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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Paula Garrett-Rucks Byram Versus Bennett want to indicate the emphasis on skills, knowledge and attitudes other than those which are primarily linguistic” (p. 49). Byram defines: (1) Intercultural Attitudes: “Curiosity and openness, of readiness to suspend disbelief about other cultures and belief about one’s own” (p. 50). (2) Intercultural Knowledge: “Knowledge of social groups and their products and practices in one’s own and in one’s interlocutor’s country, and of the general processes of societal and individual interactions” (p. 51). (3) Intercultural Skills: “Ability to interpret a document or event from another culture, to explain it and relate it to documents from one’s own” (p. 52). Byram provided 19 additional objectives (Appendix C) under each of these three broad definitions that he claims provide “a step towards describing teaching and assessment” (p. 50) of learners’ IC. These additional objectives guided my interpretation of the broader definitions in Byram’s multimodal model. I then reported changes in learners’ impressions of French people and French culture in relation to changes in their intercultural attitudes, knowledge and skills for each phase of each discussion. In order to respond to RQ2, the influences on the collective emergence of intercultural thinking for the class as a whole, I analyzed the transcripts of the discussions within a complex systems theoretical framework for the most salient cultural practice discussed. For example, in Discussion 1, French greetings, learners discussed shaking hands, smiling, la bise, and hugging. By using a line-by-line coding method (Charmaz, 2006), I identified smiling practices as the most salient cultural practice discussed. I then further analyzed all of the postings in the five week discussion that mentioned French or U.S. smiling practices to investigate shifts in learners’ worldviews toward differing smiling practices. I used the definitions provided within Bennett’s (1993) Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) to categorize participants’ IC developmental stages based on their statements about the cultural practice in question in each posting. Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity consists of six stages grouped into three Ethnocentric Stages (Denial Stage, Defense Stage, and Minimization Stage) where the individual’s culture is the central worldview. Each stage is defined as follows: Stage 1—Denial: The individual denies the difference or existence of other cultures by erecting psychological or physical barriers in the forms of isolation and separation from other cultures. Stage 2—Defense: The individual reacts against the threat of other cultures by denigrating the other cultures (negative stereotyping) and promoting the superiority of one’s own culture. *Reversal Phase—In some cases, the individual undergoes a reversal phase, during which the worldview shifts from one’s own culture to the other culture, and the own culture is subject to disparagement. Stage 3—Minimization: The individual acknowledges cultural differences on the surface but considers all cultures as fundamentally similar. Within the Ethnorelative Stages (Acceptance Stage, Adaptation Stage, and Integration Stage) where the individual has a more complex worldview in which cultures are understood relative to each other and actions are understood as culturally situated, Bennett further defined each stage as follows: Stage 4—Acceptance: The individual accepts and respects cultural differences with regard to behavior and values. 18 <strong>CERCLL</strong> ICC Proceedings
Paula Garrett-Rucks Byram Versus Bennett Stage 5—Adaptation: The individual develops the ability to shift his frame of reference to other culturally diverse worldviews through empathy and pluralism. Stage 6—Integration: The individual expands and incorporates other worldviews into his own worldview. After assessing the participants’ developmental stage at the time of the each posting, I investigated collective shifts from learners’ ethnocentric thinking (stages 1-3) to enthorelative thinking (stages 4-6), or vice versa, for each week of the discussion. I also tracked changes in learners’ development between postings to further investigate peer influences on the shifts in worldviews in the discussions. In order to investigate the influence of the pedagogical interventions, I calculated the percentage of ethnocentric and ethnorelative postings for each phase of the discussion—OLI explicit cultural instruction and authentic texts for Phase 1 and French informant interviews for Phase 2—with attention to collective shifts between ethnocentric and ethnorelative thinking. I then situated the discussions within a complex systems theoretical framework in an attempt to identify the influences on collective shifts in learners’ thinking. After completing both analyses, I identified instances where learners who had attained threshold levels of IC within Byram’s model were considered to be using ethnocentric thinking by the definitions provided in Bennett’ DMIS. I report the types of discrepancies I found when assessing learners IC using these two different models in the next section. Discrepancy 1: Learners’ linear development of intercultural thinking Both Bennett and Byram’s theoretical frameworks speak to the occurrence of a shift in learners’ worldviews. Byram described a threshold level based on learners’ performance of the objectives for knowledge, attitudes and skills. Bennett claimed that a shift occurs from ethnocentric to ethnorelative thinking as individuals gain increased awareness and acceptance of the constructs and experiences of cultural differences in a linear development across the six stages. Findings from the data analysis of both research questions provided support for Byram’s threshold hypothesis, but contradictory evidence to the linear nature of IC development that Bennett claimed in his DMIS. Specifically, when investigating IC emergence at the group level, I detected inconsistent fluctuations between learners’ ethnocentric to ethnorelative thinking across each Phase of the three discussions. I also detected nonlinear IC development at the individual level in my analysis. Within the selection criteria I established to identify participants’ comments about a specific cultural practice, I detected several instances where individual learners shifted back and forth from ethnorelative to ethnocentric thinking on a weekly basis within the discussions, as explained in detail later within this section. Contrary to the fluctuations that occurred in learners’ IC assessment within Bennett’s DMIS, Byram’s threshold hypothesis held true for three of the four case studies I conducted as explained below. Evidence to support Byram’s threshold description When I situated the data collected for the four focus participants’ experiences within Byram’s multimodal model of IC, three of the focus participants (Brad, Jack and Lauren) appeared to have a moment of epiphany when they attained a threshold level of all three components (attitudes, knowledge and skills) within Byram’s model. Although developmental fluctuations initially occurred for individual components, these three learners consistently displayed signs of developed IC after the threshold attainment of all three components. This trend did not hold true for the fourth focus participant (James), who did not appear to attain a threshold level of attainment in all three of the areas of intercultural attitudes, knowledge and skills. Interestingly, <strong>CERCLL</strong> ICC Proceedings 19
Page 1 and 2: Proceedings of Intercultural Compet
Page 3 and 4: Paula Garrett-Rucks Byram Versus Be
Page 7: Paula Garrett-Rucks Byram Versus Be
Page 23: Paula Garrett-Rucks Byram Versus Be

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?