Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching
10th Anniversary Issue (2020), pp. 129-154
“I think I can see from another perspective now” –
Short-Term Study Abroad
and Intercultural Development
Wai Meng Chan (Singapore)
Abstract
Foreign language study abroad has the potential to contribute to learners’ culture learning and the cultivation of their intercultural competence, as it gives them first-hand experience in the target-language country and allows them to discover and partake in the local community’s sociocultural practices. This article presents a study of the impact of two short-term study abroad programmes in Germany on the intercultural development of German-language students from a Singapore university language centre. The study adopted a mixed-methods approach and collected both quantitative and qualitative data through pre- / post-programme questionnaires, journals, interviews, activity observations and document inspections. The data were analysed based on Byram’s (1997, 2008) model of intercultural competence, as well as Lave & Wenger’s (1991) Situated Learning Theory and their notion of legitimate peripheral participation. The findings suggest that the study abroad programmes, or “In-Country Language Immersions”, benefited learners in the development of the knowledge, attitudes and skills needed for the cultivation of critical cultural awareness and intercultural competence. It was further found that such positive development is often precipitated by the learners’ legitimate peripheral participation in the local communities, although it is dependent on their motivation and willingness to take up such opportunities for interaction and participation.
Keywords: Foreign language learning, German as a foreign language, study abroad, intercultural development, Situated Learning Theory, legitimate peripheral participation
1 Introduction
Study abroad programmes that take foreign language (FL) students to the target-language (TL) countries can make a significant contribution to the acquisition and construction of cultural knowledge, as well to the development of their intercultural competence (IC), as they allow them to not only observe these countries’ cultural practices, but also to partake in them. The first-hand experience of the target-language communities could help sensitise learners to the cultural practices and perspectives of these communities, and lead to critical reflections, not just of the target-language cultures, but also of their own native cultures – important processes in the development of intercultural competence and critical cultural awareness (Byram 1997, 2008). Intercultural development through participation in the TL communities is also supported by sociocultural theories of learning, which posit that learning is situated in the interactions between novices and experts in a community. According to Lave & Wenger’s (1991) Situated Learning Theory (SLT), competence is developed and acquired through a novice’s participation in a community of practice. Study abroad afford FL learners opportunities to interact with, and to negotiate and co-construct new cultural meanings with members of the TL community, which will in turn help foster intercultural competence.
Thus, it is not surprising that many university language departments have been organising study-abroad programmes, particularly those of a short-term and intensive nature, lasting less than eight weeks (Schwieter & Kunert 2012). While there are those (e.g. Davidson 2007) who dispute the possible contributions of such short-term programmes to students’ culture learning, some studies have shown that they promote the development of intercultural sensitivity and intercultural competence (e.g. Chan & Chi 2017, Heinzmann, Künzle, Schallhart, & Müller 2015, Jackson 2006). However, despite these recent studies, there is still a dearth of empirical research on the effect of short-term study abroad on development of intercultural competence. This article presents a study which aimed to add to the literature by investigating the impact of short-term study abroad in Germany on the intercultural development of Singapore university learners of German as a Foreign Language, drawing upon the theoretical framework of Byram’s (1997, 2008) model of intercultural language education and Lave & Wenger’s (1991) Situated Learning Theory.
2 Theoretical Framework and Literature Review
2.1 Byram’s Model of Intercultural Competence
Byram (1997) argues that for a foreign language learner to be able to communicate successfully and to build positive relationships with speakers of the target language, he or she will need more than just communicative competence in that target language. He or she must possess the ability to deal with the ‘otherness’ of the foreign culture, and to “engage with both familiar and unfamiliar experience through the medium of another language” (Byram 1997: 3). To interact successfully across languages and cultures, foreign language learners need intercultural communicative competence. And to achieve intercultural communicative competence, they will need – besides communicative competence – a good measure of intercultural competence (Byram, 2015). In his model of intercultural competence, Byram (1997, 2008) identifies five components:
1) Savoir être or attitudes of curiosity and openness in interacting with interactants from the target culture and other cultures, and the willingness to decentre from one’s own cultural perspectives;
2) Savoirs or knowledge of one’s own and the foreign culture, including knowledge of the sociocultural norms of interaction in both cultures;
3) Savoir comprendre or skills of interpreting other cultures and relating them to one’s own culture. This also involves the ability to recognise ethnocentric perspectives in the way information about other cultures is presented;
4) Savoir apprendre / faire or skills of discovering knowledge about other cultures and applying it in interactions with interactants from those cultures; and
5) Savoir s’engager or critical cultural awareness, which enables one to critically reflect on and appraise one’s own and other cultures.
Of these five components, Byram views critical cultural awareness as the core element of intercultural competence and thus the ultimate goal of intercultural language education, for it allows intercultural speakers to bring “to the experiences of their own and other cultures a rational and explicit standpoint from which to evaluate” (Byram 1997: 54).
With the growing mobility of foreign language learners, Byram (1997) suggests that intercultural competence can be acquired through visits, exchanges and other forms of contact with the target-language and other cultures, including short-term study abroad in the target-language environment.
2.2 Situated Learning Theory and Legitimate Peripheral Participation
Lave and Wenger’s (1991) Situated Learning Theory provides a theoretical framework to explain the learning of the target-language culture and the development of intercultural competence through study abroad. In opposition to the traditional view of learning as an act of internationalisation, Lave & Wenger postulate that learning results instead from active social participation within a Community of Practice (COP) and is situated in the professional and sociocultural practices of this community. Expert members of the community of practice act as mediators who initiate novices into the community and support them in building the knowledge and skills required to participate in its practices and activities. Learning thus takes place through interactions with these expert members and the negotiation and co-construction of new meanings and knowledge. The Situated Learning Theory posits that novices will be engaged initially at the periphery of a community of practice, moving from what Lave & Wenger call Legitimate Peripheral Participation (LPP) to full participation in the centre of the community. In this process, expert members of the community of practice support and scaffold the novices’ legitimate peripheral participation. Learning thus involves the establishment and maintenance of relationships between new and expert members, as well as transformations in the identity of the new members, as they assimilate into the community of practice. Figure 1 provides a visual representation of the process of legitimate peripheral participation in a community of practice:
Fig. 1: Situated Learning and Legitimate Peripheral Participation
The Situated Learning Theory can similarly provide a theoretical framework to ground the learning of a foreign culture and the development of intercultural competence through language study abroad. In study abroad, FL learners visit and enter the target-language community to learn its language and culture. They would typically be engaged in language instruction, cultural instruction and experience, homestay, excursions and field trips, as well as contact opportunities with members of the local community (such as local hosts and students). In analogy to the Situated Learning Theory, participants of a study-abroad programme are thus accorded the status of legitimate peripheral participation and provided with access to interactions with and participation in the TL community – as novices to its culture and practices. Full members of the local community (such as instructors, host families, local student helpers, and even casual interactants from incidental encounters), who are proficient and knowledgeable in its sociocultural practices, support and mediate the learners’ interpretation of their cultural experiences and the construction of new cultural meanings. By relating these new meanings to their existing cultural knowledge and critically reflecting on the differences between the target language and one’s native culture, learners develop and acquire the skills and knowledge (Byram’s different forms of savoirs) necessary for the cultivation of intercultural competence. Figure 2 shows how foreign language study abroad and legitimate peripheral participation afford and facilitate these processes that lead to the development of intercultural competence:
Fig. 2: In-Country Language Immersion and Legitimate Peripheral Participation
2.3 Studies on Study Abroad and Intercultural Development
A number of studies (e.g. Elola & Oskoz 2008, Goldoni 2013, Harrison & Malone 2004, Pedersen 2010, Savicki, Adams & Binder 2008) have been conducted to investigate if longer-term overseas study (e.g. a study abroad semester or year) could help learners develop intercultural competence. These studies have thus far led to mixed findings that suggest that overseas study can benefit learners in developing various sub-areas of intercultural competence, although this does not automatically result from just being overseas and may require the mediation of various factors, including instructional methods, preparations, programme design, and personal experience and encounters. In comparison, short-term study abroad has received far less attention in foreign-language pedagogy research, possibly because doubts have been voiced about its potential contributions – for instance by Davidson, who believes that “development of linguistic and cultural proficiency for second language learners is extremely unlikely to occur” (Davidson 2007: 279) in the short time of one to six weeks.
