Interculturalidad

Intercultural aspects in foreign/second language learning

Germán Arellano Soto *
UAM - Azcapotzalco

Introduction

According to Byram (1997), when interlocutors interact with someone from another country, they bring to the situation their knowledge of the target country and of their own country. Social identities are a determining factor in the interaction, which cannot be described as if two ‘native speakers’ were involved, because interlocutors have a different interaction when speaking with a foreigner than when speaking with someone from their own country who speaks the same language. That is why Byram introduces the term “intercultural speaker” (p. 32) to refer to interlocutors involved in intercultural communication and interaction.

In foreign language learning, the teaching of culture is less specific than the teaching of linguistic elements. Liaw (2006) provides a brief account of the different approaches that have been used.  The first was the transmission perspective, with rote learning of highbrow (literature and the arts) and lowbrow (costumes and folk) information. Then followed the contrastive approach, which compared and contrasted similarities and differences. Later came the communicative approach, where the learner acquired new cultural frames of reference and a new world view. Lastly, the tendency is now to teach culture, referring to intercultural competence as the goal towards which students should aim. In other words, they are encouraged to develop insights of their own culture as well as the foreign one while reflecting upon the values of both.

The development of electronic communication has allowed foreign language teachers and researchers to establish contact with native speakers of the target language through collaborative projects. In this paper, I will discuss the nature of intercultural learning which earlier/previous studies have shed light on.

I will begin by discussing socioinstitutional aspects that affect telecollaborative studies. Then I will talk about how stereotypes can be reinforced, partially modified or changed. Afterwards, I will go into the perspectives and attitudes of the learners before and/or after the exchange. Lastly, I will focus on the types of challenges faced by teachers dealing with such projects.

Socio institutional factors

Intercultural learning can be affected by socio institutional aspects in telecollaborative projects. When two groups from different cultures come into electronic contact, there are aspects related to their respective institutions and societies that come into play during the exchange, either affording it or constraining it. For example, considering Kern and Warschauer’s (2000) study with regards to network-based language teaching (NBLT), Belz (2001) acknowledges that “research in this area [NBLT] has been limited”, and that “researchers have not adequately investigated NBLT from a sociocultural perspective” (p. 214).  She also defines telecollaboration as “a type of NBLT which focuses on the use of globally-configured net-works for the purposes of language learning and intercultural awareness' ' (p. 213).  For this reason, she conducted a German-American telecollaborative study with university students from both countries.  Her analysis traced the development of virtual group work resulting in three types of functionalities: high, low, and low with confrontation.  The study revealed three factors that could influence the development of functionality in telecollaborative virtual groups:

Language Valuation. In Germany, English instruction, which begins at the primary level, has a professional advantage. In addition, it is found in pop culture and publicity. In contrast, Americans begin foreign language instruction in High School (with low enrollment for German). German doesn’t have high relevance in the US. These socio educational differences may cause mismatches in proficiency levels.

Technological Access and use.  American students had complete free access to the Internet on campus and at the dorms, while the German students had much more limited access.  Students may bring their out-of-class experience (which is more social) into the project, affecting the use of technology within the classroom in ways that are different from the German students’ experience (which is more academic).

Institutionalized Classroom Patterns/Scripts.  Americans are grade-oriented and learning evaluation is important in order to get high grades. Students with the best GPA’s have the best chances to get the best jobs. In contrast, German evaluation scenes occur outside the classroom and the behavior related to such evaluations is not as highly emphasized in the mindset of the German classroom.

Such factors are part of the students’ cultural context, and as demonstrated by Belz, they require consideration.  Other researchers have thus explored them more in depth.

Taking into consideration the functionality of virtual group work described by Belz (2001), Ware (2005) conducted another German-American telecollaborative project with university students. She expanded on Belz’s work by focusing on the low functionality groups to demonstrate how students in these groups “co-construct their interactions in ways that negatively contribute to the unfolding of online discourse” (p. 65). In order to explain these poor abilities in constructing online relationships, she turns to three tensions that emerged from the study of such groups:

Different Expectations and Norms of Telecollaboration. German students were pleased and excited about the novelty of instructional technology and saw it as an opportunity to interact with native speakers. On the other hand, American students, who were more experienced with technology in the classroom, were less enthusiastic.  For the latter, it was a matter of accomplishing an academic task, viewing their partners as electronic tutors to provide feedback on grammar.  Also, there were different points of view concerning the type of language used. Some students were frustrated due to the “sloppiness” of the language used by their vis-à-vis, while others didn’t mind since it was similar to spoken language.

