, each term alluding to slightly different nuances, Fantini further notes that “it is not surprising, therefore, that so many different instruments are being created to measure its outcomes” (p. 11). The following section describes in detail two influential models found in the literature—Bennett (1993) and Byram (1997)—that differ substantially in their interpretation of the components necessary for successful communication across cultures, as well as a third model put forth by the American Council on Education (2007) that seemingly bridges both theories. Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity The Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) was created by Bennett (1993) as a framework to explain the experience of people he observed in intercultural workshops, classes, exchanges, and graduate programs over the course of months and sometimes years. The DMIS provides an assessment structure for explaining how the person assessed sees, thinks about, and interprets cultural events happening around them and how an individual’s perspective of cultural patterns both guide and limit his or her experience of cultural differences. Bennett claimed that the learners he observed confronted cultural difference in some predictable ways as they

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  47

acquired more intercultural competence. Employing concepts from cognitive psychology and constructivism, Bennett categorized the behaviors he had observed into six stages of increasing sensitivity to cultural differences purporting that certain kinds of cognitive processing, attitudes and behaviors would typically be associated with each phase. The six stages of the DMIS, found in Table 3.1, represent a set of perspectives with successively greater ability to understand and have a more complete experience of cultural difference. The first three stages (Acceptance Stage, Adaptation Stage and Integration Stage) are considered ethnocentric or monocultural in that one’s own culture is seen as the only culture or the “better” culture. The second three DMIS stages are ethnorelative (Acceptance Stage, Adaptation Stage, and Integration Stage) where the individual’s culture is one of many equally valid worldviews. Bennett extensively defined each of the six phases as summarized in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1.  Bennett’s (1993) Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity Ethnocentric Stages (Stages 1–3): The Individual’s Culture is the Central Worldview Stage 1 Denial

The individual denies the difference or existence of other cultures by erecting psychological or physical barriers in the forms of isolation and separation from other cultures.

Stage 2 Defense

The individual reacts against the threat of other cultures by denigrating the other cultures (negative stereotyping) and promoting the superiority of one’s own culture. * In some cases, the individual undergoes a reversal phase, during which the worldview shifts from one’s own culture to the other culture, and the own culture is subject to disparagement.

Stage 3 Minimization

The individual acknowledges cultural differences on the surface but considers all cultures as fundamentally similar.

Ethnorelative Stages (Stages 4–6): The Individual Has a More Complex Worldview in Which Cultures Are Understood Relative to Each Other and Actions Are Understood as Culturally Situated Stage 4 Acceptance

The individual accepts and respects cultural differences with regard to behavior and values.

Stage 5 Adaptation

The individual develops the ability to shift his frame of reference to other culturally diverse worldviews through empathy and pluralism.

Stage 6 Integration

The individual expands and incorporates other worldviews into his own worldview.

48  P. Garrett-Rucks

Although the DMIS was created from direct observations in the qualitative tradition, it has been most commonly used as a source of inspiration for the formation of indirect assessment measures such as the Intercultural Development Inventory in the quantitative tradition, as described in detail in the IC Assessment Tools section of this chapter. Intercultural Communicative Competence Model More recently, researchers from the qualitative tradition often draw from Byram’s (1997) widely accepted framework for the assessment of the intercultural dimensions of attitude, skills of interaction and discovery, skills of relating and interpreting and critical awareness in learners’ development of intercultural competence. In Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence, Byram proposed a widely accepted five-factor model of intercultural competence that he designed to offer a general definition and description of intercultural competence applicable to multiple foreign language learning contexts. 1. The attitude factor refers to the ability to decenter oneself and value others, and includes “attitudes of curiosity and openness, of readiness to suspend disbelief and judgment with respect to other’ meanings, beliefs and behaviours” (p. 34). 2. Knowledge of the rules for individual and social interactions and social groups and their practices, both in one’s one culture and in the other culture. 3. Skills. The first skill set, the skills of interpreting and relating, describes an individual’s ability to interpret, explain, and relate events and documents from another culture to one’s own culture. 4. Skills. The second skill set, the skills of discovery and interaction, allows the individual to acquire “new knowledge of culture and cultural practices,” including the ability to use existing knowledge, attitudes, and skills in cross-cultural interactions (p. 98). 5. The last factor, critical cultural awareness, describes the ability to use perspectives, practices, and products in one’s own culture and in other cultures to make evaluations. Byram (2008) has worked extensively with the Educational Council of Europe in the development of a portfolio assessment called the Autobiography of Intercultural Encounters. Byram described the portfolio as, “focused entirely on helping learners to analyse encounters with otherness” (p. 222). However, to date there remains a lacuna of qualitative studies that provide empirical evidence of learners’ development within each of the stages in his model. Byram proposed detailed objectives that should be met for each of these five criteria (objective descriptions found in Byram, 1997,

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  49

pp. 57–64), yet provided no examples of learners’ development within this model. Byram claimed that he specifically avoided examples for each of these objectives to keep his model “at a generalizable level of abstraction” (p. 38). Like Bennett, Byram’s model has served as the impetus for the creation of quantitative research instruments such as surveys and questionnaires. An example of a widely recognized combined IC assessment test came from the Intercultural Competence Assessment Project (INCA), greatly influenced by the work of Byram (1997). The INCA includes three assessment types that combine direct and indirect ways of measuring ICC: questionnaires, scenarios and role plays. The American Council on Education (ACE, 2007) echoes Byram in the definitions it provides for appropriate intercultural outcomes. The ACE conducted a three-year study (2004–2007) titled “Lessons Learned in Assessing International Learning” involving six colleges across the United States in order to “increase knowledge of international learning assessment at the six project sites, develop skills in implementing assessment and using assessment results, and enhance the knowledge and tools available to the higher education community for assessing international learning” (ACE, 2007, para. 4). The six colleges (Dickinson College, Kalamazoo College, Kapi‘olani Community College, Michigan State University, Palo Alto College, and Portland State University) collaboratively prioritized a set of international learning outcomes as outlined below, based on expectations that the learner: Knowledge • Understands his [sic] culture within a global and comparative context (that is, the student recognizes that his [sic] culture is one of many diverse cultures and that alternate perceptions and behaviors may be based in cultural differences). • Demonstrates knowledge of global issues, processes, trends, and systems (that is, economic and political interdependency among nations, environmental-cultural interaction, global governance bodies, and nongovernmental organizations). • Demonstrates knowledge of other cultures (including beliefs, values, perspectives, practices, and products). Skills • Uses knowledge, diverse cultural frames of reference, and alternate perspectives to think critically and solve problems.

50  P. Garrett-Rucks

• Communicates and connects with people in other language communities in a range of settings for a variety of purposes, developing skills in each of the four modalities: speaking (productive), listening (receptive), reading (receptive), and writing (productive). • Uses foreign language skills and/or knowledge of other cultures to extend his [sic] access to information, experiences, and understanding. Attitudes • Appreciates the language, art, religion, philosophy, and material culture of different cultures. • Accepts cultural differences and tolerates cultural ambiguity. • Demonstrates an ongoing willingness to seek out international or intercultural opportunities (ACE, 2007, paras. 2–4). Ultimately, these models seek to explain the types of skills and abilities individuals need to function in culturally diverse settings and the processes they undergo in developing the needed skills and abilities for being interculturally competent. How such skills and abilities might best be observed and understood is the focus of the next section. Predominant IC Assessment Tools As the focus and purpose of intercultural competence research expands, its description and assessment have evolved as well, from short attitude and personality surveys in the 1960s to more complex behavioral selfassessments, performance assessments and portfolio assessments among others. Several studies have investigated aspects of intercultural learning such as: (1) how students in intercultural communication exchange perspectives, opinions, and views between NSs (Native Speakers) and NNSs (Nonnative Speakers) (e.g., Belz, 2002; Belz & Müller-Hartmann, 2003; Furstenberg, Levet, English, & Maillet, 2001; Hanna & de Nooy, 2003; O’Dowd, 2003; Wade, 2005); (2) the cocreation of cultural impressions in discussions (Byram, 1997; Johnson, 2008; McBride & Wildner-Bassett, 2008; Müller-Hartmann, 2000; Woodin, 2001); or (3) the ways in which learners reflect on their own cultural beliefs in cross-cultural projects (Furstenberg et al., 2001, Müller-Hartmann, 2000; O’Dowd, 2003; Savignon & Rothmeier, 2004; Ware, 2005). The following section presents a review of quantitative and qualitative practices that have been used to assess intercultural competence.

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  51

Quantitative IC Assessment Tools Many of the aforementioned studies mentioned in the review of the literature used surveys and questionnaires that were either designed by the researchers, or adapted from preexisting IC assessment tools such as the BASIC, ISCI, IDI, or CCAI. The following section provides detailed information on each of these research instruments and example of how they have been used in the literature, followed by critiques found in the literature of quantitative studies. The Behavioral Assessment Scale for Intercultural Competence (BASIC) (Koester & Olebe, 1988; Ruben, 1976; Ruben & Kealey, 1979) was developed from behavioral approaches to ICC. The BASIC test originally used 4- and 5-point Likert scales for observers to assess individuals on seven dimensions: display of respect, interaction posture, orientation to knowledge, empathy, self-oriented role behavior, interaction management and tolerance for ambiguity. Ruben and Kealey (1979) expanded the behavioral model to study assessments of predeployment and one-year postdeployment individuals and their spouses moving and living abroad. Koester and Olebe (1988) adopted and further developed the BASIC scales and rephrased the scales for university students living in dorms to evaluate their roommates instead of trained raters. Their study showed that untrained peers can use the BASIC scales to provide a picture of an individual’s intercultural communicative effectiveness based on their familiarity with the individual’s behavior. The Intercultural Sensitivity Inventory (ICSI) (Bhawuk & Brislin, 1992) was originally developed to measure an individual’s ability to modify behavior when moving between an individualistic culture (United States) and a collectivistic culture (Japan). The ICSI was used for two groups of participants, MBA students and graduate students living in international dormitories, to self-report answers to questions on a 7-point Likert scale while first imagining living and working in the United States and Japan and then to respond to generic items on flexibility and open-mindedness. Participants answered questions on the basis of what they believed to be socially acceptable rather than their actual behaviors. Based on their findings, Bhawuk and Brislin concluded that individualism and collectivism can be used to estimate intercultural sensitivity and that individuals may require three or more years of cross-cultural experience to attain a level of cross-cultural competence that is desirable for international business operations. The Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) is a six-stage developmental model based on Bennett’s DMIS and has been used to assess the changes in intercultural competence of high school students who were attending international schools (Straffon, 2003), university students who studied abroad for a year in France (Engle & Engle, 2004) and students exposed to intercultural training (Altshuler, Sussman, & Kachur, 2003). The IDI

52  P. Garrett-Rucks

is a 50-item self-assessment with 5-point Likert scales. Studies (Hammer. Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003; Paige, Jacobs-Cassuto, Yershova, & DeJaeghere, 2003) have provided support for the reliability and content/construct validity of this instrument by cross-referencing expert raters (Paige et al., 2003) and comparing the relationship between respondents’ scores on the IDI and their responses on two related scales; (1) the Worldmindedness Scale (Sampson & Smith, 1957, as cited in Hammer et al., 2003) and (2) the Intercultural Anxiety scale (Stephen & Stephen, 1985, as cited in Hammer et al., 2003). The Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI) scale was developed in the early 1990s to provide information about an individual’s ability to adapt to different cultures based on four dimensions: (1) emotional resilience, (2) flexibility and openness, (3) perceptual acuity and (4) personal autonomy (Williams, 2005). It is a self-report survey of 50-items using six-point Likert scale. It has been used to assess study abroad experiences (Williams, 2005; Zielinski, 2007) and sensitivity training for medical students (Majumdar, Keystone, & Cuttress, 2006). Mixed results have emerged from these studies, and further investigation of has revealed that the test is not statistically trustworthy (Davis & Finney, 2006). The Assessment of Intercultural Competence (AIC) was developed to assess the intercultural competence outcomes of the Federation of the Experiment in International Living (FEIL) (Fantini, 2006). The assessment consisted of self- and other-reported instruments (211 items with a 5-point Likert scale centering around four dimensions of intercultural competence: knowledge, attitude, skills and awareness) and interviews to support findings from the survey. Fantini (2006) presented findings from the self-assessment instrument that indicated that ICC is a complex of abilities and that learning the host language affects ICC development. It is important to note that quantitative IC assessment studies have been scrutinized by several researchers who have expressed concerns about the research instruments designed to assess participants’ intercultural competence. For example, Altshuler et al. (2003) questioned the ability of individuals to provide accurate IC assessments and Arasaratnam and Doerfel (2005) questioned the ability of participants who have little experience in intercultural situations to self-report behavioral choices in hypothetical intercultural situations. Nonetheless, self-report surveys remain a widely practiced form of indirect assessment. Qualitative assessment designs are not as common as quantitative assessments of intercultural competence development, perhaps due to the time-consuming nature of collecting and analyzing direct data. However, studies comparing quantitative and qualitative assessment (Fantini, 2006; Straffon, 2003) suggest that qualitative approaches can provide more personalized, detailed accounts of the

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  53

process of intercultural competence development that cannot be assessed by quantitative assessments alone. Qualitative IC Assessment Methodologies and Theories: Performance, Portfolio Assessment and Interviews Researchers interested in qualitative approaches to IC assessment have argued that IC competence development may be represented best in direct assessment situations such as performance assessment (Byram, 1997), portfolio assessment (Byram, 1997; Jacobson, Schleicher, & Maureen, 1999) or interviews (Fantini, 2006; Straffon, 2003). Performance assessment typically involves the elicitation of an individual’s ability to display intercultural competence in real-time situations in conversations with interlocutors. Portfolio assessment typically encourages students to reflect on their evolving intercultural competencies as represented in their work or personal documents. Interview assessment involves in-depth interviews in which researchers pose questions to elicit data on the nature and development of intercultural competence. Similar to the findings from studies that compared quantitative to qualitative IC measures by Fantini (2006) and Straffon (2003), findings from the ACE study suggested that a portfolio was the most viable assessment method to collect evidence of learners’ IC development. The ACE/FIPSE Project Steering Committee further suggested the inclusion of learner-generated “artifacts” in the portfolio assessment including “term papers, essays, journal entries, study abroad application and reflection essays, photographs or other artwork with a narrative explanation, videos of interviews or student performances, audio that demonstrates foreign language competency, etc.” (pp. 3–4). Although qualitative methods require more time and rigor to collect and analyze IC learning gains, they present a more holistic representation of shifts in learners’ worldviews. Deconstructing IC Theoretical Approaches With a Comparative Analysis The nebulous nature of intercultural competence has led to a range of definitions, constructs and theories that inform different approaches to its assessment. Whereas some models (Byram, 1997) stress the interactional nature of intercultural competence, others (Bennett, 1993) emphasize an individual’s psychological reaction and adaptation when confronted with a new culture. Attempting to deconstruct major distinctions between intercultural sensitivity (Bennett, 1993) and intercultural competence (Byram, 1997), Hammer et al. (2003) defined intercultural sensitivity as “the ability to discriminate and experience relevant cultural differences” compared to intercultural competence as “the ability to think and act in interculturally appropriate ways” (p. 422). Their distinction between knowing and doing

54  P. Garrett-Rucks

offers some theoretical insight, yet the subtle nature of each construct is arguably best understood when operationalized in learner assessment. Research findings report the type of change identified during learners’ development, providing empirical evidence of the theories and models in real world situations. Garrett-Rucks (2014) revealed four subtle differences between two prevalent IC models from a comparison of the findings from analyses of the experiences of the same adult learners evaluated with two theoretical lenses—that of Byram (1997) and Bennett (1993). In her study, 13 adult French language learners participated in online classroom discussions about cultural practices over the course of a 16-week semester. After completing analyses of the transcripts of the online discussions and postdiscussion interviews with both theoretical lenses, the discrepancies between the models emerged. For example, there were instances where a learner who had attained threshold levels of IC within Byram’s model was considered to be using ethnocentric thinking by the definitions provided in Bennett’ DMIS. Additional empirical evidence revealed contradictions in the tenets Byram and Bennett’s models. The four discrepancies identified when operationalizing both theories were: (1) determining the emergence of intercultural competence; (2) the role of the evaluator’s subjectivity; (3) assessing learners’ curiosity about other cultures; (4) assessing learners’ attitudes toward their own culture. Each is described in turn below. The first discrepancy found in the data analyses was a disconnect between the linear developmental notion purported by Bennett (1993) compared to the threshold hypothesis put forth by Bryam (1997). Both Bennett and Byram’s theoretical frameworks speak to the occurrence of a shift in learners’ worldviews as they develop IC. Byram described a threshold level shift based on learners’ performance of the objectives provided for knowledge, attitudes and skills. Bennett claimed that a shift occurs from ethnocentric to ethnorelative thinking as individuals gain increased awareness and acceptance of the constructs and experiences of cultural differences in a linear development across the six stages. Findings from the data analysis with both theoretical lenses supported Byram’s threshold hypothesis, but contradicted Bennett’s notion of linear IC development (for a detailed account, see Garrett-Rucks, 2014). For the second discrepancy, role of the evaluator’s subjectivity, the assessment of the focus participants’ intercultural attitudes, knowledge and skills was straightforward when situating learners’ comments within Byram’s (1997) multimodal IC model. The additional objectives (see Table 3.2) provided by Byram for each of the three factors—5 objectives for Attitudes, 11 objectives for Knowledge, and 3 objectives for Skills—consistently provided assessment clarification for each category.

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  55 Table 3.2.  Byram’s Additional Objectives for Intercultural Attitudes, Knowledge and Skills I. Attitudes (savoir-être): curiosity & openness, readiness to suspend disbelief about other cultures and belief about one’s own. Objectives: a. willingness to seek out or take up opportunities to engage with otherness in a relationship of equality, distinct from seeking out the exotic or to profit from others. b. interest in discovering other perspectives on interpretation of familiar and unfamiliar phenomena both in one’s own and in other cultures and cultural practices. c. willingness to question the values and presuppositions in cultural practices and products in one’s own environment. d. readiness to experience the different stages of adaptation to and interaction with another culture during a period of residence. e. Readiness to engage with the conventions and rites of verbal and non-verbal communication and interaction II. Knowledge (savoirs): of social groups and their products and practices in one’s own and in one’s interlocutor’s country, and of the general processes of societal and individual interaction. Objectives (knowledge of/about): a. historical and contemporary relationships between one’s own and one’s interlocutor’s countries. b. the means of achieving contact with interlocutors from another country (at a distance or in proximity), of travel to and from, and the institutions which facilitate contact or help resolve problems. c. the types of cause and process of misunderstanding between interlocutors of different cultural origins. d. the national memory of one’s own country and how its events are related to and seen from the perspective of other countries. e. the national memory of one’s interlocutor’s country and the perspective on them from one’s own country. f. the national definitions of geographical space in one’s own country, and how these are perceived from the perspective of other countries. g. the national definitions of geographical space in one’s interlocutor’s country and the perspective on them from one’s own. h. the processes and institutions of socialisation in one’s own and in one’s interlocutor’s country. i. social distinctions and their principal markers, in one’s own country and one’s interlocutor’s. j. institutions, and perceptions of them, which impinge on daily life within one’s own and in one’s interlocutor’s country and which conduct and influence relationships between them. k. the process of social interaction in one’s interlocutor’s country. (Table continues on next page)

56  P. Garrett-Rucks Table 3.2.  (Continued) III. Skills of interpreting & relating (savoir comprendre): ability to interpret a document or event from another culture, to explain it and relate it to documents or events from one’s own. Objectives (ability to): a. identify ethnocentric perspectives in a document or event and explain their origins. b. identify areas of misunderstanding and dysfunction in an interaction and explain them in terms of each of the cultural systems present. c. mediate between conflicting interpretations of phenomena. Source:  Adapted from Byram (1997).

On the contrary, the definitions within Bennett’s DMIS (Table 3.1) were problematic, particularly when Garrett-Rucks (2014) assessed postings in which learners’ made contradictory statements within the same entry, such as “I now understand and appreciate the French greeting practices of the bise, however, I find reluctant smiling practices to be ridiculous.” For the third discrepancy, assessing learners’ curiosity, there is no consideration for learners’ curiosity toward other cultures in Bennett’s (1993) DMIS. On the contrary, there is a component in Byram’s (1997) attitudes factor with the objective “interest in discovering other perspectives on interpretation of familiar and unfamiliar phenomena both in one’s own and in other cultures and cultural practices” (p. 92). For the fourth discrepancy, learners’ attitudes toward their own culture, Byram (1997) described the demonstration of learners’ “willingness to question the values and presuppositions in cultural practices and products in one’s own environment” (p. 92) as one of the five objectives of intercultural attitudes (Table 3.2). Byram further stated that the learners’ willingness to question phenomena fundamental to their society might involve viewing these aspects from “the other’s interpretation and evaluations” (p. 92). On the contrary, within Bennett’s (1993) DMIS, a worldview shift from one’s own culture to the other culture, particularly when one’s own culture is subject to criticism, would indicate ethnocentric thinking under the terms of the Reversal Phase within the Defense Stage (Table 3.1). For example, after exposure to the French informants’ descriptions of French and American smiling practices, one learner stated, “I like and agree with Florence’s description of the Colgate smile of Americans and that at times the smile or the way it is done can be aggressive and artificial as Annie describes rather than spontaneous and natural” [my emphasis]. There were several instances across the discussions where learners who would have been categorized as demonstrating developed intercultural attitudes by

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  57

Byram’s definition were considered to be ethnocentric thinkers (Reversal Phase of Stage 2—Defense) within Bennett’s DMIS. As Kauffmann, Martin, and Weaver (1992) noted, it is not surprising that different assessments of the same phenomena produce inconsistent results. However, as mentioned earlier, a deep understanding of the merits of different IC assessments empowers educators and researchers to more accurately interpret results or to choose appropriate assessments for their own research. Both Bennett’s (1993) DMIS and Byram’s (1997) multimodal models have contributed enormously to the field of intercultural research in qualitative and quantitative research in the field of FL Education. For quantitative research, Bennett’s IDI remains one of the most commonly used research instruments to record changes in individuals’ worldviews when confronted with cultural differences in immersion experiences. Likewise, Byram’s INCA model has provided a tremendous influence for mixed method paradigms to record changes in individuals’ worldviews as well as their ability to communicate in real time intercultural communication. Post-hoc findings from Garrett-Rucks’ (2014) study contribute to our understanding of the nuances of both models as well as the operationalization of their constructs in a real world example. Bennett’s (1993) DMIS supported the measurement of incremental IC changes in response to pedagogical interventions. Byram’s (1997) model could not. Byram referred to a threshold level of IC development. Although the focus participants demonstrated developmental fluctuations for each of Byram’s domains— intercultural attitudes, knowledge and skills—once all three levels had been attained, the participants consistently displayed signs of developed IC. Yet contrary to Bennett’s claims of linear development of intercultural sensitivity, the DMIS assessment model revealed nonlinear development in this study, as noted in the first discrepancy mentioned. Admittedly, the subjective nature of the interpretation of the definitions provided by Bennett for each DMIS stage may have influenced the developmental inconsistencies detected. As mentioned in the second discrepancy between models, it was difficult to assess learners’ conflicting statements within the limited assessment criteria provided by Bennett’s definitions for each developmental stage. Byram’s model reduced subjective misinterpretations with the extensive clarification of the objectives for each term (Table 3.2). These objectives provided further clarification, and as such reduced the test evaluator’s subjectivity. Beyond the lack of clarity for the assessment criteria, Bennett also provided no means to evaluate individuals’ curiosity about other cultures, the third discrepancy mentioned. It also lacked criteria to assess learners’ attitudes toward their own culture, the fourth discrepancy noted. In fact, Bennett’s Reversal Phase in the Defense Stage seemed to discredit learners’ ability to decenter themselves from their belief that their

58  P. Garrett-Rucks

own cultural practice is the correct way to behave. The ability to decenter is critical to successful intercultural communication in Byram’s IC model. Interestingly, despite Bennett’s (1993) emphasis on lengthy immersion in the target culture to attain the most advanced DMIS stage, the Integration Stage, there is no mention of communication skills or language proficiency in his DMIS model. Likewise, Byram (1997) discredits the importance of language proficiency when assessing learners’ intercultural competence in situations that lack real time intercultural interactions. However, to achieve intercultural communicative competence, Byram claims the need to develop all five factors from his ICC model which include the need for developed interactional communication skills. The greatest contrast between the DMIS (Bennett) and the complete five-point ICC model (Byram) is that Bennett’s model does not address nor include assessment criteria for learners’ development of proficiency in the host language, which some consider to be a fundamental and integral part of intercultural competence (Fantini, 2011). Coming from the field of FL Education, Byram situates learning a foreign language as central to the process of developing strong intercultural communication in his ICC model. However, Byram’s model is flexible enough to provide components to measure intercultural competence void of cross-cultural communication, such as the interpersonal discussion between beginning learners in Garrett-Rucks’ study. Skills in Byram’s IC model only include relating to and interpreting events, rather than in the ICC model where skills extend to relating to real people from real-life cultures different from the learner’s. Therefore both models used in this study primarily relied on learners’ intercultural attitudes or sensitivity toward the target culture rather than viewing intercultural competence as an evolving ability to solve real problems in intercultural contexts. In other words, the conceptual and theoretical limitations of both the models as used in the current study did not emphasize communication sufficiently enough as an agent for self-change.  Among the many IC assessment tools in the literature used to define and measure learners’ ability to comprehend cultural differences and alternate perspectives, Byram (1997) and Bennett (1993) provide the most widely accepted models in FL education in the literature. It is important for FL educators and interculturalists alike to be aware of these IC assessment tools’ subtle nuances, such as the assessment discrepancies identified in Garrett-Rucks’ (2014) study. Garrett-Ruck’s discussion of the merits of both models put into question the need to move beyond linear notions of IC development proposed by Bennett’s DMIS, and to consider the constellation of notions needed to understand and relate to the perspectives of people from other countries, which demands the development of some target language proficiency. Furthermore, the links between literacy-based approaches and ICC approaches remain crucial to consider in selection

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  59

of methodologies. Byram (2010) proposed reconsidering the purposes of contemporary FL study and its cultural dimension in particular, stating that “educational competence can be fulfilled by a focus on intercultural competence, which includes critical reflection” (p. 320), which is a common goal of literacy-based approaches. CONCLUDING CHAPTER REMARKS Over 25 years after Ruben (1989) declared the “need for conceptual clarity” (p. 234) to define and assess intercultural competence, there exists today an increased multiplicity of frameworks and approaches. However, it is important for FL educators and interculturalists alike to be aware of diverse IC assessment tools’ subtle nuances in order to interpret findings in the literature and to select the proper assessment tool for their own use. Although the broad range of theories and models provides language educators with a variety of approaches to understand and investigate intercultural competence, it complicates the task of communicating and collaborating on related ideas in systematic and consistently interpretable ways both within and across disciplines. Although similar terms describing intercultural competence are often used interchangeably, each term contains subtle nuances that are often only implicitly addressed in research. Furthermore, several interculturalists in the literature, most notably Bennett (1993) use terms and models that are void of a language component, which devalue learning a second language. The following chapter, Chapter 4, is intended to empower FL educators with an understanding of sociolinguistic theories that contradict Bennett’s lack of consideration of second language development in the assessment criteria he provides to evaluate intercultural understanding. Furthermore, Chapter 4 extends sociolinguistic theories to the teaching and learning of culture in a Standards-based world language curriculum due to current demands on educators to provide evidence of the use of the national Standards for Foreign Language Learning in their instruction.

chapter 4

Fostering intercultural competence with Standards-based instruction If you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. If you talk to him in his language, that goes to his heart. (Nelson Mandela)

CHAPTER OVERVIEW The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) has informed the profession on best-teaching practices from the development of the Proficiency Guidelines to its leadership role in the creation of national standards for world language teaching and learning. The ACTFL national Standards for Foreign Language Learning (ACTFL, 1996, 1999, 2006), now called the World-Readiness Standards for Language Learning (ACTFL, 2015), have guided curricular planning at multiple levels—national, state, local and individual lesson plans. The national Standards have greatly informed state standards for foreign language (FL) learning, and they remain a critical component of the national accreditation of world language teacher

