CEFcult seminar

Chambry, 12 September 2011

A critical stance on the assessment of intercultural competence

Some ethical issues

Claudia Borghetti
Universit di Bologna claudia.borghetti@unibo.it

Outline
Problematic ethical issues in assessing IC:
1. The lack of a reference model of IC

2. Assessing internal outcomes

3. The contextual nature of IC

4. The affective dimension of IC

5. Methods of assessment Conclusions

1. Lack of a reference model

Fantini 2000, 2011

Four dimensions of Intercultural Communicative Competence

Characteristics (personal traits): motivation, perceptiveness, selfesteem, clear sense of self, tollerance for differences, open-mindedness, etc.

Foreign language: in this construct of ICC, there are [] five dimensions. These are awareness, attitudes, skills, knowledge (A+ASK), and proficiency in the host tongue (2000: 28).

Byram 1997
Model of Intercultural Communicative Competence
Skills of interpreting and relating: ability to interpret a document or event from another culture, to explain it and relate it to documents from one's own. Knowledge: of Attitudes: curiosity social groups and and openness, their products and readiness to practices in one's suspend disbelief own and in one's about other interlocutor's cultures and belief country, and of the about one's own. general processes of societal and individual interaction. Skills of discovery and interaction: ability to acquire new knowledge of a culture and cultural practices and the ability to operate knowledge, attitudes and skills under the constraints of real-time communication and interaction. Critical cultural awareness/political education: an ability to evaluate critically and on the basis of explicit criteria perspectives, practices and products in one's own and other cultures and countries.

Deardorff 2006
Pyramid Model of IC & Process Model of IC

Theoretical open questions

What are the relationships among IC components?

Which is the link between IC and communicative competence?

What are the relevant attitudes, skills and knowledge?

Do attitudes, skills and knowledge always manifest in behaviour?

Is IC a product of a co-construction of discourse and interaction? Are personal traits part of IC?

about assessment
Do all the components of IC have to be assessed? Can IC be assessed holistically? Can IC be assessed on the basis of its components?

2. Assessing internal (and external) outcomes

Business-oriented vs education-oriented definitions of IC

'Complex abilities that are required to perform effectively and appropriately when interacting with others who are linguistically and culturally different from oneself' (Fantini, 2009: 458). 'The ability to communicate effectively and appropriately in intercultural situations based on ones intercultural knowledge, skills, and attitudes' (Deardorff, 2004: 194) 'Someone with some degree of intercultural competence is someone who is able to see relationships between different cultures - both internal and external to a society - and is able to mediate []. 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 [] (Byram, 2000) A whole of cognitive, affective and behavioural factors that influence the understanding of and interaction with diversity in a broad sense, and that can be developed through education and/or experience (Borghetti, in press)

Sensible (ethical) issues in assessing internal (and external) outcomes

Internal outcomes:
Individuals' unobservable dispositions and intentions are to be taken into consideration. For example:
Readiness to embrace and work with ambiguity Willingness to modify existing communicative conventions Curiosity about other cultures

External outcomes:
Risk of giving more credit to shallow than deep learning

3. IC is context-based

Competent intercultural performance

'Communication in an intercultural context [] is competent when it accomplishes the objectives of an actor in a manner that is appropriate to the context. Context here implies several levels including culture, relationship, place, and function' (Spitzberg, 2000: 375) 'The success of any communicative activity is heavily determinated by the way the participants perceive the context of situation and shape it accordingly through their verbal and non-verbal behavior' (Kramsch, 1993: 49-50)

Problematic implications for the assessment

1. Taking the responsibility to establish what is desirable and appropriate in individuals performances during assessment sessions. 2. Coping with the mainly-contextual nature of IC 3. Reconsidering the assessors role and legitimacy. Reciprocal assessment?

