Learner\'s intercultural competence in English language Learning

Development Intercultural Competence in English Language Learning Classroom

Prof. Dr. Demirel Oscan, By Nadia M. Ben Amer Cyprus International University, Faculty of Education, Department of English Language Teaching, Cyprus, Turkey, Academic year: 2015-2016.

Abstract: this article aims to investigate the most common intercultural commination in learning classroom different theoretical views from linguists. This article is a theoretically including concepts of intercultural, two different approaches that representing in the classroom learning. How intercultural competence, has devised a model to develop an integrated didactics of intercultural linguistic competences. In general, globalization has found that its way into schools and one of teaching the tasks of education, is to prepare students for this globalized world. An intercultural approach to language teaching gives one outlook on how this this can achieve. Keywords: intercultural competence, second language learning, culture in the foreign language.

Introduction: Global changes taking place in the 21st century open the areas for free movement of people in Europe and the rest of the world making contemporary working and educational environment more culturally diverse. Therefore, the need not only for learning foreign languages but also for developing our learners’ intercultural competence appears to be of great importance. The idea that foreign languages can open access to other people and countries to promote mutual European documents on education (Brussels, 2008). Scientists (Fenner 2006, Fantini 2006, Lundgren 2005, Byram 2000) indicate that contacts with other languages and cultures provide an excellent opportunity to foster the development of intercultural communicative competence (or intercultural competence, for short). Intercultural

1

competence is the ability of successful communication with people of other cultures (Zaleskienė 2006) involving the following: the ability to establish and maintain relationships, communicate with minimal loss or distortion, collaborate to accomplish something of mutual interest or need (Fantini 2006). This ability can exist in someone at a young age, or may be developed and improved, occasionally with periods of regression or stagnation, but more commonly with positive results and no end point. According to J. W. Neuliep (2006), intercultural competence enables a person to predict beliefs, attitudes, values and behaviour of others and interact with people from other cultures more effectively. Intercultural competence have three basic dimensions: knowledge, attitudes, and skills with a variation. According to J. W. Neuliep (2006), intercultural competence consists of four dimensions: knowledge component (how much one knows about the culture of others), affective (one’s motivation to interact with others from different cultures), psychomotor (the actual enactment of the knowledge and affective components). Aim of this article To find out how culture is developed in English language learning classroom. To provide the importance of intercultural in the classroom. To provide different models of intercultural awareness in the English teaching/learning classroom. The aim of the article could be also specified by the following points: 1. Defining intercultural concepts as culture and pedagogy. 2. Revealing the textbooks in the language in Libya and how intercultural competence developed in English teaching/ learning classroom.

2

Intercultural concept Byram’s view of culture means that through conscious choices to interact with other students, their personal culture could change. He shows that culture is not merely a static entity but also something that has a dynamic aspect to it. This view of culture is interesting in a multicultural classroom, as the students can influence with each other, as well as the encountering of target cultures. Risager (2003: 128) distinguishes between an older culture pedagogy (from the 1960s). Within the older culture pedagogy, the interest, in general knowledge about the target country and its history was emphasised. There was more focus on practising and using the target language. An increasing focus late in this period was the basic vocabulary needed to interact and speak in the target language, especially in English (ibid: 130-131). After the Second World War, and especially from the 1960s, globalisation was a topic of discussion. The distances measured in time spent travelling were decreasing, and different cultures grew closer to each other. The tourism escalated and the new medium, television, brought images from all over the world into people’s living room. It means that the importance of understanding different cultures grew (ibid: 138-140). It was in the USA that the thoughts about a new view on the relationship between culture and language. In an English classroom target language and target, cultures refer to English Language and cultures related to English-speaking countries. Lund’s (2007) claim that English could link to multiple cultures complies with the view of the present thesis, seeing English as a common ground in the multicultural classroom, where intercultural competence should be promoted through interaction with target cultures, as well as the cultural backgrounds of the fellow students.

