5/5/2010

1

Just HOW Are Students Different After Study Abroad?

NAFSA International Conference, May 2010Kansas City, MO

Jessica DuPlaga Jerrod HansenStudy Abroad Italy/The College of Wooster Osaka Jogakuin College

Lindsey Parsons, Ed.D. Valeriya SpektorTower Wealth Management, LLC The College of Wooster

Alvino Fantini, Ph.D.SIT Graduate Institute

Virginia Wickline, Ph.D. Miami University - Middletown

Today’s Agenda• Introduction (5-8 mins)

• Virginia Wickline• Research (30-35 mins)

• Alvino Fantini (in absentia)• The Development of Intercultural Competence

• Jerrod Hansen• Japanese Abroad: What Happened & Why

• Lindsey Parsons• The Effects of the Internationalization of Universities on

Domestic Students• Jessica DuPlaga, Valeriya Spektor & Virginia Wickline

• Using the Global Perspective Inventory to Assess Student Development as a Result of Study Abroad

• Roundtable break-out sessions (30 mins)• Two sessions with panelists• Switch after 15 minutes

• Large group follow-up (if time)

Contact Hypothesis (Allport, 1954)

• AKA Intergroup Contact Theory (Pettigrew, 1998)

• When 2 groups interact, bias can be reduced• Changes "Us" and "Them" into "We”• Works in myriad situations (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006)

• Can study abroad make people: • Better global citizens? • More open minded?• More culturally knowledgeable?• More culturally appropriate?• More culturally sensitive?

3

5/5/2010

2

Study Abroad: Cautions

• Study abroad does NOT impact everyone• Just going (exposure alone) often not

sufficient (Pedersen, 2010; Vande Berg, Balkcum, Scheid, & Whalen, 2006)

• Students’ expectations not always met(Zamastil-Vondrova, 2003)

• Most studies lack a control group of students who don’t study abroad or even pre-post comparisons

4

Study Abroad: Impact

• Study abroad CAN change students (even short term) • Intercultural effectiveness (Pedersen, 2010)

• Intercultural sensitivity (Engle & Engle, 2003, 2004; Kitsantas, 2002; Medina-Lopez-Portillo, 2004; Zamastil-Vondrova, 2003)

• Language acquisition (Mendelson, 2004)

• Cross-cultural adaptability (Kitsantas, 2002)

• Our studies are further evidence of impact

5

Japanese Abroad:What Happened

& WhyJerrod Hansen

Osaka Jogakuin College

5/5/2010

3

Two Groups

• High School (H.S.)• 1 year• Homestay• 1-4 students per H.S.• Standard Enrollment

7

Methods

• Longitudinal Interview • Japanese language• College

• Abroad, reentry, 6 months

• H.S.• Pre-test and post-test

8

Immersion?

• H.S. = “Deep” Immersion• Solo homestay, few Japanese, 1 year,

standard enrollment• Standard scenario

• College = “Low” Immersion• Large group, low English, 5.5 months,

separate classes• “Worst case” scenario

9

5/5/2010

4

Results

• College Students• Consistent and significant reevaluation of

personal life and future• Awareness of foreigners’ position in Japan• New awareness of Japan (Japan is

“different”)• Critical awareness in some

10

Results

• H.S. Students• English development• Few new perceptions of Japan• Few re-evaluations of one’s future• Slipped back into pre-departure lifestyle and

roles

11

Results: What Happened?

• Shorter term, low immersion college students

• Relatively greater effects than longer term high school students

• 22 weeks had greater effect on college students than 52 weeks did on H.S. students

12

5/5/2010

5

Mitigating Factors

• Positive group effects• Physical environment

• Climate• Attractions• Mobility

• Schedule• Host family relations

13

Group Size Effects (College)

• Large group discussion amplified experiences• Continued during re-entry• Greater awareness and reflection

14

Schedule (H.S.)

• 1 year = 5 (frigid) months + 3 months + 4 (new school year) months• Broken into discrete periods, reducing

cumulative effect of living abroad• Summer months without easy contact with

friends

15

5/5/2010

6

Climate & Environment

• H.S.• Frigid (Alberta)• Rural• Homestay family-centric• Restricted lifestyle

16

Climate & Environment

• College• Temperate (Pacific NW)• Picturesque • Campus-centered

• Observation• Some freedom

17

Access to Contact

• Homestay bound• Passive "do as is expected" lifestyle• “Visitor” mentality

• Observation of campus life• Freedom to explore as "adults“• Small experiences with big significance

18

5/5/2010

7

Homestay Family

• Family primary social contact• Determines quality of cultural experience

• Great, OK, Terrible• Great Families are great• OK families are endurable but lacking• Terrible families lead to a change

19

Homestay Family

• Great families had great effect• Many students ended up in OK families

• Often left on their own• OK families had minimal (OK) effect

20

Age??

