“a complex of abilities needed to perform
effectively and appropriately when
interacting with others who are
linguistically and culturally different from
oneself” (Fantini, 2006, p. 12, emphasis in
the original).
“From a Vygotskian perspective,
there is no endpoint to
development because there are
always new problems to solve.“
(Poehner 2007, p. 337)
The conundrum of intercultural
competence, language
pedagogy, and assessment
Glenn S. Levine
University of California, Irvine
[email protected]
CERCLL 2016
Fifth International Conference on the Development and
Assessment of Intercultural Competence
Tucson, Arizona
January 7-10, 2016
The plan
1. A wealth (or cacophony) of concepts: What
do we mean by intercultural communicative
competence?
2. Intercultural competence: A space-time
dilemma for language pedagogy and
assessment?
3. A way forward: A human ecological pedagogy
4. Intercultural competence and dynamic
assessment
1.
A wealth (or cacophony) of concepts:
What do we mean by intercultural
communicative competence?
A wealth (or cacophony?) of concepts
effective inter-group communication
transcultural communication
international communication
cross-cultural communication
global competitive intelligence
cross-cultural awareness
ethnorelativity
intercultural sensitivity
biculturalism
global competence
intercultural interaction
intercultural cooperation
cross-cultural adaptation
communicative competence
cultural competence
multiculturalism
pluralingualism
cultural sensitivity
(Adapted from Sinicrope, Norris, & Watanabe 2014, p. 3)
international competence
Byram’s (1997) savoirs of intercultural
communicative competence
A wealth (or cacophony?) of concepts
effective inter-group communication
transcultural communication
international communication
cross-cultural communication
global competitive intelligence
cross-cultural awareness
ethnorelativity
intercultural sensitivity
biculturalism
global competence
intercultural interaction
intercultural cooperation
cross-cultural adaptation
communicative competence
cultural competence
multiculturalism
pluralingualism
cultural sensitivity
(Adapted from Sinicrope, Norris, & Watanabe 2014, p. 3)
international competence
Kramsch (2008, 2009): Symbolic competence
“It is no longer appropriate to give students a
tourist-like competence to exchange information
with native speakers of national languages within
well-defined national cultures. They need a much
more sophisticated competence in the manipulation
of symbolic systems”
…Language learners are not just communicators
and problem solvers, but whole persons with hearts,
bodies, and minds, with memories, fantasies,
loyalties, identities.” (Kramsch, 2008, p. 250-1)
Liddicoat & Scarino:
Nature and sope of the intercultural
Languages and cultures as sites of interactive engagement
Implies a transformational engagement of learner
Confronting multiple possible interpretations
IC is not abstract: embodied practice
Borders between self and other are explored,
problematized, redrawn
Not simply manifested an awareness and knowing:
necessitates acting
The learner is both analyzer and participant in interaction,
learner and user of language and culture
(Adapted from Liddicoat & Scarino 2013, p. 49-50)
2.
Intercultural competence:
A space-time dilemma for language
pedagogy and assessment
The conundrum of intercultural competence,
language pedagogy and assessment
SPACE
Removed from the sites of language use and cultural
engagement
Doubly mediated through pedagogical materials and
setting
CLT in intro instruction one step further removed from
‘real’ intercultural communication
TIME
Limited time to develop advanced capacities or
intercultural competence
SPACE AND TIME(SCALES):
The problems of assessing intercultural competence
3.
A way forward: A human ecological
pedagogy
Ecological pedagogy and dynamic
approach to assessment
The language classroom in ecological
perspective:
Symbolic competence
Multiple literacies
Kramsch’s symbolic competence
through literary imagination
Symbolic competence:
Production of Complexity
Tolerance of Ambiguity
Form as Meaning
“These three components of a symbolic competence should
lead teachers to view language and culture, that is, grammar
and style, vocabulary and its cultural connotations, texts and
their points of view, as inseparable. In turn, language learners
should slowly understand that communicative competence
does not derive from information alone, but from the symbolic
power that comes with the interpretation of signs and their
multiple relations to other signs” (Kramsch, 2008, p. 252)
Multiple literacies and genres and a
human ecological language pedagogy
“…learners can communicate not only with living others,
but also with imagined others and with the other selves
they might want to become. (Kramsch, 2008, p. 251)
Multiple literacies as the design of meaning (Díaz, 2013;
Kern, 2000, 2014; Paesani, Willis Allen, & Dupuy, 2016; Swaffar &
Arens, 2005)
Genre approach: progression of private/interpersonal to
public discourses (Byrnes & Sprang, 2004, etc.)
A human ecological language pedagogy (Phipps & Levine,
2012, & in progress)
4.
Intercultural competence and
dynamic assessment
Assessing intercultural competence
• The problem of generalizability
• Approaches to measuring intercultural competence:
– Indirect assessments: surveys and inventories, interviews
– “Direct” assessment: portfolios, role-plays, scenarios,
interviews
– Blended approach: Direct and indirect combined
Dynamic assessment
“DA is neither an assessment instrument nor a method of
assessing but a framework for conceptualizing teaching and
assessment as an integrated activity of understanding
learner abilities by actively supporting their development.”
(Lantolf & Poehner, 2014)
Eschews snapshots of performance in favor of
descriptive profiles of development
Engagement of intercultural competence is
contingent and happens in the real world
“…criteria become provisional considerations that
can be fine-tuned, expanded, and elaborated in the
experience of considering actual student
performance” (Liddicoat & Scarino, 2013, p. 137)
Danke schön!