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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Paula Garrett-Rucks Byram Versus Bennett developmental inconsistencies. There are factors within this study that may have contributed to these inconsistencies. Firstly, I only analyzed learners’ isolated statements made about a specific cultural topic. An analysis of learners’ postings in their entirety could have resulted in a different assessment of their developmental stages. It must also be noted that the subjective nature of the interpretation of the definitions provided by Bennett could have also influenced the developmental inconsistencies. It is possible that Bennett would have classified students’ statements differently than I had due to his greater understanding of the definitions in his theory. As I mentioned in Discrepancy 2, I often found it difficult to assess learners’ conflicting statements pertaining to just one cultural topic using the criteria provided by Bennett. I believe it would be increasingly difficult to assess learners’ worldviews toward multiple cultural practices within the criteria defined in Bennett’s DMIS. Contrarily, Byram’s model limits subjective misinterpretation. Under each of Byram’s broad definitions for intercultural attitudes, knowledge and skills, he provided numerous objectives. As noted earlier under discrepancy four, these objectives provided further clarification, and as such reduced the subjectivity of interpretation of his broader objectives. Yet beyond the subjective limitations of my assessments, there were further limitations to the Bennett model. Bennett provides no recognition of individuals’ curiosity about other cultures and Bennett’s Reversal Phase in the Defense stage seemed to discredit learners’ ability to decentre themselves from their belief that their cultural practice is the correct way to behave. As FL educators, this ability to decentre is critical to instructed FL learning. Perhaps Bennett’s model is more suitable for an immersion context, or to measure long-term changes in an immersion environment. Bennett proposes that it takes at least 2 years of cross-cultural immersion for an individual to advance into the Integration Stage, the most advanced stage of his DMIS. Yet in the instructed FL learning environment, educators are limited to the time constraints determined by the academic calendar. Future research comparing learners’ developmental assessment within both Bennett and Byram’s theoretical frameworks, particularly in target-culture immersion environments, would help elucidate the discrepancies and nuances found in the present study. Despite the inclusion of the Cultures Standards into the ACTFL National Standards for Foreign Language Learning, this study provides insight into the need for U.S. educators to develop a model to assess learners’ intercultural competence in the FL curriculum, similar to the way in which Byram has integrated his multimodal model into the European Framework. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Paula Garrett-Rucks (Ph.D., University of Wisconsin) is Assistant Professor of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) and Foreign Language (FL) Education at Georgia State University. She teaches courses in French, SLA and FL Education. Her research is focused on fostering intercultural competence in instructed FL learning. REFERENCES Altshuler, L., Sussman, N. M., & Kachur, E. (2003). Assessing changes in intercultural sensitivity among physican trainees using the intercultural development inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 387-401. 26 CERCLL ICC Proceedings
Paula Garrett-Rucks Byram Versus Bennett American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). (1999). Revised Standards for foreign language learning. Yonkers, New York: ACTFL. Arasaratnam, L. A., & Doerfel, M. L. (2005). Intercultural communication competence: Identifying key components from multicultural perspectives. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 137-163. Belz, J. (2002). Social dimensions of telecollaborative foreign language study. Language Learning and Technology, 6(1), 60-81. Belz, J. (2005). Intercultural Questioning, Discovery and Tension in Internet-mediated Language Learning Partnerships. Language and Intercultural Communication 5, 3-37. Belz, J. & Müller–Hartmann, A. (2003). Teachers as intercultural learners: Negotiating German– American telecollaboration along the institutional fault line. Modern Language Journal, 87(1), 71-89. Bennett, J. M. (1993). Toward ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 21-71). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural. Bennett, M. (1998). Intercultural communication: A current perspective. In M. J. Bennett (Ed.), Basic concepts of intercultural communication (pp. 1–34). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Bennett, J.M., & Bennett, M. J. (2004) Developing intercultural sensitivity: An integrative approach to global and domestic diversity. In D. Landis, J. Bennett & M. Bennett (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training, 3rd Edition ( pp. 147–165). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Berg, B. (1998) Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Allyn & Bacon, Boston, Mass. Bhawuk, D. P. S., & Brislin, R. (1992). The measurement of intercultural sensitivity using the concepts of individualism and collectivism. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16, 413-436. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Bristol, PA: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Byram (2000). Assessing Intercultural Competence in Language Teaching. SPROGFORUM, 18(6), 8-13 http://inet.dpb.dpu.dk/infodok/sprogforum/Espr18/byram.html [retrieved, June, 2009]. Byram, M. (2008). From foreign language education to education for intercultural citizenship: Essays and reflections. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London & Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Davis, S. L., & Finney, S. J. (2006). A factor analytic study of the cross-cultural adaptability inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 318 - 330. CERCLL ICC Proceedings 27
Page 1 and 2: Proceedings of Intercultural Compet
Page 3 and 4: Paula Garrett-Rucks Byram Versus Be
Page 15: Paula Garrett-Rucks Byram Versus Be
Page 23: Paula Garrett-Rucks Byram Versus Be

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?