• College vs. H.S.• Maturity• Natural age roles

• Reflection and consideration of future

• Re-entry• Entrance exam focus (H.S.)• Future job hunting (college)

21

5/5/2010

8

Maximize Learning and Development Via Explicit and

Proactive Instruction• Pre-departure

• Exercises, teaching, simulations

• While abroad• Oversight, contact, and journals

• Re-entry• Reflection, journal review

22

The Effects of the Internationalization of

Universities on Domestic Students

R. Lindsey Parsons, EdD

Theoretical Background

• Worldmindedness [Barrows (1981) Survey of Global Understanding]• International Knowledge• Attitudes and Perceptions• Language

• Hett (1994) Scale of Global-Mindedness• Affective scale• Methodology for scale development

24

5/5/2010

9

Instrument Sections

• Background information• Six scales:

• Foreign Language Proficiency• Knowledge of a Specific Region or Country• International Knowledge• Affective sections

• International Attitudes and Perceptions (3 subscales)

• Cross-cultural Skills (3 subscales)• International Behaviors (4 subscales)

25

Instrument Design

• Language: Stanford FLOSEM + separately validated reading and writing scales (based on ACTFL proficiency guidelines)• Pilot tested on 61 Australian college students• Correlations between student performance and

teacher evaluations were significant (p<.01) on both scales

• Knowledge of a specific region or country: Self-rating scale with content validation by international education professionals

26

Instrument Design

• International Knowledge• Subset of Barrows (1981) + several new

questions (multiple choice)• 2 rounds of pilot testing (72, then 42

Australian students) • Factor analysis revealed single factor

structure, 20 questions (� = .80)

27

5/5/2010

10

Instrument Design

• Affective scales• Lists of topics consolidated into 3 sections

with definitions, content validation from international education professionals

• Questions composed by researcher, content validation by same professionals

• Pilot tested on 215 students in U.S. and Australia

28

Instrument Design• Construct validity through correlation to

subset of Barrows (1981) scale of Attitudes and Perceptions

• Factor analysis resulted in 3 scales with single factor structures: • International Attitudes and Perceptions -

18 questions (� = .89)• Cross-Cultural Skills - 15 questions (� = .87)• International Behaviors - 16 questions

(� = .87)29

Participants• 1302 first and final year students at 1 Australian

and 2 U.S. universities (return rate: 4.96%)• 64.5% from Griffith University• 17% from Kennesaw State University• 18.5% from Buffalo State

• Nationality• 64.5% Australian• 35.5% U.S.

• Sex• 29.2% male• 70.8% female 30

5/5/2010

11

Statistical Tests

• p < .001• MANOVAs• Kruskal-Wallis (non-parametric) for the scales

in which the Levene’s test for homogeneity of variance was significant at the p < .01 level

31

Significant ResultsForeign

Language Proficiency

Knowledge of a Specific

Region or Country

InternationalKnowledge

InternationalAttitudes andPerceptions

Cross-Cultural Skills

International Behaviors

Study Abroad

Travel Abroad

Academic Involve-

ment

Intercultural Curiosity &

Involvement

Charitable Involve-

ment

Political Involve-

ment

Intercultural Cooperation

and Teamwork

Intercultural Friendship

Behavioral Flexibility

Global Interdepen-

dence & Cooperation

Cultural Pluralism

Cultural & National

Self-Awareness

Travel to a Developing

Country

Non-Significant Results• NO significant results among study abroad students for:

• Level of school during study abroad • Elementary• Middle• High• Technical, vocational or language school• University

• Duration of study abroad program • < 4 weeks• 4-8 weeks• 8 weeks – 1 semester• 1 semester – 1 AY• > 1 AY

• Number of study abroad experiences • (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or more) 33

5/5/2010

12

Non-Significant Results

• NO significant results among study abroad students for level of immersion• Studied and lived with people from home country• Studied with people from home country but lived

with people from host country• Studied with international students and lived with

international students or people from home country• Studied with international students and lived with

people from host country• Studied with people from host country

34

Other Significant Results

• Other Travel Abroad• Age: 18 and older significantly higher than

0-4, 5-9, 10-13, 14-17 (4 scales & subscales)• Number of trips: 4 or more sig. higher than 1

(3 scales & subscales)• Purpose: Holidays or military significantly

lower than lived with family or work or cultural exchange (4 scales & subscales)

35

Other Significant Results

• Other Travel Abroad• Purpose: Holidays or military significantly lower

than volunteer or paid work, an internship, or a cultural exchange (4 scales & subscales)

• Duration: Longer sig. higher than shorter (7 scales & subscales)

• Travel to a Developing Country• Purpose

• Lived with family sig. higher than tourism or military (2 scales)

• Tourism or military sig. lower than all other purposes (Foreign Language Proficiency) 36

5/5/2010

13

Publications

• Parsons, R. L. (2007). The effects of the internationalisation of universities on domestic students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

• Parsons, R. L. (2010). The Effects of an Internationalized University Experience on Domestic Students in the U.S. and Australia. Journal of Studies in International Education.