In one of the earliest studies on short-term study abroad and the intercultural development of foreign-language learners, Jackson (2006) employed a wide range of quantitative and qualitative instruments (including pre- and post-sojourn surveys, participant observation, reflective diaries, individual and group interviews, informal discussions and field notes) to collect data on the experiences of 15 Cantonese-speaking English majors from a Hong Kong university during a five-week programme in England. The programme included literary, language and current affairs courses, homestay with local families, interactions with other international students, attendance at cultural events, and excursions. Although the participants had initial difficulties adapting to the English lifestyle and social discourse, the analysis of the data indicated that they made some gains in their intercultural competence, particularly in the area of savoir être, displaying a more positive attitude towards cultural differences, and a higher degree of openness towards the target-language culture and other cultures. In a follow-up study involving a largely identical five-week programme in the same country and 13 participants of a similar profile, Jackson (2009) used the Intercultural Development Inventory (Hammer & Bennett 2002) to measure gains in students’ intercultural sensitivity following the study-abroad experience. The results were mixed, with nine of the 13 students registering a gain in intercultural sensitivity, but only five advanced to a higher level of development. Jackson found that those who reached a higher level of development reported observations that went beyond superficial aspects of the target-language culture, as evidenced by more substantive, comparative and analytic diary and survey reports.
In another study, Bloom & Miranda (2015) sought to ascertain if a four-week study abroad programme in Salamanca (Spain) had a positive effect on the intercultural development of ten undergraduate and two graduate foreign-language students of Spanish. The programme included two intensive courses focusing on the Spanish language and culture, respectively, as well as homestay with local Spanish families. The researchers administered the Intercultural Sensitivity Index designed by Olsen & Kroeger (2001, cited in Bloom & Miranda 2015) to participants’ pre- and post-programme to measure any changes to their intercultural sensitivity arising from the programme. In addition, they also analysed reflective journal entries written by students on their impressions of the target-language culture and culture in general to triangulate and interpret the data of the Intercultural Sensitivity Index. Bloom & Miranda came to the conclusion that the short-term study abroad experience did not generate any significant shifts in the intercultural sensitivity of the participants, and recommended that further research be conducted to determine the reasons for this result (e.g. if it could be attributed to the duration or the design of the programme).
Heinzmann, Künzle, Schallhart & Müller (2015) carried out a study involving 405 upper secondary German- and French-speaking students (with an average age of 16) from Switzerland who went on short-term language exchanges ranging from one to six weeks in areas where the respective target language was spoken. While they found that these short-term exchanges can impact the development of students’ intercultural competence positively, they also came to the insight that the length of the programmes can make a difference, as very short programmes of only one- to two-week durations seemed to limit students’ opportunities for interactions with the host communities and the development of intercultural skills. They further highlighted the importance of interactions and opportunities to use the target language with the local communities (including host families and local tandem partners), which provided students with an insightful and beneficial experience of the target-language culture. However, positive intercultural development and students’ willingness to engage with the local people seemed to depend largely on their predisposition to do so and their level of intercultural competence before the exchange.
Another study that also pointed to the positive impact of short-term study abroad on the development of intercultural competence was reported by Schwieter & Kunert (2012). The participants of this study were 28 Canadian learners of Spanish on a three-week programme in Spain consisting of an intensive language course, guided tours and homestay. During open-ended interviews, most of the participants reported having become more sensitive and open to other cultures through their participation in the programme. The researchers identified key factors contributing to the participants’ positive development in the pre-departure cultural sessions to prepare them and to pique their interest in the target-language culture, as well as in the interactions with the host families.
While the above review shows that there is growing interest in the study of the link between short-term study abroad and foreign-language learners’ intercultural development, the currently available literature is still comparatively sparse, and none of the previous studies have sought to illuminate the effect of short-term study abroad from a sociocultural perspective or, specifically, on the basis of the Situated Learning Theory and Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
3 Background and Participants of the Study
The current study was conducted at the language centre of a public university in Singapore, which teaches German as a Foreign Language (GFL) to students from area studies programmes (European Studies and Global Studies) in the Arts and Social Sciences faculty, for whom it is a requirement to read a prescribed number of German courses, as well as non-major students from other departments and faculties, who study the language as an elective.
The centre organises non-compulsory short-term study abroad, officially termed In-Country Language Immersion (ICLI), lasting two to four weeks on an annual basis. Currently, it offers such programmes in various countries in Europe and Asia for the following objectives:
1) to support students in the development of their communicative competence in the respective target languages by exposing them to language instruction and authentic communicative situations in a native-speaker environment; and
2) to give students the opportunity to experience and participate in the target-language cultures, and to thus to support the development of their intercultural competence.
The participants of this study were 17 volunteers out of a total of 30 learners of German as a Foreign Language who attended two in-country language- immersion programmes of three-week duration at universities in the German cities of Freiburg and Münster in May / June 2015. Of these 17 students, seven (one male and six females) were in Freiburg, while ten (five males and five females) went to Münster. The participants were graduate and undergraduate students from different faculties and years of study who gave their informed consent to the study. Prior to their in-country language immersion, they had completed two semesters of German language study (corresponding to the A1 level, as described in the Common European Framework of Reference). Their ages ranged from 19 to 25. Table 1 summarises the participants’ particulars:
Age | 22 (mean) | |
Gender | Female | 11 |
Male | 6 | |
Year of Study (Completed before ICLI) | Year 1 | 10 |
Year 2 | 4 | |
Year 3 | 0 | |
Year 4 | 1 | |
Graduate | 2 | |
Faculty of Study | Arts and Social Sciences | 9 |
Business | 1 | |
Computing | 1 | |
Engineering | 4 | |
Science | 2 | |
Table 1: Participants
Both the programmes offered in Münster and Freiburg, respectively, were planned by the local partner universities in conjunction with the Singapore university to achieve the latter’s ICLI objectives specified above. Each programme included 50 hours of intensive language instruction and a culture-focused programme consisting mainly of visits to places of historical and cultural interest (e.g. local museums and local festivals), excursions to other cities and neighbouring regions (e.g. Heidelberg and the Ruhr region), and social contact with local families and students (e.g. by attending regular casual meetings of local students, called Stammtisch in German). At each of these locations, the language instruction and the cultural activities were distributed over the three weeks of the programme, with the language classes held mostly on weekday mornings, while the cultural activities were conducted on weekends and selected weekday afternoons. Student tutors were engaged by both partner universities to accompany the students on the cultural activities to provide interactional opportunities in the target language as well as to help them adapt to the local environment and life.
