PhD Dissertation Example 1

INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE IN CHINESE LANGUAGE PROGRAMS: CURRICULUM DESIGN AND INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate School University of Arkansas at Little Rock in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION in Higher Education in the Department of Educational Leadership of the College of Education and Health Professions May 2017 Li Cao B.A., Dalian University of Foreign Languages, China, 2004 M.A., Dalian University of Foreign Languages, China, 2008

ProQuest Number: 10278556     All rights reserved  INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.  In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.      ProQuest 10278556  Published by ProQuest LLC (2017). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.   All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.   ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

© Copyright by Li Cao 2017

This dissertation, “Intercultural Communicative Competence in Chinese Language Programs: Curriculum Design and Instructional Strategies,” by Li Cao, is approved by: Dissertation Chairman: Thomas Gregory Barrett Professor of Higher Education Dissertation Committee: John Kuykendall Associate Professor of Higher Education Bronwyn MacFarlane Professor of Gifted Education Carolyn Pearson Professor of Measurement and Evaluation Andrew Deiser Associate Professor of Spanish Program Coordinator: John Kuykendall Associate Professor of Higher Education Interim Graduate Dean: Abhijit Bhattacharyya Professor of Systems Engineering

Fair Use This dissertation is protected by the Copyright Laws of the United States (Public Law 94-553, revised in 1976). Consistent with fair use as defined in the Copyright Laws, brief quotations from this material are allowed with proper acknowledgement. Use of this material for financial gain without the author’s express written permission is not allowed. Duplication I authorize the Head of Interlibrary Loan or the Head of Archives at the Ottenheimer Library at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock to arrange for duplication of this dissertation for educational or scholarly purposes when so requested by a library user. The duplication will be at the user’s expense.

INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE IN CHINESE LANGUAGE PROGRAM: CURRICULUM DESIGN AND INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES by Li Cao, May 2017 ABSTRACT The qualitative two case comparisons study explored the effect of different curricular models and instructional strategies on increasing learners’ intercultural communicative competence in two Chinese programs at two American universities. There were five student participants and three faculty members in a Confucius Institute program in a public university and five student participants and one faculty member in a traditional Chinese language acquisition program in small private baccalaureate college. Participants were interviewed for one hour individually on curricular models, instructional strategies and intercultural communicative competence. Student participants took the CCAI assessment before their interviews. The scores of the assessment indicated that the students in the private institution achieved higher scores than the students in the public university. However, neither of the two programs have a specific curricular model to increase students’ intercultural communicative competence at novice level. Some effective instructional strategies and successful extra-curricular activities were recommended from the faculty members’ and the students’ points of view.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I would like to thank God for his blessings to me and my family. I would like to thank my family for always being with me, supporting me, putting up with me, and believe in me that someday I will become Dr. Cao. My mother and father came from China to help me and my husband, taking wonderful care of my two sons. They also take care of cooking, cleaning, mowing, and more. My husband is my first-round editor and never complains about his unpaid job. I would like to thank my family friend, Dr. George Wolford. He has been my motivator and my mentor in completing my doctorate. He is my second-round editor. In his words, money, houses, jobs, and other belongs could be taken away, but once you become a doctor, nobody can take away the degree from you. It is yours and forever yours. I would like to thank my dissertation committee, Dr. Thomas Gregory Barrett, Dr. John Kuykendall, Dr. Bronwyn MacFarlane, Dr. Andrew Deiser, and Dr. Carolyn Pearson. Your dedication and commitment to my dissertation is immeasurable. Dr. Barrett, my chair of the committee, my advisor, like my father, I really appreciate that he guides me and he never forgets to push me through this process. Special thanks to Dr. Carolyn Pearson in heaven, with her help, my research design went smoothly and efficiently. I would like to thank all participants for taking part in the research. I would like to thank all my friends who have encouraged me, inspired me, and supported me in all ways. Finally, to the people still working on their doctoral degree, “You can give up a little, but do not give up all” by Dr. Diane Gilleland.

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Office of Research and Graduate Studies Institutional Review Board TO: Li Cao/Dr. T. Gregory Barrett, Advisor CC: FROM: Angela Willis, Interim Research Compliance Officer Dr. Elisabeth Sherwin, IRB Chair DATE: UALR Institutional Review Board RE: November 19, 2015 IRB Request for Review Thank you for your recent Institutional Review Board Request for Review of Protocol # 16-036 entitled, “Intercultural Competence in Chinese Language Classrooms.” Your protocol has been approved. I have reviewed this request and find that it meets the IRB’s criteria for protection of human participants. Your project end date is November 18, 2016 and you are free to continue with data collection. You will need to submit a modification and CITI forms for anyone who accesses your data. If this study continues unchanged past the project end date, you will need to submit a Request for Continuing Review. If there are changes to the research design or data that is collected, you will need to submit a Request for Review of Modification or Amendment to Approved Research form. Best of luck with your study.

Table of Contents Introduction................................................................................................................................... 1 Issues and Challenges in the Curricula of Foreign Language Programs ............................ 5 Issues and Challenges in the Curricula of Chinese Language Programs ............................ 8 Research Questions ..................................................................................................................11 Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................... 12 Significance of the Study ........................................................................................................ 13 Chapter 2 ..................................................................................................................................... 15 Literature Review ....................................................................................................................... 15 Curriculum Models of Teaching Culture in Foreign Language Programs ....................... 15 The Additive Model............................................................................................................. 15 Communicative Language Teaching Model ..................................................................... 17 Intercultural Communicative Competence (ICC) Model ............................................... 24 The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages National Culture Standard............................................................................................................................... 32 Instructional Strategies in Teaching Intercultural Communication .................................. 36 Portfolio ............................................................................................................................... 36 Lecture ................................................................................................................................. 38 Semantic Mapping .............................................................................................................. 39 Hands-on Activities ............................................................................................................. 40 Field Trips ............................................................................................................................ 41 Ethnographic Interview...................................................................................................... 42 Culture Capsule .................................................................................................................. 43 viii

Culture Cluster, a Culture Assimilator, and a Culture Mini-drama .............................. 44 Word association ................................................................................................................. 45 Collages Strategy................................................................................................................. 45 Artifact Study ...................................................................................................................... 46 The Assessment of Intercultural Competence ...................................................................... 47 Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory................................................................................. 49 Emotional Resilience Scale................................................................................................. 50 The Flexibility/Openness Scale .......................................................................................... 53 The Perceptual Acuity Scale............................................................................................... 57 The Personal Autonomy Scale ........................................................................................... 61 Summary.................................................................................................................................. 67 CHAPTER 3 ................................................................................................................................ 69 Method ......................................................................................................................................... 69 Conceptual Framework.......................................................................................................... 69 Explanation of Variables of the Conceptual Framework.................................................... 69 Curricular Models............................................................................................................... 69 Instructional Strategies ...................................................................................................... 74 Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory............................................................................. 78 Research Design ...................................................................................................................... 83 Research Questions ................................................................................................................. 84 Selection of Participants ......................................................................................................... 85 Data Collection Procedure ..................................................................................................... 86 Instrumentation....................................................................................................................... 88 ix

