A critical stance on the assessment of

intercultural competence

Some ethical issues

CEFcult seminarChambéry, 12 September 2011

Claudia Borghetti

Università di Bologna – claudia.borghetti@unibo.it

Outline

Problematic ethical issues in assessing IC:

1. The lack of a reference model of IC

2. Assessing ‘internal outcomes’

3. The contextual nature of IC

4. The affective dimension of IC

5. Methods of assessment

Conclusions

1. Lack of a reference model

Fantini 2000, 2011Four dimensions of Intercultural Communicative Competence

Characteristics (personal traits):

motivation, perceptiveness, self-

esteem, clear sense of self, tollerance

for differences, open-mindedness,

etc.

Foreign language: ‘in this construct

of ICC, there are […] five

dimensions. These are awareness,

attitudes, skills, knowledge

(A+ASK), and proficiency in the host

tongue’ (2000: 28).

Byram 1997Model of Intercultural Communicative Competence

Attitudes: curiosity

and openness,

readiness to

suspend disbelief

about other

cultures and belief

about one's own.

Knowledge: of

social groups and

their products and

practices in one's

own and in one's

interlocutor's

country, and of the

general processes

of societal and

individual

interaction.

Skills of interpreting and relating: ability to interpret a document or

event from another culture, to explain it and relate it to documents

from one's own.

Skills of discovery and interaction: ability to acquire new knowledge

of a culture and cultural practices and the ability to operate

knowledge, attitudes and skills under the constraints of real-time

communication and interaction.

Critical cultural awareness/political education: an ability to evaluate critically and on the

basis of explicit criteria perspectives, practices and products in one's own and other cultures

and countries.

Deardorff 2006

‘Pyramid Model of IC’ & ‘Process Model of IC’

Theoretical open questions

• What are the relationships among IC components?

• Which is the link between IC and communicative competence?

• What are the relevant attitudes, skills and knowledge?

• Is IC a product of a co-construction of discourse and interaction?

• Do attitudes, skills and knowledge always manifest in behaviour?

• Are personal traits part of IC?

… about assessment

• Do all the components of IC have to be assessed?

• Can IC be assessed holistically?

• Can IC be assessed on the basis of its components?

2. Assessing

internal (and external)

outcomes

Business-oriented vs education-oriented

definitions of IC

'Complex abilities that are required to perform effectively and appropriately when interacting with others who are linguistically and culturally different from oneself' (Fantini, 2009: 458).

'Someone with some degree of intercultural

competence is someone who is able to see

relationships between different cultures - both

internal and external to a society - and is able

to mediate […]. It is also someone who has a

critical or analytical understanding of (parts

of) their own and other cultures - someone

who is conscious of their own perspective, of

the way in which their thinking is culturally

determined […] (Byram, 2000)'The ability to communicate

effectively and

appropriately in

intercultural situations

based on one’s intercultural

knowledge, skills, and

attitudes' (Deardorff, 2004:

194)

‘A whole of cognitive, affective and behavioural

factors that influence the understanding of and

interaction with diversity in a broad sense, and

that can be developed through education

and/or experience’ (Borghetti, in press)

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

Internal outcomes:

Risk of giving more credit to shallow than deep learning

Individuals' unobservable dispositions and intentions are to be

taken into consideration. For example:

• Readiness to embrace and work with ambiguity

• Willingness to modify existing communicative conventions

• Curiosity about other cultures

External outcomes:

3. IC is context-based

Competent intercultural performance

'Communication in an intercultural context […] is competent when it accomplishes the objectives of an actor in a manner that is appropriate to the context. Context here implies several levels including culture, relationship, place, and function' (Spitzberg, 2000: 375)

'The success of any communicative activity is heavily determinated by the way the participants perceive the context of situation and shape it accordingly through their verbal and non-verbal behavior' (Kramsch, 1993: 49-50)

Problematic implications for the assessment

1. Taking the responsibility to establish what is desirable and appropriate in individuals’ performances during assessment sessions.

2. Coping with the mainly-contextual nature of IC

3. Reconsidering the assessor’s role and legitimacy.

Reciprocal assessment?