The language courses offered dedicated classes customised to the requirements of the Singapore university language centre and were designed according to the principles of the communicative and intercultural approach to foreign language learning. The course lessons and tasks were aimed at preparing students for interactions with the target-language communities. They included, for instance, practice tasks to internalise vocabulary and grammar, simulations of communicative situations, such as role-plays, as well as out-of-class information gathering and interactional tasks, such as interviews with host families and members of the local communities. The last-named tasks were typically focused on aspects of the target-language culture and were intended to encourage critical reflection on the German and the students’ native cultures. For instance, in Freiburg, one of the tasks took students onto the streets to ask passers-by about multiculturalism in the city and to ascertain their attitudes towards it. The results were then presented and discussed in class with respect to the situation in Singapore.
Students lived with host families for the entire duration of the programme, with no more than two students assigned to each family, to provide them with first-hand experience of local family life and the sociocultural practices of the local communities. The local hosts were encouraged by the partner universities to interact with their student guests – as far as possible, only in German – and to undertake activities with them in order to expose them to local culture, traditions and practices.
4 Study Design
4.1 Research Questions
The study sought to answer the following three research questions:
1) Did the short-term in-country language-immersion programmes have a positive impact on the intercultural competence of Singapore university learners of German as a Foreign Language?
2) In which areas of intercultural competence did Singapore university learners of German as a Foreign Language benefit from their short-term in-country language immersion?
3) How did the experience of in-country language immersion contribute to the development of Singapore university German as a Foreign Language learners’ intercultural competence?
4.2 Data Collection and Analysis
A mixed-methods approach was selected for the study, and both quantitative and qualitative data were collected through pre- and post-programme questionnaires, weekly journals, semi-structured interviews as well as activity observations and document inspection during visits to both sites of in-country language immersion. The varied nature of the data collected allowed for greater data triangulation and a profound description of the participants’ intercultural development.
4.2.1 Pre- and Post-Programme Questionnaires
A pre- and a post-programme questionnaire each was administered online to all 17 participants to collect quantitative data. Both questionnaires contained the 24-item Intercultural Sensitivity Scale (ISS) developed by Chen & Starosta (2000), which has been tested, validated and applied in a considerable number of studies on intercultural competence in different countries (e.g. Chen & Starosta 2000, Coffey Kamhawi, Fishwick & Henderson, 2013, Fritz, Mollenberg & Chen 2001, Ruiz-Bernardo, Sanchiz-Ruiz & Gil-Gómez 2014). The participants responded to these 24 tems on a five-point scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). A higher score on the intercultural sensitivity scale (total possible score: 120) indicates a higher level of intercultural sensitivity. In addition, the pre-programme questionnaire also gathered personal information such as the participants’ age, major, faculty and year of study, level of German attained, and previous overseas experience.
The pre-programme questionnaire was completed about a week before the ICLI programmes, and the post-programme questionnaire about a week after the programmes. Frequency and mean analyses were carried out on the personal data of the participants, where appropriate. The pre- and post-programme ISS scores as well as the difference between these scores were computed for all participants to determine if the participants had made any gains in intercultural sensitivity, and thus in intercultural competence. A paired samples t-test was conducted to ascertain the statistical significance of the mean difference between the pre- and post-programme ISS scores of all participants.
4.2.2 Journals and Interviews
Six of the 17 participants also consented to providing qualitative data by writing journal reports prior to, during and after their ICLI experience. The journals provided the main body of data for this study. These six participants were requested to submit five journal reports for the study, beginning with a pre-programme report at least three days before departure. In this report, they were asked to write about their previous overseas experience, their prior knowledge of the German culture, their motivation and expectations for the ICLI programme, and any problems they might anticipate for the stay in Germany. Subsequently, for every week of the ICLI programme, they submitted a report about their study abroad experience, including classroom and other activities, incidents and problems, contact with local people, insights into German culture and community, and feelings and perceptions in relation to the above. They were instructed, in particular, to report any new knowledge and perspectives they might have gained about German culture and their own native culture. Within seven days after the ICLI programme, they submitted the fifth and last journal report, i.e. the post-programme report, about their feelings and perceptions with regard to the ICLI and its various components, including the instructional and cultural activities, accommodation, visits and excursions. They were also asked to comment on the new knowledge and perspectives they had gained about German culture and their own native culture. All journal reports were submitted to the researcher via e-mail.
After an initial analysis of the journal reports, the six participants were invited to individual semi-structured interviews to verify the initial findings from the analysis of the questionnaire and journal data, and to gather supplemental information, where necessary. The interviews were audio-recorded and subsequently transcribed for analysis.
The analysis of the qualitative journal and interview data was guided mainly by Byram’s (1997) model of intercultural competence, and Lave & Wenger’s Situated Learning Theory (1991) so as to ascertain how the participants responded and adapted to the ICLI programme, and to the target-language community and its cultural practices and to identify the specific areas (i.e. attitudes, knowledge, skills and awareness) in which the participants’ intercultural competence may have benefited from the ICLI experience. The data were read and re-read to identify and to code emerging themes that pertain particularly to these two areas. These themes were then categorised under larger, overarching themes.
4.2.3 Activity Observation and Document Inspection
The researcher spent four days at each of the in-country language-immersion sites, Münster and Freiburg. During his visits, he observed selected activities both inside and outside of class, including classroom instruction, project work, field trips and excursions. He also requested and carried out informal discussions with teachers and administrators of the respective programmes. Field notes were taken to document insights from the observations and discussions. In addition, relevant documents, including programme schedules, course curricula, field trip itineraries and samples of instructional and information materials, were collected and inspected. The activity observations and document inspections were intended to provide insights into:
1) the instructional approaches, and the focus of the instructional and cultural activities at both ICLI programmes and
2) the extent of legitimate peripheral participation afforded by the programmes.
5 Findings of the Study
5.1 Effects of In-Country Language Immersion on Learners’ Intercultural Competence –Intercultural Sensitivity Scale Scores
Table 2 shows the means of the pre- and post-programme Intercultural-Sensitivity-Scale scores of all 17 participants, and the mean difference between these scores. The mean of the pre-programme scores was 94.82 (out of a maximum of 120). The mean score rose by 5.89 to 100.71 for the post-programme scores. A paired samples t-test shows this increase to be statistically significant at the 0.05 confidence level. The ISS data thus provide an indication that the in-country language immersion had a positive impact on the intercultural sensitivity -- and thus the intercultural competence -- of the participants. This finding is corroborated by evidence from the journal and interview data, presented in the subsequent sections:
Mean of Pre-Programme ISS Scores | Mean of Post-Programme ISS Scores | Mean Difference Between Pre- and Post-Programme ISS Scores | Significance (Paired Samples t-Test) |
94.82 | 100.71 | 5.89 | 0.02* |
Table 2: Means of pre- and post-programmes ISS scores for all participants
(n = 17; maximum ISS score = 120; * significant at 0.05 level)
5.2 Benefits of ICLI for Learners’ Knowledge, Attitudes and Skills For Intercultural Development
In Byram’s (1997) construct of intercultural competence, savoirs and savoir être, (the knowledge and attitudinal components) constitute necessary pre-conditions for the development of savoir s’engager (one’s critical cultural awareness). On the other hand, savoir apprendre / faire (the skills of discovery and interaction) and savoir comprendre (the skills of interpreting other cultures) provide the means to acquire and make sense of new cultural knowledge. This section will present and discuss data which point towards the development of these components of intercultural competence among learners during their in-country language-immersion experience.