Qualitative Data Analysis Plan .............................................................................................. 90 Validity and Reliability ........................................................................................................... 92 Institutional Review Board and Ethical Issues .................................................................... 93 Summary.................................................................................................................................. 94 The Peach University Case......................................................................................................... 96 History Background................................................................................................................ 96 Faculty and Staff ..................................................................................................................... 97 Courses..................................................................................................................................... 97 Findings.................................................................................................................................... 98 Participating Faculty Members ......................................................................................... 98 Analysis of Variables from Faculty Member Interviews..................................................... 99 Curricular Models............................................................................................................... 99 Instructional Strategies .................................................................................................... 107 Cross Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI) ............................................................. 108 Participating Students from the Institution ........................................................................117 Analysis of Variables from Students’ Interviews ................................................................118 Intercultural Competence .................................................................................................118 Instructional Strategies .....................................................................................................119 Emotional Resilience......................................................................................................... 121 The Flexibility/Openness .................................................................................................. 124 The Perceptual Acuity Scale................................................................................................. 125 The Personal Autonomy Scale ......................................................................................... 127 Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI)................................................................. 128 x

Student Participants ......................................................................................................... 128 Characteristics of the Student Participants with High CCAI Scores .......................... 129 CHAPTER 5 .............................................................................................................................. 131 The Orange Institution Case.................................................................................................... 131 Historical Background.......................................................................................................... 131 Faculty.................................................................................................................................... 131 Courses................................................................................................................................... 131 Findings.................................................................................................................................. 132 The Participating Faculty Member ................................................................................. 132 Analysis of Variables from the Faculty Member Interview .............................................. 132 Curricular Models............................................................................................................. 132 Instructional Strategies .................................................................................................... 138 Cross Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI) ................................................................. 139 Emotional Resilience......................................................................................................... 139 The Flexibility/Openness Scale ........................................................................................ 140 The Perceptual Acuity ...................................................................................................... 141 The Personal Autonomy ................................................................................................... 142 Participating Students from the Grape Institution............................................................ 143 Analysis of Variables from Students’ Interviews ............................................................... 145 Intercultural Competence ................................................................................................ 145 Instructional Strategies .................................................................................................... 146 Emotional Resilience......................................................................................................... 147 The Flexibility/Openness Scale ........................................................................................ 150 xi

Perceptual Acuity Scale .................................................................................................... 152 The Personal Autonomy Scale ......................................................................................... 154 Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI)................................................................. 155 Student Participants ......................................................................................................... 155 Characteristics of the Student Participants with High CCAI Scores .............................. 157 Chapter 6 ................................................................................................................................... 158 Cross Case Comparisons of Two Case Studies....................................................................... 158 How do differences in the additive, CLT, ICC, and ACTFL culture standard models influence intercultural competence within novice Chinese language learners with different language educators in the two language programs? .......................................... 159 Curricular Models............................................................................................................. 160 Curricular Models of the Peach Institution.................................................................... 160 Learning Goals in the Orange Institution ...................................................................... 164 How do differences in instructional strategies using portfolios, lectures, semantic mapping, hands-on activities, field trips, ethnographic interviews, culture capsules, culture clusters, culture assimilators, culture mini dramas, word associations, collages strategies, artifact studies, influence intercultural competence within novice Chinese language learners with different language educators in the two language programs? .. 168 Instructional Strategies .................................................................................................... 168 Cultural Perspectives, Practices, and Products ............................................................. 170 Nonverbal cues .................................................................................................................. 171 Empathy............................................................................................................................. 171 xii

How do the perceptions of the language educators and the novice Chinese language learners regarding intercultural competence differ in the two language programs? ..... 172 The Language Educators ................................................................................................. 172 The Novice Chinese Language Learner .......................................................................... 172 What are the characteristics of the novice Chinese language learners with high intercultural competence at the novice level?..................................................................... 173 What is the intercultural competence level for each student participant? ...................... 175 Emerging Issues .................................................................................................................... 176 Instructional Strategies .................................................................................................... 176 Extracurricular Events and Activities............................................................................. 177 Overarching Research Question: ........................................................................................ 181 What curricular models and instructional strategies influence the development of intercultural communicative competence in novice Chinese language learners with Chinese language educators in two types of Chinese language acquisition programs— a Confucius Institute program in a public university and a traditional Chinese language acquisition program in small private baccalaureate college? ........................................... 181 Chapter 7 ................................................................................................................................... 184 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 184 Introduction........................................................................................................................... 184 Summary of the Study .......................................................................................................... 184 Review of Findings ................................................................................................................ 185 Curricular Models............................................................................................................. 185 Instructional Strategies .................................................................................................... 186 xiii

Intercultural Communicative Competence .................................................................... 186 Emerging Issues and Other Considerations ....................................................................... 187 Conceptual Framework........................................................................................................ 187 Final Revision .................................................................................................................... 187 Implications and Recommendations ................................................................................... 187 Implications for Theory........................................................................................................ 189 Implications for Practice ...................................................................................................... 190 Faculty Members .............................................................................................................. 190 Learners ............................................................................................................................. 192 Limitations of the Study ....................................................................................................... 192 Recommendations for Future Research.............................................................................. 192 Final Consideration .............................................................................................................. 193 References .................................................................................................................................. 195 Appendix A ................................................................................................................................ 219 Appendix B ................................................................................................................................ 223 Appendix C ................................................................................................................................ 226 Appendix D ................................................................................................................................ 228 Appendix E ................................................................................................................................ 230 xiv

List of Figures 2.1. An Intercultural View of Culture …………………………………………………………...30 3.1. Conceptual Framework: Expected Model for Intercultural Communicative Competence at the Higher Education Level……………………………………………………………………..70 7.1. Conceptual Framework: Revised Model for Intercultural Communicative Competence at the Higher Education Level………………………………………………………………………..186 xv

List of Tables 2.1. Summary of Definitions of Intercultural Competence .......................................................... 26 2.2. Assessment Criteria for Web Portfolio .................................................................................. 37 2.3. The Differences between Experiential Education and Traditional Education........................40 3.1. Explanations of the Constructs and Operational Definitions for the Independent Variables of Curricular Models in the Conceptual Framework ........................................................................75 3.2. Explanations of the Constructs and Operational Definitions for the Independent Variables of Instructional Strategies in the Conceptual Framework ……………………………………………………………78 3.3. Explanations of the Constructs and Operational Definitions for the Dependent Variable of Intercultural Communicative Competence in the Conceptual Framework……………………...82 3.4. Stanine Equivalents for Raw Scale Scores………………………………………………………...92 4.1. Student Participants’ CCAI Scores from the Peach Institution…………………..……………129 5.1. Student Participants’ CCAI Scores from the Orange Institution………………..………....155 6.3. Comparison of Curricular Models…………………………………………………………155 6.4. Comparison of the Instructional Strategies……………...………………………………...168 xvi

1 CHAPTER 1 Introduction China is the world’s second largest economy and it is increasingly playing an important and influential role in the global economy (The World Bank, 2013). This global economy significantly promotes the increased numbers of people learning the Chinese language and culture. Graddol’s (2006) report showed that 30 million people were studying Mandarin Chinese language worldwide. The Modern Language Association survey results on enrollments in languages other than English in United States institutions of higher education in fall 2013 showed that the number of Chinese language learners has increased by 2.0 % since 2009, up to 61,055. Chinese ranked seventh, after Spanish, French, German, American Sign Language, Italian, and Japanese, in second language acquisition among U.S. students. North American census data revealed that Chinese, including all dialects, was the most widely spoken home language after English and French in Canada and after English and Spanish in the USA (Duff, 2006; Li & Duff, 2008). The first Chinese language class in the United States was taught at Yale University in 1871 (Tsu, 1970). From then on, other institutions began to offer Chinese courses, such as Harvard University in 1879, University of California at Berkeley in 1896, Columbia University in 1901, University of Chicago in 1936, and Stanford University in 1937 (Tsu, 1970). At the early stage of Chinese language education, literary Chinese was instructed in the approach of grammar-translation to the people who were determined to become sinologists or missionaries; therefore, the students were able to read and write, but they were unable to understand and speak the language (Tsu, 1970). In the 1950s, after the Soviet Union successfully launched satellites, the National Defense Education Act was passed to stimulate the teaching of mathematics and