4. The affective dimension of IC

IC components, methods of assessment and possible

ethical challenges

IC component Direct methods Indirect methods Ethical challenges

Knowledge

Skills Interpreting

behaviours on the

basis of assumptions

Attitudes &

personal traits

Assessing private and

identity-related

characteristics

Critical Cultural

Awareness

Assessing on the base

of values

4. Assessment methods

A mix of forms of assessment

• Expert assessment

• Reciprocal assessment

• Peer assessment

• Self-assessment

Access to personal accounts and stories

Absolute truth does not exist

Multidimensional assessment• Portfolios

• Tests

• Performance

tasks &

observations

• Interviews &

questionnaires

• Critical incidents

• Etc.

Conclusions…

Conclusions (1): Non-educational contexts

1. The lack of a reference model of IC

2. Assessing ‘internal outcomes’

3. The contextual nature of IC

4. The affective dimension of IC

To specify the reference model to circumscribe results

To offer as many contextual variables as possible

???

To be aware of the assumptions made

Conclusions (2): Educational contexts

• It is not appropriate from an ethical point of view

‘If tests can suggest to teachers what to teach, they don’t tell

the language teacher how to teach it’ (Kramsch, 1998: 15)

Intercultural competence is a value

Inderect message to students: not everything must be

proved and assessed

Assessing intercultural competence:

• It is not necessary

References (1)

• Borghetti, C. (in press), ‘How to teach it? Proposal for a Methodological Model of Intercultural Competence’, in Harden, T. & Witte, A. (eds) Intercultural Competence: Concepts, Challenges, Evaluations, Oxford: Peter Lang.

• Byram, M. (1997), Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

• Byram, M. (2000), ‘Assessing Intercultural Competence in Language Teaching’, Sprogforum, 18(6), 8-13.

• Byram, M. (2009) ‘Evaluation and/or Assessment of Intercultural Competence’, in Hu, A. & Byram, M. (eds) Intercultural Competence and Foreign Language Learning. Models, Empiricism and Assessment, Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 215-234.

• Fantini, A. E. (2000), A central concern: Developing intercultural competence’. In SIT Occasional Paper Series. Brattleboro (VT), 25-42.

• Fantini, A. E. (2009), Assessing Intercultural Competence: Issues and Tools. In Deardorff, D. K. (ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Intercultural Competence. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage, 456-476.

• Fantini, A. E. (2011) ‘Exploring Intercultural Competence’, paper presented at Intercultural Horizons, Siena, 6-8 May 2011.

• Feng, A. & Fleming, M. (2009), ‘Assessing Intercultural Competence for purpose – The SAILSA Project’, in Hu, A. & Byram, M. (eds) Intercultural Competence and Foreign Language Learning. Models, Empiricism and Assessment, Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 235-252.

• Deardorff, D. K. (2006), Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internalization, Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 241-266.

References (2)

• Kramsch, C. (1993), Context and Culture in Language Teaching, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Kramsch, C. (1998), ‘Teaching along the cultural faultline’, in Lange, D. L. & Klee, C. A. & Paige, R. M. & Yershova, Y. A. (eds.) Culture as the Core: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Culture Teaching and Learning in the Second Language Curriculum. Selected Conference Proceedings. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota, 15-31.

• Liddicoat A. J. & Scarino, A. (2010), ‘Eliciting the Intercultural in Foreign Language Education at School’, in Paran A. & Sercu L. (eds.) Testing the Untestable in Language Education, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 52-73.

• Parau, A. (2010), ‘More than Language: The Additional Faces of Testing and Assessment in Language Learning and Teaching’, in Paran A. & Sercu L. (eds.) Testing the Untestable in Language Education, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1-13.

• Sercu, L. (2004), ‘Assessing Intercultural Competence: A Framework for Systematic Test Development in Foreign Language Education and Beyond, Intercultural Education, 15(1), 73-89.

• Sercu, L. (2010), ‘Assessing Intercultural Competence: More Questions than Answers’ in Paran A. & Sercu L. (eds.) Testing the Untestable in Language Education, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 17-34.

• Shohamy, E. (2001), ‘Democratic assessment as an alternative’, Language Testing, 18(4), 373–391.

• Spitzberg, B. H. (2000), A Model of Intercultural Communication Competence, in Samovar, L. A. & Porter, R. E. (eds.) Intercultural Communication: A Reader. Ninth Edition, Belmont (CA): Wadsworth, 375-387.