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning: Bridging Theory and Practice, pp. 61–81 Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing 61 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

62  P. Garrett-Rucks

education programs. Graduates from nationally accredited world language teaching programs need to provide evidence of Standards-based lesson plans for their teacher certification (Hildebrandt & Swanson, 2014). This chapter starts with an historical overview of ACTFL and the important role it has played in bringing consensus to the profession on best-teaching practices for the teaching and learning of language and culture. After exploring the importance of ACTFL and Standards-based instruction, the next sections respond to educator concerns expressed in the literature about the teaching and learning of culture. The problematic area of Cultures Standards 2.1 and 2.2 in relation to interculturalists’ perspectives of intercultural communicative competence are discussed. An extensive exploration of the theoretical nature of language, mind and the brain with a sociolinguistic lens ensues. Further complicating the integration of meaningful cultural instruction in the world language classroom is the long tradition of a structuralist approach to language before the dawn of sociolinguistic views, as described in the section on cultural perspectives in linguistics as related to the historical language pedagogy shifts described in Chapter 2. The final section of this chapter situates theories of intercultural competence within the ACTFL culture standards and position statements, with an emphasis on the combined use of Cultures Standards with the Cultural Comparison Standard to foster learners’ critical cultural awareness. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF ACTFL AND U.S. NATIONAL LANGUAGE POLICY The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages has historically guided change in foreign language education (FLE), associated closely with evolving theories and research findings from the field of linguistics and second language acquisition. Specifically, ACTFL responded to the emergence of sociolinguistic communicative competence theories in a way that shifted the understanding of second language proficiency away from models that exclusively measured structural accuracy prior to the 1970s. As noted by Omaggio-Hadley (2001), many educators today have come to understand that language proficiency is not a monolithic concept representing an amorphous ideal that students rarely attain; rather it is comprised of a whole range of abilities that must be described in a graduated fashion in order to be meaningful. (pp. 8–9)

The ACTFL Provisional Proficiency Guidelines (1989) was the first agreed upon national attempt by the foreign language teaching profession to “define and describe levels of functional competence for the academic

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  63

context in a comprehensive fashion (Omaggio-Hadley, 2001, p. 9). Combined with political movements of the 1970s and 1980s (for a comprehensive review, see Liskin-Gasparro, 1984), multiple stake holders, including the MLA-ACLS task force, the Educational Testing Service (ETS) and the Interagency Language Roundtable drew from the work of the Foreign Service Institute on assessing foreign language proficiency to create a Common Yardstick for measuring learners’ proficiency based on four interrelated assessment criteria—global tasks/functions, context/content, accuracy and text type in the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI). The OPI is still used today and serves as a common measure for pre-service world language teacher candidates’ mastery of the target language in order to become certified to teach. ACTFL again played a pivotal role in setting standards for K–12 foreign language instruction in alignment with the Core Curricula established in five areas (English, math, science, history, and geography) that were initially designated for national standards development starting under the Regan era. The resultant Standards for Foreign Language Learning (ACTFL, 1996) document attempted to outline the expected learning outcomes of language instruction like the Standards-based projects in other disciplines (for a comprehensive review, see Phillips & Lafayette, 1996). The 1999 revised Standards for Foreign Language Learning presented a set of five interconnected goal areas—Communication, Cultures, Connections, Comparisons and Communities. Slightly revised in 2006, and now presented as the World-Readiness Standards for Learning Languages (National Standards Collaborative Board, 2015), the standards continue to guide national, state, district and local levels of language instruction and accreditation for the teaching certification of individuals and institutions. The World-Readiness Standards for Learning Language ((National Standards Collaborative Board, 2015) connection with interculturality is very explicit in the revised Cultures Standards that now use of the verbs “investigate, explain, and reflect on” cultural perspectives toward their practices and products compared to the original wording of “demonstrate an understanding” of cultural perspectives. Interestingly, in the World-Readiness Standards, the standards numbers, such as 4.2, are no longer used since “the Standards Collaborative Board felt they indicated a hierarchy – which was not intended” (Paul Sandrock, personal communication, August, 25, 2015). None-the-less, I will continue to use the traditional numbering of the standards in reference to the World-Readiness Standards for clarity in comparisons with the previous SFLL (ACTFL, 1999, 2006), particularly in reference to the three standards addressing culture—formerly known as the Cultures Standards 2.1 and 2.2 and Comparisons Standard 4.2. In addition to the current lack of numbering of standards, the other salient change in the World-Readiness Cultures Standards is the current emphasis on target

64  P. Garrett-Rucks

language use and cultural competence in interaction rather than gaining knowledge and understanding of other cultures as a learning outcome of language study. Specifically, the previous Cultures Standards read: Cultures Goal Area (1999, 2006): Gain Knowledge and Understanding of Other Cultures Standard 2.1: Students demonstrate an understanding of the relationship between the practices and perspectives of the culture studied. Standard 2.2: Students demonstrate an understanding of the relationship between the products and perspectives of the culture studied.

By contrast, the current World-Readiness Cultures Standards now read: Cultures Goal Area (2015): Interact with Cultural Competence and Understanding Standard 2.1: Relating cultural practices to perspectives. Learners use the language to investigate, explain, and reflect on the relationship between the practices and perspectives of the cultures studied. Standard 2.2: Relating cultural practices to perspectives. Learners use the language to investigate, explain, and reflect on the relationship between the products and perspectives of the cultures studied.

Similarly, the current Cultural Comparisons Standard 4.2 (2015) has also been revised to underline the use of target language in the World-Readiness Standards. Specifically, the previous Comparisons Standard 4.2 read: Comparisons Goal Area (1999, 2006): Develop Insight into the Nature of Language and Culture Standard 4.2: Students demonstrate understanding of the concept of culture through comparisons of the cultures studied and their own.

By contrast, the current World-Readiness Cultural Comparisons Standard 4.2 now reads: Comparisons Goal Area (2015): Develop insight into the nature of language and culture in order to interact with cultural competence. Standard 4.2: Learners use the language to investigate, explain, and reflect on the concept of culture through comparisons of the cultures studied and their own.

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  65

The 2015 revisions for both Cultures Standards and the Comparison Standard for cultural comparisons (Standards formerly known as 2.1, 2.2, and 4.2) show an emphasis on preparing learners for real-world interaction with “cultural competence,” which aligns well with the goals of intercultural communicative competence commonly described in the literature. Prior versions of the Standards placed more emphasis on gaining general knowledge and understanding. Specifically, the “Refreshed Standards,” a term frequently used by keynote speakers the 2014 ACTFL Conference that refers to the ACTFL World-Readiness Standards (2015), advance the profession closer toward reaching the interactional goals described in Byram’s (1997) model of Intercultural Communicative Competence described in Chapter 3 of this book. However, the World-Readiness volume is solely a guide for curriculum development. It is not a methods textbook; it does not have details on the “how” of teaching, but rather it illustrates the “how” through Sample Progress Indicators (what learners might demonstrate to show the development of cultural competence). Moreover, the additional emphasis on target language use in association with the “reflect on” portion of the revised Cultures Standards may confuse educators further about what is needed for meaningful cultural reflection. As noted by Paul Sandrock, cultural reflection “may need to occur in learners L1 [first language] at novice levels, just as deeper reflection occurs in one’s native language in interpretive tasks” (personal communication, September 25, 2015). In sum, the Refreshed Standards seem an improvement for guiding the development of learners’ intercultural communicative competence, however, they do not fully respond to educators concerns’ expressed in surveys and questionnaires reported in the literature, particularly at beginning levels of instruction as addressed in the following section. THE (LACK OF) INTEGRATION OF CULTURAL INSTRUCTION IN THE FL CLASSROOM The previous Cultures Standards (ACTFL, 1999, 2006) stated the need for learners to have knowledge of the relationship between the products, practices and perspectives of the target cultures as a result of their FL learning experience, yet there exists an ennui in the profession of how to reach this goal. The ACTFL 2011 Decades of Standards survey results reveals, “the Cultural Framework with the 3Ps (products, practices, perspectives) is neither taught nor assessed by a sizable number of teachers” (Phillips & Abbott, 2011, p. 7). Although the Standards provide teachers with a framework to guide curricular design, they do not prescribe specific course content or a recommended sequence of study (Fox & DiazGreenberg, 2006). As such, the inclusion of meaningful cultural instruction

66  P. Garrett-Rucks

in FL teaching remains largely an unresolved issue, as FL educators have yet to agree on how to integrate “language learning and cultural inquiry” in the classroom (Maxim, 2000, p. 12). This uncertainty will likely not be alleviated by the revised Standards’ emphasis on the use of the target language in preparing beginning learners for cross-cultural interactions. Many researchers (e.g., Garrett-Rucks, 2013a; Hoyt & Garrett-Rucks, 2014; Sercu, 2005) have pointed out that teachers in K–16 classrooms find it difficult to address cultural practices, products, perspectives and comparisons in the target language (TL) at introductory levels of instruction due to learners’ limited language proficiency. Garrett-Rucks (2013a) brings attention to the possibility that the discrepancy between the Cultures Standards’ expectations and the difficulties educators have expressed may in part be due to teachers’ reluctance to use English during class time —a practice that reflects ACTFL’s position statement on the use of the target language, which recommends maintaining classroom interactions in the target language for more than 90% of the time. However, a number of theorists (Bennett, 1993; Byram, 1997; Fantini, 2011; Kramsch, 1993, 2009) have addressed the subjective process needed by which learners negotiate cultural differences. A Vygotskian perspective of language as a tool for thought and reflection warns us that the negotiation of crossculturally appropriate behaviors, values and beliefs demands the use of a fairly developed language system. Thus, research findings that report educators’ concerns about how to include meaningful cultural inquiry in the world language classroom (Fox & Diaz-Greenburg, 2006; Phillips & Abbott, 2011) are not surprising. Furthermore, assessing cultural competence is a dauntingly subjective task and is a commonly overlooked component of both assessments of student learning (Fantini, 2011) and world language teacher preparation programs (Hoyt & Garrett-Rucks, 2014). The Fox and Diaz-Greenburg (2006) study indicated that U.S. teacher preparation programs do not prepare world language teacher candidates to adequately integrate world culture into their own language classrooms in a meaningful way. Furthermore, two interculturalists (Hoyt & Garrett-Rucks, 2014) found that pre-service teachers in their own teacher preparations programs were also struggling to address perspectives from target-culture members in the analysis of over 250 lesson plans submitted by Methods students. Furthermore, the Comparisons Standard 4.2 was frequently neglected in these lesson plans as well. Despite the instructors’ explicit instruction on intercultural competence theory and personal anecdotes, fostering learners’ intercultural competence was not prioritized in their methods students’ lesson plans. The researchers further noted that their lack of insistence on the inclusion of cultural perspectives and comparisons in the rubrics used to grade the lesson plans may have contributed to the Methods students’ oversight.

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  67

“Fostering learners’ cultural competence and understanding in preparation for cross-cultural interactions,” as stated in the Refreshed Cultures Goal of the new World-Readiness Standards for Language Learning (2015), is an improvement compared to the prior emphasis on cultural knowledge in the earlier versions of the Cultures Standards (ACTFL, 1999, 2006) but it remains a lofty goal. Further explanation of how to achieve this goal is briefly addressed in the Cultures Standards Rationale section of the World-Readiness Standards document as follows: “Learning about and experiencing another culture in both simulated and authentic situations, either real or virtual, enable students to understand that particular culture on its own terms” (p. 75). The World-Readiness Standards document further alludes to the need for exploration of one’s own culture in the Avoiding Cultural Misunderstanding section of the Cultures Standards portion where it states: “Learners often draw conclusions based on simplistic or unexamined views of their own culture. Educators can help learners think critically and look out for blind spots in understanding their own culture as they seek to understand other cultures” (p. 77). Interestingly, in the Instructional Approaches section of Cultures Standards, the document suggests: “Teachers might want to explore some of the models for intercultural competence to help them identify concepts included in perspectives (or cultural universals in some models), seeking out what is shared across cultures” (p. 78). Unfortunately, no further information is given as to what these intercultural models might be or where they might be found. In addition to a lack of precision concerning the intercultural models referred to in the Refreshed Cultures Standards, the term “cultural competence” that is used in the summary statement of this goal area is undefined. An explanation of what is meant by “cultural competence” as well as the theoretical underpinnings that elucidate how it might prepare learners for cross-cultural encounters are needed to ease instructor concerns about the teaching and learning of cultures. This is precisely the goal of the following section in this chapter that is intended to demystify the integration of meaningful cultural instruction in the Standards-based FL classroom by elucidating the ways in which we can foster learners’ awareness of the influence of language and culture on their thinking. DEMYSTIFYING THE GOALS OF CULTURAL INSTRUCTION IN THE STANDARDS-BASED FL CLASSROOM The Cultures Standards goal area (2015) claims learners should be able to interact with cultural competence and understanding when communicating with native speakers of the target language. The first step to successfully integrate the World-Readiness Cultures Standards (2.1 and 2.2) into the FL

68  P. Garrett-Rucks

curriculum is to grasp a firm understanding of what is meant by the term cultural competence. Fantini (2011) provides an exemplary definition of cultural competence and further explains how it evolves in our first culture: Cultural competence (CC) is something we all have—it is the ability that enables us to be members within our own society. Like language, this is something we do not think much about because we have been culturally competent for as long we can remember. And like language, cultural competence developed through a gradual process of enculturation beginning at birth. Both evolved together and so quickly that, by the age of five, we were already native speakers and members of our society. (p. 270)

According to Fantini (2006), membership is afforded to individuals who have adequate cultural competence of the group. He explains that the understanding of the requirements for membership into a first culture happens gradually and naturally. Cultural competence of a second language and culture group requires a complex of abilities needed to perform effectively and appropriately when interacting with individuals who are linguistically and culturally different from oneself. An important element to consider when defining “appropriate” behavior in a cross-cultural interaction is how one’s performance is perceived by the interlocutor. For this reason, membership into a new culture requires an understanding of the perspectives of target culture members, as succinctly stated in all versions of the Cultures Standards 2.1 and 2.2 (ACTFL, 1999, 2006, 2015). The difficulty in understanding an alternate cultural perspective, however, is the natural tendency to rely on a perspective informed by the first language(s) and culture(s). Language and Worldview There is an undeniable link between language, thought and culture. Beyond serving as the primary means of communication between people, languages generate symbolic order of the individual’s perceptions and understanding of social worlds (Bourdieu, 1982) mediating everything we do and think as we engage in our societies. Our entire view of the world is shaped in our minds, aided and influenced by the linguistic systems to which we were exposed from birth (Fantini, 2011). Verbal thoughts are historically and culturally determined, thus serving as a tool to represent the culture of origination (Vygotsky, 1962). In fact, the link between language and culture is deemed so strong, that several theorists (Agar, 1994; Fantini, 2011; Kramsch, 2002) use the term languaculture to underline that languages and cultures are so closely related that it is not possible to distinguish languages from cultures.

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  69

The American anthropologist Michael Agar (1994) is credited for coining the term languaculture (1994) in his essay Language Shock: Understanding the culture of conversation, inspired by the work of Friedrich (1989) who used the term linguaculture. For Agar, the term languaculture is a concept that covers language plus culture, and he is especially interested in the variability of languaculture in interactions and verbal exchanges among native users of the same language as well as people who use the language as nonnative speakers. Agar underlines that languages and cultures are always closely related and it is not possible to distinguish languages from cultures. Therefore you cannot really know a language if you do not also know the culture expressed by that language, nor a culture without knowing its language. Language mirrors culture, reflecting and affecting how we view the world. Languages deconstruct the world “through naming, describing, reporting and confronting with both present and past social and personal values, and reconstructs it through design and planning, through fiction myth and narration” (Lussier, 2011, p. 36). Fantini (2011) provides a tangible example of this concept revealed in a comparison of the distinctive vocabulary terms used across cultures for varieties of general concepts to specific—snow among the Inuit of Canada, pasta among Italians and rice among Asians. Language also reveals hidden societal beliefs toward appropriate social interaction through structural uses. For example, Fantini (2011) further describes how language reveals societal interest in building and maintaining hierarchy (e.g., tu/vous in French or tu/lei in Italian) and how language is concerned with maintaining formal and informal distinctions (e.g., você/o Senhor in Portuguese). Although each individual’s thoughts or mental representations are constructed according to their own interests and value systems, the language used to form thoughts are shaped and influenced by a cultural schemata encoded in one’s linguistic system (Lussier, 2011). It is in using linguistic traits and other signs that children acquire symbolic meanings and internalize meanings by gradually recognizing their affiliations with signs (Vygotsky, 1978). Thus, language and other semiotic systems are not only carriers of culture; they are culture (Geertz, 1975). To further pursue the notion that language and culture are inextricably intertwined, consider how Fantini (2011) views the use of language as “our ticket to ‘membership’ into a cultural enclave” (p. 264). This notion is further supported by Schumann’s (1998) sociostatic theory of same language use for group membership described in his monograph, the Neurobiology of Affect. Schumann claims that sociostatic tendencies drive humans to seek out interactions with conspecifics, such as members of the same linguistic group, at a visceral level based on evolutionary survivalenhancing tendencies to be included in a group. He described sociostats as

70  P. Garrett-Rucks

“the inherited drives for attachment and social affiliation, which are initially directed toward the infant’s mother or caretaker and are gradually extended to others in the individual’s network of social relations” (p. 3). Extending the theory of sociostatic regulation to the language learning experience, Schumann suggested that group membership to a linguistic group affects an individual’s sense of well-being in a profound, survivalist sense. Not being able to communicate with members of a linguistic group can evoke biological reactions of fear and stress, visible with empirical evidence of sweating, turning read and feeling intensely uncomfortable that one is not included in a group. Schumann further describes the evolutionary cause of this biological reaction due to the fear of being left behind from the group, or worse, being considered an enemy and attacked by the group. Garrett and Young (2009) theorized how the sociostatic pressure to speak the same language as the group applies to the language learning context, particularly in instruction with a communicative approach where weak learners might feel left behind from the group membership formed by a shared linguistic bond by the target language. Further evidence of Schumann’s theory of the sociostatic pressures of membership into a shared-language group is demonstrated in the accounts of feral children reported through history, such as Victor the Wild Child, found in Aveyron, France, in 1797, who possessed no language ability bound to a particular society when they were discovered in the wild (overview in Lane, 1976). From these accounts, it is clear that language arises from interactions with others in social situations and that communication is indispensable for membership of a culture. As noted by Fantini (2011), “the use of symbolic behaviors, then, renders us intelligible and acceptable to those around us” (p. 264). Some sort of shared linguistic system to interpret and communicate the meanings of symbols accelerates entrance into a community of practice and to share worldviews. Worldview and Enculturation According to Naugle’s (2002) the term worldview was first introduced as Weltanschauung in the nineteenth century by post-Kantian German philosophers, although Naugle upholds the concept to be as old as thought itself. In its most straightforward definition, Naugle defines worldview as “a person’s interpretation of reality” or “basic view of life” (p. 260). His philosophical reflections culminate with two main claims: (1) Worldview is a system of signs, specifically narrative signs since humans inherently need stories to signify certain aspects of reality to help them understand the world; and (2) Worldview is an “inescapable function of the human heart” (p. 300), meaning that there is no impartial ground from which to reason or interpret reality. In Naugle’s first perspective, we must recognize that verbal communication saturates social life. It is the principal link to

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  71

thought, interpersonal communication and cultural transmission (Krauss & Chiu, 1998). As noted by Lussier (2011), “real social relations could not exist without language” (p. 42). It is Naugle’s second perspective of worldview in which we better understand the lens which is formed with one’s cultural identity. It is the unwritten task of every culture to organize, integrate and maintain the psychosocial patterns of the individual, especially in the formative years of childhood. The cultural norms needed by the individual for psychosocial survival, acceptance and enrichment become a significant part of the socialization and enculturation process without explicit instruction. According to Geertz (1975), all cultures, in one manner or another, invoke the great philosophical questions of life: the origin and destiny of existence, the nature of knowledge, the meaning of reality and the significance of the human experience. Every culture or system has its own internal coherence, integrity and logic. Every culture is an intertwined system of values and attitudes, beliefs, and norms that give meaning and significance to both individual and collective identity. Adler (2002) describes cultural identity as the worldview, value system, attitudes and beliefs of a group. Yet, we must consider that one’s worldview is inherently shaped by the value system, attitudes and beliefs of a group as one interprets the reality that surrounds us, by symbolizing it and by assigning meaning to it with language. It is important to note that the cultural identity of a society is defined by its majority group. As Bochner (1982) notes, the majority group is usually quite distinguishable from the minority subgroups with whom they share the physical environment and the territory that they inhabit. Yet as Geertz (1975) notes, commonly shared traits among cultural groups always include a constellation of values and attitudes toward universal life experiences such as love, family, birth, death, children, god, and nature. Each culture defines behaviors as being appropriate and inappropriate ways of meeting basic needs and solving life’s essential dilemmas shaped by the historical sociopolitical and environmental factors that create shared premises, values, definitions, and beliefs about the day-to-day, largely unconscious patterning of activities along as well as the myths and legends shared by a common language. Each worldview is a cultural-linguistic construct—a way of perceiving the world in which we engage. An individual’s worldview cannot be separated from one’s personal life history, social and cultural identity formation, and language. Early enculturation into a particular language-culture (langaculture) sets the stage for worldview formation. Through our native langaculture (LC1) we come to know the world—we learn to attend to and perceive certain stimuli, formulate thought, communicate, and interact appropriately with others in accordance to the accepted patterns and norms that make us intelligible— and therefore acceptable—to those around us (Fantini, 2011). Worldview,

72  P. Garrett-Rucks

developed early in life and consolidated through language, serves as the lens through which we engage with and understand the world, unconsciously mediating everything we do. Thus, language acts are not pure and neutral linguistic elements. In this perspective, it is important to view language teaching and learning as an entry to discover and attain membership to another culture, to a certain degree. According to Lussier (1997), language spreads culture and representations that learners have of other cultures. Yet, ironically the worldview formed with the development of our first language becomes the biggest impediment to our ability to enter easily into a new vision of the world as we encounter new languages and cultures (Fantini, 2011). Although language liberates us to move from the present and into the past or future with our verb choice, to know what we have not experienced directly through storytelling, and to create imaginative realities in our thoughts, our first language and culture constrain us from fully engaging with speakers of other languages with differing cultural worldviews. We cannot and do not set our worldview aside when we encounter any new circumstance. In this day and age, many theoretical models have integrated “culture” as an important part of language education and training. However, such integration has not always been the case, particularly in the field of linguistics which greatly informs change in language teaching methodologies. The following section provides an overview of perspectives toward the relationship between language and culture in the field of linguistics with an emphasis on the emergence of the field of sociolinguistics. An Historical Overview of the Role of Culture in Linguistics The relationship between language and culture in the field of linguistics had long been viewed from two contradictory perspectives—either situating language as closely associated with a culture or conceiving language uniquely as a code to communicate. The latter argument, that language is separate from culture, recalls the classical structuralist conception of the autonomy of language that informed a grammar-based approach to linguistics. Such an approach organized an understanding of language around basic components of phonological and morphological forms, syntactic patterns and lexical items in grammatically meaningful sentences. Prior to the 1950s, the fields of psychology, anthropology and education remained separate from the field of linguistics. Changes in learning theory, based on behaviorist principals, introduced new concepts to the acquisition of language. In 1957, Skinner insisted on the formation of habits in language learning, bridging the field of behavioral psychology to linguistics. Further opposing structural linguistic

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  73

perspectives was Chomsky’s (1965) introduction of the notion of competence versus performance, considering a psychological approach to aspects of language and language use. Chomsky separated the learner’s understanding of linguistic rules—mostly the knowledge of grammar and other aspects of language that describe sentence formation—as competence from a theory of performance—the nongrammatical psychological factors bearing on language use in unique contexts. The notions of language use within unique contexts guided new developments in linguistics that started to bridge across the fields of sociology and anthropology forming subdivisions in the field of linguistics, notably sociolinguistics. These new developments led some linguists to point out the lack of consideration for “appropriateness” or the sociocultural significance of an utterance in a given context, and consequently the field of sociolinguistics emerged. Labov (1972), considered a founding father of sociolinguistics, pioneered a school devoted to showing the relevance of social determinants of variation for linguistic theory following an ethnographic study he conducted at Martha’s Vineyard in the 1960s. Also drawing from ethnographic studies on first language acquisition, Slobin (1967) created a manual for the cross-cultural study of child language acquisition that has guided much international research. Hymes (1972) introduced a broader notion of competence in terms of communicative competence in his S-P-E-A-K-I-N-G model. In this model, Hymes identified and labeled the components of linguistic interaction in order to speak a language correctly, thus redefining communicative competence as it is known today. The notions of ability and communication skills linked to communicative competence also led to the study of language functions and speech acts (Van Ek, 1976). In 1978, Widdowson built on the understanding of language functions and speech acts situated within the greater context of communication in his analyses of discourse, all bringing new perspectives toward the understanding of the various attributes of communicative competence. The teaching and learning of languages since the 1970s has been influenced by the sociolinguistic turn in linguistics that took into consideration the context of communication when analyzing language use. Notably, in 1980, Canale and Swain introduced the Theoretical Bases of Communicative Competence Approaches to Language Teaching and Testing, proposing a theoretical framework that includes linguistic, strategic and sociolinguistic competence in language teaching that have influenced the current communicative approach to language instruction today. Moving from a linguistic-based approach to a communicative-based approach has increased the importance of fostering learners’ understanding of the alternate cultural contexts in which conversations with native speakers might take place. Research by sociolinguists and interculturalists (e.g., Byram, 1997; Kramsch, 1993) of the 90s has greatly informed current

74  P. Garrett-Rucks

theoretical positions on the importance of an ICC literacy based approach in second language acquisition in order to prepare learners for crosscultural encounters. Arens (2010) described the need for an ICC approach to the language curriculum arguing the need to include “the history, traditions, and the pragmatic patterns used by individuals on that field to construct and assert their identities and to manage their negotiations with infrastructure, the community, and historical norms” (p. 322). Likewise, Wellmon (2008) claimed that FL departments could “further their understanding of the particular place of languages in the study of culture by incorporating more recent work in, for example, linguistic anthropology, sociocultural linguistics, and systemic functional linguistics” (p. 295). Scott (2001) has long argued for an approach to teaching literature that merges language and literary content by considering the sociolinguistic dimensions that form layers of meaning in a literary text. Echoing Scott, Gramling, and Warner (2012) have conceptualized the use of literature to teach pragmatics within literature. Merging ideas from language teaching, culture and the framework of critical theory, Urlaub (2012) also proposed a model of cultural literacy that encourages learners to explore a text drawing from their previous background knowledge and cultural identity compared to information from within the text to encourage transcultural reflection, a goal of the 2007 MLA report. Paesani and Allen (2012) purport that a literacy orientation in language instruction “creates an intellectual foundation upon which language and literary-cultural content may be merged at all curricular levels” (p. 867). A literacy based approach to language teaching and learning focuses on the appropriate use of the target language according to situational and wider social contexts. As noted by Fantini (2011) grappling with learning the language of one’s interlocutors is key to understanding others on their own terms. Furthermore, research by interculturalists reveals that those able to participate in more than one languaculture obtain something more than familiarity with both their first languaculture (LC1) and the second (LC2). Individuals familiar with two languacultures develop a way of comparing and contrasting both LCs through a third lens, a sort of “third space/place,” as defined by Kramsch (1993), something that no monolingual of either LC could have hoped to achieve. Agar (2004) described culture as relational, one’s first culture (LC1) becomes visible only when an outsider encounters it, and what becomes visible depends on the LC1 of the outsider. When you run into different worldviews, you become aware of your own. In summary, developing a LC2, even at a minimal level, affords one the opportunity to think about the world and act within it from different vantage points—a keen awareness of one’s own worldview as well as the point of view of the interlocutor. To interact effectively and appropri-