2 teaching of the most neglected foreign languages of Chinese, Japanese, Russian, Arabic, and Hindi (Tsu, 1970). To speed up the learning of the subjects, the Federal government funded grants to establish language and area centers at universities, to award the scholars in those fields for compiling instructional materials or for conducting research, to award faculty members and graduate students who were studying those languages, and to fund overseas institutes or seminars on the subjects (Tsu, 1970). After the passage of the National Defense Education Act, universities that offered Chinese programs started strengthening their programs, and universities that did not have Chinese programs actively started establishing their programs (Tsu, 1970). At that time, the number of universities and colleges that offered Chinese programs increased to more than 100 (Tsu, 1970). One of the most influential Chinese programs is the Language Flagship, initiated by the National Security Education Program. The program was created by the National Security Education Act of 1991 and is administered within the Department of Defense’s Defense Language and National Security Education Office (Language Flagship, 2013). Their general goal is “to empower a small but rapidly expanding group of innovators to develop and implement new models of undergraduate language learning and to diffuse these models throughout higher education” (Language Flagship, 2013). From the government’s perspective, the goal is to “develop both language equipped professionals and second language acquisition methodologies much needed by the U.S. government” (Language Flagship, 2013). From a business perspective, the goal is to “better prepare individuals that can meet the challenges of a multi-national marketplace” (Language Flagship, 2013). In 2002, the first Flagship grants were awarded to post-baccalaureate students. In 2006, the Flagship programs extended to undergraduate students in their centers. In 2013, the programs reached to K-12, aiming for

3 students to “enter college with an established and measurable skill in a second language” (Language Flagship, 2013). By 2013, the Flagship had established 27 Flagship centers at 22 universities and colleges across the United States and ten Overseas Flagship Centers that were “providing a pathway to professional-level proficiency in Arabic, Chinese, Hindi-Urdu, Korean, Persian, Portuguese, Russian, Swahili, and Turkish” (Language Flagship, 2013). There are eleven Chinese Flagship Programs with “unique strengths” across the United States, providing undergraduate students with “professional-level proficiency” in various Chinese majors (Language Flagship, 2013). The eleven Chinese Flagship Programs are located at Arizona State University, Brigham Young University, Hunter College, Indiana University, San Francisco State University, University of Hawaii, Manoa, University of Minnesota, University of Mississippi, University of North Georgia, University of Oregon, University of Rhode Island and Western Kentucky University (Language Flagship, 2013). The other influential Chinese language and culture programs come from the Chinese central government, out of the National Office for Teaching Chinese as a Foreign Language, or Hanban. Hanban centers, established in 1987 by the Chinese central government, are a non- profit offshoot of the Chinese Ministry of Education. Their functions are the following: to make policies and development plans for promoting Chinese language internationally; to support Chinese language programs at educational institutions of various types and levels in other countries; to draft international Chinese teaching standards and develop and promote Chinese language teaching materials. (Hanban Website) The earliest Confucius Institute opened in 2004 in Seoul, South Korea (Ardaiolo, 2013). By the end of 2013, Hanban had established 440 Confucius Institutes and 646 Confucius Classrooms in 120 countries and regions. There are 93 Confucius Institutes in 32 Asian

4 countries, 37 Confucius Institutes in 27 African countries, 149 Confucius Institutes in 37 European countries, 144 Confucius Institutes in 16 American countries, and 17 Confucius Institutes in three Oceanic countries. In the United States, there are 97 Confucius Institutes at universities and colleges and 357 Confucius Classrooms at middle schools and high schools. The first Confucius Institute in the United States was founded at University of Maryland. Their agreement was signed on June, 15, 2004 and the institute started running on March 1, 2005 (Hanban Website). The most popular way to establish a Confucius Institute is by establishing a partnership which involves Hanban, a Chinese university and an overseas organization. An overseas organization can be a university, a public-school district, a private company, or an educational organization (Li, 2012). Once the Chinese university and the overseas organization come to an agreement, Hanban provides initial funding ranging from $50,000 to $100,000, two instructors every year to each Confucius Institute, and teaching material support, including teaching materials, multimedia courseware, book donations, and online course licenses (Li, 2012). Hanban also pays the instructors’ salary, accommodation, and travel expenses during their stay (Li, 2012). The overseas partner is responsible for providing office space, maintenance, and staff supports (Li, 2012). Each Confucius Institute is governed by the Board of Members composed by the Chinese partner and the overseas partner (Li, 2012). Their functions are strategic planning, budget planning, and appointment of directors. One co-director from the Chinese partner and the other co-director from the overseas organization are responsible for daily operation and management (Li, 2012). As Chinese programs become more and more prosperous, issues and challenges have emerged in instruction and administration.

5 Issues and Challenges in the Curricula of Foreign Language Programs The current standard curricular model for teaching foreign languages and culture at the university level has been typically focused on canonical literature after taking two or three years of language courses (Modern Language Association of America, 2007). This “narrow” model created “a division between the language curriculum and the literature curriculum” (Modern Language Association of America, 2007). The model also created a division between tenure- track literature professors and full time non-tenure-track language instructors in the governance structure of language departments (Modern Language Association of America, 2007). Therefore, the Modern Language Association of America (MLA) in 2007 released a report calling for new structures. The goal for the new model should aim to build “trans-lingual and trans-cultural competence” (Modern Language Association of America, 2007). In addition to language skills, language learners should be “taught critical language awareness, interpretation and translation, historical and political consciousness, social sensibility, and aesthetic perception” (Modern Language Association of America, 2007). The new foreign language education system should teach “differences in meaning, mentality, and world view as expressed in American English and in the target language”. Language learners should be “trained to reflect on the world and themselves through the lens of another language and culture” (Modern Language Association of America, 2007). Students should build a foundation of the history, geography, culture and literature of the target language, the ability to understand and interpret the target language, and the capacity to conduct research in the language referring to the parameters of the target culture (MLA, 2007). The new structure should be able to attract students from different fields, those with interests beyond literary studies, and students returning from study abroad (MLA, 2007).

6 In the post 9/11 world, the teaching foreign languages standards of American Council on the Teaching Foreign Languages and language proficiency of communicative language teaching no longer appear adequate to meet the needs of communicative and intercultural competence (Krams, 2005). To teach interculturality, instructors are required to have a reliable knowledge of cultural differences, conflicts, and even disputes between native and target cultures and to be able to point out and explain the differences, conflicts, and disputes from two or more cultures’ point of view to solve a problem or have a problem understood (Garatti, 2013). Teaching interculturality is “not only a cumulative and sequential process, but also a complex and developmental journey of discovery” (Garatti, 2013, p. 10). To reach intercultural proficiency, instructors need to develop learners’ basic skills such as “cultural self-awareness, openness to others, interest in the unfamiliar, and tolerance for cultural differences” (Lange and Paige, 2003, p. 277). In a globalized society, intercultural communication should be a part of foreign language instruction (Aguilar, 2002). Schools and universities are important locations for developing interculturality and the importance of developing interculturality should be announced and purposefully directed (Ramzan, 2011). Furthermore, curricula can be planned to construct students’ self-identity and the process is crucial to develop the quality of interculturality (Ramzan, 2011). The concept of intercultural competency in learning a foreign language will open new dimensions for the language teaching pedagogy (Ramzan, 2011). Universities and schools should advocate longitudinal research on the outcomes of new language teaching approaches in interculturality and provide professional training for instructors on interculturality (Ramzan, 2011).