37

A Global Perspective

Using the Global Perspective Inventory to Assess Student Development as a Result of

Study Abroad

Jessica DuPlaga & Valeriya SpektorStudy Abroad Italy/The College of Wooster

Virginia Wickline, Ph.D.Miami University (Middletown)

The Global Perspectives Inventory (GPI)

���������

�������� ��� ����� �

https://gpi.central.edu/

5/5/2010

14

• Developing a Global Perspective is a multi-dimensional, holistic developmental process

• Three scales:• Cognitive: Knowing (development) and Knowledge

(acquisition)• Intrapersonal: Identity (development) and Affect

(acquisition)• Interpersonal: Social Responsibility

(development) and Social Interaction(acquisition)

The Global Perspectives Inventory (GPI)

Why the GPI?

• Holistic student development theory• Matches Wooster’s goals for off-campus

study• Short, simple, budget-friendly• Can be used outside of the OCS office• Opportunity to compare to other

institutions• 3 x 4 matrix to use results

Note. *Significant at p < .05

0.0 1.1 2.3 3.4 4.5

Identity

Responsibility

Interaction

Affect

Knowledge

Knowing

Control Pre-test Post-test

*

*

*

*

*

GPI: Cross-Sectional Results (Fall 2008)

5/5/2010

15

GPI: Cross-Sectional Results (Fall 2008)

• How did they change?• Control group lower than pre- and post-test groups,

but pre- & post-test groups not significantly different.• Students with certain characteristics, or levels of cognitive,

intrapersonal and interpersonal development, choose to study abroad.

• Results on the Cognitive Knowledge scale show significant difference between pre- & post-tests.

• The Wooster student is focused on academics, independent learning and critical thinking.

• Students are encouraged to integrate the experience academically.

43

GPI: Cross-Sectional Results(Fall 2009)

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Global Citizenship

Well-Being

Social Responsibility

Social Interaction

Intrapersonal Identity

Knowledge

Knowing

Control Pre-test Post-test

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Note. *p < .05

GPI: Cross-Sectional Results (Fall 2009)

• How did they change?• Control group lower than pre- & post-test

groups, but pre- & post-test groups not significantly different.

• Students with certain characteristics, or levels of cognitive, intrapersonal and interpersonal development, choose to study abroad.

45

5/5/2010

16

GPI: Longitudinal Results

3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0

Global Citizenship

Well Being

Social Responsibility

Social Integration

Intrapersonal Identity

Knowledge

Knowing

Pre-TestPost-Test

Note. *p < .05

*

Goals/Expectations vs. Perceived Benefits (Longitudinal)*

47

*Significant results only, p < .05.

����������������� ���������� � �� � �� ��� �� �� ��� � ����� � ����� �

48*Significant results only, p < .05.

5/5/2010

17

� ����� � ������ ��� �� �•��������� � � �������� �������� � ����� �! �"!� #%$!���!&'� (�"!����) � *+#-,�$�./"�(0#-) 1!��) 2�) 3��!���) ��3�� "��-#%"�4� 56��,�"!�-#%3��!& "-#0��$��7#-) 1!��) 2�) 3��!���98%:�;������ "!��(-##-,�$�./"�(03�,��!��1�"�4� <�& ��,�$!;�1!,���3���(�"7=>) 3+1�$��!& #+./"!� ">) => �$!� � �!���!) ���,�"?:�"�1!) ����) ��1�8@#@��;�(�"!��� #+(!) #%3�$�A�"!� "�(���,����(�"�A�"!& $! -=B"!���!) �0$���,�"!�7�!� "��-#�CD"�4 1�4) ����� �! �"!� #%$!���!&E) (�"!����) � *%FG./�-#+#-) 1!��) 2�) 3��!���94� H ��;�(�"!��� #61��!) �?:�"�� � "!�G;���(�"!� #@� �!��(!) ��10$�2-��,�"!) �$�.+�B �"!� #- �"�3'��) A�"0$!�+��,�"JIK4 H�4 </4

49

� ����� � ������ ��� �� �•��������� � � �������� �������L MONDP%Q-R7S@N TKU7V RBV R-U-Q%W/N X�Y%X7Z P-S@N R-R7V�[�\-P@N�Q-X7S�] N^ R7V _@R7` Y%R/NDa%U%N�NDa%R%W+Q-X�T�X!bced7fhg ikjml�n jEo pqf@rksmt uEj@n�g ikj@t n-vEw xEpqj/t reg ikj�y@w f@zkx@wpqf@{�{�|ErEt g lm}