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  75

ately means accomplishing a negotiation between people with worldviews informed and shaped by differing languaculture experiences. The new World-Readiness Cultures Standards (2015) indicate the beginning of a new era where interest in fostering learners’ intercultural competence is increasingly considered important in FLE. There is an increasing understanding in the FLE field that intercultural competence is a necessary component of cross-cultural interactions, and that it needs to be integrated with logical coherence in language pedagogy. Given that ACTFL has historically guided change in the field of world language instruction, the following section situates theories of intercultural competence within the current guidelines provided by ACTFL on cultural instruction. Situating Theories of Intercultural Competence within ACTFL Standards and Position Statements In an extensive review of the intercultural literature—138 articles and books—Fantini (2006) ascertained four areas of convergence among multiple ICC models—knowledge, attitude, skills and awareness. As further noted by Fantini (2011), “awareness is enhanced through developments in knowledge, positive attitudes, and skills, while it in turn also furthers their development” (p. 272). Likewise, Byram (1997) suggested that the key factor to consider in assessing the attitudes component of intercultural competence is the learner’s ability to “suspend belief in one’s own meanings and behaviors, and to analyse them from the viewpoint of the others with whom one is engaging” (p. 108). A fundamental notion in the development of intercultural communicative competence, according to Byram is critical cultural awareness, which he defines as “an ability to evaluate, critically and on the basis of explicit criteria, perspectives, practices and products in one’s own and other cultures and countries” (p. 63). To date, however, there is little mention of the psychological barriers that need to be overcome as learners shift worldviews. Awareness is central and especially critical to cross-cultural development as individuals reconfigure their original worldview. It is enhanced through reflection and introspection in which the individual’s LC1 and the LC2 are contrasted and compared, consequently revealing that which is most relevant to one’s identity—a clarification of one’s worldview. Similarly, the refreshed Cultural Comparisons Standards state that learners “reflect on the concept of culture through comparisons of the cultures studied and their own” (National Standards Collaborative Board, 2015, p. 103). The sample progress indicators for the Cultural Comparisons Standard 4.2 provide a wide array of activities to evoke the type of meaningful cultural

76  P. Garrett-Rucks

inquiry long purported by interculturalists in the literature. Some examples of meaningful cultural comparisons suggested are to “compare and contrast simple patterns of behavior or interaction in various cultural settings (e.g., transportation to school, eating habits)” (National Standards Collaborative Board, 2015 p. 103); “identify and discuss similarities and differences in themes and techniques in creative works from the target cultures and their own” (p. 104); or “compare and contrast the value placed on work and leisure time in the target cultures and their own” (p. 105). Progress indicators for the Cultural Comparisons Standard 4.2 echo Allen’s (2004) suggested framework that integrates the study of culture and language to foster cross-cultural understanding in students. Allen (2004) stated the need for FL educators to “pique students’ curiosity about language and about culture—their own and those they will study in our course” (p. 288). Allen further described the need to teach students analytical and affective tools to observe accurately and dispassionately other cultures in an effort to foster students’ ability to “be able and willing to step back, gather additional data, and reflect critically before making a judgment” (p. 288), echoing Byram’s description of a successful intercultural speaker. Developing an understanding of individuals’ perspectives from another culture is a process which involves a series of stages that take the crosscultural learner along a journey of discovery and reflection (Bennett, 1998; Byram, 1997; Kramsch, 1993, 2009; Zarate, 1996). Béal (1992) described cross-cultural communication problems as follows: Each participant is trying to do what s/he intuitively feels is right for the situation … [but] since two cultures [may] differ in their approach, the speakers often end up working at cross-purposes. Both may leave the encounter feeling puzzled and frustrated. (p. 38)

Yet when cross-cultural interlocutors can suspend belief in one’s own meanings and behaviors, and analyze them from the viewpoint of the other with whom one is engaging, successful intercultural communication ensues. Cortazzi and Jin (1999) have long proposed that skills in communicating across cultures and about cultures can be fostered with cultural awareness, that is “being aware of members of another cultural group: their behaviour, their expectations, their perspectives and values” (p. 217). Omaggio-Hadley (2001) recommended to start teaching cross-cultural understanding by having students “begin with an understanding of their own [cultural] frame of reference, and then, with teacher guidance, explore the target culture through authentic texts and materials” (p. 348). Integrating the Cultures Standards 2.1 and 2.2 with Cultural Comparisons Standard 4.2 fosters the kind of meaningful cultural inquiry long purported by interculturalists to foster learners’ critical cultural awareness. Indeed, taking

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  77

an interculturalist approach to foreign language instruction elucidates the interrelatedness among goal areas and content standards with the purpose of fostering learners’ critical cultural awareness, a 21st century skill our learners need to successfully compete in the increasingly globalized workforce. Evidence of FL educators’ commitment, as a profession, to fostering learners’ critical cultural awareness is found in the 2014 ACTFL Position Statement on Global Competence, in the following section. 2014 ACTFL Global Competence Position Statement The 2014 ACTFL Global Competence Position Statement provides educators a succinct document that bares evidence to the ways in which our work is central and vital to internationalization efforts. The document addresses each of the four domains Fantini (2006, 2011) found converging across multiple ICC models—Attitudes, Skills, Knowledge, and Awareness described in detail following the actual document below:

GLOBAL COMPETENCE POSITION STATEMENT The ability to communicate with respect and cultural understanding in more than one language is an essential element of global competence.* This competence is developed and demonstrated by investigating the world, recognizing and weighing perspectives, acquiring and applying disciplinary and interdisciplinary knowledge, communicating ideas, and taking action. Global competence is fundamental to the experience of learning languages whether in classrooms, through virtual connections, or via everyday experiences. Language learning contributes an important means to communicate and interact in order to participate in multilingual communities at home and around the world. This interaction develops the disposition to explore the perspectives behind the products and practices of a culture and to value such intercultural experiences. The Need for Global Competence: Global competence is vital to successful interactions among diverse groups of people locally, nationally, and internationally. This diversity continues to grow as people move from city to city and country to country. The need to communicate with someone of a different language or culture may arise at any time; knowing more than one language prepares one to know how, when, and why to say what to whom. Need in the Global Economy: Import and export data demonstrate the interconnectedness of the economies of countries across the globe; jobs increasingly depend on collaborating with clients/customers who speak other languages and contribute diverse perspectives and ideas; employers identify cultural knowledge and understanding plus communication skills in more than one language as increasingly important in their hiring. (Statement continues on next page)

78  P. Garrett-Rucks GLOBAL COMPETENCE POSITION STATEMENT (Continued) Need in Diplomacy/Defense: The military identifies its mission balanced between defense/ peace-keeping around the world and building connections with citizens in areas facing unrest or war; training of service personnel includes cultural sensitivity, understanding of diverse perspectives, and strategies for communicating with local populations speaking other languages. Need in Global Problem-solving: Issues related to the environment, health, and innovation require collaboration across borders; creative solutions are more likely to occur when knowledge and unique perspectives and insights are shared. Need in Diverse Communities: Opportunities to interact with people who speak other languages and who have different cultural practices, products, and perspectives are increasing in each community; heritage communities are supported when their languages and cultures are valued rather than eliminated. Need in Personal Growth and Development: Global competence—the ability to interact and communicate with people from other cultures—opens doors to new relationships, knowledge, and experiences. Describing Global Competence: Global competence is the ability to: 1. Communicate in the language of the people with whom one is interacting. 2. Interact with awareness, sensitivity, empathy, and knowledge of the perspectives of others. 3. Withhold judgment, examining one’s own perspectives as similar to or different from the perspectives of people with whom one is interacting. 4. Be alert to cultural differences in situations outside of one’s culture, including noticing cues indicating miscommunication or causing an inappropriate action or response in a situation. 5. Act respectfully according to what is appropriate in the culture and the situation where everyone is not of the same culture or language background, including gestures, expressions, and behaviors. 6. Increase knowledge about the products, practices, and perspectives of other cultures. Means to Achieve Global Competence: Individuals will follow different pathways to reach global competence. Developing global competence is a process that needs to be embedded in learning experiences in languages and all subject areas from prekindergarten through postsecondary. Identified by the various initiatives around this common goal, effective practices include the following actions: 1. Recognize the multiplicity of factors that influence who people are and how they communicate. 2. Investigate and explain cultural differences as well as similarities, looking beneath the surface of stereotypes. 3. Examine events through the lens of media from different countries and cultures. (Statement continues on next page)

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  79 GLOBAL COMPETENCE POSITION STATEMENT (Continued) 4. Collaborate to share ideas, discuss topics of common interest, and solve mutual problems. 5. Reflect on one’s personal experiences across cultures to evaluate personal feelings, thoughts, perceptions, and reactions. * Global competence is a critical component of education in the 21st century, as reflected in national initiatives focused on literacy and STEM at the PK–12 level and included in the essential learning outcomes of the Liberal Education and America’s Promise (LEAP) program of the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). – See more at: http://www.actfl.org/news/position-statements/global-competence-positionstatement#sthash.rEkpMixy.dpuf

The Global Competence Position Statement presents a strong argument for language learning in order to develop intercultural communicative competence. Furthermore, the Position Statement contains several instances where intercultural attitudes and skills, including “curiosity and openness, readiness to suspend disbelief about other cultures and belief about one’s own” and an “acceptance of cultural ambiguity” (Byram, 1997, p. 57) are valued components of global competence. For example, starting in the first paragraph, the document describes a globally competent person as taking action after weighing perspectives and as being able and willing to participate in multilingual communities, with a disposition to explore diverse perspectives and value intercultural experiences. Later in the document, global competence is described as an awareness, sensitivity and empathy toward the perspectives of others and the ability to withhold judgment of alternate perspectives. Similarly, intercultural knowledge, defined by the American Council on Education (ACE) as learner recognition “that his culture is one of many diverse cultures and that alternate perceptions and behaviors may be based in cultural differences” (ACE, 2007, para. 1) is underlined in the Global Position Statement where it states above that the learner should “recognize the multiplicity of factors that influence who people are and how they communicate.” The document also aligns with Byram’s (1997) understanding of intercultural knowledge by stating that globally competent learners should demonstrate knowledge of “social groups and their products and practices … the general processes of societal and individual interaction” (p. 58). The Position Statement also describes global competence in terms of intercultural skills that Byram defined as an “ability to interpret a document or event from another culture, to explain it and relate it to documents or events from one’s own” (p. 52) and ACE (2007) described as learner’s use of “knowledge, diverse cultural frames of reference, and alternate perspectives to think critically and solve problems” (para. 2). For example,

80  P. Garrett-Rucks

the Position Statement speaks of fostering students’ ability to look beneath the surface of stereotypes. Most importantly, the document is loaded with multiple examples of how the learners can demonstrate critical cultural awareness, using strategies the combine Cultures Standards 2.1 and 2.2 with the Cultural Comparison Standard 4.2. Herein lies the key to beginning the journey of developing intercultural competence with Standards-based instruction. The section, Means to Achieve Global Competence, in the Global Position Statement echoes research findings from interculturalists (Bennett, 1993; Byram, 1997; Fantini, 2011; Kramsch, 1993, 2009) who emphasized the subjective reflection necessary to gain global competence during the developmental journey of gaining critical cultural awareness. However, there is no mention of the psychological barriers that need to be overcome as learners are confronted with alternate worldviews. Admittedly, ACTFL’s Global Position Statement is the first step toward shifting FLE toward a goal of intercultural communicative competence, yet without training and a firm understanding of effort needed to prepare learners to reconfigure their original worldview, today’s educators risk frustration and failure at attaining the goals outlined in the document. CONCLUDING CHAPTER REMARKS More than a decade into the new millennium, the effects of globalization are widely felt. Today, more people around the world have direct and indirect contact with each other than ever before in both real and virtual environments. If our goal is to prepare students for effective and appropriate intercultural communication, they will need to not only make themselves understood, but also gain acceptance in their interactions. The sociolinguistic turn had greatly informed the development of the communicative approach to foreign language instruction, but it is now time to include an intercultural dimension that investigates alternate speech acts and contextualized language instruction through a lens of critical cultural awareness. We are entering an era where an emphasis on intercultural communicative competence needs to be the expected learning outcome of foreign language instruction, starting at introductory levels of instruction. Each iteration of the national Standards for Foreign Language Learning brings us closer to an understanding of how to integrate meaningful cultural instruction in our classrooms. However, there currently remains a lack of emphasis on the interrelatedness of the Standards, particularly the culture standards (SFLL 2.1, 2.2, and 4.2) in order to create the type of crosscultural exploration that is essential for furthering students’ development

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  81

of global competence. Research findings (Fox & Diaz-Greenburg, 2006; Hoyt & Garrett-Rucks, 2014) report that teacher training programs lack adequate training to prepare educators to foster learners’ global competence. Specifically, teacher training programs need to include an element to prepare educators to consider the psychological barriers learners need to overcome as they reconfigure their worldview during the development of a third place (Kramsch, 1993) The following chapter, Chapter 5, provides an overview of Fantini’s (1997) Process Approach Framework, an approach that assures the integration of the culture standards (SFLL 2.1, 2.2, and 4.2) with the inclusion of cross-cultural activities in the classroom. In addition to understanding a process of how to transform an existing curriculum, the goal of Chapter 5 is to provide a review of the literature on exemplary culture learning projects that emphasize fostering learners’ critical cultural awareness and global competence.

chapter 5

An overview of Intercultural Competence (IC) projects Acceptance by others is more often strained by offending behaviors than by incorrect grammar. (Alvino Fantini)

CHAPTER OVERVIEW This chapter is a review of culture learning projects in the context of instructed language learning, most likely in which target language use was encouraged during face-to-face instruction time, as typically found in classrooms taught with a communicative approach. The majority of the projects described in this chapter occurred at intermediate or advanced levels of L2 instruction and align with the expected learning outcomes of intercultural communicative competence (ICC) or literacy-based approaches to world language instruction. The review starts with culture learning projects in the literature that use some sort of technology—for example, multimedia videos, intercultural communication with Internet use, digital images. Culture learning projects from other disciplines that are intended to foster learners’ IC development are also reviewed with consideration of their implementation into introductory FL instruction. The chapter concludes

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning: Bridging Theory and Practice, pp. 83–93 Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing 83 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

84  P. Garrett-Rucks

with multimodal examples of how to infuse a dialogic approach to cultural reflection in beginning language learning environments while preserving the target language use for the classroom. CULTURE LEARNING PROJECTS It is clear from multiple definitions and models of intercultural communicative competence presented in the previous chapters that ICC involves a complex of abilities to perform effectively and appropriately when interacting with others who are linguistically and culturally different from oneself. As world language educators, we are commonly charged with preparing learners to communicate effectively in the target language, yet we neglect to foster learners’ exploration and understanding of how native speakers might perceive the learners’ performance as appropriate. Rather than emphasizing native-like fluency, a literacy-based approach requires learners to be attuned to the notion that all L2 speakers do not have a uniform way of using language in same situations and that discursive choice is an identity issue. Similarly, an ICC approach to foreign language (FL) instruction encourages the ability to communicate and interact in the appropriate style of one’s interlocutor. Given that the construct of appropriate is culturally bound, second language learning demands an understanding of target cultures. Technology has long supported teachers and learners to understand language through culture and culture through language with cultural instruction. Before the common use of the World Wide Web, multimedia applications provided learners a static source to begin their prescriptive virtual ethnographic experiences provided in static videos or interactive computer programs. With the growing prevalence of the Internet and World Wide Web, telecollaboration projects started. Telecollaboration in Foreign Language Education is described as the application of online communication tools that bring together learners in geographically distant locations, often with a synchronous video component, to collaborate on tasks and project work in order to support social interaction, dialogue, debate, and intercultural exchange (Ware & Kramsch, 2005). Many language educators have recognized that using the Internet to connect their students with groups of willing native speakers offers fantastic opportunities to move beyond the textbook. However, a closer examination of the literature reveals that intercultural projects are not always seamless, as noted in O’Dowd and Ritter’s (2006) extensive review. Their review of the disappointments and failures found in intercultural projects point to the need for advanced preparation in order to avoid intercultural conflict—hurt feelings or misunderstandings that reinforce negative stereotypes—and

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  85

encourage deeper cultural insights. Godwin-Jones (2013) purports that there is a consensus in the field about the importance of participants reflecting on aspects of their own culture before engaging in intercultural exchanges. In fact, with increased understanding of the need for learners to explore the diverse perspectives within their own culture prior to crosscultural exploration, there is a growing body of research to show benefits gained from intracultural communication—discussions that occur among learners within the same classroom community, as discussed in turn below. Cultural Instruction via Multimedia Applications Over the past 20 years, we have been living in an unprecedented time period where multimedia, such as audiovisual and computer technologies, are readily accessible to provide authentic documents with rich visual contexts and embedded authentic oral discourse to foster cross-cultural understanding. Multimedia applications, such as A la rencontre de Philippe (Furstenberg, 1993), Dans un Quartier de Paris (Furstenberg & Levet, 1997), and French in Action (Capretz, 1987) among many others, have purposefully juxtaposed video segments in which different people (within the target culture) use a same word or a same speech act to enable learners to understand their variety of meanings providing virtual ethnographic experience for students. As Furstenberg, Levet, English, and Maillet (2001) advocated, an ethnographic approach may take the form of cultural comparisons, that is, side viewing of similar items from two different cultures, which requires learners to observe, analyze, and compare similar materials from their respective cultures’ and to exchange viewpoints on the materials in a reciprocal and ever-deepening understanding of the other culture. Advances in technology have provided a wealth of resources to support environments which facilitate cultural understanding. Furthermore, the Internet has provided a tool to make accessing authentic texts and establishing contacts with native speakers easier than ever before. Intercultural Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) Innovative uses of computers, since the creation of the web in the 1990s, provide tools to introduce authentic sociolinguistic elements in the classroom without the necessity to travel. With the prevalence of digital communication tools, intercultural exchange between nonnative speakers (NNSs) and native speakers (NSs) has become accessible to foreign language teachers and learners. Several intercultural exchanges accomplished through tandem learning have been specifically designed to get students

86  P. Garrett-Rucks

to take a step back from their own cultural beliefs in order to get a more critical view of them (Belz, 2002; Belz & Müller-Hartmann, 2003; MüllerHartmann, 2000; O’Dowd, 2003). Participation in intercultural projects offers many benefits such as assisting learners in moving toward Byram’s (1997) critical cultural awareness. Intercultural projects can not only increase cultural awareness (Furstenberg et al., 2001; Kramsch & Thorne, 2002; Warschauer, 1999) but also promote reflection on one’s own culture (Furstenberg et al., 2001; Savignon & Rothmeier, 2004; Ware, 2005). One of the most common and established projects in computer assisted FL learning environments is e-mail exchanges (Warschauer, Shetzer, & Meloni, 2000). The aim of most e-mail assignments is to foster personal connections between intercultural partners as students learn about one another and themselves. Lomicka (2006) provided detailed accounts of studies revolving around the discussion of topics such as: (a) readings and literary texts, (b) popular culture, (c) film, (d) collaborative survey projects or reports, and (e) family histories. Discussion forums have also provided an opportunity for exchanges of perspectives, opinions, and views between NSs and NNSs (e.g., Furstenberg et al., 2001; Hanna & de Nooy, 2003; Wade, 2005). Many researchers speak to the positive results of such exchanges such as increased negotiation for meaning, student motivation, (Chun & Wade, 2004; Furstenberg et al., 2001; von der Emde, Schneider, & Kotter, 2001) and opportunities for “reflective conversation” (Lamy & Goodfellow, 1999, p. 43). Studies on synchronous communication have reported many advantages, such as exchange of messages in real time with the goal of communicating quickly and has been considered a preferred method of communication for youth (Thorne, 2003) compared to the more traditional sense of e-mail. Lomicka (2006) reviewed a large number of studies that examine NS and NNS pairs during virtual chat conversations which primarily focus on linguistic development such as scaffolding and negotiation of meaning. Although both Multiuser-Domain Object Oriented virtual realities (MOOs) and videoconferencing occur in real time, MOOs offer a virtual environment where students interact via synchronous text-based communication (chat), while videoconferencing allows for visually enhanced live discussion and affords extra practice in oral and listening comprehension. Studies on MOOs have primarily focused on negotiation in tandem meeting (O’Rourke, 2005) and the creation of identities (Kinginger, GouvèsHayward, & Simpson, 1999; O’Dowd, 2003; von der Emde et al., 2001). Intercultural projects which use synchronous or nonsynchronous exchanges are categorized as telecollaborative when the added component of videoconferencing is used (e.g., Belz, 2002, 2005; Kinginger, 2004; O’Dowd, 2003; Thorne, 2003; Ware & Kramsch, 2005). Ware and Kramsch (2005) defined a telecollaborative project as a

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  87 technology-mediated language and culture exchange in which language learners write to one another in both their native and target languages … [that] involve the use of both synchronous (real-time) and asynchronous (delayed-time) writing, as well as teleconferencing functions that allow for the exchange of visual and aural communication. (p. 203)

Telecollaborative projects are often characterized by collaborative work between classes as well as student-to-student partnerships affiliated with individual institutions. There are currently two influential and noteworthy telecollaborative projects that are widely cited for promoting intercultural learning, CULTURA and Raison d’ Être. The pedagogical methodology of these two keystone projects are described in detail below, each in turn. CULTURA Still considered one of today’s forerunners in intercultural projects (McBride & Wildner-Bassett, 2008) is CULTURA, which was developed in the summer of 1997 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The aim of the project was to get university students to work in tandem with other students who live where their target language is spoken, and together they investigate the subtle differences between the two cultures. CULTURA uses a comparative approach that asks learners to observe, to compare and to analyze parallel materials juxtaposed from their respective cultures, fostering the development of what Byram (1997) referred to as critical cultural awareness. The project provides a constructivist, interactive approach which allows both sets of students to gradually build, under their teachers’ skillful guidance, knowledge and understanding of each other’s values, attitudes, and beliefs, in a very concrete and dynamic way. In the course of their observations and exchanges, students explore and develop insights into some key cultural concepts, such as work, leisure, nature, race, gender, family, identity, education, government, citizenship, authority, and individualism. (Furstenberg et al., 2001, p. 59)

The project starts by having students respond online in their native language to questionnaires soliciting responses to word-associations, sentence completions, and situation reactions that highlight some basic cultural differences with respect to topics such as family relations, power structures, and work. Students then make preliminary observations about the similarities and differences between responses of students from their culture and the target culture and then form initial hypotheses about the reasons for these differences. Students then enter into asynchronous dialogue with their partners from the target culture in which they exchange views on a wide variety of topics through different forums. Students then can also

88  P. Garrett-Rucks

access a larger set of materials, such as comparative French and American opinion polls dealing with many societal issues that allow students to place their own initial observations as well as their transatlantic partners’ comments into broader, more objectified, sociocultural contexts. Students then engage in cross-cultural examination using both texts, films (originals and remakes), and current magazine and newspaper articles. Studies on the effectiveness of CULTURA report positive findings on the development of foreign language learners’ understanding of “foreign cultural attitudes, concepts, beliefs, and ways of interacting and looking at the world” (Furstenberg et al., 2001, p. 55). Raison d’ Être A similar telecollaborative, intercultural project named Raison d’ Être (which means the “reason for being”) also uses technology-based intercultural communication as the center of the learning dynamics in a language class. This project currently includes partner schools between the University of South Carolina (USC) and the Lycée Paul Héroult. The key components of this project include the exchange of e-mail messages, a discussion board, weekly chat sessions with bimonthly videoconferencing, participation in a Web magazine (including thematic writing, surveys, and interviews), and the exchange of opinions on current movies, music, books, and news. There are two primary differences between this project and CULTURA. Raison d’ Être is ideally set up around a two-semester academic year and students are aware that they will have the opportunity to travel to France or the United States for 10 days to meet their peers at the end of the project where as there are no organized exchange visits with CULTURA. This project also differs from CULTURA in that it encourages use of the target language in communication exchanges. Conversations via the webcam and microphone are logged and saved and used to allow students to reflect on their language skills as well as to compare similarities and differences between the two languages and cultures. Although these keystone projects illustrate the potential for computerassisted language learning to assist intercultural connections and foster intercultural development, few FL classes have the infrastructure or time in their curriculum to integrate such elaborate projects. Furthermore, intercultural exchanges do not guarantee heightened intercultural understanding as an automatic outcome (Kern, Ware, & Warschauer, 2004). Many have reported difficulties which resulted in frustration (Belz, 2002; Belz & Müller-Hartmann, 2003), miscommunication (Ware, 2005; Ware & Kramsch, 2005) and worse, furthering of cultural stereotypes (Belz, 2002; Belz & Müller-Hartmann, 2003; O’Dowd, 2003; Ware, 2005) on the part of the students involved. Reasons cited for these problems include unequal levels of technological or linguistic competence between the two groups

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  89

of students (Belz, 2002); differences in university schedules and student motivations (Belz & Müller-Hartmann, 2003; Kramsch & Thorne, 2002); and issues of interpersonal communication and internet pragmatics (Belz & Müller-Hartmann, 2003; O’Dowd, 2003; Ware & Kramsch, 2005). Ware’s (2005) research reported on “contextual tensions that arose from the different socially and culturally situated attitudes, beliefs, and expectations that informed students’ communicative choices in the online discourse” (p. 1). Intracultural CMC Use Although few studies have looked at the development of intercultural awareness in CMC use between peers, referred to as intracultural communication (NNS-NNS), positive affective benefits have been reported of intracultural CMC use in the FL classroom (Beauvois, 1995; Chun, 1994; Darhower, 2002; Kern, 1995; Warschauer, 1996). Findings have reported that CMC in the classroom can encourage students to interact with each other and reduce effects of shyness (Beauvois, 1995; Chun, 1994; Kern 1995; Warschauer, 1996) and increase participation, motivation, and attitudes toward writing (Meunier, 1998). Findings from Beauvois’ (1995) study indicated that the CMC sessions facilitated student’s self-expression primarily because they felt less “on the spot” and nervous when called on to participate than when called on in class. CMC participants in Meunier’s (1998) study claimed that they were “interested in their peers’ ideas and thrilled by the authenticity of their exchanges” (p 177). Findings from Darhower’s (2002) study also showed student interest to express their ideas and explore each other’s perspectives in CMC sessions. Although to date there is a paucity of studies which examine online cultural discussions between peers within a FL class (Abrahms, 2006), there is evidence that CMC facilitates cultural acquisition in NNS-NNS intracultural exchanges in culture-centered content courses (Johnson, 2008; McBride & Wilder-Bassett, 2008). McBride and Wildner-Basset (2008) demonstrated how one course using face-to-face (FTF) discussion and threaded, asynchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC) promoted important shifts of perspectives assisting the development of intercultural understanding. Students in this course explored new perspectives on their own lives and the similarities and differences between their life experiences and those of the people in the room with them, while at the same time discussing texts about people from the German-speaking world. (p. 99)

Findings from McBride and Wildner-Basset report that meaning-making and co-construction of new knowledge occurred when learners exchange their ideas on a specific cultural topic as students’ perspectives shift by “re-

90  P. Garrett-Rucks

acculturating this knowledge into their own belief and knowledge systems” (p. 97). Likewise, findings from Johnson’s (2008) study on the use of CMC in a course designed to encourage critical discussion and a coconstruction of ideas claimed that “CMC is one way of potentially providing the quality social learning framework within which learners can carry out meaningful and effective learning activity” (p. 89) as evidenced by the engagement and participation by students reflected in their online postings. Although the aim of these courses was to promote interculturality, and not FL acquisition, positive pedagogical implications exist in its application to a FL course. Intracultural conversations have the potential to help promote FL learners’ critical cultural awareness as they explore the similarities and differences between their life experiences and those of their peers (Savignon & Rothmeier, 2004) while at the same time discussing the perspectives of members of the target-culture toward their practices and products (Cultures Standard). A Dialogic Approach to Intercultural Acquisition Findings from several studies bear witness to instances where the dialogic process with members of the classroom community lead to the co-creation of cultural impressions in discussions (Byram, 1997; Johnson, 2008; McBride & Wildner-Bassett, 2008; Müller-Hartmann, 1999; Woodin, 2001). A dialogic approach to culture can provide multiple perspectives due to the diverse personal histories of discussion participants. Participation in discussions demands learners to critically reflect on their own personal perspectives based on the idea that “people are storytelling beings who understand and impose order on our own and others’ actions—organizing our experiences—by telling about them” (Gomez, Burda Walker, & Page, 2000, p. 733). McBride and Wildner-Bassett (2008) described the importance and complexity of participants’ identities in discussions: Identities are not constant. Humans are defined by their social relations to others and by their culture, and these things are in constant flux. In order to understand fully this dynamic, one needs to live it, and be critically aware of living it. There is no simple way to hand this knowledge over to students. This kind of understanding, however, can grow out of discussion. (p. 94)