7 In the reality of the classroom, Garatti (2013) put forth that teaching culture as a developmental learning process has been insufficiently studied. Many Second Language (L2) instructors are reluctant to address culture at the lower levels of instruction. The most cited reasons are lack of knowledge, especially when considering the evolving nature of culture, varieties and subcultures, the belief that culture is best taught after students have gained a certain level of proficiency in the L2, and difficulties inherent in dealing with student attitudes (Hadley, 2001). Some instructors insist that in language classes, culture should not be emphasized nor too much time devoted to it (Hadley, 2001). Some instructors consider that culture should be discussed in the target languages and there should be only target language flowing in language classrooms, so at lower levels of language instruction, culture cannot be taught and understood (Hadley, 2001). Some instructors think that teaching culture should deal with student attitudes, which can easily become out of control (Hadley, 2001). Other issues included little attention being given to students’ understanding and the perception that the culture and culture instruction is unplanned and unstructured (Garatti, 2013). Nasuf and Sadikaj (2011) found that there existed an “absence of initiatives for the formulation of new methods” (p. 6) and “lack of problematization in the initial articles” (p. 5) in foreign language teaching. Instructors are more used to teaching cultural facts such as traditional festivals, costumes, various cuisines, famous movie stars, popular singers, and top box office hit movies. However, teaching cultural facts is not enough because those facts have not been tested true across time, location and strata (Jarvis, 1977; Galloway 1985a); teaching cultural facts would build cultural stereotypes (Crawford-Lange and Lange, 1984); and massive facts do not provide students with solutions in cultural situations (Crawford-Lang and Lange, 1984). It is timely for foreign language departments to transform their programs and structures by designing

8 a new configuration to replace the language-literature structure with a broader and more consistent curriculum model teaching language, culture, and literature as a unit, joined by various departments and presented through interdisciplinary courses (MLA, 2007). Issues and Challenges in the Curricula of Chinese Language Programs “Teaching Chinese as a second/foreign or heritage language is now at the cusp of exciting new developments in these areas” (Duff, 2008, p. 40). Duff (2008) suggested that from a curricular aspect, Chinese instructors could improve “assessment practices that are rooted in curricular objectives and lead to good teaching”, strengthen “language proficiency and communication” training; explore “appropriate teaching methods and materials, and knowledge of language as a system”; carefully consider “the timing, duration, intensity and content of language teaching”, “students’ developmental stages or age”, “the interests and goals of learners themselves”, “students’ skill areas and genres or registers most needed for their language learning purposes” (p.39). Faculty should effectively use technology and other media to assist language teaching and learning (Duff, 2008). Language programs should build cooperation with other programs and develop interdisciplinary courses (Duff, 2008). In language teaching and faculty development, most scholars believe that language educators should not advocate a single method or approach to language education and teacher education because of the “growing transnationalism, mobility, and global flow of goods, services, and knowledge (as well as people) in contemporary societies” (Duff, 2008). As to Chinese curriculum and material development, Liu (2007) expressed that the field of teaching Chinese as a Foreign/Second Language was a generation or more behind in developments than were the teaching of other world languages in terms of theory and practice. According to Li (2008), educators should develop and adapt the Chinese language teaching

9 curriculum to the population of learners, the context in which the language is being learned and used, and the situational analysis. However, Li believes many educators take a “one-size-fits- all” approach to teaching students with different backgrounds, needs, and goals with the result that they find themselves “ill-prepared for the reality of contemporary classrooms in North America, Australia, and parts of Europe” (2008, p. 53). For Li, an ideal curriculum might possess the qualities of being “highly communicative, cognitively appropriate, linguistically challenging, culturally relevant, and academically sound” (2008, p 60). Ochs (1996) explained that issues related to heritage learners were “sensitive and complicated” because teachers and learners carried different “language ideologies, attitudes, identities and political stances or historical affiliations.” For instance, students with the heritage of Taiwan and students with the heritage of mainland China are linguistically different in writing and speaking, and politically different in viewing some issues. Language programs at the university level usually define heritage and non-heritage students linguistically, instead of ethnically when students are enrolled into classes. For example, East Asian Studies faculty at New York University define heritage students as the students with certain level of oral and/or aural proficiency who are born in a Chinese language speaking country; the students with certain level of oral and/or aural proficiency who are raised in a home in which Chinese language was spoken; students with certain level of oral and/or aural proficiency who have lived or studied in a Chinese language speaking country for an extended period of time. Non-heritage students are the students who are of non-Chinese language origin, and have never lived or studied in a Chinese language speaking country or region for an extended period of time or who are of Chinese origin but do not speak or understand any Chinese, including a Chinese dialect. The real situation

10 always involves placement tests and faculty’s judgment to evaluate the language levels of students (Difference of Heritage and Non-heritage students, n.d.). The issues regarding Confucius Institutes and Confucius Classrooms have become a heated issue. In June, 2014, the American Association of University Professors urged the universities and the colleges with Chinese language and culture centers, funded by Hanban to either terminate the partnerships with Hanban or renegotiate with them to reach transparency and shield academic freedom (Washington, 2014). The New York Times also reported two cases related to Confucius Institutes (Qin, 2014). A teaching assistant, Sonia Zhao, a practitioner of Falun Gong that is regarded an illegal group in China, filed a complaint against McMaster University in Ontario with the Human Rights Tribunal requiring her to hide her belief. After the incident, the university decided to close the Confucius Institute in December 2012 because the institute’s hiring process “excluded certain classes of applicants, which is not consistent with the University’s values of equality and inclusivity, nor with McMaster’s Anti-Discrimination policy” (McMaster University, Daily News, 2013). June Teufel Dreyer, a professor of Chinese government and foreign policy at the University of Miami once was told by someone from the Confucius Institute to refrain from discussing the Dalai Lama or to invite Dalai Lama to campus because the topics like “Tibet, Taiwan, China’s military buildup, and factional fights inside the Chinese leadership” are “off-limits” (Qin, 2014). From the intercultural perspective, Sonia Zhao, June Teufel Dreyer and other cases suggest that intercultural communication should be not only a part of foreign language education for language learners, but also a part of professional development for faculty members and administrators.

11 Statement of the Problem To summarize the issues of foreign language programs and Chinese language programs related to the research, first, the curricula of the current language courses and programs do not emphasize the intercultural communicative competence at all levels, especially at the novice level. There is a paucity of widely recognized foreign language curricular models suitable for developing language learners’ intercultural communicative competence at the novice level. Second, little research is available on effective instructional strategies on teaching intercultural communicative competence at the novice level. Therefore, instructors have little or no knowledge about it (Hadley, 2001) and students’ intercultural communicative competence at the lower level has been neglected. Third, empirical evidence on the characteristics of language learners with high intercultural communicative competence at the novice level is almost nonexistent. Knowing the characteristics of language learners with high intercultural communicative competence at the novice level could be very helpful for instructors in guiding students to develop their intercultural communicative competence. Research Questions Overarching Research Question: What curricular models and instructional strategies influence the development of intercultural communicative competence in novice Chinese language learners with Chinese language educators in two types of Chinese language acquisition programs— a Confucius Institute program in a public university and a traditional Chinese language acquisition program in a small private baccalaureate college?

