BYRAM VERSUS BENNETT: DISCREPANCIES IN THE ... - CERCLL

Paula Garrett-Rucks Byram Versus Bennett
Discussion 1, Phase 2: I liked how Thomas was hesitant to use la bise or smiling. He
preferred to wait until he knew you better. That seems reasonable to me…. I didn't
agree with her [Aunt Anne] calling our smile artificial, but I do agree with a less often
smile being more meaningful and spontaneous (James, Week 3).
I evaluated this posting to be reflective of ethnorelative thinking, and categorized James to be in
the Acceptance Stage of the DMIS model due to his apparent respect for cultural differences.
However, James’ Week 4 response posting reflected ethnocentric thinking in regard to
behaviors and values.
Discussion 1, Phase 2: I also think it was weird that they [the French informants] called
our smile phony. Smiling makes its way into my day quite often (James, week 4). [my
emphasis]
James altered the developmental flow occurring in the dynamics of the discussion by digressing
from an Acceptance Stage in Week 3 to a Defensive Stage in Week 4, contradicting what he
had stated five days earlier where he had written that he agreed with the French perspective of
smiling that smiling less often would make it more meaningful. By the use of the word also in
James’ response posting, it becomes apparent that he had appropriated the opinions previously
expressed by his peer.
I must emphasize that I was only evaluating statements participants made pertaining to the
most salient cultural practice addressed in the discussions. Furthermore, I did not include
information from the questionnaires or post discussion interviews with participants. The case
studies of four participants had a wider lens to evaluate the holistic experiences of the learners
as well as a different assessment model based on the definitions created in Byram’s multimodal
model of IC development.
Discrepancy 2: The role of the evaluator’s subjectivity
As expressed in the previous section, the assessment of the focus participants’ intercultural
attitudes, knowledge and skills was straightforward when situating learners’ comments within
Byram’s multimodal model. When I was uncertain about evaluating the learners’ comments
based on the general definitions provided, I referred to the additional objectives Byram provided
for each of the three factors—5 objectives for Attitudes, 11 objectives for knowledge, and 3
objectives for skills—for further clarification (Appendix C). These additional detailed
performance objectives Byram outlined for each of these categories seemed to provide a larger
net to detect changes in learners’ worldviews within each of the categories. However, my
application of Bennett’s DMIS proved to be problematic when assessing individual learners IC
assessment based on their comments toward a unique cultural practice. Using the criteria
provided by Bennett was particularly difficult when assessing learners’ postings in which they
made conflicting statements. For example, in Phase 2 of Discussion 2, learners accessed the
French informant interviews where all four of the informants essentially had positive comments
to make about the French education system.
I think it’s very different that the French require high school students to select a
"specialized area of focus" before their junior and senior years of high school. I suppose
on one hand, it can be effective because it gives high school students a set path of how
to become successful in a field of their choice. On the other hand, I feel that it could in
some ways cripple a student’s ability to explore all of their interests by making school too
practical (Jack, Week 1). [my emphasis]
CERCLL ICC Proceedings 23