Likewise, Fox and Diaz-Greenberg (2006) promoted the importance of dialogue and discussions to “provide viable pathways for recognizing and respecting differences” (p. 417). “Learning in areas of study like culture, where the subject matter defines itself through change and multiplicity, is particularly impoverished and even nonsensical when an attempt is made

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  91

to broach the subject without the dialogical” (McBride & Wildner-Bassett, 2008, p. 96). Cortazzi and Jin (1999) noted that it is crucial that foreign language learners should become aware of differing cultural frameworks, both their own and those of others; otherwise they will use their own cultural systems to interpret target-language messages whose intended meaning may well be predicated on quite different cultural assumptions. (p. 197)

Such thinking aligns with the tents of a literacy-based approach to language learning. Reeser (2003) proposed a “dialogic reading technique” (p. 776) approach to literature studies where students explore text-based cultural viewpoints that encourage critical interpretation and analysis through identification of cultural contradictions and complexity. Barrette, Paesani, and Vinall (2010) argue that literary texts provide learners “access to a rich sample of input of various discourse styles, and to historical, geographical, cultural, and linguistic information” (p. 217). They suggest examining the multiple perspectives within texts as a means of developing students’ translingual and transcultural competence, providing a fantastic example a process-oriented approach to texts that activates learners’ background and personal information prior to reading the texts and concludes with postreading tasks that require learners to reconstruct the meaning beyond a plot summary. The article concludes with a model lesson plan where the process-oriented approach is applied to the same text differently across beginning, intermediate and advanced levels of language study. Similarly, Kraemer (2008) described his approach to integrating linguistic development, literary analysis and cultural learning in a German fairy tale course. Interaction between students in this project was encouraged as they collectively negotiated the meaning of the texts via threaded discussions and blogs. In recent years, it has become possible for students to use mobile devices to write blog posts (for a review, see Godwin-Jones, 2013) and to share findings from ethnographic inquiry projects (Comas-Quinna, Mardomingoa, & Valentinea, 2009; Lee, 2011). Similarly, Facebook can be used as a venue for participants in exchange programs to mediate their thoughts, and can serve as a means for ICC assessment (Lee, Kim, Lee, & Kim, 2012). Unless specified within the guidelines of a class assignment, blogs and Facebook postings do not always solicit a dialogic approach to cultural learning, as responses to learners’ thoughts are not assured. However, a well designed assignment would require learners to respond to each other’s postings to collectively mediate cultural perceptions, particularly the diverse perceptions found across langauge communities. Images, which can be easily taken with learners’ smartphones, also can provide access

92  P. Garrett-Rucks

into students’ views of the world as they encounter alternate perspectives and cultural products and practices (Galloway, 2015). Discussions about the images learners select to represent their views of culture can lead to rich cultural discussions. There also have been a number of studies on the use of YouTube in language learning (Brook, 2011; Garrett-Rucks, 2014; Garrett-Rucks, Howles, & Lake, 2015; Terantino, 2011). In particular, Garrett-Rucks’ (2014) study shows how the diverse perspectives of French informants toward cultural products and practices stimulated transformative conversations among classmates in online classroom discussions. What is important to take from these projects is that it is not the technological media used that fosters critical reflection on cultural issues, rather it is the design of the project. Intercultural contact can be a provocative educational experience precisely because it permits people to learn about others and themselves. A lack of ICC can result in negative outcomes such as the misunderstandings and conflict that result from failed interactions across cultures. Intracultural discussions centering on observations of authentic cultural perspectives from the target cultures can be less threatening and lead to the type of critical thinking needed with ICC literacy-based approaches to language instruction. Today, everyone needs ICC, and we as language educators play a major role in this effort. Developing literacy-based approaches aimed at developing ICC is clearly a challenge—for educators and learners alike—but its attainment makes room for exciting possibilities. It offers a chance to transcend the limitations of one’s own worldview. CONCLUDING CHAPTER REMARKS The Internet has provided a tool to make accessing authentic texts and establishing contacts with native speakers easier than ever before. CMCbased intercultural exchange projects offer many benefits such as assisting learners in moving toward Byram’s (1997) critical cultural awareness, yet most FL curricula do not provide the infrastructure or time for such projects. Intracultural CMC use within the classroom has also reported positive benefits and is more accessible than the larger scale intercultural projects. Although the intracultural projects cited do not always afford an opportunity for students to communicate with NSs, they do provide an environment where students can participate in a dialogic approach to culture, providing multiple perspectives due to the diverse personal histories of the participants in the discussion. Many varied, interesting, and exciting activities exist to help address the cultural and cross-cultural aspects of language learning. Achieving this, however, requires a paradigm shift—and an expansion of our profes-

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  93

sional vision. Our goal is to prepare students for effective, appropriate and positive intercultural participation through effective communication. Yet to date, there is a paucity of studies that examine the meaning-making process which occurs as learners take a cross-cultural journey of discovery and reflection. This is precisely the focus of the next chapter in this book.

chapter 6

Empirical Evidence of the Intercultural Competence (IC) Developmental Process Three Case Studies

If you see in any given situation only what everybody else can see, you can be said to be so much a representative of your culture that you are a victim of it. (S. I. Hayakawa)

CHAPTER OVERVIEW As noted by Fantini (2011), the worldview formed with the development of our first language becomes the biggest impediment to our ability to enter easily into a new vision of the world as we encounter new languages and cultures. Several interculturalists (Bennett, 1993; Byram, 1997; Fantini, 2011; Kramsch, 1993) have emphasized the subjective reflection necessary to gain intercultural competence, yet to date there is a lack of qualitative studies that provide empirical evidence of how changes occur in learners’ thinking (Garrett-Rucks, 2013b). Furthermore, Byram (1997) deliberately provided no examples for the objectives in his model to keep it “at a

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning: Bridging Theory and Practice, pp. 95–126 Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing 95 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

96  P. Garrett-Rucks

generalizable level of abstraction” (p. 38). This chapter is intended to demonstrate one IC researcher’s culture learning project and her assessment practices, guided by literacy-based teaching approaches and Byram’s intercultural communicative competence (ICC) assessment model, in response to language educators’ requests for clarity concerning meaningful cultural instruction and assessment practices (Fox & Diaz-Greenberg, 2006; Phillips & Abbott, 2011). This chapter provides evidence of changes detected in three adult learners’ worldviews over the course of a semester as they encountered alternate worldviews in an introductory French language course. In addition to providing educators examples of three learners’ unique journey of selfdiscovery and intercultural reflection, this chapter is intended to serve as a model of how to apply IC models, such as Byram’s (1997) ICC model and American Council on Education’s (ACE, 2007) definitions of intercultural competence, and to a lesser extent Bennett’s (1993) Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity to real world learning situations. This chapter is intended to provide language educators an example of ICC literacy-based instruction, IC assessment practices and the discourse needed to communicate to learners the ways in which their worldviews are being assessed. The chapter concludes with a theoretical speculation of the ways in which the basic components of IC models—intercultural skills, knowledge and attitudes—are interrelated and necessary to foster global thinking. FOSTERING LEARNERS’ INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE IN DISCUSSIONS Traditional approaches to cultural instruction often objectified the target culture or presented members of the target culture as monolithic entities with marked cultural differences. Today, several educators and researchers have concurred that cultural learning must start by leading learners to identify their position as a cultural subject (Byram, 1997; Byrnes, 2012; Kramsch, 1993). Recognizing the learner’s identity in cultural instruction, Kramsch (1993) long suggested that the process of cultural reflection take place in a negotiated space, which she refers to as a third place, the location between the learner’s first culture (C1) and the target culture (C2) where all behavior (both that of others and that of oneself) is seen as being grounded in a particular cultural context. This type of meaningful cultural inquiry in Standards-based instruction would typically combine the cultural components of the national Standards for Language Learning (SFLL 2.1, 2.2, & 4.2). However, foreign language (FL) educators continue to report their struggle to integrate meaningful cultural inquiry into beginning levels of classroom instruction due to target language (TL) restrictions (Garrett-Rucks, 2013a).

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  97

The study presented in this chapter is intended to illustrate an alternative approach to cultural inquiry in a beginning level language course that took place in English, outside of instruction time in order to preserve TL use in the classroom. The computer-mediated instructional activities presented here drew from the positive research findings in culture studies courses and IC projects at advanced levels of FL instruction to contribute to the paucity of studies that have investigated learners’ IC development at beginning levels of instruction. More importantly, the findings presented here illustrate three learners’ unique journey of self-discovery and intercultural reflection while modeling IC assessment practices (ACE, 2007; Bennett, 1993; Byram, 1997). The computer-mediated cultural activities in this study drew heavily from the CULTURA project at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). One of the most widely cited intercultural projects, CULTURA (Furstenberg, Levet, English, & Maillet, 2001) built on the third place concept, providing a constructivist, interactive approach which allowed groups of French and American students to gradually build knowledge and understanding of each other’s values, attitudes and beliefs, in a very concrete and dynamic way. Unfortunately, few beginning language instructors have the time or resources available to create intercultural partnerships to access differing perspectives across the Atlantic as the MIT course that centered on the CULTURA project. Moreover, the wealth of diverse worldviews among learners within the classroom setting is too often left neglected. Alternatively to intercultural learning projects—tandem projects pairing L2 learners with native speakers—research in cultures studies courses (McBride & Wildner-Bassett, 2008; Woodin, 2001) have born witness to instances where the dialogic process between members of a classroom community has lead to the emergence of intercultural competence in discussions. The problem with transferring this practice to an instructed language learning environment is that TL use FL classrooms are not always conducive to the type of deep reflection necessary to promote intercultural learning, particularly in beginning courses where learners have little mastery over target language use. For this reason, I investigated the use of an asynchronous online classroom discussion board where cultural discussions took place in English, outside of classroom instruction time. The pedagogical tasks that informed the online discussions were informed by literacy-based and ICC approaches to FL instruction. The drew from Standards (SFLL 2.1, 2.2, & 4.2 ) and the CULTURA project (Furstenburg et al., 2001) to foster intracultural discussions centering on cross-cultural worldviews toward cultural products and practices presented via authentic texts, explicit cultural instruction and French informant interviews presented via YouTube.

98  P. Garrett-Rucks

The research questions for this study were: (RQ1) To what extent does the use of explicit cultural instruction, authentic texts and French informant perspectives foster learners’ intercultural sensitivity (as a class at the group level) in asynchronous online discussions among peers in a computer-mediated environment? (RQ2) Can classroom discussions in a computer-mediated environment foster the kind of intercultural competence necessary for learners to overcome their stereotypes of the target culture (as a learner at the individual level)? Although this action-research project was initially intended to investigate the culture learning pedagogical tasks in a computer mediated environment, student postings on the asynchronous discussion board left a trace of the changes in learners’ thinking. What is most interesting from this study, for the purpose of this monograph, is (RQ2) the deconstruction of the unique development of three learners’ intercultural competence over the course of a semester that subsequently demonstrates an IC assessment practice with a holistic qualitative approach. Accordingly, I briefly present findings for the first research question (Q1) on the collective shifts of learners’ intercultural sensitivity (Bennett, 1993) in response to the computer-mediated cultural instruction (for details, see Garrett-Rucks, 2014) and focus more on the emergence of focus participants’ intercultural competence (ACE, 2007; Byram, 1997) while participating in online discussions among classmates about French cultural practices with the intention to model IC assessment practices. THE STUDY Thirteen second-semester French students enrolled in a technical college participated in three 5-week-long online classroom discussions about the French cultural practices of (1) greetings, (2) education, and (3) family life over the course of a 16-week semester. Each discussion consisted of two phases: During Phase 1, learners accessed (1) explicit cultural instruction written for U.S. French language learners to understand French cultural practices and (2) authentic texts, written mostly by French people for French people, in which the cultural practices were discussed. Learners posted their reactions to the cultural instruction the first week of the discussion, and then responded to two peers postings the following week.

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  99

During Phase 2, learners accessed prerecorded video interviews with four French informants who each revealed their personal perspectives toward the cultural practices in question in French and American culture and then the learners posted their reactions to the interviews. The next week, learners responded to two peers’ postings. Learners then posted their final impressions of the cultural practices reflecting on all of the materials they accessed and the comments made on the discussion board for the final week of each of the three discussions. Additionally, learners submitted a postdiscussion essay in which they wrote about the influences on their impressions of the French cultural practices in a private venue as opposed to the discussion board. Volunteer participants were interviewed at the close of each discussion to further understand changes in their impressions of French people, French culture and cultural practices in general that informed the analysis of the changes detected in their intercultural competence. To detect collective changes (RQ1) in the learners’ intercultural sensitivity (Bennett, 1993) for the first research question, the transcripts of the discussions were analyzed to find the most salient cultural practice in each discussion—smiling (Greetings, Discussion 1), choosing a career path (Education, Discussion 2) and the PACS, a type of civil marriage (Family, Discussion 3). Then, the participant’s intercultural sensitivity (Bennett, 1993) at the time of each posting was assessed, and collective shifts over the course of the discussion were investigated. To detect changes in the individual learner’s (RQ2) intercultural competence (ACE, 2010; Byram, 1997), I analyzed the focus participants’ experiences—documented in the initial and final questionnaires, the discussion transcripts, postdiscussion interviews and the instructor interview—to respond to the second research question. Methods Participants and Procedures Thirteen adult learners, 6 males and 7 females, enrolled in a secondsemester French course at a Midwestern technical college participated in weekly online classroom discussions on Blackboard, a commonly used course management system, for course credit. The class was a communicative language course taught primarily in the target language. Students’ grades were equally divided between written exams and oral language production centered on engagement in classroom activities and directed speaking activities following each exam. Participation in the weekly online classroom

100  P. Garrett-Rucks

discussions was weighted as 10% of students’ participation grade in the course. Nine of the learners volunteered to complete questionnaires soliciting their impressions of French people and French culture at the beginning and end of the semester. The same nine students, four females, and five males, volunteered to be interviewed three times during the semester. The three focus participants selected for this study are representative of the entirety of the volunteers’ experiences overcoming stereotypes and developing intercultural competence, with Brad overcoming his stereotypes early in the semester in the first online discussion—Greetings, Jack in the second discussion—Education, and Lauren at the end of the semester in the third discussion—Family life. Pseudonyms are used throughout the study to protect the identity of the participants. For each of the three case studies, I collected background information from the initial questionnaire and personal interviews including the participant’s approximate age, major area of study, prior international travel experiences and the reasons why the participant claimed to be taking this course (all three focus participants were simply fulfilling language requirements). I also collected information about the participants’ prior experiences with French native speakers. This type of information is important to understand and analyze because as Watson-Gegeo (2004) remarked our perceptions, assumptions and understanding of the world are influenced by gender, ethnicity, social class, and sociohistorical processes. Furthermore, the questionnaire solicited the participants’ impressions of French people, French culture, and the three aforementioned cultural practices at the beginning and end of the semester for an initial IC assessment. Table 6.1 provides a summary of the focus participants’ profiles. In addition, I interviewed the instructor at the end of the semester about each participant concerning their attendance and success in the class as demonstrated by the approximate grade the instructor anticipated the participant would receive. I also solicited the instructor’s perception of the participants’ interest in French culture in the classroom. To understand the role of the focus participants in the classroom community, I analyzed the transcripts of all of the postdiscussion interviews seeking unsolicited peer descriptions of the participants, particularly about the participant’s ability to discuss French culture. As noted by Cole and Knowles (2001) “To be human is to experience ‘the relational,’ no matter how it is defined, and, at the same time, to be shaped by the institutional, the structural expression of community and society. To be human is to be molded by context” (p. 22). This identity information is included in the participant descriptions in the Findings section below.

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  101 Table 6.1.  Focus Participant Profiles Name (Age) (Major)

Prior Experience With French People and Culture

*IC Assessment (Based Initial Questionnaire Responses)

Brad (approximately 30 years old) (film major)

French in Elementary school classes

+ IC knowledge + IC skills – IC attitudes (positive stereotypes)

Jack (21 years old)

No prior personal contact with French people, but sister in French-speaking elementary school.

+ IC knowledge – IC skills – IC attitudes (positive and negative stereotypes)

Lauren (21 years old)

No prior contact with French people—no desire for contact.

– IC knowledge – IC skills – IC attitudes

* « + » means evidence of developed IC knowledge/ skills/ attitudes and « - » means little evidence of developed IC knowledge/ skills/ attitudes found in the initial questionnaire.

The Pedagogical Task: A Week by Week Overview There were a total of three discussions centering on French greetings, French education, and French family life over the course of a 16-week semester. Each of the three discussions lasted five weeks and consisted of two phases. For Phase 1 of each discussion, participants were required to access two sources of cultural instruction; (1) specific online cultural instruction designed to explicitly teach Americans about French cultural practices and (2) selected authentic texts written by French native speakers for French native speakers about the cultural practices. Students were required to post their reactions to online cultural materials during Week 1 of the discussion and then to respond to two of their peers’ postings on the discussion board during Week 2. For Phase 2 of each discussion, participants were required to access prerecorded video interviews with four French informants and then post their reactions to the interviews on the discussion board during Week 3 and to respond to two of their peers’ postings on the discussion board during Week 4. During Week 5 of each discussion, participants were instructed to reflect on all of the cultural materials and comments made on the discussion board and then to post their final impressions of the French cultural practices. Participation in the discussions was required for course credit. It was evaluated solely based on students’ adherence to discussion

102  P. Garrett-Rucks

guidelines specifying a minimum of 50 words per posting. Students were not graded on their opinions or impressions of French culture in the discussions. The researcher collected and graded all materials in the project and submitted grades to the instructor. Pedagogical Materials The following materials were used for each of the three discussions in the present study: 1. OLI Cultural Lessons The three lessons selected for the study came from the cultural component (univers culturel) of Carnegie Mellon’s Open Learning Initiative (OLI) for beginning French studies (http://oli.web.cmu.edu/openlearning/ forstudents/freecourses/french). The OLI program offered a collection of free online courses and course materials for a variety of courses. The French OLI cultural lessons selected for this study focused exclusively on mainland France and addressed the cultural practices concerning (1) greetings (smiling, embracing and personal space); (2) education (from preschool to university); and (3) family (different definitions of family). 2. Current Authentic Texts As noted by Hall and Hall (1990), culture is not static because cultural codes and frames of references are constantly transformed due to the continuous “play” of history, culture and power. I, therefore, selected texts that had been created within two years of the project start date. Table 6.2 provides a description of the authentic texts used in each of the three discussions. 3. French Informants In an attempt to reduce the perpetuation of stereotypes, I heeded Savignon and Sysoyev’s (2005) advice to use the “identification and interpretation of unfamiliar aspects of an L2 culture through contacts with representatives of L2 cultural communities” (p. 363) to guide participants toward a more comprehensive understanding of the L2 cultural perspectives. For this reason, I interviewed four French citizens differing in age and gender from a variety of French regions with varying amounts of firsthand exposure to life in the United States. For a summary of the French informant profiles, see Table 6.3

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  103 Table 6.2. Authentic Texts (Retrieved May 2008) Discussion

Description and URL

Source

Diverse French perspectives toward smiling in France. http://www. museedusourire.com/

Taken from an online museum which researches and publishes studies on “smiles” in the France

2. la bise

Diverse French perspectives toward kissing while greeting in France. http://fr.answers.yahoo.com/

Taken from a French Yahoo discussion forum. Francophone participants discuss whether they like “la bise” or not.

Discussion 2

Different paths students can take after middle school. http://www.education. gouv.fr/

Taken from the French Ministry of National Education website

Information concerning birthrates, life expectancy, marriage and the PACS. http://tempsreel.nouvelobs. com/

Taken from March 28, 2008 from Nouvel Observateur newspaper

Discussion 1 1. Smiles

Secondary Education Discussion 3 Family

Table 6.3.  French Informants French Informant

Gender/ Age

Region in France

Familiarity With Life in the United States

Thomas

M/20

Grenoble

Arrived in the United States 2 days prior to interview for a year-long university exchange program

Sophie

F/25

Mostly the south of France, 2 years in Tahiti (her Dad was in the French navy)

Starting her second year of a French literature Master’s program in the United States.

Florence

F/31

Orleans

Starting her 6th year in the United States in a French literature PhD program. She’s been married to an American for 5 years.

Aunt Anne

F/60

Bordeaux

Aunt Anne has never been to the United States. Her niece married an American and has been residing in the United States for 7 years.

I videotaped interviews with three of the French informants in the United States (Thomas, Sophie and Florence) for approximately five minutes for each of the three topics. The fourth interview was with an older informant who had never been to the United States, Aunt Anne. I e-mailed Aunt Anne the interview questions in French, translated her responses and posted the written interview in French and the English translations on Blackboard. I

104  P. Garrett-Rucks

created the interview questions to access each interviewee’s perspectives, personal experiences and interpretations of the cultural practices discussed in the OLI lessons, in addition to what they believed “the French” may feel about these practices in general. I also asked the interviewees to compare the French and American cultural practices. Data Collection and Analysis To analyze collective changes in learners’ intercultural sensitivity (RQ1) toward a specific cultural practice, I first identified the most salient cultural practice, due to the presence of multiple cultural practices discussed under the umbrella of each discussion topic. For example, Discussion 1 included French greetings, shaking hands, smiling, hugging, and la bise. Using a line-by-line coding method (Charmaz, 2006), smiling was identified as the most salient cultural practice learners discussed. Once all postings containing the salient cultural practice were identified, the intercultural sensitivity reflected in each posting was assessed by situating the learners’ comments within the evaluation criteria provided in Bennett’s (1993) developmental model of intercultural sensitivity (DMIS). Bennett’s DMIS consists of six stages grouped into ethnocentric stages or ethnorelative stages. The three ethnocentric stages (1-denial, 2-defense, 3-minimization) describe the varying degrees to which the individual’s culture is the central worldview. The three ethnorelative stages (4-acceptance, 5-adaptation, and 6-integration) describe the individual’s more complex worldviews in which cultures are understood relative to each other and actions are understood as culturally situated. Individuals in these stages are considered to exhibit intercultural sensitivity toward cultural differences. Collective shifts in learners’ thinking across each phase of the discussion were then calculated by determining the change in each participant’s level of intercultural sensitivity. For example, if a person had a Defense Posting (Stage 2) in Phase 1 and an Acceptance Posting (Stage 4) in Phase 2, a gain of +2 stages was reported. Collective shifts in learners’ intercultural sensitivity were calculated by averaging the losses and gains across each discussion phase. Although the majority of the students completed the required postings, not all postings addressed the salient discussion feature; thus, data showing gains or losses from each discussion phase represent only the participants who addressed the salient cultural feature during both phases of the discussion (for methodology details, see Garrett-Rucks, 2014). To investigate the holistic changes in individual’s (RQ2) intercultural competence (ACE, 2003; Byram, 1997) all of the data collected were analyzed. The initial French impressions questionnaire also had a general survey including background questions, such as age, prior French studies and intercultural travel experiences to determine the profile of the par-

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  105

ticipants. In qualitative research it is especially important to consider these aspects of the participants’ identities that influence individuals’ impressions and understanding of the world (Watson-Gegeo, 2004). Both initial and final French impressions questionnaires were adapted from a survey used by Drewelow (2009) in which I asked, “When you think of French people, what comes to your mind immediately?” Volunteer participants were interviewed about the changes in their impressions of French people and French culture within a week of the closing date for each of the three discussions. At the end of the semester, I interviewed the course instructor for her impressions of participants’ general performance in the class. Using a content analysis research technique (Berg, 1998), I analyzed the questionnaires, transcripts of the online discussions, and transcripts of the postdiscussion interviews with volunteer participants in an attempt to understand the ways in which participants’ intercultural competence and impressions of French culture evolved over the course of the semester at the individual level (RQ2) in a case-study paradigm (Berg, 1998). I started the data analysis process by using line-by-line coding (Charmaz, 2006) to identify all statements concerning French and American people and cultures. The next step in the data analysis process was to identify changes in the three focus participants’ developmental level of intercultural competence. Building on earlier work by European (Byram, 1997) and American (ACE, 2007) multidimensional models of intercultural competence, I coded the data for instances where I could detect evidence of the participants’ intercultural attitudes, knowledge and skills over the course of the semester. I selected these three dimensions based on Fantini’s (2006) review of 138 publications on culture learning where he confirmed that knowledge, attitude/affect and skills were the most commonly cited components of ICC research in the literature. The definitions I used to define each of these categories drew from ACE’s definitions of international learning outcomes and Byram’s multidimensional model of the successful intercultural learner as follows: 1. Intercultural Attitudes: The learner demonstrates attitudes of “curiosity and openness, readiness to suspend disbelief about other cultures and belief about one’s own” (Byram, 1997, p. 57) and “accepts cultural differences and tolerates cultural ambiguity” (ACE, 2007, p. 3). 2. Intercultural Knowledge: The learner “recognizes that his culture is one of many diverse cultures and that alternate perceptions and behaviors may be based in cultural differences” (ACE, 2007, p. 3) and demonstrates knowledge of “social groups and their products and practices ... the general processes of societal and individual interaction” (Byram, 1997, p. 58).