12 Sub-questions: 1. How do differences in the additive, Communicative Language Teaching, Intercultural Communicative Competence, and cultural standard models of American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages influence intercultural competence among novice Chinese language learners with different language educators in the two language programs? 2. How do differences in instructional strategies using portfolios, lectures, semantic mapping, hands-on activities, field trips, ethnographic interviews, culture capsules, culture clusters, culture assimilators, culture mini dramas, word association, collages strategies, and artifact studies influence intercultural competence among novice Chinese language learners with different language educators in the two language programs? 3. How do the perceptions of the language educators and the novice Chinese language learners regarding intercultural competence differ in the two language programs? 4. What are the characteristics of the novice Chinese language learners with high intercultural competence at the novice level? 5. What is the intercultural competence level for each student participant? Purpose of the Study The purpose of the multiple case qualitative research is to explore the most efficient curricular models and instructional strategies in teaching intercultural competence at the novice level in the Chinese language programs in two American institutions from the perspectives of four faculty participants and twenty student participants. The study also investigates the characteristics of novice level Chinese language learning students with high intercultural competence from the student participants’ perspective.

13 Significance of the Study The research added to the body of knowledge on teaching and gaining intercultural communicative competence to students who study Chinese at the novice level. This paper will also attempt to reach the following goals: First, the research examined the role of intercultural communicative competence in the Chinese language curricula at both the courses and the programs levels. The results may be used to enable leaders and faculty members to more effectively emphasize intercultural communicative competence in their courses and programs. Second, the research investigated efficient curricular models for developing language learners’ intercultural communicative competence. Meanwhile, the essential features and elements of the curricular model for Chinese language courses and programs were revealed as a minor degree at institutional level. Third, the research investigated efficient instructional strategies to develop intercultural communicative competence both from the instructors’ perspective and the language learners’ perspective at the novice level in the two Chinese language programs. The efficient instructional strategies will become a reference for instructors to develop learners’ intercultural communicative competence. Fourth, the research investigated the characteristics of the learners with high intercultural communicative competence both from instructors’ perspective and learners’ perspective. The results will potentially help language instructors, language learners, and scholars to better understand intercultural communicative competence at the novice level.

14 Fifth, the research is an opportunity for the student participants to know their intercultural communicative competence level. They were informed of the total score of Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI) self-assessment and the individual scores of the four aspects: the Emotional Resilience Scale, the Flexibility/Openness Scale, the Perceptual Acuity Scale and the Personal Autonomy Scale. This chapter has revealed some of the issues and challenges in the curricula of foreign language programs and the curricula of Chinese language programs, the research problems, research questions, the purpose of the study, and significance of the study. The next chapter will review the relevant research literature in the areas of models and theories of curriculum design, intercultural communicative competence in foreign language curricula, and the assessment of intercultural communicative competence.

15 CHAPTER 2 Literature Review In this chapter, I will review literature in current curricular models of teaching culture in foreign language programs, prevalent instructional strategies in teaching intercultural communication and assessment of intercultural competence. Curriculum Models of Teaching Culture in Foreign Language Programs Four models are introduced in the section: the additive model, the communicative language teaching model, the intercultural communicative competence (ICC) model, and the American Council on the Teaching Foreign Languages (ACTFL) national culture standards. The Additive Model Chinese language had been taught in the Department of Foreign Languages or the Department of Asian Studies in American universities and colleges. The typical additive model represented offering Chinese language courses accompanied with the culture courses, such as Chinese Politics, Chinese History, Chinese Society, Chinese Films, and Chinese Economics, which is usually taught in English in the Department of Foreign Languages or the Department of Asian Studies (Chen, 2008). Chen (2008) termed the model as the additive model which was the most widely used model of teaching language and culture together. In Chinese universities, students learning Chinese were also provided the courses, such as Chinese culture, Chinese history, Chinese Calligraphy and Chinese geography which were taught in Chinese or in English as a part of program-level curriculum (Chen, 2008). The Target Language Foreign language is frequently termed as target language, second language or L2. The target language is the language that a learner is attempting to study (Ellis, 1985). At the higher

16 education level, the content of target language is offered by different levels of language courses combined with listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills. The regular Chinese language courses are Elementary Chinese I, Elementary Chinese II, Intermediate Chinese I, Intermediate Chinese II, Advanced Chinese I and Advanced Chinese II. Besides the above courses, language courses with various emphases are commonly offered such as Chinese Literature, Readings in Contemporary Chinese Fiction, Readings in Modern Chinese Fiction, Conversational Chinese, Advanced Chinese Grammar, and Business Chinese. The Target Culture Culture was defined as a broad concept that covered all aspects of people’s lives, such as patterns of everyday life, the ways of thinking, fine arts, geography, politics, and history (Seelye, 1994). Brooks (1968) identified five common cultural practices: biological growth, personal refinement, literature and fine arts, patterns of living, and total ways of life. Brooks (1968) argued that patterns of living were the most important and most appropriate especially in the beginning levels of language teaching and learning. Kramsch (1991) considered that culture included traditions and beliefs shared by people of a certain social group or a society. Kramsch (1991) categorized culture into two kinds: culture with a capital C, which included literary classics and works of arts, and culture with a small c, which included foods, fairs, folklore, and facts. To teach and train language learners to be communicatively competent, language educators were recommended to highlight the cultural dimensions of the target language and the importance of intellectual understanding of the target culture’s practices and perspectives (Kramsch, 1991). Varieties of the cultural courses are typically offered in Chinese language programs or in the programs of Asian Studies, or Asian Languages and Civilizations. The cultural content

17 courses are usually taught in English with no prior knowledge of Chinese language required. For instance, Yale University has been offering The Chinese Tradition, Women and Literature in Traditional China, Modern Chinese Literature in the program of East Asian Languages and Literature. Cornell University has been offering a wide series of courses in Chinese history, politics, economy, and current affairs. For example, China Encounters the World, China under Revolution and Reform, China and the World, History of China in Modern Times, China’s Economy under Mao and Deng, Vitality and Power in China in the program of China and Asia Pacific Studies. The obvious feature and advantage of the model was that the content about the target culture was taught profoundly in depth, systematically, effectively and explicitly to a language program level (Chen, 2008). However, some institutions could only offer limited Chinese language courses for various reasons. The language learners would not have the opportunity to learn the target culture. Therefore, the model could not answer “the question of how to integrate the teaching of culture and the teaching of language” in a foreign language teaching classroom (Chen, 2008, p. 82). Communicative Language Teaching Model The 1970s and 1980s are a landmarked era of Communicative Language Teaching (Chen, 2008). Communicative Language Teaching, also known as the Functional Approach, was an approach that aimed to achieve communicative competence of language teaching and develop strategies for teaching the skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing (Richards & Rodgers, 1986). Communicative language teaching had shifted the goal from language form to content form (Wilkins, 1976) and teaching language from usage to use (Widdowson, 1978). This model suggested “the teaching of culture and the teaching of language were naturally integrated by

18 focusing on language use in communication” (Chen, 2008, p. 83). The most distinctive features of communication language teaching were “implicitness” of teaching culture and “integration of teaching language and culture” (Chen, 2008, p. 82). Berns (1990) suggested a few theoretical principles for communicative language teaching. The core of language teaching and learning was communication and this was acknowledged by using language for a variety of purposes. Diversity and variety of a language was a part of language development. A learner’s competence was understood in relative terms, rather than absolute terms. Culture was instrumental in shaping speakers’ communicative competence. Language teaching was flexible in methodology and techniques. Language use was considered as serving ideational, interpersonal, and textual functions and related to the development of a learner’s competence in each. Three essential pedagogical principles of communicative language teaching were: “the presentation of language forms in context, the importance of genuine communication, and the need for learner-centered teaching” (Borges, 2006, p.12). Beagle (2002) suggested the PPP lesson form, which stood for presentation, practice, and production. The procedure was presenting language forms first under the guidance of the language educator, then practicing in a series of exercises under the supervision of the educator, and finally language learners producing the language forms in the context of communicative activities, which was related to the learners’ lives and interests (Beagle, 2002). Thompson (1996) pointed out that many language educators had the following major misconceptions about communicative language teaching: not teaching grammar, teaching speaking only, pair work only, and not using the native language at all. Richards (2005) concluded six characteristics of communicative activities in classrooms. First, grammar played a facilitating role to improve communicative competence in classroom