5.2.1 Savoirs
As the pre-programme journal reports reveal, for the participants, it had been the first visit to Germany, with the only exception being Jordan (all student names mentioned here represent randomly assigned pseudonyms), who had spent one semester on academic exchange in Munich a year before his in-country language-immersion programme in Freiburg. The other five participants had not had any first-hand exposure to or more than superficial knowledge about the German culture prior to their ICLI trips. It is therefore not surprising that they would learn much about Germany and its sociocultural practices through the ICLI experience, which Deeraj, who was in Münster, described as “both enjoyable and educational”, and which had taught him “plenty about the Germans and their culture” (post-programme report). Indeed, in the journal data, there was much further evidence of the participants acquiring new cultural knowledge, or savoirs:
Excerpt 1:
The home-stay experience was a once-in-a-lifetime experience. It felt as though I was immersed in the German culture – seeing the way they live their life, seeing how they speak to one another, etc. Rather than learning about the German way of life, we experienced it first hand. (Nor Alinah, Münster, Post-Immersion Report)
Excerpt 2:
[…] during the tour by Mandy [a student tutor] through the city, we were told that the water from the fountains are also potable (unless it was explicitly stated that we weren’t to drink it). This shocked us greatly, until we saw the state of water running through the small ‘canals’ of the city. The water there was clean, cold, and clear! The fact that water from fountains here is potable is something I still can’t quite wrap my head around. (Nadyah, Freiburg, Weekly Report 1)
Excerpt 3:
Having spoken with my host family, quite a bit, I’ve picked up quite a few little quirks of how they speak. One of these is the use of oder at the end of a sentence […] It is sort of a way of seeking agreement, or perhaps a way to soften the sentence. I find that using these phrases myself makes speaking German feel a lot less ‘sterile’, and more of something that I can relate much more to as a person speaking to another person. I feel like this is something that’s so important but yet cannot rally [sic!] be taught in class. (Jordan, Freiburg, Weekly Report 2)
In Excerpt 1, Nor Alinah attributed to her homestay experience what she had learned about Germans’ sociocultural practices, which gave her the chance not just to observe the German way of life, but to actually participate in it. In Excerpt 2, Nadyah learned from a student tutor about the potable nature of fountain water in the city, which apparently took her quite by surprise. In Excerpt 3, Jordan narrated how he had gained new knowledge about sociolinguistic aspects of the German language through his interactions with his host family and then learned to apply it in his own language use.
In the next two excerpts, we see further examples of how incidental encounters and their participation in local life can contribute to the construction of new cultural knowledge, relating to public transportation in both cases. In Excerpt 4, Deeraj, who made regular use of a bicycle belonging to his host to get around Münster, wrote about his observations about cycling as a frequent mode of transport among the local residents. Natasha, in Excerpt 5, compared the behaviour of public transport commuters in Freiburg to that in her native Singapore, and related how her observations led her to gain new insights and revise some of her pre-conceptions:
Excerpt 4:
In Münster, many of the residents use bicycles as their mode of transport. It is interesting to see a system whereby commuters can ride bicycles on the road without having to fight for space with other road users. (Deeraj, Münster, Weekly Report 1)
Excerpt 5:
Another observation is the way the elderly and needy are treated on public transportation. It seems that while there is a fair amount of people who do give up their seats, it is not exactly a common occurrence (and there are a fair share of them on public transport because the more abled usually take their bikes and cars). It struck me as a little odd because I had always assumed Germans to be infinitely more polite than Singaporeans in this respect, or at least I expected so. But we actually seem to be more alike in this way. Also this notion of sitting on the outside seat is extremely common, such that most seats on the trams and buses are usually empty and a two-seater would usually be occupied by one person and his / her belongings, seemingly a higher rate than Singapore. (Natasha, Freiburg, Weekly Report 3)
Some of the reports, such as those from Natasha, Jordan and Nadyah, are fairly detailed, reflective and comparative, and provide insights beyond the superficial, which, as Jackson (2009) asserts, is usually indicative of significant intercultural development.
5.2.2 Savoir être
Positive attitudes towards other cultures, or savoir être, form an important pre-condition for successful intercultural communication, and enables us to interpret and relate to other cultures in a manner that is free from our own cultural bias (Byram 1997). Attitudes of curiosity and openness tend to contribute a greater willingness to engage and interact with other cultures, and to accept and appreciate differences between cultures. Similar to the findings reported by Jackson (2006), and Schwieter & Kunert (2012), there is evidence here of how participants, when confronted with differences in sociocultural practices during their in-country language-immersion programmes, learned to recognise and accept these differences, which in turn helped them to adapt to life in the target-language communities.
At the end of the second week in Freiburg, Natasha reported on how her in-country language-immersion experience benefited her and made her more sensitive to and accepting of the perspectives of others:
Excerpt 6:
I don’t think I’m learning so much about a culture as I’m learning how to interact with different people [...] I think I can see from another perspective now. And I am learning to respect people’s different ways of doing, thinking and believing […] I have opened up my world view and that would give me more opportunities in terms of being able to connect with different people and communicate with them as much as possible. (Natasha, Freiburg, Weekly Report 3)
The case of Nadyah provides an indication of how savoir être can develop through the ICLI experience. She was a 20-year-old Malay Muslim student who had only limited overseas experience beyond Southeast Asia before the ICLI trip. She was thus concerned about her stay in Germany and the problems that could arise from differences between the German and her native Malay Muslim culture (e.g. with regard to her diet, religion and dress). Indeed, these concerns were apparent in the first few days of her Freiburg stay, when she confessed to being homesick and became aware of two significant differences in the sociocultural practices of Germany and Singapore:
Excerpt 7:
Another memorable experience that happened on our second night here was an issue brought up by the host about the washroom. After dinner, she explained to us that the steam from the hot shower needed to escape, and that the shower area needed to be kept dry, to avoid bacterial growth. She then provided us with a small towel that could be used to wipe down the area after our shower. Although having a dry bath area was never the case in Singapore, this difference was backed by logic, and I could somewhat understand the reasoning behind it. Her way of (bringing up and) addressing the issue was straight to the point: pointing out what was wrong, how we could rectify it, and providing us with the means to rectify it. (Nadyah, Freiburg, Weekly Report 1)
While the bathroom maintenance in her host family was vastly different from the practice in Singapore, where bathrooms are often wet and one never attempts to wipe them dry (because of the high humidity), she was quick to grasp the rationale behind it. But an even more significant difference that proved harder for Nadyah to accept was the directness of her host’s attempt to teach her the local bathroom practices – which is incidentally an example of the kind of mediation provided by a full member of a community in the peripheral participation of a newcomer, as described by Lave & Wenger (1991). Later in the same journal report, Nadyah hinted at her discomfort towards her host’s directness, writing that “hedging to not humiliate someone is something we [her own community in Singapore] do a lot.” Later journal entries as well as further explications during her interview revealed that she meant to say that, in her native culture, one would be hesitant to voice criticism or to instruct others in a direct manner to avoid offending or humiliating them. However, by the end of her stay, she had apparently gained a better appreciation of the directness of her host, as Excerpt 8 shows:
Excerpt 8:
In the Malay society […] we try not to be so direct. Like, even if you’d like to criticize someone, it’ll be, I won’t, it will never be direct. […] But, with Frau F. [the host], then she would say stuff direct, yeah, so that was different. […] I wasn’t really comfortable with that at first. […] When it was directed at me, I didn’t really feel that it was positive? But looking back, then I realized that it cuts down, like it brought the issue across very fast. So she addressed the issue, then we went to talk about other topics. So she didn’t really built up to it, she didn’t really waste time. So it brought the point across very fast, so it was something I appreciated. (Nadyah, Freiburg, Interview)
It appears that during her stay with her host, Nadyah had kept an open mind, and eventually learned to understand and accept the differences in the interactional practices of both cultures.