Social and Institutional Factors that Shape Tensions. English, taught at an early age, is popular in Germany for its usefulness in breaking language barriers. Americans begin learning a foreign language in High School (or College). German is not very popular (compared to Spanish) and is more in line with an arts and letters tradition. American students were more oriented towards grades, while German students were attracted to the social aspect (since they participated voluntarily during their winter break).

Individual Differences in Motivation and Use of Time.  American students stated they were learning German for personal reasons.  For the German students, English was a necessity. Between the two groups of students, the latter were definitively more involved. This may be due to the fact that they were on vacation while the former were under academic pressure. The German students were disappointed about the Americans’ limited investment of time and short messages (even though they had complete access to Internet).

These tensions played a role in the intercultural learning of the German-American participants, and studies like these have established a way for researchers to explore other contexts.

Following the work of Belz (2001) and Belz and Müller Hartmann (2003) with regards to socioinstitutional constraints, and considering that the German-American context has been widely explored (Belz, 2001, 2002; Belz & Müller-Hartmann, 2003; Müller-Hartman, 2000, to name a few), O’Dowd (2005a) analyzed a Spanish-American relationship, since apparently this context has been neglected in the research literature.  The author set up a telecollaborative exchange with students from the University of Leon (Spain) and Barnard College (USA), adopting Furstenberg et al.’s (2001) Cultura Model (see appendix). Under this model, the questions section and the forum section (two of the main components of the model) must be completed in the native language of the participants. Essay writing and class time interactions (two other components) should be done in the target language.

Three influential factors were found to affect the exchange:

Institutional requirements. The Spanish students, who had to pass a difficult English test in order to graduate, complained that the 4-hour per week course was insufficient considering the importance of both the exam and English for their careers. For the American students, the course was optional and there was no final exam.

Communication technologies. The Spanish students had low access to Internet (many of them had never used it). In contrast, for the American students it was an integral part of their lives (academically and socially). All of them reported having online computers at home as well as wide electronic availability on campus.

General attitudes towards the target culture. The Iraq War, taking place during the academic year 2003-2004, created an anti-American feeling on campus since the Spanish students were against it.  The Americans were unaware of the political situation in Spain (due perhaps to lack of media information), and their ideas about Spain were related to stereotypes such as bullfighting and Flamenco.

These factors hindered the intercultural exchange, and measures were taken such as adapting the Cultura Model in order to meet students’ needs along with socio institutional requirements.

These three studies exemplify how socio institutional aspects can afford or constrain intercultural learning among participants of telecollaborative exchanges. There are also other aspects that can influence such learning, such as the concept of stereotypes.

Stereotypes

Stereotypes can have a considerable influence on intercultural learning exchanges. According to the Merriam Webster online dictionary (www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary) a stereotype is “something conforming to a fixed general pattern; especially: a standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgement”.  Such beliefs can filter the new information in order to make it conform to the mental pattern participants have, thus hindering their ability to see things objectively. For example, in a study with university students from Spain and the USA by O’Dowd (2000), a short pre-project questionnaire showed the need for activities that would question the learners’ stereotypes. Using videoconferencing instead of Internet, the three-task project showed the following:

1. Questionnaires revealed that both groups had wrong opinions about each other. Such beliefs were based on information from the media and the school system (history classes). For example, the Spaniards were seen as aggressive and chauvinistic towards women. During the exchanges, each group encouraged the other group to support their generalisations and stereotypes with examples and reasons.
2. Videos which were supposed to be representative of their cultures were produced and exchanged by each group.  Each group avoided the stereotypes (i.e. bullfights or American football in each respective case).  They focused instead on issues such as Leon’s medieval architecture or the multi-ethnic origins of the inhabitants of Northern Michigan.
3. Films. The Spanish students chose the film Tésis because of the image of modernity and ‘coolness’ they wanted to present to their partner group. Apparently, the Spanish students indirectly challenged the American students’ view, since the latter felt that this film didn’t reflect the traditional view they had of Spain, which was greatly at odds with the way the Spanish students saw themselves. This clash of images reflects the value of these tasks for intercultural learning.