19 activities. Second, the activities gave priority to the need of communication. Third, both inductive and conductive learning of grammar was reflected in the activities. Fourth, learners’ life and experience were highly involved in teaching content. Fifth, the activities were real life scenarios. Sixth, authentic materials were fully utilized in the activities. Yalden (1983) argued that to develop communicative competence dramatically, in a novice level course, there should be a concentration on language form prior to language function; in an intermediate level course, there should be an equal focus on both form and function. Communicative Competence Communicative competence was developed in contrast to linguistic competence. Linguistic competence was criticized as being limited and rule governed because it did not involve the social-cultural and functional roles in language usage (Hymes, 1966; Campbell & Wales, 1970). Hymes (1972) defined communicative competence as the ability to use language appropriately in a given social context. Hymes (1972) elaborated the definition by using the example of a normal child’s language learning process. A normal child learned to speak a language not only grammatically correct, but also socially appropriate (Hymes, 1972). The competence was acquired “as to when to speak, when not, and as to what to talk about with whom, when, where, in what manner” (Hymes, 1972, p. 277). Campbell and Wales (1970) maintained that “the most important linguistic ability is that of being able to produce or understand utterances which are not so much grammatical but, more important, appropriate to the context in which they are made” (p. 247). Canale and Swain (1980) proposed a three-component framework for communicative competence and Canale (1983) further extended the framework to four components: grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence, and strategic competence.

20 Separately, grammatical competence was the competence in phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics at the sentence level (Canale, 1983). Sociolinguistic competence was the competence in mastering language use in communication, including topic, role of participants, purpose, and context that all influenced choice of style or register (Canale, 1983). Discourse competence was the competence in skillfully practicing cohesion and coherence between units larger than a sentence (Canale, 1983). Strategic competence was the competence in verbal and nonverbal strategies to compensate for inadequacies due to lack of language ability (Canale, 1983). Learner-Centeredness Learner-centeredness emphasized learners’ differences, needs, and autonomy, encouraged learners to play active roles in the learning process, negotiated meanings, and expressed their opinions with their classmates and language educators (Pu, 2009). In communicative activities, learners were responsible for interacting to conclusion toward a goal (Littlewood, 1981). Pu (2009) exemplified that in teamwork; learners were involved in selecting their partners, designing, and selecting tasks, and expressing themselves creatively. In this way, “different voices, different needs, different learning styles, and different experiences of the learners” were taken into consideration in communicative language learning (Pu, 2009, p. 14). Cook (1991) argued that students should “use whatever forms and strategies they can devise to solve their communication problem, ending up with sentences that are entirely appropriate to their task but are often highly deviant from a native perspective” (p. 140). Breen and Candlin (1980) regarded learners as active negotiators “between the self, the learning process, and the object of learning interacting with the role of joint negotiator within the classroom procedures and activities” (p. 110). Pu (2009) maintained that learner-centeredness strengthened learners’ understanding of language and enhanced learners’ skills of language use.

21 Language educators were required to take a less dominant role and the learners were encouraged to be more responsible managers of their own learning (Larsen-Freeman, 1986). Cook (1991) recommended that language educators step back in the classroom and let the students take charge of their activities, make up their own conversations in pairs or in groups, and learn the target language by doing. Language educators were directed to be flexible to take the roles of “instructor, co-communicator, needs analysts, organizer of resources, facilitator of activities, adviser, negotiator, and learner” in language learning (Pu, 2009, p. 14). As Lee (2009) explained, language educators were responsible for establishing and organizing the classroom as a communicative environment, introducing and demonstrating how to do the activities, motivating, and encouraging communication, and monitoring learners’ errors during communication. Language educators were expected to choose teaching content which appropriately met learner’s needs, and presented the contents in various ways (Pu, 2009). Pu (2009) claimed that language educators had the freedom to decide whether to place the emphasis on accuracy or fluency. For instance, the educators had the freedom to decide when and in what way to correct learners’ errors (Pu, 2009). If an error did not prevent people from understanding each other, the educator could correct the error after the learner finished his task or communication (Ellis, 2006). If an error misled people in communication and cut off communication, the educator could choose to correct the error immediately (Ellis, 2006). Authentic Texts Shrum and Glisan (2005) identified texts as unauthentic scripted, semi-scripted, and authentic scripted based on the degree of authenticity. Unauthentic scripted texts were “prepared, scripted and recorded by speakers of the target language onto an audio tape, CD, or video” such as textbook audio or video (p. 74). The contexts of unauthentic scripted texts were

22 often artificial and they sounded unnatural. Semi-scripted texts were “recorded by native speakers who spoke spontaneously within a situation that they were given” such as a role-play activity (p. 74). Even semi-scripted texts were not 100% authentic, because they possessed some features of authentic language, such as natural pauses, normal rate of speech, and negotiation of meaning (Geddes & White, 1978). Authentic texts were those “written and oral communications produced by members of a language and culture group for members of the same language and culture group” (Galloway, 1998, p. 133). Authentic materials included “realia, magazine and newspaper articles, poems, literary excerpts, audio recordings, videotapes, satellite broadcasts, radio programs”, and so on (Shrum & Glisan, 2005). Authentic texts were prepared by and for native speakers of the target culture and were not originally prepared for language learning purposes (Shrum & Glisan, 2005). They may be scripted like television commercials, radio broadcast news, and they may be unscripted like interviews, conversations (Galloway, 1998). Authentic materials were not only helpful to learn language skills, but also helpful to explore the richness of the target culture (Shrum & Glisan, 2005). Learners can not only hear and read what and how native speakers used the target language, but can also experience the details of the target culture and social values (Shrum & Glisan, 2005). In Galloway (1998)’s words, authentic texts, as total communicative events, invite observation of a culture talking to itself, not to outsiders; in its own context; through its own language; where forms are referenced to its own people, who mean through their own framework of associations; and whose voices show dynamic interplay of individuals and groupings of individuals within the loose general consensus that is the culture’s reality (p. 133).

23 According to Shrum and Glisan (2005), one challenge of using authentic materials was the linguistic structures and learners may not have studied vocabulary may not have been studied vocabulary. Terry (1998) suggested language educators design their tasks based on the learners’ level. Shrum and Glisan (2005) also suggested one piece of authentic material can be used several times according to different tasks and different language levels. Pusack and Otto (1996) maintained that early exposure to authentic materials helped learners to be well prepared for later language learning. Context Shrum & Glisan (2005) defined context as “the degree to which meaning and situations from the world outside the classroom are present in an instructional approach, method, or classroom activity” (p. 41). According to Littlewood (1981), communicative activities should provide a natural context for students to use language for communication with others and provide the opportunities to build positive relationships among other learners and between learners and teacher. Content-based instruction was a common practice of contextualizing language teaching, which had been widely implemented in foreign language in the elementary schools and English as a second language programs (Shrum & Glisan, 2005). Content-based instruction laid the foundation for immersion and foreign language programs for K-12 learners since the 1960s (Lambert, 1984). According to Shrum and Glisan (2005), content-based instruction was the combination of language learning and content from other subject areas, disciplines, or cultures. In the area of English for specific purposes, content-based instruction focused on a particular field of work or study. Borges (2006) considered that content-based instruction was more motivating for learners to study the subject matter in which they were interested.