L MONDP%Q-R7S@N T ^ R7V _@R7` Y%R�U0~-U7` S�` S��@S%X%�6Z R-Q-~-R�U7\%X7P@NNDa%R7` V7a%X�T'N�_@X7P-S@NDV W�bL �K� � ��_@U7� ^ P�T�T'NDP%Q%W�` T+U7S�` S%Q7` Y-` Q7P%U7ZkU-_EN�NDa%U%NGa%U�T^ R7V T�X7S%U7ZqR%� � R-_EN T6X7S+R-U-_%a6T'NDP%Q-R7S@N7� _%V X�T@T@�T�R-_END` X7S%U7Z�Y�T-b%Z X7S%~7` NDP%Q7` S%U7Z �9b

50

� ������ ��� � ������������• �J�O�O���O�7�7�O�7�G�����7���!�7�O�����e�����9�!�������!����O�O�������• �7�����%����� �!�� %�• ¡e� ��¢!� £7¤¦¥G§�£!¨ ��£�©�ª �!«%�• ¬6­ ­�ª ��®?¥G§�£!¨ ��£�©�ª �!«%�• ¯�®!«�ª �!��¥G°�ª ©G¯±��� §�®�²%�• ³e� £���´�ª «�¢

51

5/5/2010

18

Using the Results• How do they change? How can we encourage change?• 3 x 4 Matrix of GPI

MEANS

ENDS

Curriculum Co-Curriculum Community

Cognitive

Intrapersonal

Interpersonal

• Feedback Loop: Administration, Faculty, Assessment/Final Reports, Admissions/Recruitment

Roundtable Discussion

• The 4 panelists will separate into 4 tables• Jerrod Hansen• Lindsey Parsons• Jessica DuPlaga: A service-provider’s perspective

on the GPI and its application• Virginia Wickline: A research (statistical)

perspective on the GPI & other assessment options

• Join one panelist for the 1st 15 minutes• Join another for the 2nd 15 minutes

53

References/Suggested Readings• Allport, G.W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Oxford, England: Addison-

Wesley.• Barrows, T. S. (1981). College Students' Knowledge and Beliefs: A Survey of

Global Understanding. New Rochelle, NY: Change Magazine Press.• Braskamp, L., Braskamp, D., & Merrill, K.C. (2010). Global Perspectives

Inventory. Retrieved May 3, 2010 from https://gpi.central.edu/• Chieffo, L., & Griffiths, L. (2004). Large-scale assessment of attitudes after a

short-term study abroad program. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10(10), 165-177. Retrieved April 22, 2010 from http://www.frontiersjournal.com/issues/vol10/vol10-10_ChieffoGriffiths.pdf

• Engle, J., & Engle, L. (2003). Study abroad levels: Toward a classification of program types. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 9(1), 1-20. Retrieved April 22, 2010 from http://www.frontiersjournal.com/issues/vol9/vol9-01_engleengle.pdf

• Engle, J., & Engle, L. (2004). Assessing language acquisition and intercultural sensitivity development in relation to study abroad program design. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10(13), 219-236. Retrieved April 22, 2010 from http://www.frontiersjournal.com/issues/vol10/vol10-13_EngleEngle.pdf

5/5/2010

19

References/Suggested Readings• Hett, E. J. (1994). The development of an instrument to measure

global-mindedness. (Doctoral dissertation, University of San Diego, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts International, 54/10, 3724.

• Kitsansas, A. (2002). Studying abroad: The role of college students’ goals on the development of cross-cultural skills and global understanding. College Student Journal. Retrieved April 22, 2010 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCR/is_3_38/ai_n6249230/

• Medina-Lopez-Portillo, A. (2004). Intercultural learning assessment: The link between program duration and the development of intercultural sensitivity. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10(11), 179-200. Retrieved April 22, 2010 fromhttp://www.frontiersjournal.com/issues/vol10/vol10-11_MedinaLopezPortillo.pdf

• Mendelson, V.G. (2004). “Hindsight is 20/20:” Student perceptions of language learning and the study abroad experience. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10(10), 44-63 . Retrieved April 22, 2010 fromhttp://www.frontiersjournal.com/issues/vol10/vol10-03_Mendelson.pdf

• Nilsson, B. (2003). Internationalisation at home from a Swedishperspective: The case of Malmo. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7, 27-40.

References/Suggested Readings• Parsons, R. L. (2007). The effects of the internationalisation of

universities on domestic students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

• Parsons, R. L. (2010). The effects of an internationalized university experience on domestic students in the U.S. and Australia. Journal of Studies in International Education.

• Pedersen, P.J. (2010). Assessing intercultural effectiveness outcomes in a year-long study abroad program. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34(1), 70-80.

• Pettigrew, T.F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65-85.

• Pettigrew, T.F. & Tropp L.R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783.

• Vande Berg, M.J., Balkcum, A., Scheid, M., & Whalen, B.J. (2006). The Georgetown University Consortium Project: A report at the halfway mark.Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10, 101-116. Retrieved April 22, 2010 from

• Zamastil-Vondrova, K. (2003). Value of short-term study abroad. Unpublished study. Retrieved April 22, 2010 from http://www.academicintl.com/downloads/NAFSA_2004_Zamastil.pdf

1

NAFSA Panel / Just HOW Are People Different after Study Abroad?