106  P. Garrett-Rucks

3. Intercultural Skills: The learner demonstrates an “ability to interpret a document or event from another culture, to explain it and relate it to documents or events from one’s own” (Byram, 1997, p. 52) and uses “knowledge, diverse cultural frames of reference, and alternate perspectives to think critically and solve problems” (ACE, 2007, p. 2). I used these definitions to find representative statements in (1) the initial questionnaire, (2) discussion transcripts, (3) the post discussion interview transcripts, and (4) the final questionnaire to trace the three focus participants’ intercultural competence developmental trajectory. Findings The participants collectively contributed more than 120 postings, resulting in 80 pages of discussion transcripts for all three discussions. Changes in Learners’ Intercultural Sensitivity at the Group Level In response to the first research question—the extent to which the pedagogical materials fostered the class’s intercultural sensitivity, a collective increase of learner intercultural sensitivity of one and a half developmental stages in the DMIS (Bennett, 1993) was detected for Discussion 1 (M = 1.5) and nearly two stages in Discussion 2 (M = 1.9). Interestingly, there was a collective decrease of less than half a DMIS stage in learners’ intercultural sensitivity (M = –0.4) in Discussion 3. Further analysis of this back swing in the learners’ intercultural sensitivity in Discussion 3 revealed learner disappointed with the French informants seemingly disapproval of the PACS in Phase 2 that contradicted the authentic texts’ report in Phase 1that there was an increased acceptance of the PACS over the past decade. This finding brings attention to strong influence French informants’ had on learners’ thinking. However, beyond investigating collective changes (RQ1) in learners’ intercultural sensitivity to understand the effectiveness of pedagogical tasks (Garrett-Rucks, 2014), what remains of primary interest for this chapter is the IC developmental trajectory of learners at the individual level (RQ2). In response to the second research question, the three case studies revealed subtle nuances in the relationship between learners’ IC and their stereotypic beliefs about French culture. A comparison of focus participants’ impressions of French people and culture as stated on the initial questionnaire compared to the final questionnaire suggests that all three

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  107

focus participants increased their intercultural competence and overcame personal stereotypes during the course of the semester. The next section first describes the three focus participants and the changes in their beliefs about French people and culture over the semester. Then, a detailed description of each participant’s IC developmental trajectory identifies moments where shifts in learners’ thinking occurred and models an IC assessment practice (ACE, 2007; Byram, 1997). Changes in Three Focus Participants’ Beliefs About French People and Culture Brad. Brad was approximately 30 years old and intended to transfer to the local research university to pursue film studies. Brad was exposed to conversational French for most of his elementary school experience in an enrichment course offered in his Montessori school. Brad had traveled internationally to Canada and Mexico prior to the course. In the end of the semester interview, the instructor described Brad as “an ‘A’ student with very good attendance.” When asked if Brad seemed interested in French culture in the classroom, the instructor replied, “I’m guessing, Brad was interested but wouldn’t take up class time. He’s very respectful. He never asked questions.” Several of Brad’s peers described his postings as insightful and interesting in the postdiscussion interviews. Brad appeared to enter the semester with strong intercultural knowledge (Byram, 1997) about French cultural practices, gained from his interest in French news, particularly in labor issues such as the 35 hour work week and French striking practices. He also demonstrated strong intercultural skills (Byram, 1997), such as his ability to relate French striking practices to the current lack of labor movements in the United States. However, Brad showed a lack of developed intercultural attitudes (Byram, 1997) toward French people by his use of positive stereotypes on his initial questionnaire in response to the question eliciting the first images to come to his mind about the French. Initial Questionnaire: The French are more cultured and sophisticated than other countries. They have a greater appreciation for fine art, music and food. They have a more balanced approach to their work and family life compared to other Western countries. [emphasis added] Final Questionnaire: The French value their traditions and cultural institutions [and] place a premium on education and on family life. [emphasis added]

108  P. Garrett-Rucks

At the end of the semester Brad no longer made statements about the French being superior to members of other countries. This transformation occurred in Discussion 1 as described in detail below. Jack. Jack was a 21 year-old student taking second-semester French for transfer credits to the local university where he took first-semester French. He had never traveled outside of the country, nor had he ever met a native French speaker before this course. However, he had a 7 year-old sister who was studying at a French immersion school in his hometown. During the instructor interview, she described Jack as “a good student, an AB student with good attendance. He was basically the class clown—a very nice guy. He’d ask cultural questions before or after class.” Some of his peers also described Jack as the class clown in interviews, and no comments were made about his ability to discuss cultural topics. Jack appeared to have some intercultural knowledge (ACE, 2007) of the cultural influences on his thinking, but showed poor intercultural attitudes (Byram, 1997) toward French people by his use of negative stereotypes on his initial questionnaire. Initial Questionnaire: The first thing that comes to mind is the common stereotype assigned to the French by Americans, that is that they are snobby, rude and “elitist,” if you will. Of course I know that these are unfair generalizations, but you asked what came to mind immediately. [emphasis added] Final Questionnaire: Before taking this class, I viewed the French culture as a fairly progressive one. I think far into the second semester French, my opinion still holds true. [emphasis added] Contrary to what Jack stated on the final questionnaire about his initial impression of the French as being “fairly progressive,” Jack had initially reported that he found the French snobby and rude. His change in perspective occurred in Discussion 2, as described in detail later. Lauren. Lauren was a 21-year old student who intended to transfer to a four-year university in an undetermined major. She studied a year of French in high school and took first-semester French previously at the same two-year technical school. She was born and raised in Wisconsin and had never traveled outside of the country. She had never met a native French speaker prior to this class and often expressed surprise at information about French culture, particularly at the beginning of the semester. The instructor described Lauren in the end of the semester interview as “struggling with

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  109

learning the language.” The instructor continued, “Lauren has very good attendance with maybe a ‘B’ average. She does not ask questions about culture. She’s already challenged enough and others saw she wasn’t getting it.” Two of Lauren’s peers described her as “coming from a small world.” Lauren appeared to be entering the semester with poorly developed intercultural attitudes, knowledge and skills (ACE, 2007; Byram 1997). Lauren expressed both positive and negative statements about the French that Verdaguer (1996) found to be propagated by the U.S. media on her initial questionnaire. At the end of the semester, Lauren explicitly stated in an interview that her understanding of the role of culture on thinking helped her overcome the negative impressions she initially had of the French. This change was reflected in the way Lauren talked about French people and French culture at the end of the semester and on the final questionnaire compared to the initial questionnaire: Initial Questionnaire: I picture them [the French] as either being well groomed and dressed nicely or looking unpresentable and smelling like garbage. I also think of romance. The other images that first come to mind when I think of the French are cheese, baguettes, and wine. I also imagine them gossiping at a café with friends…. The only negative aspect I can think of is that they are snobby and rude. I have heard they are rude to American tourists a number of times. I have heard this from friends and my former French teacher in middle school. [emphasis added] Final Questionnaire: The only negative image I have of French people is that they rarely smile. However, I don’t think of them as rude or strict people anymore. I realize that I grew up thinking smiling at a person was a polite thing to do. They just grew up thinking the opposite way (that it was overbearing or flirtatious). [emphasis added] At the end of the semester, there was evidence to suggest that Lauren had become conscious of her own perspective and of the way in which thinking is culturally determined, rather than believing her understanding and perspective to be natural. This transformation occurred in Discussion 3, as described in detail later. Identifying the Focus Participants’ Transformative Processes Brad overcomes his monolithic image of the French in Discussion 1. Brad demonstrated strong intercultural knowledge and skills prior to entering the

110  P. Garrett-Rucks .

discussion, yet his intercultural attitudes were still developing. Contrary to many of Brad’s peers, his description of the French on his initial questionnaire was void of stereotypical terms such as “snobby” or “elitist,” rather Brad described the French as having a “strong sense of national pride and identity.” Yet, Brad held some positive stereotypes of the French on the initial questionnaire where he stated his view that the French are “more cultured and sophisticated than other countries” with “greater appreciation for fine art, music and food,” similar to Kinginger’s (2004) findings that the main image Americans have of France is that “the French live in a highly ‘cultural’ world” (p. 228). Unlike many of his peers, Brad demonstrated strong intercultural knowledge of French products and practices, yet his understanding of the general processes of societal and individual interaction (Byram, 1997) in French culture was distorted in Phase 1, due to his positive stereotypes. Brad’s strong intercultural skills in using diverse frames of reference to think critically and solve problems (ACE, 2007) helped him quickly overcome his romanticized, positive stereotypes about French in Discussion1: Brad, Discussion 1, Phase 1: I rather like that they have rules for multiple greetings. I think one of the many daily social annoyances is how do you react to someone you see multiple times (say in an office or school situation) Do you shake hands? Make a comment? Just give a nod? If anything, social interactions in this country need more rules. Brad, Discussion 1, Phase 2: The thing that most struck me about what we watched was the variety of [French informants’] responses. There are clearly wide personal variations within the “traditional” French greeting.  In the Phase 2 of Discussion 1, a change occurred in Brad’s thinking about French greeting practices that seemingly helped him break his idealized monolithic image of the French after viewing the interviews with the four French informants. Brad’s first posting referred to the methodical description the OLI lesson gave of how to properly shake hands in France which stated: While Americans usually only shake hands (serrer la main) when first meeting someone, French men shake hands to say hello and goodbye. As a rule, they do it only twice (one hello, one goodbye) per person per day—so if they run into someone they already saw that day, they don’t do it again.

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  111

Brad revealed his idealized view of French greetings when he stated the need for the U.S. to have more greeting rules, like France. This perpetuated his thinking from the initial questionnaire that “the French are superior to other Western countries.” In Phase 2, Brad noted the French informants’ diverse frames of reference and perspectives about greetings and subsequently overcame his monolithic image of French greetings. Further evidence supported this transformation in the first postdiscussion interview when Brad stated: Brad, Postdiscussion 1 Interview: What struck me the most was that the interviews were much more varied than I expected. I had always understood that the French have this ideal of Frenchness that was to be upheld and protected and it seemed like although people recognized that they also just kinda did their own things-they recognized these are the rules, but they made them fit into their own lives— it’s a much less strict construction than I thought it was. It became apparent that Brad’s positive stereotypes about French culture were impeding his knowledge of the general process of societal and individual interaction in France. Brad explicitly stated in the Postdiscussion 1 Interview that he initially had thought the French were all trying to “preserve their Frenchness” and that his attitude shifted after exposure to the French informants’ diverse perspectives toward greetings, to his surprise. Brad’s intercultural skills at relating diverse cultural frames of reference and alternate perspectives to think critically (ACE, 2007) helped him overcome his monolithic image of French people. Evidence of Brad’s shifting intercultural attitude continued into Discussion 2 where his developed intercultural skills helped him process the information presented from the cultural instruction that influenced he changed his perspective toward French education on the initial questionnaire compared to the final questionnaire as follows: Brad, Initial Perspectives Toward French Education: I have very little knowledge, either first or second hand, about the French educational system. My understanding is that it their primary education is more rigorous than the American system, with a focus on French culture and history. Brad, Final Perspectives Toward French Education: The French seem to view education as preparing you for a career whereas Americans view it as preparing you for life. To that end,

112  P. Garrett-Rucks

French schools are more academically rigorous and specialized, and lacks the extracurricular of American schools. The French also view higher education as a right, providing low-cost college to anyone who passes the BAC. Brad revealed his new understanding of French education as career preparation rather than preserving one’s “Frenchness” on the final questionnaire. This again shows a shift in Brad’s attitudes about French culture and his ability to suspend disbeliefs (Byram, 1997). Brad’s strong intercultural skills also helped him arrive at correct knowledge of societal trends occurring in French family life in Discussion 3, despite the fact that several of his peers’ postings falsely misconceived that the French were not accepting of the PACS. The OLI lesson included statistics from a French newspaper, Le Monde, published in 2002 which stated, “The PACS remains less common compared to marriage. For every 100 marriages celebrated, 8 PACs are signed.” However, the more recent authentic text from the Nouvel Observateur, 2008 stated, “The number of Civil Pacts of Solidarity (PACS) performed continues to increase year after year since its creation in 1999. With nearly four PACS for ten marriages in 2007, one approaches a PACS for two marriages.” Brad noted the strong increase in French choosing a PACS over marriage in his Phase 1 posting, “The one area where France seems to be ahead of the curve is in the popularity of PACS.” This posting also shows Brad’s developing intercultural attitudes as he “accepts cultural differences and tolerates cultural ambiguity” in his own acceptance of the PACS (ACE, 2007) as a viable alternative to marriage. Furthermore, a comparison of Brad’s thoughts on French family-life on the initial questionnaire compared to the final further reveals how his developed intercultural skills in relating alternate practices to his own cultures’ improved his knowledge about French family practices: Brad, Initial Perspectives Toward French Family Life: My understanding is that the French take a more liberal view of marriage and monogamy, while still recognizing the importance of the family unit. I believe that monogamy and fidelity are viewed as less important than they are in America. Despite this, the family is still the central unit of society. Brad, Final Perspectives Toward French Family Life: I learned that the French value the family unit, and place a premium on spending time together as a family. France is forwardthinking on civil unions, both gay and straight. They are also coping with the same demographic issues as the

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  113

U.S. and Europe: the “greying” of the population, rising divorce rates, and falling birth rates. On the final questionnaire, Brad did not seem change his impression about the importance of the family in French society, but he did demonstrate more knowledge about French acceptance of the PACS. At the end of the semester, Brad’s statements on the final questionnaire provided further evidence that he no longer used romanticized positive stereotypes describing the French. Brad now referred to everyday aspects of French culture, such as education and family life, whereas at the beginning of the semester he only mentioned aspects of French high culture. Overall, it appeared that Brad had a successful intercultural learning experience and no longer used stereotypes when describing French people and culture. Jack overcomes his ethnocentric views toward alternate cultural practices Discussion 2. Jack demonstrated some intercultural knowledge (ACE, 2007) about cultural influences on his thinking as demonstrated on the initial questionnaire, yet he lacked developed intercultural attitudes (Byram, 1997) with his use of negative stereotypes “snobby, rude and ‘elitist’,” on the initial questionnaire. Jack also initially showed signs of weak skills in relating the French cultural information to the American context as he occasionally misinterpreted the cultural lessons resulting in misconceptions of the French cultural practices in the first two discussions. There was considerable evidence of Jacks’ growth in all three IC domains (attitudes, knowledge and skills) over the semester. Contrary to Brad’s intercultural attitudes shift in the first discussion, Jack revealed his negative attitudes toward French cultural practices in both phases of Discussion 1. Jack, Discussion 1, Phase 1: I personally am accustomed to shaking hands when I first meet a person, not kissing strangers, and having a decent amount of personal space while in public. As someone stated in one of the others posts, this is in large part to how I was raised and socialized in this culture and society…. I feel that kissing is an invasion of personal space (to be determined by each individual) and should be reserved to those who you are closest to and who you choose to share that intimacy with, not just random people you happen to meet. Jack, Discussion 1, Phase 2: I just find it odd that the French perceive a handshake to be more intimate than ‘la bise’, when I see it the other way around.

114  P. Garrett-Rucks

In his first posting, Jack expressed his surprise and negative judgment at alternate French greeting practices, despite his intercultural knowledge (ACE, 2007) that alternate perceptions and behaviors may be based in cultural differences. Jack revealed poor intercultural skills in interpreting the cultural information first by implying that strangers, or “random people you happen to meet” kiss in France in Discussion 1. In addition to revealing Jack’s poor intercultural skills, he also bore witness to his poor intercultural attitudes, in his lack of accepting cultural differences about the meaning of the kiss, and referring to his vision of appropriate personal space as “decent,” indirectly implying that he believes the French practice of having a smaller personal space is not decent. Jack again showed his lack of skills in interpreting the information presented by the French informants in Phase 2 of Discussion 1. Specifically, Jack became confused by French informant Aunt Anne’s description of la bise and the handshake. After describing the intimacy of la bise, Aunt Anne described the handshake as less intimate, but still conveying emotions as follows: The handshake is very different [than la bise]—much more distant and anonymous where sometimes no feeling is present—[just] politesse, respect, courtesy in relations. It may be lively, firm, soft, wet (associated with the fear).... It [the handshake] also can express an unconscious desire toward the other, therefore equally sexual symbolically.

Jack’s description of Aunt Anne’s interview in his Phase 2 posting provided insight into the influences on his misinterpretation of the intimacy of the handshake compared to the bise in French culture. Although Jack had intercultural knowledge that his thinking was culturally determined (ACE, 2007) consistently across the semester, he failed to understand the general process of societal and individual interaction in French culture, revealing his weak intercultural knowledge (Byram, 1997) due to his poor skills in interpreting and relating to cultural information (Byram, 1997). Jack continued with negative impressions of French culture in Phase 1 of Discussion 2, but revealed a transformation during Phase 2. For the first phase of Discussion 2, participants accessed an OLI cultural lesson that explicitly described French educational practices from preschool to the completion of high school that emphasized the different career paths French children can follow at each level of education. The authentic text further illustrated the diverse career paths French students could follow, but it was not until Jack heard the French informants that he overcame his negative judgment as follows: Jack, Discussion 2, Phase 1: I think it’s very different that the French require high school students to select a “specialized area

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  115

of focus” before their junior and senior years of high school…. I feel that it could in some ways cripple a student’s ability to explore all of their interests by making school too practical… Jack, Discussion 2, Phase 2: Based on the positive responses of the French students in the YouTube videos, one might assume that the French may have found that little niche between too much choice and too little choice. Jack’s attitudes toward French education switched from Phase 1 where he believed that the French system was crippling French students’ ability to explore all of their interests to stating in his Phase 2 posting that “the French may have found that little niche between too much choice and too little choice.” Jack’s developing intercultural skills in using diverse cultural frames of reference and alternate perspectives to think critically (ACE, 2007) fostered his attitude shift. He provided further insight into this transformation in the Post-Discussion 2 interview stating: Jack, Post-Discussion 2 Interview: I think in America we are indoctrinated with the idea that we can do whatever we want and choice is good and to try to have as much choice as possible. So people who have that view point would think that having little choice would be detrimental to one’s future, but I think there are some positive aspects of having less choice, like I said in my writings, because I have a little bit of anxiety now, like what I want to do after college. Jack appeared to have accepted an alternate perspective toward education practices, now understanding the benefit of providing focus on career choice for students after relating information from the French informant interviews to his own life circumstances. Jack further demonstrated his developed intercultural skills to think critically and solve problems (ACE, 2007) in the third discussion when he related the information about changes in French family life that appeared in the OLI cultural lesson which cited an article from the French newspaper Le Monde from 2002. According to this article, almost 40% of French marriages end in divorce. Jack posted: Jack, Discussion 3, Phase 1: I think that the similarities in divorce rate are really interesting…. This makes me wonder if the divorce rate is rising around the rest of the world as well.

116  P. Garrett-Rucks

This statement demonstrated Jack’s increasing intercultural skills (ACE, 2007) in using knowledge and diverse cultural frames of reference to think critically as he related his newly acquired knowledge about French culture to reflect on global societal interactions. Jack’s statement, “This makes me wonder if the divorce rate is rising around the rest of the world” also provided evidence for Jack’s increasing intercultural attitudes (Byram, 1997) as he demonstrated curiosity about other cultures. In Phase 2 of the discussion, Jack seemed particularly interested in the family dynamics of parents and children. Jack’s impressions of the French family seemed to be influenced by Florence who spoke highly about the communication between French children and their parents compared to her understanding of communication in American family life. Florence stated: I was always around my parents so if we wanted to talk, we talked, if we didn’t want to talk, we didn’t, but they were there, and especially since we spent way more time with our parents and plus you spend more time with your parents, usually until 23 or 24, during college, in your hometown, I mean, you don’t need to apply to another university since it’s centralized

This perspective appeared to influence a shift in the way Jack saw French family life, as he wrote in his Phase 2 posting: Jack, Discussion 3, Phase 2: Another minor thing that stood out to me was that one of the women interviewed said that it was very common in France for children to live with their parents until the age of 24 or so. I feel that that is a stark contrast from the social norms in the United States, where in many cases, once children reach the age of 18 they are legally adults and expected to take care of themselves. I think that this small example shows how the United States is much more individualistic than other countries like France. Further evidence of shifts in Jack’s intercultural attitudes was found on his final questionnaire where he wrote “French families and French culture seem to be less individualistic than American society as a whole” as opposed to what he wrote on his initial questionnaire, “French have bigger families and individuals within it are more independent.” It appeared that gaining access to an alternate perspective toward the lack of individualism in French society may have contributed to Jack’s readiness to suspend disbelief about French culture on his final questionnaire, when he no longer referred to the French as “snobby or rude.” By increasing his intercultural

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  117

skills, Jack accessed more knowledge about French culture that helped him increase his intercultural attitudes. It appeared that understanding French perspectives toward education and family life may have influenced the way Jack talked about French people and French culture, making less negative stereotypical statements. Contrary to Jack’s shift in IC skills and attitudes in Discussion 2, Lauren remained resistant to alternative perspectives toward cultural practices until Phase 2 of Discussion 3. Lauren accepts an alternate perspective toward smiling, post-hoc to Discussion 3. At the beginning of the semester, there was evidence of Lauren’s poor intercultural attitudes due to her initial lack of curiosity and openness (Byram, 1997) toward French culture expressed in the stereotypic descriptions she used on her initial questionnaire that described the French as “snobby and rude” and being “well groomed” or “smelling like garbage.” Lauren also appeared to have poor intercultural knowledge entering the semester in that she lacked understanding of the general process of societal and individual interaction (Byram, 1997) in French society in her lack of knowledge of the cultural practices discussed. Lauren also appeared to have poor intercultural skills in that she appeared to have difficulty accessing an alternate perspective (ACE, 2007) about cultural practices beyond a culturally informed American perspective. Having entered the semester with signs of poor intercultural skills, knowledge and attitudes, Lauren continually interpreted French cultural practices through a critical American lens until Phase 2 of Discussion 3. Interestingly, Lauren spoke about changes in her thinking toward the cultural practices discussed in the first two discussions at the end of the semester, further providing evidence of her newly developed intercultural competence in all three domains— skills, attitudes and knowledge. In Phase 1 of Discussion 1, Lauren revealed the same poor intercultural attitudes exhibited in the initial questionnaire. Specifically, she revealed her lack of “readiness to suspend disbelief about other cultures” (Byram, 1997, p. 57) when she disregarded explicit information in the OLI cultural lesson about smiling practices in France. The OLI cultural lesson stated, Basically, smiling is reserved for friends and acquaintances: you smile as you kiss in greeting or shake hands, and whenever you feel like it when talking with friends. A smile is reserved for expressions of friendliness. If you smile at strangers or even people you’re meeting in a professional situation, such as at a job interview, you may be perceived as very flirtatious, insincere, or even simple minded. But with friends—smile away.

The lesson also addressed the differences in personal space from an anthropological perspective, concluding, “In general, French people’s personal

118  P. Garrett-Rucks

space bubble is considerably smaller than North Americans’.” Lauren wrote about these two practices in her Phase 1 posting: Lauren, Discussion 1, Phase 1: I thought it was bizarre how physical space isn’t an issue but smiling is. According to this article, I thought it was shocking that I would be perceived as flirtatious and/or incompetent if I were to smile during an encounter with strangers or while getting questioned during a job interview. Lauren passed judgment on alternate smiling practices and differing definitions of appropriate physical distance calling the French practices “bizarre” and revealed her poor intercultural attitudes (ACE, 2007) through her lack of acceptance of cultural differences. Lauren did not uptake the description of the intimacy of the smile in French culture from the lesson, revealing her poor intercultural skills in using an alternate perspective (ACE, 2007), the French perspective, toward smiling when she used the word “shocking” to describe her response to an alternate smiling practices. In Phase 2 of Discussion 1, Lauren reacted defensively to the French informant perspectives, particularly Aunt Anne’s comment, “I see the more artificial American smile than the French that is maybe more spontaneous. The Americans force themselves to smile more, the French are more stubborn, and smile less to please others.” Lauren also reacted negatively to Thomas’ statement, “in America, the US, you smile very fast, faster than in France. It is incredible, because in France smiling has a different notion” as follows: Lauren, Discussion 1, Phase 2: I agree that sometimes smiles are forced however, Florence and Anne made it seem like forcing a smile was a routine procedure…I was taken back when Thomas thinks smiling is only appropriate after you have known the person for a couple days (what?????). To me, smiling is just a silent way of saying hello to someone you don’t know very well or just a friendly gesture. Lauren began her posting indicating some compromise with accepting a French perspective toward smiling after accessing the French informant perspectives, but then she immediately negated this development revealing she had not quite developed intercultural skills in interpreting alternate practices and perspectives to her own. Lauren’s poor intercultural attitudes continued in Discussion 2 as she passed judgment on the French educational system.

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  119

In Discussion 2, Lauren again showed a lack of ability to interpret documents and relate them to her own cultural context without using an American perspective, again revealing poor intercultural skills (Byram, 1997). The OLI cultural information for Phase 1 of the discussion described the French education system as having free daycare, teaching world languages in elementary school, and providing different career paths to pursue after middle school. The part of the lesson that received the most attention from Lauren concerned postmiddle school education in the OLI cultural lesson which stated: After middle school, students don’t have to go to high school. They have the possibility to stop their studies or to complete their professional training. But, the majority of students go to high school. After a year of high school, they choose their major.

After accessing this information, Lauren made the following posting: Lauren, Discussion 2, Phase 1: The difference that startled me was how soon you have to choose your major. If I would have had to decide which major I wanted to pursue I highly doubt I would have been happy with my decision in the long run. I was also surprised by the fact that you can terminate your education right after finishing middle school! Disregarding the positive aspects of French education, Lauren used emotionally laden words such as “startled” when describing her response to the information presented in the OLI lesson. This statement indicated that she was continuing to evaluate the OLI information through a personal, American perspective disregarding an alternate French perspective. In Phase 2 of the discussion, several learners noted in their postings that the French informants seemed very positive about their education system. Both Aunt Anne—who never completed high school—and Florence called the French education system “sacred,” and Sophie and Thomas both spoke to how the system had provided them a great education that allowed them to come to the U.S. to study. On the contrary, Lauren’s postings were void of these perspectives and she insisted on a brief statement made by Sophie who claimed to envy the American system for having prom. Specifically, Sophie stated, “when I was young I liked the American TV shows with the proms and the actresses wearing red dresses and partners.… I dreamed of that—a princess dress.” Lauren spoke about this comment in her Phase 2 posting:

120  P. Garrett-Rucks

Lauren, Discussion 2, Phase 1: I thought it was strange that they thought prom was so great. A lot of information they had received about prom seemed to be from films, and almost every movie I have watched has had a prom end horribly or not the way they had imagined. One good example would be the movie “Carrie.” I rest my case. Lauren passed judgment on Sophie’s comment about prom, calling it “strange,” and then she generalized Sophie’s statement to a typical French perspective using the pronoun “they.” Lauren also questioned the validity of the French informants’ opinions of the U.S. education system stating that they were only informed by the representation of it in movies. Lauren did not address any of the positive information the informants relayed about their education. This notion is particularly evident in the statements Lauren made in the postdiscussion interview. Lauren, Postdiscussion 2 Interview: I think they [the French] probably don’t know that many people in their schools as they could, maybe not as social as they could be [in reference to their lack of extracurricular activities] Again, Lauren revealed a lack of skill to use an alternate perspective when interpreting cultural information presented to her by the French informants, particularly the informants who referred to the French education system as sacred. Lauren also demonstrated a lack of ability to suspend disbelief (Byram, 1997) that aspects of the French system may be better than the American system, indicating poor intercultural attitudes development. Finally, in Discussion 3, Lauren appeared to be able to use an alternate perspective to understand the positive aspects of French family life and the societal and governmental support of family life in France. For the first phase of the Discussion 3, students were instructed to access an OLI cultural lesson on the different definitions of the family in France. Lauren’s posting primarily drew from a French newspaper, Le Monde, that described (1) French couples commonly live together prior to marriage, (2) divorce rate increases, and (3) an increased number of couples choosing to do a civil pact of solidarity (PACS) over marriage. Lauren noted the commonalities between United States and French family practices in Phase 1 of Discussion 2. Lauren, Discussion 3, Phase 1: Based on the information given in the OLI lessons and authentic texts, the United States and France seem to be dealing with similar increases in the divorce rate, the growing number of children being

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  121

born out of wedlock, and the amount of partners living together without being married. However, Lauren appeared to finally accept an alternate perspective after accessing a French informant’s comparison of communication practices between United States and French families in Phase 2 of the discussion. Lauren, Discussion 3, Phase 2: I do also like how the French seem to honor family more than Americans. When I was little I used to always eat meals with my family and engage in a lot more family activities…as I got older my family really stopped hanging out together. My parents usually eat together and my brother and/or I can go eat anywhere in the house and watch television. In Phase 2 of the discussion, a French informant, Florence, described her impression of an American family communication practice, the “American family meeting,” compared to French family communication practices as follows: It seems artificial, that you need to make an appointment to talk with your family [in the United States] whereas with my family, I was always around my parents so if we wanted to talk, we talked, if we didn’t want to talk, we didn’t, but they were there.