As another example, O’Dowd (2003) used the Cultural Model mentioned earlier to explore what characteristics of e-mail exchanges lead to intercultural learning between students from the UK and Spain. Three key issues emerged:

1. Students presenting their own home cultures.  The Leon students saw an opportunity to fight stereotypes, to present their own point of view, and to correct misinterpretations they believed others had about Spain.  There were successful cases (in which students moved away from stereotypes) as well as unsuccessful ones (in which both sides stuck to their original beliefs).
2. Students engaging in distancing and cultural self-reflection.  By explaining the meaning of things (i.e. holy days, traditions), and by reconsidering the meaning of symbols either as inaccurate or misleading (i.e. flamenco dancers/bullfighters) or so long taken for granted (i.e. flags, teapots), students learned how their cultures are viewed by members of the target culture and about the image people have of their countries.
3. Students developing perspective to the target culture through dialogue. Students sought confirmation or denial of their ideas through their partners’ responses. For example, Heather failed to respond to Manuel’s questions about certain issues, leaving his opinions unchallenged. In the end, he simply confirmed his negatives stereotypes. In another example, Janet gave Susan the opportunity to see foreign cultural behaviour differently, moving away from the belief that everyone judges the world in the same way as she does.

Taking an example from another context, Itakura (2004) conducted an e-mail project with university students from Hong Kong and Japan concerning the formation or breakdown of stereotypes. She found that stereotypes came from three sources: a) Hearsay from fellow learners, b) The mass media (comic books and TV news), and c) Classroom teaching.  As a result of the project, two new sources were added: d) Natives’ remarks and e) Project findings from a joint intercultural survey (created and carried out by the participants). The old sources and new sources (the project findings) contradicted each other in three ways:

1. Project findings vs. classroom teaching.  Stereotypes were retained in a modified form. Hong Kong students believed Japanese students were hard-working (like all Japanese people). As findings contradicted this belief, a range of applicability was formed; the belief wasn’t applicable to certain groups, such as Japanese university students.
2. Project findings vs. the media. Stereotypes were modified to allow for more cultural diversity. For example, Hong Kong students believed Japanese students would spend a lot of money on fashion. As this was not the case, contradictions were attributed to differences in geographical areas. Japanese people from rural areas wouldn’t fit such belief patterns.
3. Native speaker remarks vs. the media. Stereotypes were changed due to the remarks of a native speaker. Hong Kong students believed Japanese girls would like to marry as soon as possible after graduation. A native Japanese person contradicted that and added that they would like to pursue their careers. So, Hong Kong students stated that native speaker information was more reliable. Native remarks can be very influential even if they come from only one person. They can also weaken stereotypes or create new ones if taken as representative.

In addition to modifying, such projects may also reinforce existing stereotypical assumptions when input from the target culture matches students’ beliefs. In other words, students support their assumptions by invoking cultural stereotypes of the target culture. For example, in the survey, a small number of people responded that they wouldn’t consult their fathers if they had a problem; rather, they would consult their mothers. This confirms Hong Kong students’ belief that Japanese fathers are very strict and that Japanese mothers are very kind.

Stereotypes can be questioned, avoided, challenged, removed, confirmed, reinforced or modified as a result of Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) exchanges, affecting the way intercultural learning takes place. Another way beliefs are held (and manifested) is through perceptions or attitudes towards the target culture.

Perceptions and attitudes

The effects/influence of the exchange can be seen in the attitudes and perspectives of the participants before and/or after the exchange.  Studies have shown that participants end up reinforcing negative perceptions/attitudes or changing them for positive ones with gains in certain aspects of the culture as a result of the exchange.  For example, Meagher and Castaños (1996) conducted an e-mail study with High School students from Mexico and the USA in order to see how such electronic exchanges affect students’ attitudes towards their own and others’ cultures.  A questionnaire was administered before and after the exchange to get information about students’ conceptions of and attitudes towards language learning, cooperative learning, technology, and foreign language culture.  Calculations were done separately for the pre-test and the post-test, and a t-test was applied to compute the differences between both scores. Pre-test questionnaires had 15 negative issues towards Americans, while post-test included 33. Critical comments with regards to arrogance and feelings of superiority went from 6 to 9. Criticism of racist policies went from 2 to 10. Recorded interviews indicate the development of a critical attitude towards the foreign culture. Racism stood out as one of the main factors to influence students. The Rodney King case in L. A. aroused the curiosity of the Mexicans concerning the Americans’ point of view. According to the interviews, many Americans didn’t want to talk about it.