“The Development of Intercultural Competence”

Presentation by Alvino E. Fantini, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus, SIT Graduate Institute, Brattleboro, VT 05302

Abstract

This presentation reports on a research project designed to explore a construct of intercultural

competence, develop a tool for its assessment, and identify the intercultural outcomes on

participants and their hosts engaged in intercultural programs. Three countries (Great Britain,

Ecuador, and Switzerland) participated in this study. Initially, a survey of the literature sought to

explicate the nature of intercultural competencies (ICC) -- definitions, characteristics,

components, developmental levels, and the role of language proficiency. This provided the basis

for developing the research tool – the AIC or Assessment of Intercultural Competencies --

which was used to measure and monitor the impact of the experience on sojourners and hosts

through a questionnaire survey followed by direct interviews, providing both quantitative and

qualitative indicators to answer the question: just how people are different after their intercultural

experience?

Overview

Today, the effects of globalization are increasingly obvious. More people around the world now

have both direct and indirect contact than ever before. This situation presents new opportunities

and new challenges for educators working with students going abroad as well as international

students in the U.S. In both cases, we are especially well positioned to help students maximize

the benefits of their intercultural experience.

For this to happen, however, we need to be clear about our professional goal: to prepare students

for positive intercultural participation through effective communication. This means that students

not only need the ability to make themselves understood but also to be accepted behaviorally and

interactionally, especially given that "acceptance" by members of another culture is more often

strained by offending behaviors than incorrect grammar. This insight, in fact, led to the

development of the field of intercultural communication nearly 50 years ago. Today, we need to

rethink not only our goal, but also how we design and implement language courses and prepare

and assist students during an intercultural sojourn. We need to consider carefully how we

develop, measure, and monitor the development of their intercultural competence.

______________________________________________________________________________

© Alvino E. Fantini, Brattleboro, VT, USA 1995; 2000, 2001, 2003, Revised 2010

2

About Intercultural Communicative Competence What exactly is intercultural competence? Although the term is in wide use, little consensus

exists about what it is. Some stress global knowledge, others emphasize sensitivity, and still

others point to certain skills. The definition and characterization of ICC used in this presentation,

however, suggests a more complex phenomenon than any one of these views.

Briefly defined, ICC is a complex of abilities needed to perform effectively and appropriately

when interacting with others who are linguistically and culturally different from oneself.

Whereas “effective” relates to one’s own view of one’s performance in the LC2 (i.e., an “etic” or

an outsider’s view of the host culture); “appropriate” relates to how one’s performance is

perceived by one’s hosts (i.e., an “emic” or insider’s view). Although these perceptions often

differ, it is instructive to compare and contrast them because they arise from differing cultural

approaches to the same situation.

The Components of ICC

As a complex phenomenon, ICC encompasses multiple components which include: 1) a variety

of characteristics, 2) three areas or domains, 3) four dimensions, 4) proficiency in the host

language, and 5) varying levels of attainment throughout a longitudinal and developmental

process.

Traits and Characteristics – It is useful to distinguish traits (i.e., innate personal qualities) from

those acquired characteristics developed later in life that are related to one’s cultural and

situational context – a sort of “nature vs. nurture” distinction. This distinction is important in

training and educational programs because it poses the question: which abilities form part of an

individual’s intrinsic personality and which can be developed or modified through training and

educational efforts? Commonly cited traits and/or characteristics of ICC include: flexibility,

humor, patience, openness, interest, curiosity, empathy, tolerance for ambiguity, and suspending

judgments, among others.

Three Areas or Domains – ICC involves ability in three areas or domains (which, curiously, are

just as relevant to success in one’s own native LC1 as well). These are:

• the ability to establish and maintain relationships;

• the ability to communicate with minimal loss or distortion;

• the ability to collaborate in order to accomplish something of mutual interest or need.

Four Dimensions – ICC also has four dimensions: knowledge, (positive) attitudes/affect, skills,

and awareness. Of these, awareness is central and especially critical to cross-cultural

development. It is enhanced through reflection and introspection in which the individual’s LC1

and the LC2 are contrasted and compared. Awareness differs from knowledge in that it is always

about the “self” vis-à-vis all else in the world (other things, other people, other thoughts, etc.)

and ultimately helps to clarify what is deepest and most relevant to one’s identity. Awareness is

enhanced through developments in knowledge, positive attitudes, and skills while it in turn also

furthers their development.

3

Proficiency in the Host Language – Ability to communicate in the host language greatly

enhances the development of ICC in both quantitative and qualitative ways. Grappling with

another language confronts how one perceives, conceptualizes, and expresses oneself; and, in the

process, it permits the possibility of developing alternative communication strategies on someone

else's terms. This humbling and challenging process facilitates transcending and transforming

how one understands the world. Lack of a second language – even at a minimal level –

constrains one to continue to think about the world and act within it, only in one's native system,

and therefore deprives the individual of one of the most valuable aspects of the intercultural

experience.