Lauren described her understanding of this alternate perspective toward communication in family life when she stated that the French seem to “honor family.” This is the first time throughout the semester where Lauren responded positively to an alternate perspective toward cultural practices. Interestingly, after relating to a French informant’s perspective in Discussion 3, Lauren reflected back to her perceptions of French smiling practices from over three months ago in the postdiscussion interview. Lauren explained that Discussion 1 was her favorite of the three because: Lauren, Postdiscussion 3 Interview: If I go to Paris or anywhere, I feel like I’ll know what’s going on, that they [the French] not just exactly rude, or anything like that, but it’s just the way that they’ve grown up. So it was the most useful for future reference. Personally identifying with an alternate perspective toward family communication practices appears to have fostered Lauren’s ability to also understand an alternate perspective toward smiling practices, and

122  P. Garrett-Rucks

consequently she improved her general attitude toward the French. The interrelatedness of intercultural knowledge, attitudes and skills—as defined in the Methods—is included in the discussion of findings below. Discussion This study showed the ways in which participants’ diverse personal histories and perspectives toward cultural topics helped them shift perspectives as they reacculturated new knowledge into their own belief and knowledge systems about alternate cultural practices at both the collective classroom level (RQ1) and the individual learner level (RQ2). The analysis of the three case studies showed the ways in which the IC developmental trajectory of these learners corresponded with their ability to overcome the stereotypes they reported about French people and French culture on their initial questionnaire at the beginning of the semester. The brief findings presented on the collective shifts in the class’s thinking (RQ1) within each discussion revealed that the majority of these learners shifted their worldviews from ethnocentric to ethnorelative thinking after exposure to French informants’ diverse perspectives in Phase 2 of the discussion, excepting Discussion 3. In Discussion 3, the unmarried French informants claimed they would not consider doing a PACS union over a marriage, perpetuating a general sense in the classroom discussion that the PACS is commonly considered an inferior union to marriage in France, contradicting the information they received in Phase 1 of the discussion. Although the French informants in this study differed in age, gender and educational backgrounds, they mostly appeared to position themselves against the acceptance of the PACS in French culture, even though French studies report that approximately 50% of couples today are doing the PACS over a traditional wedding. The learners’ lack of exposure to a French person who had chosen to do the PACS over a marriage may have perpetuated a misunderstanding of the actual acceptance of the PACS in French culture. This single case revealed the importance of close monitoring of informants’ representation of diverse perspectives toward cultural practices, beyond the initial selection of diverse representatives. Furthermore, RQ1 findings bring attention to questions about the importance of the medium in which learners access French perspective. It appeared that the visual representation of French perspectives, including paralingual nuances such as gestures, intonation, gaze and speech patterns may have rendered the French informants’ perspectives more reliable or accessible to the class as a whole. In addition, participants were aware that the videos contained current French perspectives as they were posted on

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  123

YouTube, a commonly used video sharing website which has only existed since 2005, just a few years prior to the study. The qualitative case studies for Brad, Jack, and Lauren revealed the subtle ways in which the French informants’ diverse perspectives toward cultural practices provided learners a greater opportunity to personally relate to an alternate cultural practice than to the information presented in the OLI explicit cultural instruction and the authentic texts. Like Byram suggested, it appeared that personally relating to a French perspective helped learners “relativize” their own perspective, allowing them some conscious control of a biased interpretation. For Brad, he immediately identified with the French informants’ diverse perspectives toward greetings in Discussion 1 and overcame his positive judgment of the superiority of the strict French greeting rules that he had perceived over the lack of rules in American greetings. Jack used intercultural skills to identify with the French informants’ belief that their education system provided them guidance into a career path in Discussion 2, relativizing his U.S. perspective that more choice is better when preparing a career path. Lauren developed intercultural skills when she identified with a French informant’s perspective toward alternate communication practices in French family life, relativizing her belief in the superiority of her own culture’s family practices. The findings from the analysis of the three focus participants’ experiences suggest that intercultural skills, the ability to relate to alternate perspectives, were more influential on changes in learners’ attitudes toward French people and French culture than intercultural knowledge, the understanding of the role of culture on one’s thinking. Likewise, Byram (1997) described misconceptions of the connection between intercultural attitudes and knowledge explaining the relationship is “not the simple cause and effect often assumed, i.e. that increased knowledge creates positive attitudes” (p. 35). He further described the interdependence of intercultural attitudes and knowledge as follows: it is probably easier to relativise one’s own meanings, beliefs and behaviours through comparison with others’ than to attempt to decentre and distance oneself from what the processes of socialisation have suggested is natural and unchangeable. (p. 34)

Within the blended definitions of intercultural attitudes, knowledge and skills (ACE, 2007; Byram, 1997) used for this study, the participants who demonstrated the use of intercultural skills, defined as “alternate perspectives to think critically and solve problems” (ACE, 2007) overcame many of their stereotypes more consistently than the learners who demonstrated intercultural knowledge, that is an understanding of the influence of

124  P. Garrett-Rucks

culture on one’s thinking (ACE, 2007). For example, Jack explicitly stated that he was aware of the role of culture on his thinking as an excuse for the stereotypes he used when describing French people and French culture on the initial questionnaire. Jack only demonstrated a shift in attitudes toward French culture once he had personally related to a French perspective toward Educational practices in Discussion 2, and then he reconsidered the purpose of French and American education systems. In Lauren’s case, she resisted French perspectives toward alternate cultural practices until Discussion 3. Once Lauren could relate to a French perspective toward family communication practices, she demonstrated increased intercultural attitudes toward other alternate cultural practices, like smiling. Lauren and Jack both demonstrated that it was not just knowledge of the role of culture on one’s thinking that fostered a change in their attitudes toward French people and French culture, but rather it was the moment when they could uptake an alternate perspective toward cultural practices that afforded them the opportunity to critically reflect on and evaluate the practices in their own country. In Byram’s (1997) definition of intercultural attitudes, he refers to this type of shift in perspective as learner’s “willingness to suspend belief in one’s own meanings and behaviors, and to analyse them from the viewpoint of the other with whom one is engaging” (p. 34). A parallel was observed between changes in learners’ intercultural attitudes (readiness to suspend disbelief about other cultures and belief about one’s own) as learners’ overcame their stereotypic representations of French people and French culture. The common stereotype that Brad, Jack and Lauren each overcame was their belief that French people are snobby or superior to other cultures. Lauren explicitly described her change in perspective stating, “I don’t think of them as rude or strict people anymore. I realize that I grew up thinking smiling at a person was a polite thing to do. They just grew up thinking the opposite way (that it was overbearing or flirtatious).” Jack never explicitly stated what influenced his shift in attitudes, but no longer called the French snobby on his final questionnaire. Brad was more subtle than his peers in his original description of the French as snobby, stating that the French are “more cultured and sophisticated than other countries … [and] … have a strong sense of national pride and identity.” Yet at the end of the semester, Brad revealed a change in his impressions stating only, “the French value their traditions and cultural institutions.” The analysis of these case studies showed that the attitudes the learners had toward the French people as “the other” were at times reinforced by explicit knowledge comparing French and American cultural practices in Phase 1 of the discussions. Yet in Phase 2 of the discussions, shifts were detected in the learners who could personally relate to the French informants’ perspectives and subsequently these learners no longer saw their

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  125

culture in a position of superiority. Essentially, these case studies provide empirical evidence to support claims in the field (Bennett, 1993; Byram, 1997; Fantini, 2011; Kramsch, 1993) that cultural instruction must recognize the learners’ identity, guiding them to enter the process of cultural reflection in a negotiated space between the learner’s C1 and the target culture C2, grounded in a particular cultural context. Contextualizing cultural reflection, within discussions based on specific cultural products and practices, afforded these learners the opportunity to investigate the space between the C1 and C2 concerning a specific aspect of human existence across cultures. The intracultural peer discussions were effective at perpetuating multiple perspectives toward learners’ C1 and C2, yet findings from this study suggest that the inclusion of diverse native speaker perspectives is essential to minimize the positioning of us versus them. This study is not unique to report shifts in learners’ attitudes toward the target culture after exposure to diverse perspectives from members in the target culture (e.g., Furstenberg et al., 2001; Hanna & de Nooy, 2003; Wade, 2005). Studies on the effectiveness of the CULTURA project reported positive findings on the development of foreign language learners’ understanding of “foreign cultural attitudes, concepts, beliefs, and ways of interacting and looking at the world” (Furstenberg et al., 2001, p. 55). Through discovery and self-reflection, and the guidance of a more experienced facilitator, learners can build bridges across cultures and feel competent that they are communicating effectively—with attention to the possibility of their interlocator’s alternate perspectives when speaking and listening—and appropriately—assuring nonoffensive behavior. ICC encourages learners to sharpen their communication not only across cultures, but within. CONCLUDING CHAPTER REMARKS Findings from the current study revealed the ways in which these online discussions served as a venue for participants to explore their third space by mediating their thoughts among their peers in their L1 outside of classroom instruction time. These findings support previous research that also bore witness to instances where the dialogic process between members of the classroom community lead to the emergence of intercultural competence in discussions (Byram, 1997; Johnson, 2008; McBride & Wildner-Bassett, 2008; Woodin, 2001) in other disciplines. Yet target-language use FL classrooms are not always conducive to the type of deep reflection necessary to promote intercultural learning, particularly in beginning courses due to learners’ limited mastery of the target language. The use of online classroom discussions outside of the classroom provided an option for

126  P. Garrett-Rucks

instructors to maintain the use of the target language in beginning level FL courses while promoting intercultural learning outside of the classroom. Over 15 years ago, Byrnes (1991) suggested an emphasis on the subjective component of culture and served as a precursor to current pedagogical approaches of intercultural learning. More recently, Kumaravadivelu (2009) stressed that we must “give the individual the agency toward cultural transformation” (p. 166). Kramsch (1993) spoke to the transformational process, describing that cultural reflection take place in a negotiated space, which she refers to as a third place, the location between the C1 and the C2 where all behavior (both that of others and that of oneself) is seen as being grounded in a particular cultural context and a space of intellectual comparison, critique and distance. However, there has been little empirical evidence documenting the transformational process theorized in the literature. The primary aim of this chapter was to demystify the transformational process by modeling and deconstructing three learners unique journey into their third space. Many communicative pedagogical practices espouse cross-cultural comparisons to foster learners’ understanding of the target culture. Yet this study found that cross-cultural comparisons that are void of diverse French perspectives and ignore the learner’s agency—such as the OLI explicit cultural instruction and authentic texts—perpetuated learners’ stereotypes. In the first two discussions, Greetings and Education, the OLI cultural instruction explicitly put into opposition French and American cultural practices. Subsequently participants emphasized the cultural differences in the discussions, often with value-laden, ethnocentric comments in Phase 1. In Phase 2, the participants passed less judgment on French people and French culture after exposure to French informants’ diverse perspectives toward cultural practices, particularly in instances where it appeared learners could personally identify with a French perspective. Likewise, Kramsch (2009) purported a poststructuralist approach to the relation of language and culture which “defines culture as an individual’s subject position that changes according to the situation and to the way he/she chooses to belong rather than to the place she belongs” (p. 245. emphasis in original). It appeared that explicit cross-cultural comparisons void of subjective differences emphasized cultural differences rather than fostering learners’ intercultural learning. This finding puts into question traditional pedagogical practices which promote training in cross-cultural comparisons rather than intercultural understanding as discussed in great detail in the next chapter.

chapter 7

Moving the Profession forward No culture can live if it attempts to be exclusive (Mahatma Gandhi).

CHAPTER OVERVIEW This last chapter reflects on the need to enable language educators to foster learners’ intercultural communicative competence (ICC) by summarizing the previous chapters before providing a framework to move the profession forward in teacher preparation courses and continuing education workshops focused on ICC. The primary elements to infuse in methods courses and continuing education workshops described in this chapter are: (1) Linking intercultural competence to the national Standards; (2) evaluating the teacher’s own intercultural competence with self-reflection; (3) including intercultural learning projects at beginning levels of FL instruction and; (4) advocating for FL learning as a critical element to internationalization efforts.

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning: Bridging Theory and Practice, pp. 127–144 Copyright © 2016 by Information Age Publishing 127 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

128  P. Garrett-Rucks

REFLECTIONS ON THE NEED TO FOSTER LANGUAGE LEARNERS’ INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE We are living in an unprecedented time of global mobility with ever more cross-cultural communication in an increasingly globalized market economy. In the last two decades the field of foreign language education (FLE) has expressed the belief that the primary aim of second and foreign language learning should be to enable learners to communicate positively with people coming from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds in a multicultural world. Language educators and researchers have largely taken on the task and responsibility to teach students to “think interculturally” despite much debate on which subject teachers should officially take on this responsibility (Deardorff, 2006). However, concern remains in the FLE field on how to achieve this goal and when to introduce meaningful cultural reflection into language programs. The aim of this book thus far has encouraged reflection on the relationship between languages and intercultural competence (IC) and the subsequent implications for learning and teaching culture in foreign language instruction. It is intended to complement established work on language acquisition and to support the inclusion of culture acquisition in instructional settings, particularly at beginning levels of language learning for the vast majority of FL learners in the United States do not continue to advanced levels. This book connected the cultural components of the ACTFL Standards for Foreign Language Learning (SFLL 2.1, 2.2, and 4.2) to IC developmental theories in order to encourage educators to integrate meaningful cultural instruction into their Standards-based curriculum. Furthermore, this book provided the reasoning, theory and discourse needed for language program advocacy and to place FL education at the forefront of institutional internationalization projects. In sum, the first six chapters of this book served as a handbook for language educators to implement meaningful cultural instruction into their curriculum and to advocate for their programs. The first chapter of this book deconstructed the need to understand languages and cultures other than one’s own starting at beginning levels of instruction from both humanist and economic perspectives. Specifically, this chapter started with a discussion about today’s need for interculturally competent global citizens (Kumaravadivelu, 2003; Risager, 2006). The chapter then deconstructed the conflicting situation between the increase in economic resources spent on internationalizing education despite the decline in policies and resources to support language learning in the United States. Administrators and U.S. policymakers, particularly those who are monolingual, all too often support internationalization efforts that exclude a FL component. An international comparison of language programs and

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  129

policies shows the heightened need for the U.S. to foster programs that promote intercultural competence and second language proficiency to maintain its status in the world in the 21st century compared to the efforts occurring abroad. Research findings are then reported that show language instructors’ struggle to integrate meaningful cultural instruction into their lessons, especially in introductory courses. This finding is particularly alarming given that the vast majority of U.S. learners do not continue on to advanced levels of language instruction (Zimmer-Lowe, 2008). The closing thoughts of the first chapter purport that it is crucial that FL educators be familiar with how to integrate meaningful cultural instruction into their Standards-based curriculum to prepare learners with 21st century skills. In response to the instructor concerns expressed in the first chapter, the next chapter (Chapter 2) provided a theoretical overview of diverse definitions of culture and explored how culture reflects and informs behaviors and attitudes at different societal levels—individual, group formation, nation forming and human universals. This understanding prepares FL educators to explore theoretical models that consider observable behaviors and underlying mental aspects of culture in a systematic way to combat societal influences on learners’ stereotypes of target cultures. The chapter concluded with a section on the changes in foreign language pedagogy over the past century that have led to the current emphasis on fostering learners’ intercultural communicative competence with literacy-based approaches as conceptions of language and culture evolve. After having explored the role of culture on one’s thinking in Chapter 2, the next chapter (Chapter 3) deconstructed the ways in which intercultural competence helps learners improve their cross-cultural communication and interpersonal relations across cultures and within one’s own. This chapter started with an overview of related terms used across the literature to describe intercultural competence, which all essentially account for the behaviors and attitudes needed to function effectively and appropriately with individuals from linguistically and culturally diverse backgrounds. Next, predominant IC models in the field are presented, drawing heavily from Bennett (1993), Byram (1997) and the American Council on Education (ACE, 2007). The chapter then reviewed IC assessments tools found in the literature, noting the lack of research on IC development in instructional settings. The last section in this chapter identified discrepancies between the two most influential IC models in the literature review— Byram’s (1997) model of Intercultural Communicative Competence (ICC) and Bennett’s (1993) Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity—applied to an instructed language learning environment. Empirical findings from this comparison put into question the interchangeable use of IC terms and assessment models by identifying subtle nuances and discrepancies between the two models.

130  P. Garrett-Rucks

The following chapter (Chapter 4) empowers FL educators with an understanding of sociolinguistic theories that contradict IC models that lack consideration of second language development in their assessment criteria. Furthermore, Chapter 4 extends sociolinguistic theories to the teaching and learning of culture in a Standards-based FL curriculum due to current demands on educators to provide evidence of the use of the national Standards for Foreign Language Learning in their instruction. Specifically, Chapter 4 started with an historical overview of the role of ACTFL on U.S. language learning policies and practices leading to the current World-Readiness Standards for Language Learning (2015) that continue to guide national, state, district and local levels of language instruction and accreditation for the teaching certification of individuals and institutions. The chapter then deconstructed the elements of IC models that correspond with the cultural components of the ACTFL culture standards (SFLL 2.1, 2.2, and 4.2) and linked theories on language, worldview and enculturation to the importance of language learning. An historical overview of the role of culture in the field of linguistics is then described and the influence of the sociolinguistic turn on literacy-based approaches to language learning was discussed. The final section of this chapter situated theories of intercultural competence within the ACTFL culture standards (SFLL 2.1, 2.2, and 4.2) and the ACTFL Global Competence Position Statement (2014). The goal of the next chapter (Chapter 5) was to provide the reader a review of the literature on exemplary culture learning projects that emphasized fostering learners’ critical cultural awareness and global competence. The chapter concluded with a synthesis of the critical elements to consider in the design of IC projects based on the review of the literature and extended these findings to literacy-based approaches to language instruction to assure the integration of the culture standards (SFLL 2.1, 2.2, and 4.2) with cross-cultural activities in the classroom. Chapter 6 responded to the call put forth in the previous chapter for studies on beginning language learners’ IC development at introductory levels of instruction, that is sorely lacking in the literature. Furthermore, this chapter demystified IC developmental processes at beginning levels of instruction by providing empirical evidence of change in beginning language learners’ thinking as they engaged in a virtual cultural learning project. Byram (1997 ) deliberately provided no examples for the objectives in his ICC model to keep it “at a generalizable level of abstraction” (p. 38), yet educators appear to yearn for clarity on how to systematically assess learners’ intercultural worldviews. The chapter provided evidence of IC developmental changes in three U.S. adult learners’ worldviews as they encountered alternate worldviews over the course of a semester in an introductory French language class. In addition to providing educators examples of three learners’ unique journey of self-discovery and intercultural

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  131

reflection, this chapter was intended to serve as a model of how to apply IC models, such as Byram’s (1997) ICC model and ACE’s (2007) definitions of intercultural competence to real world learning situations. Drawing insight from interculturalists’ theories and research findings on the optimal design of culture learning projects at all levels of world language instruction, the first six chapters of this book respond to educator concerns about the integration of meaningful culture instruction into their lessons. Because most U.S. FL educators today are somewhat familiar with the ACTFL SFLL, this book connected the cultural components of the Standards to IC developmental theories in support of educators’ success in meeting the expected learning outcomes of the cultures standards. The next portion of this chapter is intended to support and encourage teacher training programs to move the profession forward by preparing teachers to foster global literacy in students in the 21st century. MOVING THE PROFESSION FORWARD Foreign language pedagogy has changed considerably over the past century as conceptions of language and culture continue to evolve. Byram (2004, p. 31) acknowledges the fact that language teachers are mostly valued for their ability to foster learners’ linguistic competence, however the current shift in paradigms, particularly from communicative language teaching to an approach that fosters learners’ “translingual and transcultural competence” (MLA Report, 2007, p. 3) makes educators pose a number of completely new challenges. As Little, Hodel, Kohonen, Meijer, and Perclova (2007) claimed, language teachers today are expected to “help language learners to see themselves as social actors; help language learners to become agents of their own learning; develop learners’ intercultural communicative competence; increase language learners’ capacity for intercultural communication and cooperation on a lifelong basis” (p. 17). The role of identity is at the core of intercultural competence. The complexity of addressing issues of identity and cultural perspectives calls for “a deliberate process of teaching that brings to students the exposure they need to begin the decentering process” (Liddicoat & Scarino, 2013, p. 25) to achieve intercultural understanding. Accordingly, growing dialogue in the profession surrounding IC highlights perspective-taking, while stressing the strong links between language and culture, and calls for FL teachers to facilitate learners’ reflection on their culture and cultural identity (Byram, 1997; Byrnes, 2012; Fantini, 2011; Kramsch, 2009; Magnan, Murphy, & Sahakyan, 2014). The following sections describe activities and elements to consider when structuring a programmatic framework to guide the preparation of FL

132  P. Garrett-Rucks

teachers in teaching methods courses and IC workshops in the four following categories: (1) Linking intercultural competence to the national Standards (2) evaluating the teacher’s own intercultural competence with self-reflection; (3) including intercultural learning projects at beginning levels of FL instruction and; (4) advocating for FL learning as a critical element to internationalization efforts. This first step is intended to enhance traditional teacher preparation programs, particularly at the K–12 level, in a Standards dominated era where evidence of the Standards use is often crucial in high stakes credentialing steps, such as the new edTPA teacher certification program (Hildebrandt & Swanson, 2014). The second step listed prepares teachers for the type of identity work they will be facilitating by exploring their own experiences before guiding others. For the third step, the need to foster beginning language learners’ ICC is particularly important in the U.S. context where very few learners continue to advanced levels of language instruction. Finally, the fourth step is important for FL instructors to know how to create a sustainable program by increasing enrollment, and thus affecting a wider breadth of young learners with both the language and culture skills needed to develop their intercultural communicative competence. Linking Intercultural Competence to the Standards in Teacher Preparation Programs The national Standards for Language Learning (SFLL)—most recently called the World-Readiness Standards for Language Learning (W-RSLL) in the 2015 fourth edition of the SFLL—largely impact K–12 world language curricula and teacher training programs. Hoyt and Garrett-Rucks (2014) described how the SFLL had strongly influenced the accreditation framework for teacher preparation programs via the ACTFL Program Standards for the Preparation of FL Teachers, approved by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) in 2002. In 2013, NCATE and the Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC) merged to become the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) that continues to rely on the SFLL and W-RSLL for language teacher training programs. Most recently, edTPA—the preservice teacher assessment protocol used by external national reviewers—is increasingly being adopted by teacher preparation programs across the country (Hildebrandt & Swanson, 2014). The edTPA World Languages Assessments are aligned with the ACTFL/CAEP Program Standards for the Preparation of FL Teachers, continuing to place the SFLL at the heart of teacher preparation. Beyond the accreditation of world language teacher programs, the SFLL also have strongly influenced most state standards in K–12 school settings that

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  133

establish the expected student learning outcomes of their FL programs. For these reasons, it is essential that intercultural theories and practices be connected with the Standards in the U.S. context. The SFLL inherently provided the framework for successful intercultural learning when the interrelatedness of the five content areas is emphasized. However, as Troyan (2102) warns, the Standards are often reduced to the Communication goal area. Furthermore, the ACTFL Decades Project survey (2011a, 2011b) revealed that the instructional implementation of the national SFLL (1996, 1999, 2006) deviated dramatically from their underlying construct that emphasized the interrelatedness of the five content standards and their goal areas. Contrary to communicative language teaching practices that prioritize communication, the connectedness of the Standards appears to be of strong interest to university students surveyed about their language learning expectations (Magnan et al., 2014). Comparing students’ language learning goals to the goals put forth in the Standards, Magnan and her colleagues (2014) purport that “an instructional decision to focus on the interrelationship of the Standards’ goal areas is consistent with student thinking and would emphasize the intimate relationship among culture, language, thought, and social interaction” (p. 225). Taking an interculturalist approach to foreign language instruction does just this, elucidating the interrelatedness among goal areas, especially the culture content standards with the purpose of fostering learners’ critical cultural awareness. Explicit attention is needed in teacher preparation programs to address the interrelatedness of the culture standards (SFLL 2.1, 2.2, and 4.2) as they relate to intercultural theories. For instance, Hoyt and Garrett-Rucks (2014) identified problematic interpretation of the cultures standards in their analysis of over 170 lesson plans by recent methods students in teacher training programs across two universities. The researchers identified preservice teachers’ misinterpretations of the Cultures Standards (SFLL 2.1 and 2.2) and the Comparisons Standard (SFLL 4.2) pointing to: a. b. c.

A strong propensity to teach target products and practices of the culture void of perspectives, A lack of meaningful, perspective-enriched cultural comparisons and A complete lack of activities that guide learners to explore perspectives within their own culture and that inform their own cultural identity (Hoyt & Garrett-Rucks, 2014, p. 105).

Their investigation revealed that these preservice teachers minimized or completely dismissed the interrelatedness of cultural perspectives reflected in the framework of the SFLL, particularly with the omission in lesson plans

134  P. Garrett-Rucks

of target culture perspectives and the Comparisons Standard 4.2. The need to de-center that is commonly found in the field of IC theories and research (Bennett & Bennett, 2004; Byram, 1997; Kramsch, 1993, 2009) underlines the subtle complexity in achieving the Comparisons Standard 4.2 which states that learners should “demonstrate understanding of the concept of culture through comparisons of the cultures studied and their own.” For this reason, the continued emphasis on cultural practices and products void of cultural perspectives by the preservice teachers in Hoyt and GarrettRucks’s (2014) study is particularly alarming. The lesson plans in this study mostly overlooked the diverse cultural perspectives from target cultures’ members and the lessons were nearly completely void of any exploration of the diverse perspectives within the learners’ own culture(s) in the classroom community. Despite the deliberate inclusion of IC learning theories into the participants’ methods curriculum that were included in the textbook and addressed in several classroom discussions, there remained very little evidence of the IC theories being applied in the methods students’ lesson plans. FL educators need explicit training in their professional development to design and implement learning experiences that cultivate meaningful comparisons of cultural perspectives. To do so, teacher preparation programs and continuing education workshops might start with a reflection component on the instructor’s own beliefs about optimal cultural instruction. Then, participants could work in groups to discuss their beliefs and collaborate on what they consider to be an ideal culture lesson to compare their own beliefs with others. After each group has presented, the participants should be directed to identify the inclusion of cultural perspectives in the presumed ideal culture lessons presented. This experiential approach affords the opportunity for instructors to potentially notice the gap between their notions of an ideal culture lesson followed by explicit instruction on the interrelatedness of the culture standards (SFLL 2.1, 2.2, and 4.2) as they relate to intercultural theories (from Chapter 4). Similar to the shift in the profession from explicit grammar instruction to an understanding of the need to contextualize grammatical features in real world situations, the profession could benefit from an experiential approach to the teaching of culture. Such an experiential approach might start with language-instructors-in-training first noticing the gap between their own instruction compared to practices supported by IC theories, then focusing on the form of a meaningful cultural lesson and the inclusion of the cultural perspectives (SFLL 2.1 and 2.2) and the Comparisons Standard 4.2 in lessons about target culture products and practices. Beyond the proposed experiential and self-assessment approach to lesson planning in workshops, there is a need to evaluate lesson plans

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  135

with a checklist detailing the inclusion of perspective-enriched cultural comparisons if methods instructors hope to train future teachers to foster intercultural competence in the FL classroom. Furthermore, FL teachers need to be taught techniques to support language learners in exploring the diversity of perspectives within and beyond their own culture(s) to cultivate the conscious de-centering that considers others’ perspectives without accentuating foreignness or stereotyping Hoyt (2012). After training to facilitate learners’ cultural exploration, instructors need to be held accountable for the inclusion of IC components in the assessment of their daily lesson plans. Hoyt and Garrett-Rucks (2014) found a consistent lack of inclusion of cultural instruction in daily lesson plans in the absence of a significant grading component on the rubrics. The weighted value of an IC component on the daily lesson plan grading rubric must be a substantial portion of the total grade to assure its inclusion. As noted by Sandrock, “Our assessment trains students to focus on what we really value” (personal communication, November 7, 2012). As a profession, we need to move beyond theorizing the value of an IC component in our instruction and start assessing preservice teachers’ inclusion of the Culture Standards (SFLL 2.1, 2.2) with the Comparisons Standard 4.2 in their instruction. The next section provides training suggestions to prepare language instructors to support language learners in exploring the diversity of perspectives within and beyond their own culture(s). Evaluating the Teacher’s Own Intercultural Competence With Self-Reflection Second language researchers (e.g., Byram, 1997; Byrnes, 1991; Kramsch, 1993) have long theorized the need for FL teachers to facilitate learners’ reflection on their own culture and cultural identity to foster cross-cultural understanding. The preparation needed to comfortably serve as a facilitator of such personal discussions is an all too often overlooked component in teaching methods courses. For this reason, I propose that preservice teacher training and continuing education workshops include a component that encourages educators first to reflect on their own worldviews and impressions of target cultures, documented in a written form for subsequent evaluation, followed by group discussions to explore the diverse worldviews that emerge within one’s own culture(s). Johnson (2009) theorized that participating in conversations about cross-cultural perspectives better prepares educators to serve as mediators of classroom discussions in her claim that “knowing, thinking, and understanding come from participating in the social practices of learning and teaching in specific classroom and school situations” (p. 13).