5.2.3 Savoir apprendre / faire
Savoir apprendre / faire or the ability to interact with and discover another culture is a vital factor in the development of intercultural competence. Rightly, Byram asserts that new cultural knowledge “may be discovered in interaction with interlocutors from another country” (1997: 33). The findings from Heinzmann et al.’s (2015) study also pointed to the importance of interactions with local people for the intercultural development of foreign language learners on short-term study abroad.
The language courses at both ICLI sites in the current study were communicatively and interculturally oriented, and were designed to enhance participants’ pragmatic competence and to enable them to interact with the local communities. Instructional tasks included out-of-class interactional activities through which they were to gather information about the local culture from people on the street as well as their host families. Pre-interactional practice and simulations were also conducted in class to prepare them for the interactional tasks out of class. The homestay also provided the participants with daily opportunities that allowed them to apply what they had learned in class as well as to acquire further linguistic knowledge.
In truth, not all the participants were equally positive about or responded well to the language instruction. For instance, Samuel, who was in Münster, found the instructional hours too short and reported being disappointed at not having achieved his target of becoming fluent in German – a goal, which, however, as he admitted, was unrealistic in the first place. Natasha felt that “the activities in class were not relevant enough to real life German situations” and believed that “the Singapore German classes were more relevant” in comparison (Freiburg, Post-Programme Report). Nonetheless, all other participants found language courses and homestay to be effective and beneficial in developing their pragmatic and interactional ability, as the following selection of data suggests:
Excerpt 9:
Classes held in the morning on weekdays are actually very enjoyable. I find that there is something different about learning German here. I find it more interesting since I can actually practice it every day and also, there isn’t any exams. As time goes on, I think that my German is slowly improving and I am finally opening up to my host family by speaking in German, rather than English. It takes a while to form a sentence in German but the practice is definitely helping. (Nor Alinah, Münster, Weekly Report 2)
Excerpt 10:
The instructional part of the programme was very well executed, with Mr H. W. [the instructor] providing practical lessons that equipped us with various linguistic tools. Besides greetings, we were taught how to search for furniture, look for jobs, interview people on the street, etc. As a whole, the instructional part of the programme was well-rounded, multi-faceted and was incredibly effective in boosting our confidence in speaking German to native Germans. […] For me, the benefits of this immersion programme include the rare opportunity to practice the German language with Germans, and in a wholly German environment. (Nadyah, Freiburg, Post-Programme Report)
Excerpt 11:
I thought the best thing about the programme was being able to live with a German host family. I think I’ve learnt the most from them, in terms of culture and language […] Reading, hearing and speaking German every single day really makes a big difference. […] Speaking to people in German made me feel much more confident because I knew I was doing something right when they actually understood me. Even in German class, we learnt grammar and phrases, but it only became “real” for me (and I suspect most of us) when we actually hear it being used or when we use it ourselves. I’ve been travelling in German since the immersion programme ended (I’m actually headed now to Weimar), and I’ve actually had several chats with locals (most of them I met at beer gardens), in German! […] I really do think that this immersion in Germany has really solidified a fundamental level of understanding of the German language, and has made me much more confident in speaking it. (Jordan, Freiburg, Post-Programme Report)
Nor Alinah reported in her first weekly report, a few days after her arrival in Münster, that she was trying to avoid conversing with her hosts in German and left most of the talking to the other student who was staying with the same family. Yet, a week later, as indicated in Excerpt 9, through the language classes and daily practice afforded by the environment, her confidence and willingness to engage her hosts in conversations grew. In Excerpt 9, Nadyah similarly highlighted the importance of learning and using German in a German-speaking environment, and pointed to the benefits of the language course for her improved ability to communicate in German. Jordan, in Excerpt 11, attributed the gains in his proficiency mainly to his authentic interactions with his host family. He had, in fact, related in Excerpt 3 how he had acquired new linguistic and pragmatic knowledge from his hosts and attempted to apply this in his speech. Apparently, his enhanced proficiency and confidence served him well in his further interactions with locals during his individual travel after the ICLI programme.
5.2.4 Savoir comprendre
Savoir comprendre, i.e. the skill of interpreting new cultural information and experiences, plays a key role in understanding new cultures and constructing (and reconstructing) cultural meanings. As Byram (1997) contends, this ability is relational and draws upon existing cultural knowledge, especially the knowledge of one’s own culture, which serves as a “resource for learning new cultures” (Liddicoat & Scarino 2013). There are abundant journal data that underline this, as the following samples demonstrate:
Excerpt 12:
I have learnt plenty about Germans and their culture from this immersion experience. I could see both similarities and differences between the Singaporeans and Germans. Like most Singaporeans, Germans are also extremely hardworking. This could be seen from the efficiency of the transport systems and also when I observed my host. However, a difference I noticed was that courtesy was more prevalent among Germans who would often greet strangers they meet on the streets. (Deeraj, Münster, Post-Programme Report)
Excerpt 13:
[Recycling is] apparently a major issue here. The first night in our host’s house, she pointed out twice (on separate occasions) that any trash must be separated into common trash, plastic, and paper. Paper and plastic was to go into bins set up in the cellar, and the common trash could be thrown in a bin in the kitchen. We were reminded that the bin inside our room is only for paper. In Singapore, it was a fairly common practice to recycle, but not to such an extent that we regulate the trash that we throw in the bedroom. So, this was an interesting practice that could indeed be emulated back home. In Singapore, there has always been an emphasis on the colour of different recycling bins. However, this was not always the case here in Freiburg. The bins are not multi-coloured and yet the emphasis that was placed on recycling was remarkably larger! It seemed like everyone here recycles! (Nadyah, Freiburg, Weekly Report 1)
Excerpt 14:
An observation on how different the lifestyle of families can be here in Germany is the different times that people tend to knock off from work. My host family is able to get home at around 6 or 6.30 in the evening. This leaves them, during summer at least, time to still go out for a short hike or walk, or even drive up to a nice picnic spot to chill. I find that so different from what I experience with my family in Singapore – by the time everyone gets back it’s dark and there really isn’t anything much to do except stay at home. I think that this could possibly have been a factor that greatly affects family dynamics. For example, with two working parents in Singapore, kids would only ever really have time to interact with their parents in the evening or on weekends. While that isn’t in itself bad, it is really different from the German family where evenings could be used for heading out or some outdoor activities. (Jordan, Freiburg, Weekly Report 3)
In these and many other accounts, the participants displayed a natural tendency to immediately relate their new experiences to similar and comparable situations in their own culture, as they attempted to interpret and make sense of these experiences. Indeed, the myriads of new cultural information that flooded their senses during the ICLI programmes afforded them opportunities – or perhaps even compelled them – to constantly apply and hone their skills of interpreting and relating. This process of connecting and integrating new and existing cultural knowledge represents an important and necessary step in their intercultural development. In fact, it provides the basis for the critical reflections that precipitate the cultivation of the participants’ critical cultural awareness.