Results indicate that the exchange produced significant changes: Perceptions of Americans were less positive after the exchange. The authors conclude that CMC facilitates the perception of cultural values, and that it probably offered a contrast of L1 and L2 corresponding to a stage of culture shock, suggesting a rejection of the other culture’s values.

In another study between Americans and Mexican university students, Hertel (2003) used surveys before and after the exchange concerning attitudes towards the target culture. Responses were compared using t-tests for preexchange means and postexchange means for each item of the surveys.

Quantitative data results indicate significant differences in mean values for three issues: 1) An increased perception of similarities in Ways of life; 2) There was a significant increase in Awareness of problems common to many nations; and 3) Concerns with problems of Third World countries.

There was no significant change for issues such as Similarity of Mexican and US family life; Religious and philosophical attitudes; Interest in learning Spanish, Mexican Culture and Traveling to Mexico; and Respect and Knowledge for Mexican Culture. Qualitative data supported the following issues:

1. There was a shift towards recognizing similarities (not present at the initial situation) concerning personalities, dress, classroom behavior, and school systems. A video exchange brought these similarities home more vividly than the e-mail.
2. There was an increased desire to interact with Mexican people and/or live in Mexico which was expressed in reflective papers and post-surveys.
3. Reflective papers revealed that students had gained more knowledge about Mexican  culture. Topics went from topography to work ethics, including poverty levels and food.

Initial negative perceptions Americans held of Mexican (such as being lazy, dirty, non advanced, and primitive) changed to a positive view at the end of the exchange (considered now as more modern and more educated as well as hard-working).  Preconceived notions about Mexicans were dispelled.

Zeiss and Isabelli-Garcia (2005) also explored an e-mail exchange between US and Mexican university students concerning the impact of the electronic exchange on two aspects: American students’ attitudes towards an increasing awareness of the target culture, and towards increasing a desire to learn more about that culture through study abroad. At the end of the project, students completed a self-perception questionnaire which contained six issues. Three issues, dealing with Increased Awareness about Hispanic Culture, revealed significant statistical differences:

1. Hispanic Daily Life.  Participants in the experimental group agreed that the exchange helped them learn about aspects of Hispanic daily life. This makes sense since participants exchanged information with natives from Mexico about this topic.
2. Hispanic Current Events. This increased awareness can be explained by the fact that the class textbooks and videos didn’t offer information on Hispanic current events.
3. Hispanic Educational System. The significant difference can be explained by the fact that class materials don’t talk about Hispanic study programs.

A fourth issue concerning Hispanic Foods didn’t show any significant difference. Therefore, CMC was no better than the class materials for teaching about Hispanic foods.

The remaining two issues of the questionnaire, dealing with Increased Motivation to Study Abroad, showed the following:

Motivation to learn more about each topic. No significant difference was shown. Awareness of the target culture doesn’t mean an increased interest in Hispanic culture.

Motivation to study abroad. Though there were no significant differences. The data indicate that knowing someone in the other country would make students more likely to study abroad. This shows the importance of creating opportunities for students to have personal contacts, in order to promote studying abroad.

Lee’s (2004) study dealt with two groups of university students in the US. She explored learners’ perceptions and concerns regarding online exchanges with native speakers (NS) of Spanish within the USA.

Transcriptions, end-of-semester surveys, and oral interviews brought up five major issues that non-native speakers (NNS) considered important and necessary for effective collaborative network interaction in foreign language instruction:

Language Authenticity Through Socialization. The language produced by NS was original, authentic, and accurate. NNS indicated that being exposed to a wide range of functional discourse had many advantages and they praised such a unique learning condition.

Task Appropriateness.  NNS found the topics to be of interest, and realistic. Open-ended questions dealt with specific vocabulary and structures which developed NNS functional skills.