136  P. Garrett-Rucks

Janet Bennett (2011) provided a training template of basic content areas for intercultural training to serve as guide for leading cross-cultural discussions. She suggested including examples of U.S. domestic cultural differences prior to exploring cross-cultural comparisons that address the following discussion topics: (1) Culture; (2) Perceptions; (3) Language Use; (4) Cultural Stereotypes; (5) Nonverbal Communication; (6) Communication Styles; (7) Value Contrasts; (8) Problem-Solving Strategies; (9) Intercultural Adaptation (with emphasis on the development of intercultural sensitivity and cultural marginality) (p. 9). Following her model, I suggest starting a training session with a discussion on cultural diversity within the U.S. and an exploration of participants’ beliefs about influences on differing perspectives toward cultural practices and products within our own country. This discussion would be followed with a presentation about models of culture (from Chapter 2) starting with the Iceberg Model of culture to discuss the behavioral aspects of culture which are observable compared to the mental aspects of culture. The discussion would turn back to culturally determined ideas inside people’s heads such as formal rules of conduct, norms and values among cultural groups within the United States. Then, I would present the Kluckholn (1954) model of culture to reflect on cultural orientations toward aspects of human nature, such as a sense of time, meaningful activities, and social relations (such as a collectivist compared to individualist mentalities) in their own culture and the target culture, proposing a framework to systematically view cultural differences. Discussing systematic cultural differences paves the road to nonjudgmental cross-cultural discussions about cultural stereotypes, nonverbal communication and differing communication styles, value contrasts and problem-solving strategies across target cultures both within the U.S. and abroad. I would then introduce participants to definitions of intercultural competence and provide a brief overview of IC assessment models (from Chapter 3). Due to its emphasis on instructed language learning in the European context, I would focus on the components of Byram’s ICC model and provide a handout of the description of the objectives for each component (Table 3.2) in his model. I would then guide participants to evaluate their own worldviews based on their impressions of the target cultures that they wrote down at the beginning of the workshop. I would then demonstrate empirical evidence of three learners’ IC developmental process over the course of a semester and model IC assessment practices by presenting the case studies from Chapter 6. To do so, I would first show a comparison of the three participants’ ethnocentric statements about French people and French culture at the beginning of the semester compared to the nonjudgmental statements they used at the end of the semester. I would then divide the workshop participants or methods students into small groups

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  137

to focus on one case study, collectively evaluating a learner’s statement (provided in Chapter 6, taken from the online discussion transcripts at each phase of the three discussions) based on the IC assessment criteria provided in the study (ACE, 2007; Byram, 1997). After completing their IC assessments, one group for each of the three case studies, would present to the class how they assessed each of the participants’ statements, opening a discussion of IC assessment with the guidance of the workshop facilitator (who would be familiar with the assessment descriptors provided in Chapter 6). At the end of the presentations on each of the three case studies, the training participants would discuss in small groups how the IC developmental trajectory they observed in the three case studies compares to the changes in worldviews they had experienced with their encounters with alternate cultural practices and native speakers of the languages they teach for further self-reflection. In order to further empower language educators to confidently guide their learners’ exploration of cross-cultural perspectives, I would introduce Byram’s (2008) Autobiography of Intercultural Encounters (AIE). The AIE is a portfolio assessment that he created with the Educational Council of Europe to foster learners’ IC development by facilitating learners’ reflection on their cross-cultural encounters, both real and virtual. The AIE serves as a model for language instructors to guide their learners through meaningful cultural reflection when confronted with alternate cultural perspectives. In addition to providing a means for students to document their own cross-cultural encounters, there also exists a self-study online course, free of charge, for instructors to maximize their students’ use of the AIE at http://www.coe.int/t/DG4/AUTOBIOGRAPHY/AutobiographyTool_en.asp. The training course contains activities for instructors to learn through reflection on their own intercultural experiences, real, or virtual. It contains seven modules to mediate an exploration of one’s own cultural identity by fostering critical reflection on the experience of encounters with others. A key learning point in these modules is that individuals are simultaneously members of different social and cultural groups to which they self-identify themselves. The AIE project provides performance indicators in the form of rubrics for assessing student learning. Exposure to this learning tool empowers educators to continue their training and command of meaningful cultural instruction after the workshop or methods course. Emphasizing Intercultural Learning Projects at Beginning Levels of FL Instruction Researchers have pointed out that FL teachers in K–16 classrooms find it difficult to address cultural practices, products, perspectives, and com-

138  P. Garrett-Rucks

parisons at beginning levels of instruction (Fox & Diaz-Greenburg, 2006; Garrett-Rucks, 2013; Hoyt & Garrett-Rucks, 2014; Phillips & Abbott, 2011; Sercu, 2005). As discussed in Chapter 1, this difficulty may be in part due to teachers’ reluctance to use English during class time—a practice that reflects ACTFL’s position statement on the use of the target language, which recommends maintaining classroom interactions in the target language for more than 90% of the time. However, students’ limited proficiency in the target language, particularly in introductory courses, prohibits them from engaging in deep cultural analysis during classroom instructional time due to target language use constraints (Garrett-Rucks, 2013b). This issue is particularly problematic in the U.S. where only 1.6% of college students continue to advanced levels of instruction (Zimmer-Loew, 2008, p. 625). Such findings reveal the need to integrate meaningful cultural reflection into introductory language courses in order to prepare the vast majority of students learning a foreign language for the challenges of today’s complex global society. In response to educator concerns over target language use constraints, the merits of the use of online discussions in English, outside of target language use classroom time would then be presented in the training session, modeling the project discussed in Chapter 6. The optimal design of effective computer-mediated cultural lessons and meaningful discussion prompts that integrate the cultures standards (Garrett-Rucks, 2015) would be presented and discussed. Additional activities that require students to reflect on cultural aspects outside of classroom instruction time will be modeled such as the use of term papers, essays, journal entries or multi-media portfolios. These types of activities allow learners to demonstrate their cross-cultural reflections with the use of their first language to help mediate their thoughts. However, as described in Chapter 4, the new World-Readiness Standards for Language Learning have an increased emphasis of target language use in instructional cultural exploration compared to previous versions of the SFLL. Specifically, the W-RSLL culture standards insist that learners (1) use the language to investigate, explain, and reflect on the relationship between the practices, products and perspectives of the cultures studied and (2) use the language to investigate, explain, and reflect on the concept of culture through comparisons of the cultures studied and their own. To train language educators to integrate meaningful cultural instruction into their target language lessons, I would continue the training practices discussed in the two previous sections to first assure instructors’ strong foundation in understanding intercultural competence. I would then break teachers (or preservice teachers) into groups to discuss how they could include activities that move to an intercultural communicative competence

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  139

(ICC) approach from proficiency-based instruction that traditionally centers on vocabulary, particularly at beginning levels of instruction. For example, preservice educators could discuss traditional unit topics such as food, time, family, clothing, and so forth, and compare traditional proficiencybased approaches, such as expressing likes and dislikes, or expressions on how to buy things in stores, to intercultural approaches of discovering and exploring the cultural dimension of people’s habits with respect to food (meal times, composition of meals), or time or clothing. Each of these topics could be explored at introductory levels of instruction with Byram’s three objectives for planning, presented in the March 9, 2015 Webinar offered by the ACTFL Teaching and Learning of Cultures Special Interest Group: 1. Linguistic Objective: By the end of this lesson learners will know that (e.g., (for English as FL) 3rd person singular takes “s”) and will be able to produce written English in which the 3rd person singular ‘s’ is accurate. 2. Communicative Objective: By the end of this lesson learners will know that (e.g. the use of colloquial expressions is acceptable among friends but not with teachers) and will be able to talk about their holidays in two styles, colloquial and formal. 3. Intercultural Objective: By the end of this lesson, learners will know that stereotypes are never true will be able to identify and critically analyse stereotypes in a text (in the target language) about their own country OR be able to discover for themselves stereotypes about their country held in country X [a country from a target culture] AND/OR compare and contrast documents and perspectives in [one’s] own and [an] other [target culture] country (e.g. stereotypes about country X in the their own country and autostereotypes of [one’s] own country) (Bryam, 2015, slides #6–8). In the 2015 Webinar, Byram modeled this three objective approach to transforming beginning-level instruction by demonstrating pedagogical practices used in a study by Byram, Perugini, and Wagner (2013). In this study, the authors investigated the development of intercultural citizenship in an elementary school Spanish classroom in a “Fruits around the World” thematic unit with an ICC approach. In this unit, the authors collaborated to transform knowledge from a Traditional Unit that would focus on familiar

140  P. Garrett-Rucks

fruits and perhaps where the fruits grow to knowledge in an ICC Unit about new unfamiliar fruit vocabulary, fruit eating habits of diverse communities, where fruit grows according to climate, the cost of fruit, the availability of fruit and how this availability has changed over the years due to transportation changes. Students used skills of interpreting and relating in the ICC Unit by comparing fruit eating norms in their own life and environment with those of other countries. These skills are typically not developed in the Traditional Unit. Skills of discovery and interaction typically found in the Traditional Unit have students ask each other basic questions about fruit, such as “What is your favorite fruit? List the fruits that are sour.” By contrast, skills of discovery and interaction found in an ICC Unit have students carry out surveys, even interviewing people outside of school. Attitudes are not much explored as the content in the Traditional Unit on fruit, but in the ICC Unit, students show curiosity about each other’s cultural norms and mores and the prevalence of Spanish-speaking cultural norms found within our national boundaries are explored. Critical cultural awareness is not fostered in the Traditional Unit, but in the ICC Unit learners question the cost of fruit and its availability during all seasons—and the environmental cost of this, exploring issues about social justice. Although not mentioned in the 2015 Byram Webinar, the template for this ICC Unit Plan and examples of the materials used can be found in the appendices of Byram et al. (2013). For cross-cultural comparisons (SFLL 4.2) of alternate worldviews (SFLL 2.1 and 2.2) at beginning levels of instruction, such as those found in the aforementioned World Fruits Unit, visual representations such as the use of Venn diagrams can be used to help contextualize learners’ understanding of diverse voices from the target cultures despite their limited linguistic mastery. Contemporary sources should be consulted to identify diverse voices across target cultures as represented in present-day blogs, wikis and social media (Garrett-Rucks, 2013a). Additionally, accessing reputable sources that present research-based polls on individuals’ perspectives toward cultural practices are valuable in dispelling monolithic images students may hold of the target cultures (Garrett-Rucks, 2013b). Although the majority of research on literacy-based projects come from advanced levels of instruction (Paesani & Allen, 2010), Barrette, Paesani, and Vinall (2010) provide a process-oriented approach to analyzing literary texts and an example of how to analyze a text at beginning levels of instruction. The argument for literacy-based projects is that texts are culturally bound and culturally specific. Recall that the literacy-based approach extends beyond literary texts. As culture is embedded in the language and language is a vehicle for understanding culture, students need to be able to access and use different types of texts. Texts can include a wide range of media—for example, signs, menus, maps, timetables, recipes, magazines, cartoon strips, plays, songs, Internet sites, radio messages, music, jokes, TV

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  141

announcements, and art work. Useful considerations for selecting “texts” are: How is the cultural information presented? Are there any biases? Are there multiple perspectives of target language and cultures represented? How are contemporary and traditional cultures presented? Does this text challenge learners and extend their sociocultural and linguistic development? Additionally, there are resources for ready-made activities such as John Corbett’s (2010) book, Intercultural Language Activities and the Culture Bibliography from the University of Minnesota (CARLA website) that lists both theoretical studies and sources for classroom or online activities. After extensive work on the integration of activities that promote intercultural communicative competence into a typical FL curriculum, I would then demonstrate IC assessment measures, again drawing from Chapter 3. I would first have the preservice teachers do a self-evaluation of their imagined self and then have small groups collectively assess examples of student work in which the students reflected on cultural aspects such as portfolios, essays or study abroad journals. The ACE/FIPSE Project Steering Committee further suggested the inclusion of learner-generated “artifacts” in the portfolio assessment including “term papers, essays, journal entries, study abroad application and reflection essays, photographs or other artwork with a narrative explanation, videos of interview or student performances, audio that demonstrates foreign language competency, etc.” (pp. 3–4). Group assessments of student “artifacts” in methods courses or professional development workshops not only foster instructors assessment skills, but the artifacts also serve as inspirational models for teachers to integrate such projects into their own beginning language curriculum. I would also provide examples of the rubrics included in Hammer and Swaffar’s (2012) work on assessing strategic cultural competence. I believe it is only through direct involvement with designing ICC lessons and practice assessing student work that preservice teachers will develop the kind of understanding and skills necessary to actualize current IC philosophies into pedagogical practices in the classroom. Situating FL Learning as a Critical Element to Internationalization Efforts It is important for future FL educators to be aware of international efforts taking place that intend to foster learners’ IC development for instructors to understand the urgency and timeliness of preparing learners’ to become global citizens. At its core, internationalization is “the process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions, or delivery of postsecondary education” (Knight, 2003, p. 2). Intercultural competence is a key goal of internationalization

142  P. Garrett-Rucks

because it indicates awareness and understanding of situations and people from diverse cultures, attitudes that move beyond ethnocentric thinking, as well as the presence of skills and behaviors that promote productive and effective communication among and across cultures (Bennett, 1993; Byram, 1997; Garrett-Rucks, 2014). Considerable academic attention and resources are spent on internationalizing education—integrating intercultural dimensions into educational systems to prepare learners for the challenges of a global workforce in the 21st century and responsible global citizenship. Despite the emphasis on productive and effective communication, direct mention of foreign language learning is rarely mentioned in the tenets of internationalization efforts. It is important to train language educators to understand the fundamental nature of language, mind and the brain with a sociolinguistic lens, as described in detail in Chapter 4. Furthermore, teacher professional development must include humanistic perspectives of FLE to serve in building cultural bridges for our students to access, and ideally cherish target cultures in addition to preparing learners to enter the competitive, entrepreneurial workforce of the capitalistic society in which Americans live. However, as discussed in Chapter 1, it is necessary to prepare educators to market their programs to those interested in economically motivated internationalization efforts for program sustainability. Admittedly, the activities and elements suggested in this chapter for structuring a programmatic framework to guide the preparation of FL teachers in teaching methods courses and IC workshops are time consuming. An ideal situation would afford the time to integrate the suggested material over a sequence of sessions. At the end of the training sequence, I would conclude with an abridged description of “the effective intercultural educator” provided by J. Bennett (2011) and invite attendees to reflect on their own identity around the following descriptors. According to Bennett the effective intercultural educator can: • Comprehend the role of teaching in the learner’s culture • Facilitate multicultural groups (including turn-taking, participation, use of silence, etc.) • Express enthusiasm for the topic in culturally appropriate ways • Suspend judgment of alternative cultural norms • Recognize and address culture-specific risk factors for learners (loss of face, group identity, etc.) • Develop multiple frames of reference for interpreting intercultural situations • Demonstrate good judgment in selecting the most appropriate interpretation in a transcultural situation

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  143

• Ask sensitively phrased questions while avoiding premature closure • Interview a cultural informant to obtain needed information on subjective culture • Recognize ethnocentrism in goals, objectives, content, process, media, and course materials, as well as group interaction • Interpret nonverbal behavior in culturally appropriate ways • Display cultural humility • Be culturally self-aware In addition to asking educators to personally reflect on each of these statements, I would form small groups for participants to imagine situations in which each of these descriptors would apply. I would then have all of the groups present their interpretations of each statement in turn to increase an awareness of the attributes, characteristics and skills of an effective intercultural educator, encouraging participants to aspire to reach these goals. CONCLUDING CHAPTER REMARKS Today’s language teachers face distinct challenges and opportunities to help learners’ understand languages and cultures other than their own in the increasingly multicultural nature of industrialized societies. Growing dialogue in the profession calls for the need to facilitate learners’ reflection on their own culture and cultural identity while exploring target cultures (Byram, 1997; Fantini, 2011; Kramsch, 2009; Paesani & Allen, 2012). However, many FL educators report that they are unprepared for the real task of integrating meaningful cultural instruction in their curriculum (Phillips & Abbott, 2011). Preservice teacher training can help provide future FL educators a deeper understanding of diverse cultural perspectives, intercultural competence, and the integration of activities that promote cultural reflection into their Standards-based lessons. I believe that preservice FL teacher training can help bridge the disconnect between pedagogical theories which promote ICC literacy-based practices and the current lack of meaningful cultural instruction in the classroom. The links between ICC and literacy-based approaches remain crucial to consider in selection of methodologies. Byram (2010) proposed reconsidering the purposes of contemporary FL study and its cultural dimension in particular, stating that “educational competence can be fulfilled by a focus on intercultural competence, which includes critical reflection” (p. 320), a common goal of literacy-based approaches. The unique contribution of this book to the field is that it responds to the concerns expressed by hardworking FL educators while considering the real world demands

144  P. Garrett-Rucks

of a proficiency-oriented, Standards-based paradigm that influences K–12 teacher accreditation. An important element to consider when viewing this book as a bridge from interculturalist theories to classroom practices is the understanding that this bridge is prepared for two lanes of information to flow between fields. While the cliché that language and culture are inextricably intertwined has become well established in the field of FLE, it remains to be fully understood by many prominent interculturalists. To date, there are well established models and theories describing the assessment and development of intercultural competence that mistakenly omit a category of second language development. The theoretical underpinnings and empirical evidence that second language learning is essential to the development of intercultural communicative competence are demonstrated in this book, affording FL educators the discourse needed to convince interculturalists of the need to include a language dimension in their theories and models of cross-cultural understanding, like Byram’s (1997) ICC Model. Likewise, and arguably more important, this same discourse is needed to defend and promote the value of our programs in efforts to internationalize education. This book empowers FL educators with the discourse needed to skillfully advocate for their language programs in an era where considerable academic attention and resources are spent on internationalization efforts. As a profession, we need to understand the paramount role we play in internationalization efforts to not only advocate for our programs in face of administrative decisions on language requirements and the investment of institutional resources, but also to assure that we are providing our learners with the 21st century skills needed to successfully compete in the increasingly globalized workforce. As humanists, it is important that we remain focused on international dimensions of the common good contrary to internationalization efforts that seem to exclusively emphasize academic capital for marketing and competition. The responsibility to foster global literacy in students in the 21st century goes beyond preparing students to successfully work in cross-cultural environments but also preparing learners to accept the responsibility of world citizenship. Although the reality of the current global market demands that we market our FL programs with attention to ways in which our work is central and vital to internationalization efforts, FL educators have an ethical responsibility to prepare learners to become responsible global citizens in order to promote peace and wellbeing across the community of nations.

References Abrahms, Z. (2006). From theory to practice: Intracultural CMC use in the L2 classroom. In L. Ducate & N. Arnold (Eds.), Calling on CALL: From theory and research to new directions in foreign language teaching (pp. 181–210). San Marcos, TX: CALICO. Adler, P. (2002). Beyond cultural identity: Reflections on cultural and multicultural man. Retrieved September 12, 2014, from http://www.mediate.com/articles/ adler3.cfm Agar, M. (1994). Language shock: Understanding the culture of conversation. New York, NY: William Morrow. Agar, M. (2004). We have met the other and we’re all nonlinear: Ethnography as a nonlinear dynamic system. Complexity, 11, 16–24. Allen, H., & Dupuy, B. (2011). Evolving notions of literacy-based foreign language teaching: A qualitative study of graduate student instructors. In H. Allen & H. H. Maxim (Eds.), Educating the future foreign language professoriate for the 21st century (pp. 171–191). Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage Learning. Allen, W. (2004). Teaching languages and cultures in a post-9/11 World: A personal reflection. Modern Language Journal, 88(2), 285–289. Alptekin, C. (2002). Toward intercultural communicative competence in ELT. ELT Journal, 56(1), 57–64. Altshuler, L., Sussman, N. M., & Kachur, E. (2003). Assessing changes in intercultural sensitivity among physican trainees using the intercultural development inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 387–401. American Association of Teachers of French National Commission on Cultural Competence. (1996). To find time for both language and culture. In A. J. Singerman (Ed.), Acquiring cross-cultural competence: Four stages for students of French (pp. 85–88). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.



145

146  P. Garrett-Rucks American Council on Education. (2007). International learning goals. Retrieved June 2008, from http://www.acenet.edu/AM/Template.cfm?Section=goodPr actice&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2769 American Council on Education. (2013). Aligning International Strategy and Institutional Goals: Advice from the ACE/AIEA Internationalization Collaborative. Retrieved August 25, 2014, from http://www.acenet.edu/news–room/ Documents/2013–Advice–From–Collaborative.pdf American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (1989). Proficiency guidelines for K–12 learners. Yonkers, NY: Author. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (1996). Standards for foreign language learning (1st ed.). Yonkers, NY: Author. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (1999). Standards for foreign language learning (2nd ed.). Yonkers, NY: Author. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2014). ACTFL board approved position statements: Global competence position statement. Retrieved from http://www.actfl.org/news/position-statements/ global-competence-position-statement American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages Board of Directors. (2014). Global competence position statement. Retrieved October 10, 2014, from http://www.actfl.org/news/position-statements/global-competence-positionstatement ACTFL Decades Project. (2011a). A decade of foreign language standards: Influence, impact, and future directions. Alexandria, VA: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, Task Force on Decade of Standards Project. Retrieved August 15 2014, from http://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/ public/national–standards–2011.pdf ACTFL Decades Project. (2011b). A decade of foreign language standards: Influence, impact, and future directions. Survey results. Alexandria,VA: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, Task Force on Decade of Standards Project. Retrieved August 15, 2014, from http://www.actfl.org/sites/default/ files/pdfs/StandardsImpactSurvey_FINAL.pdf ACTFL/NCATE Program Standards for the Preparation of Foreign Language Teachers. (2002). Retrieved June 8, 2008, from http://www.actfl.org/i4a/ pages/index.cfm?pageID=3384 Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London, England: Verso. Arasaratnam, L. A., & Doerfel, M. L. (2005). Intercultural communication competence: Identifying key components from multicultural perspectives. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 137–163. Arens, K. (2010). The field of culture. The Standards as a model for teaching culture. Modern Language Journal, 94, 321–324. Bachman, L., & Savignon, S. (1986). The evaluation of communicative language proficiency: A critique of the ACTFL oral interview. Modern Language Journal, 70, 380–390. Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  147 Barnes-Karol, G., & Broner, M. (2010). Using images as springboards to teach cultural perspectives in light of the ideals of the MLA report. Foreign Language Annals, 43, 422–445. Barrette, C., Paesani, K., & Vinall, K. (2010). Toward an integrated curriculum: Maximizing the use of target langauge literature. Foreign Language Annals, 43(2), 216–230. Béal, C. (1992). Did you have a good week-end? Or why there is no such thing as a simple question in cross-cultural encounters. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 23–52. Beauvois, M. (1995). E–talk: Attitudes and motivation in computer-assisted classroom discussion. Computers and the Humanities, 28(2), 177–190. Belz, J. (2002). Social dimensions of telecollaborative foreign language study. Language Learning and Technology, 6(1), 60–81. Belz, J. (2005). Intercultural questioning, discovery and tension in internet–mediated language learning partnerships. Language and Intercultural Communication, 5, 3–37. Belz, J., & Müller-Hartmann, A. (2003). Teachers as intercultural learners: Negotiating German-American telecollaboration along the institutional fault line. Modern Language Journal, 87(1), 71–89. Bennett, M. J. (1993). Toward ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 21–71). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural. Bennett, M. J. (1998). Intercultural communication: A current perspective. In M. J. Bennett (Ed.), Basic concepts of intercultural communication (pp. 1–34). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Bennett, M. J. (2011). Developing intercultural competence. Retrieved February 25, 2015, from http://www.intercultural.org/documents/competence_ handouts.pdf Bennett, J. M., & Bennett, M. J. (2004). Developing intercultural sensitivity: An integrative approach to global and domestic diversity. In D. Landis, J. Bennett, & M. Bennett (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (3rd ed.) (pp. 147–165). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Berg, B. (1998). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Bhawuk, D. P. S., & Brislin, R. (1992). The measurement of intercultural sensitivity using the concepts of individualism and collectivism. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16, 413–436. Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Bochner, S. (1982). Cultures in contacts: Studies in cross-cultural interaction. New York, NY: Pergamon Press. Bourdieu, P. (1982). Ce que parler veut dire: L’économie des échanges linguistiques [Language and symbolic power]. Paris: Fayard. Brecht, R., Davidson, D., & Ginsberg, R. (1993). Predictors of foreign language gain during study abroad. In NFLC Occasional Papers (pp. 1–31). Washington, DC: National Foreign Language Center.

148  P. Garrett-Rucks Brook, J. (2011). The affordances of YouTube for language learning and teaching. Hawaii Pacific University TESOL Working Paper Series, 9(1, 2), 37–56. Brooks, N. D. (1968). Language and language learning: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of language learning and teaching (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall Regents. Byram, M. (1988). Foreign language education and cultural studies. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 1(1), 15–31. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Bristol, PA: Multilingual Matters. Byram, M. (2000). Assessing intercultural competence in language teaching. SPROGFORUM, 18(6), 8–13. Retrieved June 15, 2014, from http://inet.dpb. dpu.dk/infodok/sprogforum/Espr18/byram.html Byram, M. (2004). Routledge encyclopedia of language teaching and learning. London, England: Routledge. Byram, M. (2008). From foreign language education to education for intercultural citizenship: Essays and reflections. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Byram, M. (2010). Linguistic and cultural education for bildung and citizenship. Modern Language Journal, 94, 317–321. Byarm, M. (2015). Planning to teach Intercultural Communicative Competence. Webinar presented to members of the ACTFL Teaching and Learning of Cultures SIG March 9, 2015. Retrieved from http://community.actfl.org/communities/ resources/viewdocument/?DocumentKey=9f407e6f-7dfe-4235-a03ccd100dae7829&MessageKey=b66dfa2d-72fa-49b7-a5d9-b6b78235f33f Byram, M., Perugini, D. C., & Wagner, M. (2013). The development of intercultural citizenship in the elementary school Spanish classroom. Learning Languages Contents, 18(1), 16–31. Byrnes, H. (1991). Reflections on the development of cross-cultural communicative competence in the foreign language classroom. In B. Freed (Ed.), Foreign language acquisition research (pp. 203–218). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath. Byrnes, H. (2002). Language and culture: Shall the twain ever meet in foreign language departments? ADFL Bulletin, 33(2), 25–32. Byrnes, H. (2005). The privilege of the less commonly taught languages: Linking literacy and advanced L2 capacities. Journal of the National Council of Less Commonly Taught Languages, 2, 21–44. Byrnes, H. (2012). Of frameworks and the goals of collegiate foreign language education: Critical reflections. Applied Linguistics Review, 3, 1–24. Byrnes, H., Maxim, H. H., & Norris, J. M. (2010). Realizing advanced foreign language writing development in collegiate education: Curricular design, pedagogy, assessment. Modern Language Journal Monograph, 94. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approach to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47. Capretz, P. (1987). French in action video series. Annenberg Learner. Retrieved from http://www.learner.org/resources/series83.html Center for Advanced Language Proficiency Education Research. (2010). Secretary Arne Duncan on FL and internationalization. Retrieved September 10, 2014, from http://calper.la.psu.edu/newsblog/?p=182

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  149 Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London & Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chun, D. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22(1), 17–31. Chun, D., & Wade, E. (2004). Collaborative cultural exchanges with asynchronous CMC. In L. Lomicka & J. Cooke-Plagwitz (Eds.), Teaching with technology (pp. 220–247). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. Coles, A., & Knowles, G. (2001). Lives in context: The art of life history research. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Comas-Quinna. A., Mardomingoa, R., & Valentinea, C. (2009). Mobile blogs in language learning: Making the most of informal and situated learning opportunities. ReCALL, 21(1), 96–112. Committee for Economic Development. (2006). Business leadership in public policy annual report. Retrieved from http://www.ced.org/images/uploads/2006_ Annual_Report.pdf Corbett, J. (2010). Intercultural language activities. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1999). Cultural mirrors: Materials and methods in the EFL classroom. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp. 196–219). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching and assessment. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Cushner, K. (1986). Human diversity in action: Developing multicultural competencies for the classroom. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Cutshall, S. (2012). More than a decade of Standards: Integrating cultures in your language instruction. Language and Education, 7, 32–37. Darhower, M. (2002). Interactional features of synchronous computer–mediated communication in the intermediate L2 class: A sociocultural case study. CALICO Journal, 19(2), 249–277. Davis, S. L., & Finney, S. J. (2006). A factor analytic study of the cross-cultural adaptability inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 318– 330. Deardorff, D. K. (2006). The identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization at institutions of higher education in the United States. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10, 241–266. Deardorff, D. K. (Ed.). (2009). The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. DeKay, W. T., & Buss, D. M. (1992). Human nature, individual differences, and the importance of context: Perspectives from evolutionary psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1(6), 184–189. Dhonau, S., & McAlpine, D. (2011). Weaving the national student standards into higher education foreign language programs. ADFL Bulletin, 41(3), 53–63. Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

150  P. Garrett-Rucks Dornyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dornyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 9–42). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Drewelow, I. (2009). The influence of instructed learning on American college students’ cultural assumptions about the French language and people (doctoral dissertation). University of Wisconsin, Madison. Duncan, A. (2010). International engagement through education: Remarks by Secretary Arne Duncan at the Council on Foreign Relations Meeting. Retrieved March 6, 2014, from http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/ international-engagement-through-education-remarks-secretary-arneduncan-council-forei Edwards, D. (2004). The role of languages in a post-9/11 United States. Modern Language Journal, 88(2), 268–271. Engle, L., & Engle, J. (2004). Assessing language acquisition and intercultural sensitivity development in relation to study abroad program design. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10, 253–276. Fantini, A. (1997). New ways in teaching culture. Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Fantini, A. (2006). Exploring and assessing intercultural competence. Retrieved June 8, 2014, from http://www.sit.edu/publications/docs/feil_research_report. pdf Fantini, A. (2011). Language: An essential component of intercultural communicative competence. In J. Jackson (Ed.), Routledge handbook of language and intercultural communication (pp. 263–278). Abingdon, England: Routledge Press. Fox, R., & Diaz-Greenberg, R. (2006). Culture, multiculturalism, and foreign/ world language standards in U.S. teacher preparation programs: Toward a discourse of dissonance. European Journal of Teacher Education, 29(3), 401– 422. Friedrich, P. (1989). Language, ideology, and political economy. American Anthropologist, 91, 295–312. Furstenberg, G. (1993). A la rencontre de Philippe [Meet Philippe]. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Furstenberg, G., & Levet, S. (1997). Dans un quartier de Paris [In which area of Paris]: An interactive documentary on CD-ROM. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Furstenberg, G., Levet, S., English, K., & Maillet, K. (2001). Giving a virtual voice to the silent language of culture: The CULTURA Project. Language Learning and Technology, 5(1), 55–102. Galloway, V. (1992). Towards the cultural reading of authentic texts. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Languages for a multicultural world in transition: Reports of the Northeast conference on the teaching of foreign languages (pp. 87–121). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company. Galloway, V. (2015). Culture and sustainability: Lessons from the oyster and other metaphors. Dimension, 94–121. Garrett-Rucks, P. (2013a). A discussion-based online approach to fostering deep cultural inquiry in an introductory language course. Foreign Language Annals, 46(2), 191–212.