5.2.5 Savoir s’engager
Byram (2008) locates savoir s’engager, or critical cultural awareness, in the centre of his model of intercultural competence, because it represents a key goal in the political education of an individual and his socialisation towards intercultural citizenship. Byram (1997, 2008) describes it as one’s ability to identify, analyse, interpret and evaluate one’ own and other cultures based on explicit and critical criteria. The native culture will usually provide the reference base and initial criteria for the interpretation and evaluation of the other culture. At the same time, such critical analysis and reflection will invariably result in the re-examination and re-alignment of one’s own cultural norms, beliefs, and values, leading to a re-appraisal of one’s own culture. As Phipps & Gonzalez put it, “to enter other cultures is to re-enter one’s own” (2004: 3). Indicative of positive development in one’s critical cultural awareness are the ability to decentre from one’s cultural beliefs as well as revisions to one’s perspectives to both the other and one’s own culture, including corrections to any pre-conceptions and stereotypes one may hold.
Some of the data samples cited above in fact provided examples of the critical appraisal of practices in both the target language and the participants’ own culture – for example, when Nadyah tried to make sense of the different bathroom practices in a German household (keeping the bathroom dry) and mulled over the logic behind them (Excerpt 7), or when she contemplated the advantages and disadvantages of being direct in one’s interactions (Excerpt 8). Another instance of such critical reflection was Jordan’s reasoned and differentiated comparison of family life in Germany and Singapore (Excerpt 14), which led him to a more critical view of family culture in Singapore and the resolve to adopt some of the practices in German families to improve the quality of his own family’s interactions, as the following excerpt indicates:
Excerpt 15
I’ve actually been talking to my family (in Singapore) about this, and we’re actually really excited to try to change some of our lifestyles to include more things like simply relaxing together at home, or trying to have more interactive activities as well. (Jordan, Freiburg, Weekly Report 3)
The case of Natasha provides an example of how her homestay experience induced a remarkable change to her perspectives of German and Singapore culture, specifically to the notion of respect in the family. In her first week with her German host family, she was quite perturbed by the way the host mother and her daughter interacted, and the daughter’s behaviour, which she perceived as lacking in respect to her mother:
Excerpt 16
What affected me most strongly was my host family. When I had arrived at the train station, I met with someone else’s host at first, and I had hoped to be with that host. And at first when I met mine I was thinking that she’s really nice too! That changed quite drastically over the next two days. Not that she wasn’t nice or friendly or welcoming, but there were so many lifestyle and family dynamic changes made. Firstly, she has a teenage daughter. I haven't had that family dynamic since my younger sister grew up, so that was something new. Mood swings, talking back to parents and adults, these were things in my household that were extremely heavily punished. Respect was something taught in my house and I was more taken aback than anything that any child could talk disrespectfully back to their parents. Talking back in my household wasn’t punitive but talking with a tone that disregarded the other person's opinion or just (in my opinion being taunting) was to be severely punished. The logic was that: if you wanted to be treated respectfully, you had to gain it by giving it mutually. (Natasha, Freiburg, Weekly Report 1)
Perhaps Natasha’s attitude towards her host family was to some extent affected by her initial disappointment of not getting the host of her choice, and she was initially highly critical of the social discourse in her host family, basing her interpretation on the notion of respect held by her own family in Singapore. In fact, she was considering requesting a change in her host family, but eventually decided against it. Her evaluation of German family relations and interactions was to change drastically in the subsequent two weeks of her immersion stay, brought about by more intense and frequent interactions with her host and her extended family, as documented by her post-programme report:
Excerpt 17
Germans have a direct way of communication in most social contexts as well. But I appreciate that fully because it meant that any potential misunderstandings could be dealt with immediately before it led to bigger problems, and I do think that that’s what leads to stronger bonds being formed between them and the people they meet, as well as the family bonds. Parents and children are free to talk about anything they want and both sides are heard. They know how to listen and yet are not afraid to be heard. That makes for a very honest and (even if somewhat blunt at times) candid conversations. […] As for my culture, I discovered a lot of differences between the host family(ies) in Freiburg and my own at home. There are so many things I would not have chosen to tell my parents about, mostly because I always feel that it would be frowned upon and somehow upset the family dynamics (which tends to happen a lot). In my host family, mother and daughter (as well as occasionally grandparents) can come together and talk about all sorts of things, even personal and intimate issues. But it shows care and concern for each other’s well-being. And while everyone had their individual separate views, they understood not to impose it on someone else. And because of that there was a lot of respect for each other, whereas in my family, there was a lot of respect for authority and seniority. Germans have a direct way of communication in most social contexts as well. But I appreciate that fully because it meant that any potential misunderstandings could be dealt with immediately before it led to bigger problems, and I do think that that’s what leads to stronger bonds being formed between them and the people they meet, as well as the family bonds. Parents and children are free to talk about anything they want and both sides are heard. They know how to listen and yet are not afraid to be heard. That makes for a very honest and (even if somewhat blunt at times) candid conversations. […] As for my culture, I discovered a lot of differences between the host family(ies) in Freiburg and my own at home. There are so many things I would not have chosen to tell my parents about, mostly because I always feel that it would be frowned upon and somehow upset the family dynamics (which tends to happen a lot). In my host family, mother and daughter (as well as occasionally grandparents) can come together and talk about all sorts of things, even personal and intimate issues. But it shows care and concern for each other’s well-being. And while everyone had their individual separate views, they understood not to impose it on someone else. And because of that, there was a lot of respect for each other, whereas in my family, there was a lot of respect for authority and seniority. (Natasha, Freiburg, Post-Immersion Programme Report)
Through her in-country language-immersion experience, Natasha had not only gained a greater appreciation of the openness and frankness in German family relationships and interactions, but she had apparently also re-examined and re-constructed her notion of respect, arriving at a more critical appraisal of her own family culture (“respect for authority and seniority” as opposed to “respect for each other”) and demonstrating gains in the development of her critical cultural awareness.