24 Since communicative language teaching is an approach, it does not offer specific teaching techniques or strategies in language classrooms. In spite of the revolutionary improvement of the model, in that it unified language with culture in one course, “the question of how to purposefully integrate the teaching and culture” into a language classroom still remained unsettled and the model tended to “overlook the supporting knowledge about culture needed in the communication” (Chen, 2008, p. 83). Moreover, Medgyes (1986) argued that it was almost impossible for non-native language educators to practice communicative language teaching principles while simultaneously meeting various needs of students, creating real life situations, keeping less dominant roles in teaching, and creating materials for specific contexts besides textbooks. Intercultural Communicative Competence (ICC) Model From the additive model to the communicative language teaching model, there was a shift from explicit language teaching to implicit language teaching, from “a knowledge-focused model to a behavior-focused model” (Chen, 2008, p. 83-84). However, both models had been criticized, so a new model was developed to “take both knowledge and behavior into consideration by focusing on meaning in intercultural communication” (Chen, 2008, p. 84). Byram et al (1994) commented that the model: provide(s) language learners with the content knowledge, linguistic and cultural skills to communicate successfully with someone of equivalent background and education in the foreign country. They need to understand culture allusion-conscious and unconscious on the part of the foreign native speaker and to be able to adapt their behavior verbal and non-verbal appropriately. (p. 69)

25 This model possessed two features: one was that foreign language education had merged both explicit cultural studies and communicative language teaching; the other was that the model stressed intercultural communication skills, which originally aimed to help English learners to communicate efficiently with native English speakers and to avoid misunderstanding from each other (Chen, 2008). Intercultural Competence Fantini (2006) summarized that cross-cultural awareness, global competitive intelligence, cultural competence; cultural sensitivity, ethno-relativity, international competence, trans-cultural communication, global competence, global competitive intelligence, cross-cultural adaptation, metaphoric competence, effective inter-group communications, intercultural interaction, biculturalism, and multiculturalism were alternative terms for intercultural competence. Based on Byram’s (1997) definition, intercultural competence was “the ability to interact in their own language with people from another country and culture, drawing upon their knowledge about intercultural communication, their attitudes of interest in otherness and their skills in interpreting, relating and discovering, i.e. of overcoming cultural difference and enjoying intercultural contact” (p. 70). The definitions of intercultural competence are varied from scholar to scholar with concentration of various aspects. Schenker (2012) summarized the main definitions of intercultural competence in Table 2.1. Fantini (2000) believed the construction of intercultural competence was composed of a variety of traits, at least five dimensions and a developmental process. This variety of traits included specific characteristics such as respect, empathy, flexibility, patience, interest, curiosity, openness, motivation, a sense of humor, tolerance for ambiguity, and willingness to suspend

26 Table 2.1. Summary of Definitions of Definitions of Intercultural Competence Intercultural CompetenceStudy Intercultural competence is “defined as an awareness and/or understanding Belz of foreign attitudes, beliefs, values, and (linguistic) practices.” (2003, p.68) Intercultural competence is “the ability to interact in their own language Byram with people from another country and culture, drawing upon their (1997, pp. 70-71) knowledge about intercultural communication, their attitudes of interest in Camileri (2002, p. 23) otherness and their skills in interpreting, relating and discovering, i.e. of overcoming cultural difference and enjoying intercultural contact.” Chen and Starosta Intercultural communicative competence is the ability “to interact with (2002, pp. 407-208) people from another country and culture in a foreign language.” Fantini Intercultural competence requires the development of cognitive, affective, (2009, p. 458) and behavioral traits, specially it requires a) “developing cognitive complexity in responding to new environments, ” b) “motivating affective Guth and Helm co-orientation towards fresh encounters,” and c) “directing behavior to (2010, p. 18) perform various interactions with additional social groups.” Intercultural competence is “the behavioral aspect of intercultural Lochtmann and Kappel (2008, p. 25) communication. It refers to the ability to behave effectively and appropriately in intercultural interactions.” Intercultural awareness “is the Lussier et al. (2007, p. 25) cognitive aspect of intercultural communication. It refers to the under- standing of cultural conventions that affect how people think and behave.” Lustig and Koester Intercultural competence “may be defined as complex abilities that are (2003) required to perform effectively and appropriately when interacting with Neuliep others who are linguistically and culturally different from oneself.” (2009, p. 393) Intercultural competence is “a transversal skill that can serve learners in Sinicrope et al. numerous contexts that extend beyond the classroom and the specific (2007, p. 1) language being learned.” Intercultural competence refers to “both linguistically and culturally based behavior patterns that are made use of in interactional situations.” Intercultural competence includes three dimensions: knowledge, knowing how, being. It also includes “interacting effectively across cultures” which means “accomplishing a negotiation between people based on both culture- specific and culture-general features that are on the whole respectful and favorable to each.” Intercultural competence depends on the context and requires of the individual a variety of appropriate and effective behavior strategies in addition to knowledge, motivation and actions. Intercultural communication competence is “the degree to which you effectively adapt your verbal and nonverbal messages to the appropriate cultural context.” Intercultural competence is “the ability to step beyond one’s own culture and function with other individuals from linguistically and culturally diverse backgrounds. Note. Summary of Definitions of Intercultural Competence. Adapted from The effects of a virtual exchange on language skills and intercultural competence, by Schenker, 2012, p. 73. judgment (Fantini, 2000). The five dimensions were attitude, awareness, knowledge, skills and host language proficiency (Fantini, 2000). Fantini (2000) believed that intercultural competence

27 was a lifelong, forever on-going developmental process: a person was always in the process of becoming and he or she was never 100% interculturally competent. Fantini (2000) discussed four developmental levels: Level 1: Educational Traveler-participants in short exchange programs (4-6 weeks) Level 2: Sojourner-longer cultural immersion (4-8 months) Level 3: Professional-staff working in an intercultural context Level 4: Intercultural/Multicultural Specialist-individuals involved in international training, educating, consulting, and advising (p. 30) Fantini (2000) emphasized that it was very important for a program and an individual to reach the equivalent level of intercultural competence. The ICC levels helped program designers and implementers to set up appropriate goals and designed effective activities for attaining the ICC progression (2000). The ICC levels also provided employers with a reference to select qualified job candidates (Fantini, 2000). Built on Fantini’s (2000) developmental levels and around the five dimensions, YOGA forms, standing for Your Objectives, Guidelines, and Assessment, developed by Fantini, was a self-assessment tool that helped individuals identify their level of intercultural competence. Barrett, Byram, Lazar, Mompoint-Gaillard and Philippou (2013) concluded the diverse significance of intercultural competence. First, intercultural competence promoted effective and successful communications situated in the presence of different cultures. However, it did not require surrender of individual cultural identity, cultural affiliation nor follow another culture’s beliefs, values and practices. Instead it produced focus demonstrating that the person was “open to, curious about and interested” in people with other cultural identifications or affiliations and the person had “the ability to understand and interpret their practices, beliefs, discourses and

28 values” (p. 13). Second, during intercultural encounters, a person attempted to understand others’ cultural beliefs, values and practices while comparing and analyzing them with his or her own. Intercultural encounters improved both one’s knowledge and understanding of other people’s cultures and of his or her own culture. Third, promoting intercultural competence was helpful to tackle discrimination, social inequalities, and educational disadvantages. Intercultural Communicative Competence (ICC) The intercultural communicative competence was the combination of communicative competence and intercultural competence (Arevalo-Guerrero, 2009). Byram (1997) defined intercultural communicative competence as the ability “to interact with people from another country and culture in a foreign language” (p. 71). Neuliep (2009) referred to intercultural communicative competence as “the degree to which you effectively adapt your verbal and nonverbal messages to the appropriate cultural context” (p. 393). Byram (1997) contended that intercultural communicative competence required certain attitudes, knowledge, and skills besides linguistic competence, sociolinguistic and discourse competence. The attitudes were curiosity, openness, and the readiness to look at other cultures and the speaker’s own culture without being judgmental. The knowledge was of social groups and their products and practices in one’s own and in other cultures, and of the general processes of social and individual interaction. The skills were referred as the ability of interpreting and relating one’s own and other cultures. Since communicative competence has been discussed in the section of the communicative language teaching model, this section will not discuss the communicative competence and its components: linguistic competence, sociolinguistic and discourse competence.