Negotiation Through Collaborative Scaffolding. With NS’s help, NNS were challenged to produce coherent discourse that went beyond grammatical accuracy. NS’s scaffolding assisted NNS in using both cognitive and linguistic skills better.  Through linguistic scaffolding, NNS were able to notice their gaps between L1 and L2.   Online collaboration induced lexical scaffolding.

Different Language Proficiency Levels and Age Difference. NNS’ level of confidence was affected by their inferior language proficiency. NNS felt intimidated by NS who were teachers. They expressed preference for working with peers. Age differences entailed a lack of common interests.

Accessibility to Networking and Availability of Users.  NS, who were older, lacked computer experience. This cut the amount of time available. Also, it was difficult to find a common time to meet.

Results from these studies show how electronic telecollaborative projects can change (or in some cases reinforce) participants’ perceptions of the target culture. Considering that in the majority of cases the participants are university students, the teachers involved in organizing such exchanges don’t go about it without difficulty.

Challenges for teachers

Teachers organizing CMC intercultural exchanges face challenges which can be difficult to predict.  Despite the many advantages in setting up such exchanges, teachers have reported working against different types of problems that came up during the projects.  For example, Belz and Müller-Hartman (2003) analyzed the influence of socio institutional factors from the perspective of the teachers while working on a German-American telecollaborative project. They pointed out four challenges:

The misalignment of academic calendars. The effects of differences between European and American academic calendars became clear after both teachers (the authors) reflected on their own correspondence. The incompatible calendars resulted in the inability to find common times to communicate and to plan. Also, the authors realized the difference between factual and experiential knowledge in organizing telecollaboration.

Institutionalized classroom patterns/scripts. The differences in academic requirements affected the negotiation between teachers. Just writing an essay wasn’t enough for Belz, while creating a Website was too much for Müller-Hartman. The academic demands were different for each class.  Also, there were differences related to proficiency levels and age. The Germans were more proficient than the Americans. This posed a matching problem with regards to age versus proficiency.

Academic socialization and job responsibilities. The different orientation of the researchers influenced them to emphasize different aspects of syllabus design. Belz’s main goal was linguistic development. Müller-Hartmann was concerned with an instructional model of tasks for (pre-service teachers’) future use. Belz preferred a variety of texts and felt uncomfortable designing specific model tasks.

Institutional logistics and theoretical commitments. Differences in physical campus arrangement as well as class schedules caused inconvenience when Belz wanted to rearrange the groups for more effective scaffolding. Müller-Hartmann was reluctant to agree since the German campus was spread over the city (unlike Belz’s). The suggested rearrangement would have made it more difficult for the groups to meet, considering traveling distances and class schedules for the German students. Both authors had valid reasons for two different realities, and consequently, both were frustrated by such conditions.

As another example, considering previous research O’Dowd and Eberbach (2004) argue that there is a lack of exploration of the tasks and challenges teachers face when attempting to get the most out of the online exchange. They questioned two things: 1) the ‘passive role’ of teachers (after the organization of the exchange) and 2) the ‘automatic’ benefit of the online exchange along with the development of intercultural competence. Therefore, they decided to examine the challenges teachers face when dealing with cultural content. They also explored training learners to make effective contributions and to analyse the posts of others.  Doing research with university students from Ireland and Germany, they came up with four challenges teachers were confronted with:

1. Raising learner’s awareness of intercultural learning. For many students, the notion of culture referred to collecting facts and figures. As a consequence, it was necessary to broaden their understanding of how cultures differ. This was done by comparing perspectives, discussing extracts, and comparing pragmatic differences (House, 1996).
2. Training learners to make effective contributions.  Students need to elicit correct meanings and values from other cultures. They also need to express their values to others. In order to illustrate how, teachers used good and bad examples of posts from the message board and discussed their characteristics. They also gave models of possible posts.
3. Moving learners from monologues to dialogues. Posts that compare both cultures reflectively and explicitly are preferred to those providing only factual information, since the former lead to cultural awareness.   Teachers need to make students aware of this difference. The authors admit failing in this aspect.
4. Establishing and maintaining an effective relationship with teaching partners. In order to set up an online working environment, teachers needed to consider several aspects that went from providing relevant background information to coordinating their own and their students’ requirements and progress.