5.3 Legitimate Peripheral Participation and Intercultural Development
5.3.1 Contributions of In-Country Language Immersion to Students’ Legitimate Peripheral Participation
The in-country language-immersion programmes were designed to enable and promote students’ interactions with the local communities and participation in their sociocultural practices, that is, legitimate peripheral participation. The language courses also contributed to students’ ability to engage in legitimate peripheral participation by developing their pragmatic competence and the linguistic means to interact with locals (e.g. as evidenced by Nadyah’s report in Excerpt 10). The course instructors thus acted as pedagogical mediators, who scaffolded students’ legitimate peripheral participation. In addition, as the site visits and observations reveal, the courses in both Münster and Freiburg utilised information-gathering tasks to enable students to interact with local people and to discover cultural knowledge outside of class. Jordan attested to the usefulness of such tasks in giving him “an extremely interesting look at the social norms in how strangers interact” (Freiburg, Weekly Report 1). In a later report, he further elaborated on these tasks and their benefits:
Excerpt 18:
Our German lecturer here seems to find it important that we get to interact with the real world in German. This week we were involved in two more activities that required us to speak to people in order to find out things or to just get information. The first of these activities was (theoretically) buying and furnishing an apartment. This required first reading the advertisement section of a local newspaper to search for an apartment, and then later going to a real furniture shop to choose furniture. While it did take up a lot of time, I felt like it made it much more personal when we presented our ‘findings’ and our apartment designs. The second of these activities was linked to our trip to Basel, Switzerland. It required us to speak to some Swiss locals in order to find out what some Swiss German words meant. I find it really interesting because I realize it helps us with internalizing that this foreign language is in fact used by a lot of people somewhere on Earth, and that all the little quirks or seemingly strange qualities of that language are not so to these native speakers. It makes you go “oh they really say that”, when you realize that something you just brushed off as a weird phrase or word that people could never use is in fact something very normal in another culture. (Jordan, Freiburg, Weekly Report 3)
In previous sections, we had also seen multiple examples of students’ interactions with the local communities, in particular with their host families. In Except 1, Nor Alinah wrote about what she learned about the German culture, and attributed this to her homestay experience, which gave her the chance to participate in German family life. In Freiburg, Jordan reported picking up and then applying new sociolinguistic features in his interactions with his host family – attempts at participation in the sociolinguistic practices of target-language community (Excerpt 3). In Excerpts 7 and 13, Nadyah narrated how she was instructed by her host to dry the bathroom after having taken a shower and to sort trash for recycling – practices she had to adhere to for the duration of her homestay. As the partner institutions informed the researcher, the homestay hosts had been prepared to provide interactions in German and to support participants in adjusting to and participating in local life. In other words, they were asked to act as expert mediators – knowledgeable full members of the target-language culture – to aid the participants in their legitimate peripheral participation and culture learning in a manner consistent with Lave & Wenger’s (1991) Situated Learning Theory.
In another example, Deeraj emulated the locals and made frequent use of the bicycle to travel around Münster, although, by his own admission, he hardly cycled in Singapore. His participation in this common local practice led him to compare and ponder about cycling as a means of transport and the different attitudes towards cycling in Germany and Singapore:
Excerpt 19:
Münster is a cycling city […] I found it about it before I went there but I only saw the extent of it while I was there because, like, in Singapore, it’s quite hard to ride bicycles on the road because not all road users are really friendly towards bicycle users … and … what I saw over there … people … it was actually one of the more convenient forms of transport if you live in the city. Yeah, that was something that I found interesting there. (Deeraj, Münster, Post-Programme Report)
Legitimate peripheral participation and interactions with the local communities thus facilitated the participants’ appraisals of the German culture. Further evidence of this can be found in Nadyah’s reflections and balanced appraisals of German home practices, which she judged to be “backed by logic” (Excerpt 7), and the directness in their interactions with others, which she eventually learned to appreciate (Excerpt 8). As Byram contends, intercultural experiences and critical reflections typically also result in the re-appraisal of one’s own culture as well. Perhaps the most obvious example of how interactions with and participation in the target-language community can lead to new and more critical perspectives of one’s own culture and beliefs is Natasha’s discovery of the openness and respect that characterises German family communications and relationships (Excerpt 17). Indeed, her interactions with her host and her extended family mediated the re-examination and revision of the notion of respect held by her own family in Singapore.
On the evidence of the data presented thus far, it appears that the homestay was the component of the whole programme that afforded participants the most and the most telling opportunities for legitimate peripheral participation, and significantly mediated their intercultural development.
5.3.2 Motivation and Legitimate Peripheral Participation
Lave & Wenger (1991) assert that the quality and extent of learners’ legitimate peripheral participation is highly dependent on how they value and desire full participation in a community of practice. In a similar vein, Heinzmann et al. (2015) found that their subjects’ willingness to interact with the target-language communities was dependent on their predisposition to do so prior to the study-abroad programmes. In the current study, the case of Samuel seems to confirm the key role of motivation in determining if and how students take advantage of the legitimate peripheral participation opportunities afforded by in-country language immersion, and develop interculturally.
Prior to the trip, Samuel described himself as being “extremely introverted by nature” and was concerned that “the constant need to interact will be extremely draining” (Samuel, Münster, Pre-Programme Report). His declared goal for the in-country language immersion was to achieve fluency in German, although he had doubts about his own ambition right from the onset: “Anyway, I’d like to think that I’d come out of this programme fairly fluent, but realistically I don’t expect that to happen.” (Samuel, Münster, pre-programme report). His doubts about the attainability of his own goal was to become a recurrent theme in his journal. Perhaps because of his introverted personality and his lack of conviction in pursuing his goal during in-country language immersion, he had reservations about interacting with locals, including his host family, partly attributing this to his lack of communicative ability. Instead, he seemed to interact more with his fellow participants – and in English rather than German:
Excerpt 20
However, it is perhaps unfortunate that the lot of us all come from Singapore, because then it very quickly becomes much easier to speak using English or Singaporean references, which hinders the progress of German learning. […] I guess one more thing that I could mention is that it is still surprisingly difficult to communicate with the host family as much as I would like. Overcoming the language barrier takes much more fluency than I’d thought. (Samuel, Münster, Weekly Report 2)
Not surprisingly, his journal contained very few accounts of interactions with his host family or other members of the local community. In fact, Samuel did not even attempt to describe his host family. On the contrary, in his journal, he focused on his activities and his relationships with the other participants of the programme. Later, in the interview, he revealed that his interactions with his host got “progressively less” during his stay, and that he and his roommate had stayed out late on occasions and missed the dinners their hosts had prepared for them – and thus also opportunities for interactions with the family. Apparently, as he explained later, he gave up on his “unrealistic” goal and decided to focus on enjoying the stay in Germany instead:
Excerpt 21:
“[…] my priorities changed during the immersion itself because I started to see it more as … okay … since it’s like … okay, let loose and have fun. Rather than the whole focus on language learning, that sort of thing.” (Samuel, Münster, Interview)
Because of this ‘shift’ in motivation, he admitted to not having made full use of the interactional opportunities available to him:
Excerpt 22:
So if that [making use of the interactional opportunities] is not your focus, then naturally you won’t try to do that so much. So even for myself, that’s what I said … like … at the start, I did focus more on communication, but as my focus changed, then it became less and less important. Yeah. (Samuel, Münster, Interview)
We could speculate that Samuel might have been more a ‘tourist’ than a ‘sojourner’ who is truly interested in interacting with and learning more deeply about a new culture, as his repeated doubts about his own goal of achieving fluency in German and the apparent lack of interest in interactions would seem to suggest. This cannot be determined with certainty, but latest by the time he gave up on his initial goal and his motivation changed, he became a clear example of the importance of motivation for LPP (Lave and Wenger, 1991) and interactions in the target-language communities (Heinzmann et al., 2015).
5.4 Summary
Contrary to Davidson’s (2007) view that short-term study abroad may not be effective in helping students learn the target-language culture, the findings of the present study show that positive intercultural development can result from an in-country language-immersion experience, given the right programme design – for instance, when the programme is designed to provide sufficient and appropriate opportunities for legitimate peripheral participation, and to support and prepare learners for social interactions and participation pragmatically and linguistically. The learners also need to be properly motivated to avail themselves of the access to legitimate peripheral participation afforded to them (also Schwieter & Kunert 2012).