Developmental Levels – ICC normally develops over a lengthy and continuing process,

occasionally with moments of stagnation and even regression. Much depends on the strength of

one’s individual motivation (instrumental vs. integrative) with regards to the host culture. For

this reason, various benchmarks can help to monitor and measure one’s progress. Several levels

may be posited to help mark one's journey along the way; for example:

• Level I: Educational Traveler – e.g., participants in short-term exchange programs (1-2

months);

• Level II: Sojourner – participants engaged in extended cultural immersion, e.g., study

abroad, internships of longer duration, etc. (3-9 months);

• Level III: Professional – appropriate for individuals working in intercultural or

multicultural contexts; e.g., staff employed in international institutions or organizations;

• Level IV: Intercultural/Multicultural Specialist – appropriate for trainers and educators

engaged in training, educating, consulting, or advising multinational students

Other levels may be added or substituted as useful, as well as other terms, such as: basic,

intermediate, advanced, native-like (akin to those used in the ACTFL Proficiency Scale).

Assessing Intercultural Competence

Because ICC is a fairly recent notion, the term is sometimes used with varying meanings; or, it is

referred to by other labels such as: global competence, international competence, multicultural

competence, and so forth. The term and definition used here, however, purposely employ the

words “competence” and “performance.” In one view, “competence” is abstract and cannot be

witnessed directly; consequently, it must be inferred by observing how one performs. Hence,

competence and performance are interrelated – one being abstract and the other observable. In

this view, then, one infers competence by observing and monitoring performance, rather than by

talking about it only in abstraction.

Moreover, the criteria on which intercultural competence is sometimes identified, monitored, and

assessed, are not always clear or consistent. To increase clarity and consistency, a pilot

assessment tool was developed. It is known as the Assessment of Intercultural Competence

(AIC), presented in a “YOGA” format, an acronym that stands for "Your Objectives, Guidelines,

and Assessment." This form is intended for use as a guide before, during, and after an

intercultural sojourn by helping to monitor the development of the multiple aspects of one's

intercultural competence. It can assist in three ways: 1) first, to establish and then critically

examine intercultural objectives, 2) to serve as a guide during the intercultural sojourn, and 3) to

4

provide an assessment tool for use at various stages of the process as well as at the end. As such,

the assessment approach is normative, formative, as well as summative.

Background and Rationale

Foreign language and intercultural training and educational programs normally prescribe some

manner of assessing participant performance/competence in a variety of academic and

professional areas. However, educators often overlook or undervalue the most important area –

the development of intercultural competence (ICC). Valuing and evaluating ICC development is

consistent with trends in higher education to include competencies for our global age that go

beyond the academic and professional. This form helps to do just that. It does so by shifting the

focus from teaching to learning, from input to outcome, and from evaluation to development.

Moreover, it engages the learner as partner in the teaching-learning process, consistent with co-

constructive educational approaches.

The AIC Form was compiled in various stages over several years. First, a Task Force at the SIT

Graduate Institute collected empirical observations. These observations were then checked

against a review of the intercultural literature. And, finally, the items contained in the Form were

crosschecked against various other ICC assessment tools.

To date, the Form has been used primarily as a tool to enhance the educational process.

Additional use in field situations, however, will continue to strengthen the instrument’s validity,

allow users to consider their own individual profiles, and permit the establishment of group

norms as additional results are compiled from larger numbers of participants. This approach is

used to learn first what we consider important outcomes, before finalizing and validating the

instrument’s statistical reliability. The instrument will eventually reflect widely agreed-upon

outcomes rather than one that tests only part of ICC or leads down a different path (the "tail

wagging the dog" syndrome). Eventually, the accumulated data will result in establishing norms

for ICC attainment by participants in future programs.

Finally, a few additional thoughts about the construct of this tool: Although this form is about

assessing developmental levels of ICC, its completion is based on both observation and

performance. It is not about what participants think they might do in a given situation, but what

is actually done and observed – by the participants themselves and by others. This responds to

differences between professed intentions (what one thinks or says one might do in a given

situation) and expressed behaviors (what one actually does). Abstract notions about competence

are substantiated by observed behaviors.

Secondly, it is anticipated that few sojourners attain “native-like” behaviors, nor might they

desire to do so. (This is especially true of adults; less so of younger individuals). The

intercultural experience allows but does not demand native-like behavior, recognizing that

individual choices are both complex and personal. Nonetheless, it will help each person to clarify

how far he or she is willing to go and why, and the consequences of their decisions. Often, the

result is a clarification of those values most central to each person and to their identity. Yet, a

minimal expectation for all who embark on an intercultural sojourn, it would seem, must be

understanding and tolerance of the host culture (that will, at the very least, allow the participant

5

to be able to stay), whereas not everyone may also develop similar levels of respect and

appreciation.