4. The affective dimension of IC

IC components, methods of assessment and possible ethical challenges

IC component Direct methods Indirect methods Ethical challenges

Knowledge

Skills

Interpreting behaviours on the basis of assumptions Assessing private and identity-related characteristics Assessing on the base of values

Attitudes & personal traits Critical Cultural Awareness

4. Assessment methods

A mix of forms of assessment

Multidimensional assessment Expert assessment Reciprocal assessment Peer assessment Self-assessment
Portfolios Tests Performance tasks & observations Interviews & questionnaires Critical incidents Etc.

Access to personal accounts and stories Absolute truth does not exist

Conclusions

Conclusions (1): Non-educational contexts

1. The lack of a reference model of IC

To specify the reference model to circumscribe results

2. Assessing internal outcomes

To be aware of the assumptions made

3. The contextual nature of IC

To offer as many contextual variables as possible

4. The affective dimension of IC

???

Conclusions (2): Educational contexts

Assessing intercultural competence: It is not appropriate from an ethical point of view It is not necessary
Inderect message to students: not everything must be proved and assessed If tests can suggest to teachers what to teach, they dont tell the language teacher how to teach it (Kramsch, 1998: 15) Intercultural competence is a value

References (1)

Borghetti, C. (in press), How to teach it? Proposal for a Methodological Model of Intercultural Competence, in Harden, T. & Witte, A. (eds) Intercultural Competence: Concepts, Challenges, Evaluations, Oxford: Peter Lang. Byram, M. (1997), Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Byram, M. (2000), Assessing Intercultural Competence in Language Teaching, Sprogforum, 18(6), 8-13. Byram, M. (2009) Evaluation and/or Assessment of Intercultural Competence, in Hu, A. & Byram, M. (eds) Intercultural Competence and Foreign Language Learning. Models, Empiricism and Assessment, Tbingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 215-234. Fantini, A. E. (2000), A central concern: Developing intercultural competence. In SIT Occasional Paper Series. Brattleboro (VT), 25-42. Fantini, A. E. (2009), Assessing Intercultural Competence: Issues and Tools. In Deardorff, D. K. (ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Intercultural Competence. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage, 456476. Fantini, A. E. (2011) Exploring Intercultural Competence, paper presented at Intercultural Horizons, Siena, 6-8 May 2011. Feng, A. & Fleming, M. (2009), Assessing Intercultural Competence for purpose The SAILSA Project, in Hu, A. & Byram, M. (eds) Intercultural Competence and Foreign Language Learning. Models, Empiricism and Assessment, Tbingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 235-252. Deardorff, D. K. (2006), Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internalization, Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 241266.

References (2)

Kramsch, C. (1993), Context and Culture in Language Teaching, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kramsch, C. (1998), Teaching along the cultural faultline, in Lange, D. L. & Klee, C. A. & Paige, R. M. & Yershova, Y. A. (eds.) Culture as the Core: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Culture Teaching and Learning in the Second Language Curriculum. Selected Conference Proceedings. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota, 15-31. Liddicoat A. J. & Scarino, A. (2010), Eliciting the Intercultural in Foreign Language Education at School, in Paran A. & Sercu L. (eds.) Testing the Untestable in Language Education, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 52-73. Parau, A. (2010), More than Language: The Additional Faces of Testing and Assessment in Language Learning and Teaching, in Paran A. & Sercu L. (eds.) Testing the Untestable in Language Education, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1-13. Sercu, L. (2004), Assessing Intercultural Competence: A Framework for Systematic Test Development in Foreign Language Education and Beyond, Intercultural Education, 15(1), 73-89. Sercu, L. (2010), Assessing Intercultural Competence: More Questions than Answers in Paran A. & Sercu L. (eds.) Testing the Untestable in Language Education, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 17-34. Shohamy, E. (2001), Democratic assessment as an alternative, Language Testing, 18(4), 373391. Spitzberg, B. H. (2000), A Model of Intercultural Communication Competence, in Samovar, L. A. & Porter, R. E. (eds.) Intercultural Communication: A Reader. Ninth Edition, Belmont (CA): Wadsworth, 375-387.