The results on the intercultural sensitivity scale and extensive qualitative data from the journals, interviews and activity observations suggest an affirmative answer to Research Question 1. The in-country language-immersion programmes had, in most cases, a positive impact on the intercultural development of the participating students. The statistical analysis of the participants’ ISS scores from the pre- and post-programme questionnaires points towards a significant and positive gain in the intercultural sensitivity of the respondents. In addition, there were many lengthy and substantive journal reports with critical reflections and well-balanced evaluations that are indicative of positive intercultural growth (Bloom & Miranda 2015, Jackson 2009).
With regard to Research Question 2, in our qualitative data, we have similarly seen much evidence that the participants’ in-country language-immersion experience can benefit them in all areas of intercultural competence described in Byram’s (1997) model, providing them with opportunities to acquire, apply and enhance their savoirs, savoir être, savoir apprendre / faire, savoir comprendre, and savoir s’engager. A key observation is that the development of these components was closely interlinked. For example, a positive and open attitude towards the target-language culture predisposed participants positively towards active participation in the local community, thus promoting the discovery of new cultural knowledge. Another example was how the process of interpreting and making sense of new cultural knowledge – usually involving comparisons between the new and one’s native culture – frequently precedes and contributes to critical reflections and the development of critical cultural awareness.
As regards Research Question 3, the qualitative data point towards the pivotal role of the opportunities afforded by in-country language-immersion for social contact and interactions (such as with the instructors and homestay hosts), confirming the findings of previous studies (e.g. Heinzmann et al. 2015, Schwieter & Kunert 2012). This study has further shown that the resultant intercultural development can be explained by Lave & Wenger’s (1991) Situated Learning Theory and is precipitated by the participants’ legitimate peripheral participation in the target-language community. We have seen numerous examples of participants engaging actively in the practices of the target-language culture, and subsequently interpreting and reflecting on these and similar practices in their own culture. The fact that not all participants (specifically Samuel) achieved the same degree of intercultural development is not unusual and has been documented in other studies (e.g. Bloom & Miranda 2015, Heinzmann et al. 2015, Jackson, 2006, 2009). Indeed, in the present study, this serves to underline the importance of legitimate peripheral participation. It seems particularly revealing that Samuel, who failed to engage meaningfully in interactions with the locals and in legitimate peripheral participation, hardly displayed any signs of positive intercultural development, judging by the journal and interview data he provided.
6 Conclusion
This study aimed to investigate the effect of short-term in-country language immersion on the intercultural development of Singapore university learners of German as a foreign language who participated in ICLI programmes in two German cities. The analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data collected through pre- and post-programme questionnaires, weekly journal reports, interviews, activity observations and document inspections indicates that the ICLI experience enhanced the knowledge, attitudes and skills which are necessary for the development of the participants’ critical cultural awareness and intercultural competence. The findings also show that in-country language immersion offered learners opportunities to discover and to engage in the sociocultural practices of the local communities. They further suggest that the Situated Learning Theory and the notion of legitimate peripheral participation can explain this development, as those who availed themselves of the opportunities for social interactions and legitimate peripheral participation apparently benefited more from the in-country language-immersion.
Future research can seek to further investigate and confirm the positive impact of short-term study abroad and legitimate peripheral participation on the development of intercultural competence and if sociocultural theories such as the Situated Learning Theory can be used to ground and explain cultural learning. It is recommended that studies that adopt a sociocultural perspective also examine the roles of the expert members of the target-language community who mediate the participants’ culture learning and thir intercultural development. To date, most studies have tended to focus on the participants and have paid little attention to the perspectives and roles of mediators such as instructors, programme coordinators, peer interactants like as student tutors and student buddies, and host families.
References
Bloom, M. & A. Miranda (2015). Intercultural sensitivity through short-term study abroad. In: Language and Intercultural Communication, 15 (4), 567-580.
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Byram, M. (2008). From foreign language education to education for intercultural citizenship. Essays and reflections. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Byram, M. (2015). Culture in foreign language learning – the implications for teachers and teacher training. In: Chan, W. M., S. Kumar Bhatt, M. Nagami & I. Walker (Eds.). Culture in foreign language education. Insights from research and implications for the practice. Boston & Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 37-58.
Chan, W. M. & S. W. Chi (2017). In-country language immersion and the development of Korean language learners’ intercultural competence. In: International Journal of Korean Language Education, 3 (2), 1-36.
Chen, G.-M. & W. J. Starosta (2000). The development and validation of the Intercultural Communication Sensitivity Scale. In: Human Communication, 3, 1-15.
Coffey, A. J., R. Kamhawi, P. Fishwick & J. Henderson (2013). New media environments’ comparative effects upon intercultural sensitivity: A five-dimensional analysis. In: International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 37, 605-627.
Davidson, D. E. (2007). Study abroad and outcomes measurements: The case of Russian. In: The Modern Language Journal, 2007, 276-280.
Elola, I. & A. Oskoz (2008). Blogging: Fostering intercultural competence development in foreign language and study abroad contexts. In: Foreign Language Annals, 41 (3), 454-477.
Fritz, W., A. Mollenberg & G.-M. Chen (2001, July). Measuring intercultural sensitivity in different cultural context. Paper presented at the Biannual Meeting of the International Association for Intercultural Communication Studies, Hong Kong. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 456491).
Goldoni, F. (2013). Students’ immersion experiences in study abroad. In: Foreign Language Annals, 46 (3), 359-376.
Hammer, M. & M. Bennett (2002). The intercultural development inventory: Manual. Portland, OR: Intercultural Communication Institute.
Harrison, L. & K. Malone (2004). A study abroad experience in Guatemala: Learning first-hand about health, education, and social welfare in a low-resource country. In: Intercultural Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 1, 1-15.
Heinzmann, S., R. Künzle, N. Schallhart & M. Müller (2015). The effect of study abroad on intercultural competence: Results from a longitudinal quasi-experimental study. In: Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of SA, 26, 187-208.
Jackson, J. (2006). Ethnographic pedagogy and evaluation in short-term study abroad. In: Byram M. & A. Feng (Eds.). Living and studying abroad: Research and practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 134-156.
Jackson, J. (2009). Intercultural learning and short-term sojourns. In: Intercultural education, 20 (Suppl. S1), 59-71.
Lave, J. & E. Wenger (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Liddicoat, A. J. & A. Scarino (2013). Intercultural language teaching and learning. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Pedersen, P. (2010). Assessing intercultural effectiveness outcomes in a year-long study abroad program. In: International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34, 70-80.
Phipps, A. & M. Gonzales (2004). Modern languages: Learning and teaching in an intercultural field. London: Sage.
Ruiz-Bernardo, P., M. L. Sanchiz-Ruiz & J. Gil-Gómez (2014). Study of intercultural sensitivity among young people in the province of Castellón, Spain. In: Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 132, 318-323.
Savicki, V., I. Adams & F. Binder (2008). Intercultural development: Topics and sequences. In: Savicki, V. (Ed.). Developing intercultural competence and transformation: Theory, research, and application in international education. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, 154-172.
Schwieter, J. W. & S. Kunert (2012). Short-term study abroad and cultural sessions: Issues of L2 development, identity, and socialization. In: Chamness Miller, P., J. Watze & M. Mantero (Eds.). Readings in language studies. Vol. 3: Critical language studies: Focusing on identity. New York: International Society for Language Studies, 587-604.
Author:
Dr. Wai Meng Chan
Associate Professor
Centre for Language Studies
National University of Singapore
Email: clscwm@nus.edu.sg