In another study setting out to identify why electronic projects often fail to achieve the established pedagogical goal, O’Dowd (2005b) reviewed what had been done by other researchers. He explains that the reasons given in the literature which attempt to explain the failing of contact between learners may not give educators a comprehensive overview of problematic areas or their interrelationship. So, he proposed a structured inventory of factors that may lead to failed communication in online exchanges. The inventory was organized into four levels:

1. Individual level (personal background). This includes the learner’s level of intercultural communicative competence and the motivation and expectations with respect to the exchange project.
2. Classroom level. The following three points seem to have a direct effect on both participating classrooms: 1) A good teacher relationship, 2) Task design, and 3) Learner-matching procedures. The following two points influence the local classroom and the impact on the partner class: 4) Local group dynamics and 5) Preexchange briefing.
3. Socio Institutional level. This has to do with technological tools and access, general organization of course of study, and prestige of target language and culture.
4. Interactional level.  This refers to “the misunderstandings and tension which arise from cultural differences in communicative style and behaviour” (p. 634).

 This study was intended to: a) identify the reasons for failed communication, b) to organize such reasons pedagogically, and c) to illustrate their interconnectedness. It is not intended to eliminate or to avoid cases of failed communication, since these might be “cultural rich-points that we want our students to explore” (Belz, 2003, p. 87).

Lastly, Ware and Kramsch (2005) offer an example of the types of challenges teachers may face, by describing an episode of miscommunication between two university students (Marie and Rob) in a German-American telecollaboration project.  The first week, a five turn episode ended with frustration and disengagement from Rob. Besides being vague, he didn’t comply with task requirements. Opening up several subjects, he came across as wanting new knowledge.  Rob, a senior in German, perceived Marie’s long response as an attempt to teach him about WWII. He seemed to be offended, and she apologized, but he concluded the episode with just one line.

Ware and Kramsch explain that cases like this may cause anxiety among teachers, that many questions remain unanswered, and that teachers may even feel guilty for letting an episode like this happen. The authors add that these incidents can’t always be avoided and are valuable learning opportunities. They point out that these incidents open up opportunities to discuss explicitly certain aspects of preparing teachers for cross-cultural communication that usually go unnoticed by curriculum planners. Such aspects include: 1. The nature of the subject matter. 2. Conditions of cross-linguistic exchanges. 3. Language as discourse. 4. Confronting CMC and the standards for foreign language education (ACTFL, 1996).

The authors conclude by indicating that the teacher has to model an intercultural stance rather than a body of knowledge (Kramsch, 1999) by taking a decentered perspective, and by going beyond surface meaning as well as by discovering the logic of student interlocutors’ utterances.

Conclusion

The development of computer-mediated communication has opened up new ways of interaction among foreign language learners. Since its beginnings, CMC has been able to afford opportunities to establish contact with native speakers of the target culture. Through telecollaborative projects teachers can have their students learn about the target culture in vivid ways that surpass the traditional class textbook.  No wonder such projects have attracted researchers’ attention, since despite some disadvantages, they seem to offer great potential for learning both the participants’ own culture as well as the target one. This is why in this paper I have discussed the type of intercultural learning afforded by such projects, as shown in previous research into conducting CMC telecollaborative exchanges between learners from two cultures.

I began with a consideration of the socio institutional conditions that influence telecollaborative projects. Then, I approached the way in which stereotypes can be changed, reinforced, or modified as a result of the electronic exchanges. Afterwards, I took into account the perspectives and attitudes of the participants before and/or after such exchanges. Lastly, I took into account different challenges faced by the teachers in conducting such projects.

* Germán Arellano Soto: Profesor-investigador adscrito al Departamento de Humanidades de la División de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades de la Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Azcapotzalco. Licenciatura en traducción e interpretación (Inglés -Español) de la Universidad Brigham Young (Provo, Utah. E. U.A.). Maestría en Lingüística Aplicada de la Universidad de Montreal (Montreal, Quebec. Canadá). Doctorado en Lingüística Aplicada (concentración en didáctica de lenguas) de la Universidad Laval (Quebec, Quebec. Canadá).

Apendix

The Cultura Project