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  151 Garrett-Rucks, P. (2013b). Maximizing cross-cultural understanding, minimizing stereotypes: Three case studies. The French Review, 86(5), 14–33. Garrett-Rucks, P. (2014). Measuring instructed language learners’ IC development: Discrepancies between assessment models by Byram and Bennett. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 41, 181–191. Garrett-Rucks, P., Howles, L., & Lake, W. (2015). Enhancing L2 learners’ reading comprehension with multimedia texts: A cognitive load theory perspective. Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium Journal, 32(1), 26–31. Garrett, P., & Young, R. F., (2009). Theorizing affect in foreign language learning: An analysis of one learner’s responses to a communicative-based Portuguese course. Modern Language Journal, 93(2), 209–226. Geertz, C. (1975). The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books. Glisan, E. (1999). The impact of Standards on higher education: For more than just the sake of “continuity.” ADFL Bulletin, 31(1), 75–78. Godwin-Jones, R. (2013). Integrating intercultural competence into language learning through technology. Language Learning & Technology, 17(2), 1–11. Gomez, M. L., Burda Warlker, A., & Page, M. (2000). Personal experience as a guide to teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(7), 731–747. Grabove, V. (2009). Reflections on trends and challenges in internationalizing an Ontario community college. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, 118(2), 15–23. Gramling, D., & Warner, C (2012). Toward a contact pragmatics of literature: Habitus, text and the advanced second–language classroom. In G. S. Levine & A. Phipps (Eds.), Critical and intercultural theory and language pedagogy (pp. 57–75). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. Gramling, D., & Warner, C. (2012). Critical multilingualism studies: An invitation. Introduction to Critical Multilingualism Studies, 1(1), 1–11. Guthrie, E. (2000) New paradigms, old practices: Disciplinary tensions in TA training. Mentoring foreign language teaching assistants, lecturers, and adjunct faculty. Issues in language program direction: A series in annual volumes (pp 19–39).Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Office of Research and Improvement. Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Garden City, NY: Anchor. Hall, E. T., & Hall, M. R. (1990). Understanding cultural differences: Keys to success in West Germany, France, and the United States. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Hamburger, F. (1990). Cultural conflict and its pedagogical compensation. In E. Dittrich & F. Radttke (Eds.), Ethnizitaet (pp. 311–328). Opladen, Germany: Westdeutsche Verlag. Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M. J., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The intercultural development inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 421–443. Hammer, J., & Swaffar, J. (2012). Assessing strategic cultural competency: Holistic approaches to student learning through media. Modern Language Journal, 96, 209–233. Hanna, B., & de Nooy, J. (2003). A funny thing happened on the way to the forum: Electronic discussion and foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7(1), 71–85.

152  P. Garrett-Rucks Hasan, R. (1995). The conception of context in text. Discourse in society: Systemic functional perspectives. In P. Fries & M. Gregory (Eds.), Meaning and choice in language: Studies for Michael Halliday (pp. 183–283). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Heise, M. H. (1994). Goals 2000: Educate America Act: The federalization and legalization of educational policy. Fordham Law Review, 63(2), 345–381. Retrieved August 14, 2014, from http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent. cgi?article=3133&context=flr Hildebrandt, S., & Swanson, P. (2014). World language teacher candidate performance on edTPA: An exploratory study. Foreign Language Annals, 47(4), 576–591. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede Model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 1–26. Hofstede, G., & Bond, M .H. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16(4), 4–21. Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (Revised and expanded 2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Hofstede, G., & McCrae, R. R. (2004). Personality and culture revisited: Linking traits and dimensions of culture. Cross-Cultural Research, 38, 52–88. Hoyt, K. (2012). Fostering intercultural competence in undergraduate French students through ethnographic interviews. Proceedings of Intercultural Competence Conference, 2, 34–50. Hoyt, K., & Garrett-Rucks, P. (2014). Problematizing pre-service foreign language teachers’ interpretations of the cultures standards. In B. Dupuy & L. Waugh (Eds.), Proceedings of the Intercultural Competence Conference (pp. 94–115). Tucson, AZ: The Center for Educational Resources in Culture, Language and Literacy (CERCLL). Hymes, D. (1972). Towards communicative competence. Philadelphia, PA: University Pennsylvania Press. Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations of sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania. Institute of International Education. (2011). Open doors 2011: Study abroad by U.S. students rose in 2009/10 with more students going to less traditional destinations. Retrieved August 15 2014, from http://www.iie.org/en/Who-WeAre/News-and-Events/Press-Center/Press-Releases/2011/2011-11-14-OpenDoors-Study-Abroad Institute of International Education. (2013). Fast facts open doors 2013. Retrieved August 15, 2014, from http://www.iie.org/Who-We-Are/News-and-Events/ Press-Center/Press-Releases/2010/~/link.aspx?_id=6E36F211E152492F8E 6A6826604EDE12&_z=z Institute of International Education. (2014). Open doors briefing 2013 presentation. Retrieved August 15, 2014, from http://www.iie.org/Who-We-

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  153 Are/News-and-Events/Press-Center/Press-Releases/2010/~/link.aspx?_id=6 E36F211E152492F8E6A6826604EDE12&_z=z Jackson, F., & Malone, M. (2009). Building the foreign language capacity we need: Toward a comprehensive strategy for a national language framework. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved March 4, 2010, from http:// www.cal.org/resources/languageframework.pdf Jacobson, W., Schleicher, D., & Maureen, B. (1999). Portfolio assessment of intercultural competence. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23(3), 467–492 Johnson, K. E. (2009). Second language teacher education. New York, NY: Routledge. Johnson, N. (2008). Postcards from the (turbulent) edge (of chaos): Complexity theory and computer mediated communication. In S. Sieloff Magnan (Ed.), Mediating discourse online (pp. 73–92). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Jones, P. (2000). Globalization and internationalism: Democratic prospects for world education. In N. Stromquist & K. Monkman (Eds.), Globalization and education: Integration and contestation across cultures (pp. 27–42). Boulder, CO: Rowmann and Littlefield. Kauffmann, N. L., Martin, J. N., & Weaver, H. D. (1992). Students abroad: Strangers at home. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79(4), 457–476. Kern, R. (2000). Literacy and language teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Kern, R., Ware, P., & Warschauer, M. (2004). Crossing frontiers: New directions in online pedagogy and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 243–260. Kinginger, C. (1996). Toward a reflective practice of TA education. In C. Kramsch (Ed.), Redrawing the boundaries of language study (pp. 123–142). Annual volume of the American Association of University Supervisors and Coordinators. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. Kinginger, C. (2004). Communicative foreign language teaching through tele–collaboration. In O. St. John, K. van Esch, & E. Schalkwijk (Eds.), New insights into foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 101–113). Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang. Kinginger, C., Gouvès-Hayward, A., & Simpson, V. (1999). A tele-collaborative course on French-American intercultural communication. French Review, 72(5), 853–866. Kluckhohn C. (1954). Culture and behavior. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 921–976). Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. Kluckhohn, C. (1962). Universal categories of culture. In S. Tax (Ed.), Anthropology today: Selections (pp. 304–20). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Kluckhohn, F. R., & Strodtbeck, F L. (1961). Variations in value orientations. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Knight, J. (2003). Updated internationalization definition. International Higher Education, 33, 2–3.

154  P. Garrett-Rucks Knight, S. (2000). Standards-specific speculation: K–12 or K–16? ADFL Bulletin, 31(2), 69–71. Koester, J., & Olebe, M. (1988). The behavioral assessment scale for intercultural communication effectiveness. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 12, 233–246. Kraemer, A. (2008). Happily ever after: Integrating language and literature through technology? Die Unterrichtspraxis, 41, 61–71. Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Kramsch, C. (2002). In search of the intercultural. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 6(2), 275–285. Kramsch, C. (2008). Ecological perspectives on foreign language education. Language Teaching, 41, 389–408. Kramsch, C. (2009). The multilingual subject. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Kramsch, C., & Thorne, S. L. (2002). Foreign language learning as global communicative practice. In D. Block & D. Cameron (Eds.), Globalization and language teaching (pp. 83–100). London, England: Routledge. Krauss, R. M., & Chiu, C.-Y. (1998). Language and social behavior. In D. T. Guilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 41–88). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Kreber, C. (2009). Different perspectives on internationalization in higher education. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, 118(2), 15–23. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Lafford, B. (Ed.). (2012). Languages for specific purposes in the United States in a global context: Update on Grosse and Voght (1991), Modern Language Journal Monograph Series, 96. Lamy, M., & Goodfellow, R. (1999). Reflective conversation in the virtual language classroom. Language Learning & Technology, 2(2), 43–61. Lane, H. (1976). The wild boy of Aveyron. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lazaraton, A. (2003). Incidental displays of cutural knowledge in the nonnative– English-speaking teacher’s classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 213–245. Lakoff, R. T. (1974). What you can do with words: Politeness, pragmatics, and performatives (Berkeley Studies). Syntax and Semantics I, XVI, 1–55. Lederach, J. P. (1995). Preparing for peace: Conflict transformation across cultures. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. Lee, L. (2011). Blogging: Promoting learner autonomy and intercultural competence through study abroad. Language Learning & Technology 15(3), 87–109. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/ october2011/lee.pdf Lee, J., Kim, B., Lee, T., & Kim, M. (2012). Uncovering the use of Facebook during an exchange program. China Media Research 8(4), 62–76.

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  155 Lee, Y. T., McCauley, C. R., & Draguns, J. G. (1999). Personality and person perception across cultures. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ: Psychology Press. Libben, G., & Lindner, O. (1996). Second culture acquisition and second language acquisition: Faux amis? Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht 1(1), 14. Retrieved May 18, 2008, from http://www.spz.tu–darmstadt.de/ projekt_ejournal/jg_01_1/beitrag/libben2.htm Liddicoat, A. J., & Scarino, A. (2013). Intercultural language teaching and learning. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons. Liskin-Gasparro, J. (1984). The ACTFL proficiency guidelines: Gateway to testing and curriculum. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 475–489. Little, D., Hodel, H.-P., Kohonen, V., Meijer, D., & Perclova, R. (2007). Preparing teachers to use the European Language Portfolio—arguments, materials and resources. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe. Lomicka, L. (2006). Understanding the other: Intercultural exchange and CMC. In N. Arnold & L. Ducate (Eds.), Calling on CALL: From theory and research to new directions in foreign language teaching (pp. 211–236). San Marcos, TX: CALICO. Lussier, D. (1997). Domaine de référence pour l’évaluation de la compétence culturelle en langues [Evaluating cultural competence in language learning]. Revue de didactologie des langues-cultures, ELA 231–246. Paris: Didier Erudition. Lussier, D. (2011). Language, thought and culture: Links to intercultural communicative competence. Canadian and International Education, 40( 2), 34–60. Mader, J., & Camerer, R. (2010). International English and the training of intercultural communicative competence. Interculture Journal, 9(12), 97–116. Magnan, S. (2008a). Reexamining the priorities of the national standards for foreign language education. Language Teaching, 41, 349–366. Magnan, S. (2008b). What is needed for global literacy to become an educational reality? Summary of a discussion group. The Modern Language Journal, 92(4), 628–630. Magnan, S., & Back, M. (2007). Social interaction and linguistic gain during study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 40, 43–61. Magnan, S., Murphy, D., & Sahakyan, N. (2014). Goals of collegiate learners and the Standards for Foreign Language Learning. Modern Language Journal Monograph Series, 98. Majumdar, B., Keystone, J. S., & Cuttress, L. A. (1999). Cultural sensitivity training among foreign medical students. Medical Education, 33, 177–184. Martinsen, R. (2008) Short-term study abroad: Predicting changes in oral skills, Foreign Language Annals, 43(3), 504–530. Matsumoto, D., & Hwang, H. S. (2012). Culture and emotion: The integration of biological and cultural contributions. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(1), 91–118. Maurais, L., & Morris, M. (2003). Languages in a globalising world. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press Maxim, H. (2000). Integrating language learning and cultural inquiry in the beginning foreign language classroom. ADFL Bulletin, 32(1), 12–17.

156  P. Garrett-Rucks McBride, K., & Wildner-Basset, M. (2008). Interpersonal and intercultural understanding in a blended second culture classroom. In S. Sieloff Magnan (Ed.), Mediating Discourse Online (pp. 93–124). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. McLeod, B. (1976). The relevance of anthropology to language teaching. TESOL Quarterly 10(2), 211–220. McCrae, R. R. (2001). Trait psychology and culture: Exploring intercultural comparisons, Journal of Personality 69, 819–46. Mesquita, B. (2003). Emotions as dynamic cultural phenomena. In R. J. Davidson, K. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 871–890). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Meunier, L. (1994). Computer-assisted language instruction and cooperative learning. Applied Language Learning, 5(1), 31–56. Minkov, M., Blagoev, V., & Hofstede, G. (2013). The boundaries of culture: Do questions about societal norms reveal cultural differences? Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 44, 1094–1106. Modern Language Association Ad Hoc Committee on Foreign Languages. (2007). Foreign language and higher education: New structures for a changed world. Profession, 234–245. Modern Language Association. (2010). Enrollments in languages other than English in United States institutions of higher education. Retrieved September 13, 2014, from http://www.mla.org/2009_enrollmentsurvey Müller-Hartmann, A. (2000). The role of tasks in promoting intercultural learning in electronic learning networks. Language Learning & Technology, 4(2), 129–147. National Humanities Alliance. (2015). International education programs. Retrieved September 10, 2014, from http://www.nhalliance.org/advocacy/ funding-priorities/international-education-programs-fy2013.shtml National Standards Collaborative Board. (2015). World-readiness standards for learning languages (4th ed.). Alexandria, VA: Author. Naugle, D. K. (2002). Worldview: The history of a concept. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans. Neuner, G. (2003). Socio-cultural interim worlds in foreign language teaching and learning. In M. Byram (Ed.), Intercultural competence. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe, Language Policy Division. Noels, K. A., Pelletier, L. G., Clement, R., & Vallerand, R. J. (2003). Why are you learning a second language? Motivational orientations and self-determination theory. Language Learning, 53(1), 33–64. Norton, B. (2006). Identity as a sociocultural construct in second language education. TESOL in Context (Special Issue), 22–33. O’Dowd, R. (2003). Understanding the “other side”: Intercultural learning a Spanish-English e-mail exchange. Language Learning and Technology, 7(2), 118–144. O’Dowd, R., & Ritter, M. (2006). Understanding and working with “failed communication” in telecollaborative exchanges. CALICO Journal, 23(3), 623–642. Omaggio, A. (1986) Teaching language in context. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. Omaggio-Hadley, A. (2001). Teaching language in context (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  157 O’Rourke, B. (2005). Form–focused interaction in online tandem learning. CALICO Journal, 22(3), 433–466. Osborn, T. (2006). Teaching world languages for social justice. A sourcebook of principles and practices. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2011). 21st century skills map: World languages. Washington, DC: Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Retrieved August 22, 2013 from http://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/21stCentury-skillsMap/ p21_worldlanguagesmap.pdf Paesani, K., & Allen, H. (2012). Beyond the language-content divide: Research on advanced foreign language instruction at the postsecondary level. Foreign Language Annals, 45, 54–75. Paige, R. M., Jacobs-Cassuto, M., Yershova, Y. A., & DeJaeghere, J. (2003). Assessing intercultural sensitivity: An empirical analysis of the Intercultural Development Inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 467–486. Phillips, J., & Abbott, M. (2011). A decade of standards: Impact, influence, and future directions. Retrieved September 12, 2013, from http://www.actfl.org/ sites/default/files/pdfs/public/national-standards-2011.pdf Phillips, J. K., & Lafayette, R. C. (1996). Reactions to the catalyst: Implications for our new professional structure. In R. C. Lafayette (Ed.), National standards: A catalyst for reform (pp. 197–209). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook. Pufahl, I., & Rhodes, N. (2011). Foreign language instruction in U.S. Schools: Results of a national survey of elementary and secondary schools. Foreign Language Annals, 44(2), 258–288. Reeser, T. W. (2003). Teaching French cultural analysis: A dialogic approach. The French Review, 76, 772–785. Risager, K. (2006). Language and culture: Global flows and local complexity. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Robin-Stuart, G., & Nocon, H. (1996). Second culture acquisition: Ethnography in the foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 4, 431–439. Ruben, B. D. (1976). Assessing communication competency for intercultural adaptation. Group and Organization Studies, 1, 334–354. Ruben, B. D. (1989). The study of cross–cultural competence: Traditions and contemporary issues. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13, 229–240. Ruben, B. D., & Kealey, D. (1979). Behavioral assessment of communication competency and the prediction of cross-cultural adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 3, 15–48. Sampson, D. L., & Smith, H. P. (1957). A scale to measure world-minded attitudes. Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 99–106. Savignon S., & Rothmeier, W. (2004). Computer-mediated communication strategies. CALICO Journal, 21(2), 265–290. Savignon, S., & Sysoyev, P. (2005). Cultures and comparisons: Strategies for learners. Foreign Language Annals, 38(3), 357–366. Schmidt, R. (2006). Political theory and language policy. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 95–110). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

158  P. Garrett-Rucks Schulz, R. (2006). Reevaluating communicative competence as a major goal in postsecondary language requirement courses. Modern Language Journal, 90, 252–255. Schulz, R. A., LaLande, J. F., II, Dykstra-Pruim, P., Zimmer-Loew, H., & James, C. J. (2005). In pursuit of cultural competence in the German language classroom. Die Unterrichtspraxis Teaching German, 38(2), 172–181. Schumann, J. H. (1978). The pidginization process: A model for second language acquisition. Rowley: Newbury House. Schumann, J. H. (1998). The neurobiology of affect in language (Language Learning Monograph Series). Ann Arbor, MI: Blackwell. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical test in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp 1–65). New York, NY: Academic Press. Seelye, H. N. (1993). Teaching culture: Strategies for intercultural communication. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company. Sercu, L. (2005) Foreign language teachers and intercultural competence: An international investigation. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Shohamy, E. (2003). Implications of language education policies for language study in schools and universities. Modern Language Journal, 87, 278–286. Shweder, R. A., Haidt, J., Horton, R., & Joseph, C. (2008). The cultural psychology of the emotions: Ancient and renewed. In M. Lewis, J. M. Haviland-Jones, & L. Feldman Barrett (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 409–427). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Singerman, A., Nostrand, H., & Grundstrom, A. (Eds.). (1996). Acquiring crosscultural competence: Four stages for students of French. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Slobin, D. I. (Ed.). (1967). A field manual for cross-cultural study of the acquisition of communicative competence. Berkeley, CA: Language Behavior Research Laboratory. Slobin, D. (1973). Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In C. Ferguson & D. Slobin (Eds.), Studies of child language development (pp. 175– 210). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Smith, A. D. (1991). National identity. Reno, NV: University of Nevada Press. Spaulding, S., Mauch, J., & Lin, L. (2001). The Internationalization of higher education: Policy and program issues. In P. O’Meara, H. Mehlinger, & R. Newman (Eds.), Changing perspectives in international education (pp. 190–212). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Stephen, W. G., & Stephen, C. W. (1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social Issues, 41, 157–176. Straffon, D. A. (2003). Assessing the intercultural sensitivity of high school students attending an international school. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 487–501. Stromquist, N. (2007). Internationalization as a response to globalization: Radical shifts in university environments. Higher Education, 53(1), 61–105.

Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning  159 Terantino, J. (2011). YouTube for foreign languages: You have to see this video. Language Learning & Technology 15(1), 10–16. Retrieved from http://llt.msu. edu/issues/february2011/emerging.pdf Terry, R. (2011). The national standards at the postsecondary level: A blueprint and framework for change. In V. M. Scott (Ed.), Principles and practices of the Standards in college foreign language education (pp. 17–28). Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage Learning. Thorne, S. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 38–67. Thune, T., & Welle-Strand, A. (2005). ICT for and in internationalization processes: A business school case study. Higher Education, 50(4), 593–611. Tochon, F. (2009). The key to global understanding: World languages education— Why schools need to adapt. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 650–682. Torres, L., & Rollock, D. (2007). Acculturation and depression among Hispanics: The moderating effect of intercultural competence. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13, 10–17. Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder CO: Westview. Trimnell, E. (2005). Why you need a foreign language and how to learn one. New York, NY: Beechmont Crest. Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1998). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural diversity in business (2nd ed.). London, England: McGrawHill. Troyan, F. (2012). National standards for foreign language learning: Defining the constructs and researching learner outcomes. Foreign Language Annals, 45(supplement 1), 118–140. Tsui, A., & Tollefson, L. (2007). Language policy, culture, and identity in Asian contexts. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Twombly, S. B. (1995). Piropos and friendships: Gender and culture clash in study abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 1, 1–27. Urlaub, P. (2012). Understanding comprehension: Hermeneutics, literature, and culture in collegiate foreign language education. In G. S. Levine & A. Phipps (Eds.), Critical and intercultural theory and language pedagogy (pp. 57–75). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. U.S. Department of Defense. (2005). Defense language transformation road map. Washington, DC. Retrieved August 14, 2014, from http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/ tr/fulltext/u2/b313370.pdf U.S. Department of Education. (2008). National Security Language Initiative (NSLI) Brochure. Retrieved August 14, 2014, from https://www.aau.edu/WorkArea/ DownloadAsset.aspx?id=2156 van Ek, J. A. (1976). Significance of the threshold-level in the early teaching of modern languages. Council of Europe: Symposium on Modern Languages in Primary Education. Bakkerne, Holte. van Ek, J. A. (1986). Objectives for foreign language learning (Vol. 1). Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe. von der Emde, S., Schneider, J., & Kötter, M. (2001). Technically speaking: Transforming language learning environments through virtual learning environments (MOOs). Modern Language Journal, 85, 210–255.

160  P. Garrett-Rucks Verdaguer, P. (1996). La France vue par l’Amérique: Considérations sur la pérennité des stéreotypes [France is seen by America: Considerations on the sustainability of stereotypes]. Contemporary French Civilization, 20(2), 240–277. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wade, E. (2005). Enhancing German language learners’ intercultural communicative competence through the on-line exchange project ICE (doctoral dissertation). University of California, Santa Barbara. Ware, P. (2005). “Missed” communication in online communication: Tensions in a German-American telecollaboration. Language Learning and Technology, 9(2), 64–89. Ware, P., & Kramsch, C. (2005). Toward an intercultural stance: Teaching German and English through telecollaboration. Modern Language Journal, 89(2), 190–205. Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13, 7–25. Warschauer, M. (1999). Electronic literacies: Language, culture, and power in online education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Warschauer, M., Shetzer, H., & Meloni, C. (2000). Internet for English teaching. Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Watson-Gegeo, (2004). Mind, language, and epistemology: Toward a language socialization paradigm for SLA. Modern Language Journal, 88(3), 331–350. Wellmon, C. (2008). Languages, cultural studies, and the futures of foreign language education. Modern Language Journal, 92, 292–295. Widdowson, H. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Williams, T. R. (2005). Exploring the impact of study abroad on students’ intercultural communication skills: Adaptability and sensitivity. Journal of Studies in International Education, 9(4), 356–371. Woodin, J. (2001). Tandem learning as an intercultural activity. In M. Byram, A. Nichols, & D. Stevens (Eds.), Developing intercultural competence in practice (pp. 189–202). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Zarate, G. (1996). Enseigner une culture etrangère [Teaching a foreign culture]. Paris: CLE International. Zielinksi, B. A. Z. (2007). Study abroad length of program influence on cross-cultural adaptability (Unpublished master’s thesis). Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. Zimmer-Loew, H. (2008). An audacious goal: Recruiting, preparing, and retaining high-quality language teachers in the 21st century. Modern Language Journal, 92, 625–628.

About the Author Paula Garrett-Rucks holds a K–12 teaching credential for French and English as a Second Language, a MA in Contemporary French Culture, a MET in Educational Technology and a PhD in Second Language Acquisition—an interdisciplinary degree from the departments of Applied Linguistics, Cognitive Psychology, Curriculum and Instruction and French at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Prior to her graduate studies, Dr. Garrett-Rucks taught French, Spanish, ESL and Honors Biology courses at a charter high school in California. Prior to teaching high school, Dr. Garrett-Rucks pursued research in Neurobiology and Wildlife Biology in Kenya, Yosemite and at the University of California San Diego. Her doctorate degree in Second Language Acquisition affords her the opportunity to combine her interests and training in the sciences and foreign language (FL) learning. Dr. Garrett-Rucks is an active researcher in the teaching and learning of foreign languages and cultures, second language reading comprehension and FL teacher training. Her publications center on the formation of learners’ cultural perceptions and stereotypes, the role of affect in second  language learning and the use of hypermedia texts to facilitate second language reading comprehension. Her work appears in venues such as the Modern Language Journal, Foreign Language Annals, the French Review,



161

162  P. Garrett-Rucks

the Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium Journal and the International Journal of Intercultural Relations. Dr. Garrett-Rucks has presented her papers nationally and internationally at venues such as AAAL, AILA, ACTFL, CERCLL, and SLRF in addition to having conducted multiple workshops and presentations at the local and state levels. She serves as editor for Dimension Journal and as a reviewer for peer-reviewed scholarly journals such as the Modern Language Journal, Language Learning, Computer Assisted Language Learning and Foreign Language Annals among others. She also serves as Secretary for the ACTFL Teaching and Learning of Cultures Significant Interest Group where she started and continues to edit the quarterly newsletter. Dr. Garrett-Rucks currently teaches at Georgia State University in the Department of World Languages and Cultures and works directly with students in the Foreign Language Teacher Education Program.