29 Byram (1997) explained that it would be useful to assign levels of achievement of intercultural competence and using portfolios would be an efficient way to set levels of each component of intercultural competence with criteria. Byram and associates argued that intercultural education should be an inseparable part and ultimate goal of foreign language curricula (Byram, 1997; Byram et al., 2001; Byram & Zarate, 1994). While Byram’s model had been used widely in educational practices, concerns and criticism have been mentioned. Kramsch (1993) and Lafayette and Schulz (1997) noted that attitude changes and awareness development may require a long period of observation—at least four years. Helm and Guth (2010) noted the concern that the model lacked consideration of online contexts and their impact on intercultural learning so they extended Byram’s model to online contexts, which they termed contexts telecollaboration 2.0. Kramsch’s model (1993) was based on the learners’ perceptions of their own culture and the target culture. In her circular model, the circle “C1” represented ones’ own culture, the circle “C2” represented the target culture and the circle “C”, the third space, represented the learners’ perception of others’ culture, which might be stereotypical and inaccurate. The third space or the third perspective was a personal place, which was different and changing for every language learner (Kramsch, 1993). Looking at teaching culture in a foreign language classroom, Kramsch (1993) recommended that language teachers “establish a sphere of interculturality”, “teach culture as an interpersonal process” (p. 205), “teach culture as a difference”, and “cross disciplinary boundaries” (p. 206). Kramsch (1993) suggested that language instructors encourage every learner to develop his or her own third perspective since the heart of understanding intercultural competence was the intersection between a learner’s own culture and

30 the target culture. Kramsch (1993) also suggested that teaching strategies should involve intercultural teaching with a concern for various cultural factors, such as age, gender, religion and other differences. Figure 2.1. An Intercultural View of Culture Adapted from “Addressing Culture in the EFL Classroom: A Dialogic Proposal,” by J. A. Á. Valencia & X. B. Medina, Jul. 2009, Open Journal Systems. Intercultural Sensitivity For Bennett (1993), intercultural sensitivity was “the construction of reality as increasingly capable of accommodating cultural difference that constitutes development (p. 24).” Bennett (1993) considered individuals’ intercultural sensitivity was a developing process as they kept in contact with cultural differences. For Fahim (2002), intercultural sensitivity requires awareness of one’s own culture as well as understanding that different cultures have different codes of behaviors, attitude and beliefs that are equally valuable; it assumes a non-judgmental attitude toward behaviors, beliefs, clothing, and language that are different to one’s own. In addition, intercultural sensitivity includes a desire to understand and learn from differences without judgment. (p. 131)

31 Intercultural sensitivity and intercultural communicative competence are not interchangeable in terms. Intercultural sensitivity was the individual’s “ability to discriminate and experience relevant cultural differences”, but intercultural communicative competence was “the ability to think and act in interculturally appropriate ways”. (Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003, p. 442) Bennett’s (1986) model of intercultural sensitivity suggested the steps in the development of intercultural communicative competence, which were to be considered as a progression of one’s worldview. Bennett (1986) believed that to develop learners’ intercultural sensitivity, learners should face cultural differences in a more involved and subtle manner. In Bennett’s (1986) model, there were two general phases. In the first phase, they were in the mode of denial, defense, and minimization. In the second phase, they were in the mode of acceptance, adaptation, and integration. When learners denied the other culture, they believed their culture was the only superior culture. When learners defended their own culture, they insisted that only their culture was reasonable and practical. When learners minimized their egos, they began to see similarities between cultures. When learners accepted other cultures, they began realizing that their own culture was just one of many cultures and did so with less prejudice. When learners adapted their behaviors, cognitions, and feelings to different cultural experiences, they could broaden their worldviews and feel empathy. When learners integrated themselves into different cultural experiences, they could expand their experiences to move in and out of different cultural worldviews. Chen and Starosta (1997) held that effective intercultural interaction included interculturall awareness, which was cognitive, intercultural sensitivity; which was affective and intercultural competence; which was behavior. A culturally sensitive person was able to identity

32 cultural differences (Bhawuk & Brislin, 1992), and was able to show respect, appreciation, and understanding to people from different cultures (Fabregas Janeiro, 2009). Bhawuk and Brislin (1992) described an interculturally effective person as someone who would feel comfortable interacting, working, or living with people from other cultures. Intercultural sensitivity was trainable or teachable. To train intercultural sensitivity, activities with a comprehensive analysis of the factors influencing intercultural sensitivity, including demographic, language, and culture differences can be designed and developed (Fabregas Janeiro, 2009). People who wanted to improve their intercultural sensitivity could expose themselves to more intercultural environments such as by attending related trainings, and by going abroad to study, work or live (Ashwill, 2004). Chen (2008) pointed out that the intercultural communicative competence model had raised some pedagogical questions for scholars and researchers to discuss: How can we have a balance between the target culture and home culture? How can we incorporate explicit cultural study with intercultural communication? Does the emphasis of “When in Rome do as the Romans do” result in a deeper understanding of the target culture and make learners more competent in intercultural communication? (p. 85) The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages National Culture Standard The National Standards for Foreign Language Learning: Preparing for the 21st Century, were first published in 1996 with the help of a three-year grant from the US Department of Education and the National Endowment for the Humanities. The Standards were published by several language associations, including by ACTFL, AATF, AATG, AATI, AATSP, ACL, ACTR, CLASS and NCJLT-ATJ (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, 1996). An

33 eleven-member committee, “representing a variety of languages, levels of instruction, program models, and geographic regions, undertook the task of defining content standards-what students should know and be able to do in foreign language education” (para. 1). The Standards represented an agreement “among educators, business leaders, government, and the community on the definition and role of foreign language instruction in American education” (para. 1). The Standards were applied to “teachers, administrators, and curriculum developers at both state and local levels to begin to improve foreign language education” in American schools (para. 1). The statement of philosophy of the Standards was educating learners “who are linguistically and culturally equipped to communicate successfully in a pluralistic American society and abroad” (para. 2). All students would “develop and maintain proficiency in English and at least one other language, modern or classical” (para, 2). For students from non-English backgrounds, they should be provided the opportunities of developing further proficiencies in their native language (para. 2). The five standards, also called the five Cs, represented communication, cultures, connections, comparisons, and communities in language learning. The five Cs concentrated on developing interpretive, presentational, and interpersonal communicative skills in communication, exploring the products, practices, and perspectives in various cultures, building connections between foreign languages and other content areas, comparing the target language and cultures to one’s own, and encouraging learning a language beyond the classroom setting to local communities (National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project, 1999). The standards displayed a picture of “what students should know and be able to do with another language” in foreign language curriculum (ACTFL, 1996, p. 32). The standards considered “language system, communication strategies, cultural content, learning strategies, content from