The Research Project and Findings

The Project and the Participants

This research effort, conducted by the Federation of The Experiment in International Living (a

network of non-profit exchange programs), was a one and a half year project designed to explore

and assess the impact of intercultural experiences provided through programs conducted as part

of the Volunteers in International Partnerships program. This research project involved two

sending and one receiving Member Organizations: Great Britain, Switzerland, and Ecuador, and

was made possible through a funding grant obtained from the Center for Social Development of

the Global Service Institute at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri.

The project was conducted in several stages: In the initial stage, an extensive survey was

conducted of the intercultural literature as the basis for developing a comprehensive construct of

“intercultural competence” and developing a tool for its assessment. After translating this

instrument into German and Spanish, and adapting it to British English, the tool was used with

several groups – alumni, volunteers, and host mentors. The study was conducted through use of a

survey questionnaire followed by personal interviews, with the assistance of research assistants

employed in each of the three cooperating countries. The result was the production of an

amazing amount of data, which were then analyzed to learn more about the impact of

intercultural experiences on the lives and work of both sojourners and hosts.

Assertions and Findings

Although most people engaged in intercultural exchanges can anticipate the results, this

systematic study yielded rich quantitative data (figures, graphs, and statistics) and qualitative

data (anecdotes, comments, and quotes) that were important and insightful. The analysis of the

data was based on ten assertions, all of which were strongly supported by the evidence:

- that intercultural competence involves a complex of abilities

- that learning the host language affects intercultural development in positive ways

- that intercultural experiences are life-altering

- that participant choices made during their sojourn produce certain intercultural

consequences

- that all parties in intercultural contact are affected

- that service programs offer unique opportunities for sojourners and hosts, beyond

traditional exchanges

- that people are changed in positive ways as a result of this experience

- that returnees lean toward specific life choices, life partners, life styles, values and jobs,

as a result of their experience

- that returnees often engage in activities that further impact on others in positive ways,

and

- that their activities further the organizational mission.

6

Although most every one engaged in intercultural activities believes these assertions intuitively

and perhaps experientially, the statistics and comments obtained provide substantial evidence

that strongly supports all of these assertions. For example, specific attributes were cited as

extremely important to the success of an intercultural experience. Participants gained dramatic

insights about the significance of being able to communicate in the host tongue, both to remove

barriers as well as to enable participation. As one alumna wrote, “Language was the key to

everything, to communicating and understanding the local culture, and to my overall success.”

And another added: “Language was vital and very important to my success”.

Alumni also made numerous comments about how their lives were changed, as well as the new

directions their lives had taken after return. But what is really interesting is that the mentors were

also significantly affected through contact with foreigners, reinforcing the notion that both

sojourners and hosts are changed in the process. As participants return home and engage in

socially oriented activities, it becomes clear that they in turn have significant impact upon others

(the multiplier effect).

Looking Back, Looking Ahead

In the end, this effort served as an initial pilot project to be followed by an expanded research

effort that will eventually involve approximately 26 Member Organizations worldwide. It is clear

that many benefits can accrue to collaborating MOs quite aside from the results obtained. For

example, this project had several effects on participating MOs: a) first of all, it engaged three

Member Organizations in a learning process that will further their efforts in several areas, b) it

improves understanding of and furthers FEIL goals and modus operandi, c) it has the potential to

improve delivery of programs, and d) it may enhance development of the intercultural

competencies of future participants and possibly of their mentors and hosts as well. In addition,

the results clearly also have program design and implementation implications, and ultimately

educational and training benefits, if they are carefully considered and taken into account. Finally,

research efforts also contribute important knowledge to the field of intercultural education

regarding international and intercultural programs, especially as concerned with the

identification, development, assessment, and impact of intercultural competencies on the lives of

all those involved.

For the Complete Report and the AIC

A complete report of this research study, including the AIC, is posted on the FEIL and the World

Learning Websites (with links to each other), and available electronically. See:

- for the Federation EIL: http://www.experiment.org/resources.html

- for World Learning/SIT: http://www.sit.edu/graduate/7803.cfm.

- www.wiche.edu (click on publications and see Working Paper No. 11, “Globalization

and . . . “

7

A Selected Bibliography on Intercultural Competence

Adler, Peter S. 1976. "Beyond Cultural Identity," in Intercultural Communication, edited by

Samovar & Porter. 2nd Edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.

Alptekin, C. January 2002. “Towards Intercultural Communicative Competence” in ELT

Journal 56(1), pps. 57-64.

Bai, R. August 2006. “Foreign Language Teachers and Intercultural Competence: An

International Investigation” in Teachers College Record. New York: 108(8), p.1589.

