The Intercultural Competence Learning Lab initiative, experiences & results Kamloops, March 13, 2015 Marcel H. van der Poel, MA, MAIR Upcoming accreditation International Business School challenges: ? What do we actually mean with ‘international’ ? Where is the proof that our students learn from Study Abroad ? Where is the proof that our educators support intercultural competence development Worries • One needs to do more than soak up culture (Covert, 2013) • The immersion assumption is being contested (Vande Berg et al., 2012) • Intercultural skills are not learned by osmosis (Yershova et al., 2000) Hofstede lecture • Prof. Milton J. Bennett: – . . . American students having an American experience in the vicinity of the Eiffel Tower – . . . Intercultural sensitivity is not natural, it is not part of our primate past (Bennett, 1993: 21) – . . . start with a relatively small group of motivated and interested people, bring them at a higher level of understanding, and create a ‘ripple-effect’ The Initiative • Community of Practice • Pre- and post-testing / generate evidence • Session design • Interview and logbook • Framework Community of Practice • COPs are “groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an on-going basis” (Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder, 2002, p. 4). • Essential for the COP is that the ones generating (new) knowledge will take this into practice, and return to the COP with their (new) insights based on the experience and the reflection thereof: a so-called learning-loop. (Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder, 2002, p. 18). COP impact • Individual emotional (recognition, taken serious) • Individual cognitive (best practices, tips, reflection) • Community emotional (feeling part of . . .) • Community cognitive (jointly creating standards) Lankveld, van, T. & Volman, M. (2011). Ondersteuning van docenten bij onderwijsvernieuwing: de rol van COPs. Tijdschrift voor Hoger Onderwijs (1, 41-53) Pre- and post-test (IDI) Acceptance Minimization • Behavioral • Similarity Polarization • Universalism Adaptation • Code shifting • Behavior shifting • Worldviews • Defense • Reversal Denial • Avoidance • Disinterest Scores ? feedback Attitude • Curiosity & discovery Knowledge & Comprehension • • Cultural selfawareness Cultural knowledge assumption Skills • • • Empathy Frame shifting Postponing judgment (based on Deardorff, 2006, 2009, and Bennett, 1986, 1993) Desired internal outcomes Desired external outcome Intercultural sensitivity Intercultural competence cognitive frame shifting & behavioral code shifting in interacting with others Increased effective & appropriate communic. and behavior in the multicultural classroom Assumption ? Attitude Knowledge, comprehension & skills External outcome Attitude Internal outcome Knowledge, comprehension & skills Teaching staff External outcome Internal outcome Graduates Professional field Session . . Session 2 Red Threads: Session 1 Session design Intended learning outcomes (each session): ICLL framework references: Your month To share, listen to, and discuss intercultural (classroom) events and incidents as experiences of cultural differences Frame 1; respect and openness Your intrigue To explore and understand, plus share and discuss a specific ICC related issue, based on personal interest Frame 1 + 2; curiosity, knowledge IC theory & models To compare, analyze and understand various models and concepts of ICC, and discuss suitability and usefulness for (educating) ICC development Frame 2 + 3; knowledge and comprehension Your classroom practices To observe, experience, and evaluate ICC related exercises; to interpret, practice and reflect on ICC related didactics Frame 3; skills and reflection Your IC development To recognize, comprehend, and review personal intercultural sensitivity development; to construe, plan, and exhibit personal intercultural sensitivity developmental steps Frame 4; informed frame of reference shift The student perspective To investigate and understand learner perspectives and to contrast this with own skills and understanding Frame 5; effective teaching Management advice To assess, validate and consider organizational change for enhancing ICC conducive education Frame 5; leveraging intercultural context Underlying framework (DMIS) Each session: choice of topics, exercises, examples, etc. relate to a specific theme, i.e. a stage from the DMIS Interviews & logbooks • All participants were asked to keep a logbook • All participants were asked to agree with an interview toward the end of the intervention • Some kept their logbooks; all were indeed interviewed. The Experience • 9 sessions of 4 hours each (year 1) • 6 sessions of 4 hours each (year 2) • Increasing awareness → recognizing (more) situations where culture is at stake • Increasing self-awareness → recognizing typical cultural behaviors and expectations • Starting to see how confusing our school culture is → what do we actually expect from our students? some experiences . . . • From the interviews: – You can be surrounded by all kind of different cultures and still engage at superficial level, and learn nothing. You can also make the choice to go deeper. It boils down to curiosity and not being afraid to ask questions . . . – . . . it is about understanding the impact you can have. – You will be surprised how different people give meaning to things The hidden curriculum • “. . . the informal and tacit expectations of the classroom culture, including the norms of interpersonal communication, are beyond the conscious awareness of most teachers” Condon, J. C. (1986). The ethnocentric classroom. In J. M. Civikly (Ed.). Communicating in college classrooms: New directions for teaching and learning, (26),(pp. 11-20). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass The Results • IDI scores • Participant feedback (IDI debrief) • Accreditation, and more . . . Example ‘score’ Group profile Oct 2013 (grp3) Perceived Orientation Group profile Jun 2014 (grp3) Perceived Orientation Orientation gap: 20.76 Developmemtal Orientation PO changed 5.26 points DO changed 10.3 points Gap changed 5.04 points Orientation gap: 15.72 Developmemtal Orientation Results • Three groups / 34 participants in total Group 3 (2014) 106.09 116.39 + 10.30 Group 2 (2013) 94.72 94.50 - 0.22 Group 1 (2012) 109.23 117.25 + 8.02 • Both positive and negative individual scores; negative scores are not necessarily negative outcomes Participant feedback: 😟 • I learned that competence and awareness are complete different things • There is so much more than you can process; the more you know the less competent you feel • It feels as positive, but uncomfortable. The growing awareness made me insecure. I need to move beyond this point Participant feedback: 😌 • I feel at ease and secure. Colleagues apparently wrestle with the same things. • I am far more aware when I teach . . . how culture affects their minds, and mine • Typical, you don’t know what you don’t know. I thought I was culturally sensitive, but I am more culturally sensitive now Accreditation, and more . . . • IBS awarded NVAO ‘best practice in internationalization’ (January 2012) • IBS earned NVAO special feature ‘internationalization’ (Spring 2013) • ICLL adopted by other schools • 4th group starting in September 2015 • Challenge: linking IC of educators to IC development of students (ongoing research) Thank you Marcel H. van der Poel, MA, MAIR mvanderpoel@gmail.com m.h.van.der.poel@pl.hanze.nl