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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Paula Garrett-Rucks Byram Versus Bennett understanding found in the literature that are similar to what I am describing as IC. I then focus on quantitative IC assessment tools followed by a review of comparative research that speaks to the merits of qualitative approaches over quantitative assessments alone to investigate the IC developmental process. After that, I review qualitative IC assessment methodologies and theories, emphasizing two of the most widely cited theoretical approaches—Byram’s multimodal model of IC and Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS). This leads to the focus of the paper—the discrepancies I found when using both models to assess the same learners’ worldviews expressed over the course of a 16-week semester with both Bennett’s and Byram’s theoretical lenses. To do so, I briefly present the larger study conducted in which I analyzed the experiences of learners’ discussing cultural practices in a computermediated environment. Subsequently, I present the discrepancies I found post-hoc in my data analysis—the instances where the same learners’ worldviews were interpreted to be at different levels of IC development according to the criteria defined in Byram and Bennett’s models. I conclude the paper with an overview of the advantages and disadvantages I found when working with both models to investigate learners’ IC development. The aim of this paper is twofold. Firstly, I hope to empower readers with a stronger understanding of the research instruments and assessment tools used to measure IC development to critically evaluate the effectiveness of the pedagogical interventions investigated in the literature. Secondly, I hope to pique FL educators’ interest to create, implement and evaluate their own projects intended to foster learners’ IC and to promote cross-cultural understanding in the FL classroom. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Numerous studies have investigated aspects of intercultural learning such as 1) how students in intercultural communication with target language speakers exchange perspectives, opinions, and views (e.g., Belz, 2002; Belz & Müller-Hartmann, 2003; Furstenberg et al., 2001; Hanna & de Nooy, 2003; O’Dowd, 2003; Wade, 2005); 2) how native speakers (NS) and non-native speakers (NNS) co-create cultural impressions in discussions (Byram, 1997; Duffy & Mayes, 2001; Johnson, 2008; Müller-Hartmann, 2000; McBride & Wildner-Bassett, 2008; Woodin, 2001); or 3) how learners reflect on their own cultural beliefs in cross-cultural projects (Furstenberg et al., 2001, Müller-Hartmann, 2000; O’Dowd, 2003; Savignon & Rothmeier, 2004; Ware, 2005). Yet with no common yardstick used to measure learners’ development of intercultural understanding in these projects, it is difficult for educators to discern the potential value of replicating these projects in their own classrooms. A deeper understanding of both the definitions used to detect changes in learners’ cultural understanding and a familiarity with different types of IC assessment tools used across studies can help maximize educators’ interpretation of research findings to help determine the applicability of the pedagogical intervention investigated in their own unique learning situations. DEFINITIONS FOR LEARNERS’ CROSS-CULTURAL UNDERSTANDING The broad concept of intercultural competence has led to a range of definitions and models that have served as the basis for different approaches to its assessment. Fantini (2006) provided a comprehensive list of related terms used across the literature to describe intercultural competence including intercultural communicative competence (ICC), cross-cultural awareness, intercultural sensitivity, ethnorelativity, and global competencies which all essentially account for the ability to step beyond one’s own culture and function with individuals from linguistically and culturally diverse backgrounds. Torres and Rollock (2007) defined intercultural competence in cultural psychology as “proficiency regarding culturally relevant 12 CERCLL ICC Proceedings
Paula Garrett-Rucks Byram Versus Bennett areas and group-specific skills that facilitate cultural interactions” (p. 11). Sercu (2005) defined intercultural communicative competence (ICC) in FL education as a learner’s ability to cope with intercultural experiences. She further described the intercultural competencies and characteristics as: the willingness to engage with foreign culture, self-awareness and the ability to look upon oneself from the outside, the ability to see the world through the others’ eyes, the ability to cope with uncertainty, the ability to act as a cultural mediator, the ability to evaluate others’ point of view, the ability to consciously use culture learning skills and to read the cultural context, and the understanding that individuals cannot be reduced to their collective identities. (p. 2) Byram (1997) underlined the importance in FL education to move beyond an understanding of communication as an exchange of information but rather to “understand and relate to people from other countries” (p. 5). He defined successful communication in FL learning as the ability of learners to “establish and maintain relationships” (p. 3). Byram (2000) described the attributes of a person with intercultural competence communicative competence as: …someone who is able to see relationships between different cultures—both internal and external to a society— and is able to mediate, that is interpret each in terms of the other, either for themselves or for other people. It is also someone who has a critical or analytical understanding of (parts of) their own and other cultures—someone who is conscious of their own perspective, of the way in which their thinking is culturally determined, rather than believing that their understanding and perspective is natural. (p. 9) Described by Hoyt (2012) as “a constellation of notions” (p. 94), Byram’s multimodal model contains prescriptive definitions and 28 performance assessment objectives centering on learners’ attitudes, knowledge, skills, and critical cultural awareness. Byram (2000) described successful intercultural learners as “conscious of their own perspective, of the way in which their thinking is culturally determined, rather than believing that their understanding and perspective is natural” (p. 10). Echoing Byram’s definition of a successful intercultural learning, Bennett underscores the importance of understanding and accepting diverse cultural perspectives in order for individuals to shift from ethnocentric to ethnorelative ways of responding to cultural differences in his Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS). Bennett (1993) defines intercultural sensitivity as individuals’ psychological ability to deal with cultural differences. Hammer and Bennett (2001) described learners with basic intercultural sensitivity as able to recognize and accept the complexity of cultural differences as “different constructions of reality” (p. 12). There currently exist a large number of practices that have been recommended and implemented for assessing intercultural competence depending on the particular definition or model of intercultural competence adopted. The following section presents a brief review of some of the most salient quantitative and qualitative practices I found to assess intercultural competence across the literature. EXAMPLES OF QUANTITATIVE IC ASSESSMENT TOOLS (BASIC, ICSI, CCAI, IDI, AND INCA) Many of the aforementioned studies in the review of the literature used surveys and questionnaires that were either designed by the researchers, or adapted from pre-existing IC assessment tools. Four salient types of assessment tools in the professional literature are for observers’ assessment of others (BASIC), self-reports (ICSI, CCAI and IDI), or a combination of CERCLL ICC Proceedings 13
Page 1: Proceedings of Intercultural Compet
Page 5 and 6: 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?