Bennett, Milton J. 1993. “Towards Ethnorelativism: A Developmental Approach to Training for

Intercultural Sensitivity.” In Education for the Intercultural Experience, ed. R. Michael

Paige. 21-71. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Damen, Louise. 1987. Culture Learning: The Fifth Dimension in the Language Classroom. Reading,

MA: Addison-Wesley.

Deardorff, Darla K. 2009. Handbook on Intercultural Competence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications. Available in September 2009.

Donato R., Fantini A., et al.. 2004. Video, Session 5: Rooted in Culture.

<http://www.learner.org/vod/vod_window.html?pid=2112>

Fantini, Alvino E. 2009. “Assessing Intercultural Competence: Issues and Tools,” in Handbook on

Intercultural Competence, edited by Darla K. Deardorff. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Fantini, Alvino E. 2002. The Intercultural Connection: Global Education in Community

Collages. Warrenton, VA: The Stanley Foundation (Provided position paper on which

this report is based.

Fantini, Alvino E., Fernando Arias-Galicia, & Daniel Guay. 2001. Globalization and 21st

Century Competencies. Working Paper No. 11. Boulder, CO: CONAHEC (Consortium

for North American Higher Education Collaboration.

Fantini, Alvino E. Spring 2000. “A Central Concern: Developing Intercultural Competence,” in

SIT Occasional Papers Series. Brattleboro, VT. <www.sit.edu/publications>

----------, ed. 1997. New Ways in Teaching Culture. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

----------, ed. Spring 1995. Special Issue: Language, Culture & World View. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, Vol 19, No 2. New York, NY: Pergamon.

8

----------, ed. 1984. Cross-Cultural Orientation: A Guide for Leaders and Educators. Brattleboro,

VT: The Bookstore, School for International Training.

----------., ed. 1984. A Field Guide to Language Acquisition and Culture Exploration. Brattleboro,

VT: The Bookstore, School for International Training.

----------. 1985. Language Acquisition of a Bilingual Child. Clevedon, Avon, England: Multilingual

Matters; also 1982. La adquisición de lenguaje en un niño bilingüe. Barcelona, Spain:

Editorial Herder. Both available from The Bookstore, School for International Training,

Brattleboro, VT 05302.

Gochenour, Theodore, ed. 1993. Beyond Experience: The Experiential Approach to Cross-

Cultural Education. Second edition. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Huntington, Samuel P. 1999-2000. Culture Matters. Harvard Conference on Culture.

Boston, MA: Harvard University.

Kealey, Daniel J. 1990. Cross-cultural Effectiveness. Hull, Quebec, Canada: Canadian International

Development Agency.

.

Kohls, L. Robert. 1979. Survival Kit for Overseas Living. Chicago, IL: Intercultural Network,

SYSTRAN Publications.

---------- & John M. Knight. 1994. Developing Intercultural Awareness. Yarmouth, ME:

Intercultural Press, Yarmouth.

Littlemore, J., & Low, G. June 2006. “Metaphoric Competence, Second Language

Learning, and Communicative Language Ability” in Applied Linguistics. London:

27(2), pg. 268.

Lusting, Myron W. & Jolene Koester. 1993. Intercultural Competence. New York: Harper Collins.

Martin, Judith N. & Nakayama, Thomas K. 2000. Intercultural Communication in Contexts.

2nd Edition. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.

Phillips, June K. 1999. Foreign Language Standards: Linking Research, Theories, and Practices.

Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Co.

Samovar, Larry A. & Richard E. Porter. 1991. Intercultural Communcation: A Reader. 6th Edition,

Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.

Samovar, Larry A. & Richard E. Porter. 1991. Communication between Cultures. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth Publishing Co.

Sercu, Lies. 2002. “Autonomous Learning and the Acquisition of Intercultural

9

Communicative Competence: Some Implications for Course Development” in

Language, Culture and Curriculum. 15(1), pps. 61-74.

Sheth, A., Southard, S., & Bates, C. Februry 2002. “Promoting Intercultural

Communicative Competence through Foreign Language Courses” in Technical

Communication. 52(1), pg. 105.

Witteborn, S. 2003, Sep/Dec. “Communicative Competence Revisited: An Emic

Approach to Studying Intercultural Communicative Competence” in Journal of

Intercultural Communicative Research. 32(3/4), pps. 187-203.

Bio-sketch

Dr. Alvino E. Fantini holds degrees in anthropology and applied linguistics. He is professor

emeritus at the SIT Graduate Institute in Vermont and a recent graduate faculty member at

Matsuyama University, Japan. He has been involved in intercultural communication and

language education for over 40 years in the U.S. and abroad and served as Advisory Panel

member to develop the National Foreign Language Standards for U.S. education. He has

conducted significant research and published widely, including Exploring and Assessing

Intercultural Competence, Language Acquisition of a Bilingual Child, and New Ways in

Teaching Culture. Fantini is a past president of SIETAR International and recipient of its highest

award.