3

Culture in the foreign language Culture is always part of foreign language teaching. In fact, after the Second World War, it was common belief shared among foreign language scholars that cultural topics should not cover in the language classroom. However, for most of the time modern languages have been taught, if and how culture should be part of language teaching has been discussed by many theorists and many perspectives and approaches have influenced the general argument. There are two main reasons for the role of culture that has often changed in foreign language teaching. The debate influenced through changes with the general objectives of foreign language teaching at the respective time, which were strongly shaped by political objectives of education and language teaching. Additionally, changes in the understanding of culture and its definition had an impact on how it was taught in foreign language education. Thus, the history of language teaching influenced what intercultural approach today to teaching. Brusch (2009) gives a detailed overview of the different concepts of teaching culture within the foreign language classroom. Culture has always been difficult for scientists, and there is still no consensus on definitions. Two reasons can explain that. Firstly, culture is relevant to many scientific and academic disciplines. For A historical overview of the development of intercultural competence within foreign language teaching refer to Brusch 2009 and Müller-Hartmann & Schocker-von Ditfurth 2004. Many definitions have suggested; culture has been understood as the products of a country, such as music, architecture, literature, paintings, clothes, etc. This understanding of culture is often referred to as high culture (Hochkultur) or Culture with a capital C. In recent decades, however, the definition of culture as something static and product-oriented has been regarded as insufficient. It does not consider all members of a nation, but merely those that belong to a certain social group.

4

Neither does it regard people’s behaviors, attitudes, or values. Cultural artifacts are only those parts of culture that are obvious and observable. Culture today is understood as a heterogeneous, multi-layered, and dynamic construct. SpencerOatey (2009) acknowledges these features of culture: ‘’Culture is a fuzzy set of basic assumptions and values, orientations to life, and behavioural conventions that are shared by a group of people, and that influence each member’s behaviour and his/her interpretation of the ‘meaning’ of other people’s behaviour12’’.

This definition gives an impression as to the task that lies ahead for language teachers. If culture influences the way people from the target group of native speakers think, act, feel, and experience others, the same applies to students in the language classroom. Thus, they see and perceive the behavior of people through their cultural frame of reference. Very often this perception is channeled through language. Culture explained as via language, and how it is explained is influenced by one’s cultural frame. Language scholars agree on the importance of culture in language classrooms, and it has become one of the main research areas in foreign language study and teaching. This is justified by political and societal conditions. Contact between cultures increases via direct and indirect exchange, the transfer of products, and social networks. Different cultures live together, work together, and go to school together. In brief, globalization has found its way into schools and one of teaching the tasks of education, including language education, is to prepare students for this globalized world. An intercultural approach to language teaching gives one outlook on how this can achieve. (Hu 1993 and Weier 2002).

5

Developing intercultural competence in language classroom Intercultural competence might be relatively new relations to education and foreign language learning. However, culture has always been included in language teaching and learning. Fenner (2006) writes that the early ways of including culture in language education, differentiated the cultural focus according to the school level of the student, with culture associated with everyday life being the focus at the lower school levels, while a university level, the subject area is still aptly referred to as background, Landeskunde. It provides language learning that is not an integral part of it” (Fenner 2008: 274). Landeskunde is a well-known term in language teaching and learning and is much used to refer to this early tradition of culture education. Risager writes in her Ph.D. dissertation that language pedagogy has existed longer than cultural pedagogy: “Through the 1970s and the 1980s and especially in the 1990s interest for culture has grown out of the pedagogic tradition related to language. The forerunner is the focus on communicative competence developed in the 1970s and 1980s (Risager 2003). It is important to be conscious of the fact that the focus on culture in language teaching has changed from being mainly related, to several different views on how culture should be understood and used in teaching today. Communicative competence is the overarching concept of which intercultural competence is a part, and it was originally coined by Hymes (1972). The term developed have been influential in the progress of communicative competence, by identifying what they saw as the three main parts, namely grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence and strategic competence (Canale and Swain 1980: 29-31). Canale (1983) who introduced the idea of discourse competence. Van Ek has formulated a further view of the components of communicative competence. Byram, who is an influential theorist within the field of intercultural competence, has devised a model to develop an integrated didactics of intercultural linguistic competences. Such integration is implied in the 6

term intercultural communicative competence and in the model that presents linguistic and intercultural competences together (Byram 2009: 325). Models of intercultural Bennett’s developmental model of intercultural One of the classic models of intercultural competence is Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) developed in 1986/1993. Observing students, trainers, and educators, Bennett found out that “individuals confront cultural difference in some predictable ways as they learn to become more competent intercultural communicators27. Based on practical experience28 Bennett outlines six stages demonstrating how one can experience the cultural difference. Bennett differentiates among denial, defense, minimization, acceptance, adaptation, and integration. Bennett divides the six stages into two groups: Ethnocentric stages, in which one’s philosophy of life and culture are central to understand reality, and ethnic relative stages, in which one’s culture is understood about other cultures. An increase of cultural experiences facilitates the development from one stage to another. Bennett’s model has had a major influence on study abroad courses and theories of culture shock. It was not designed for foreign language classes and has been criticized in that it does not explain which role language plays in the development of cultural sensitivity30. It is still applicable to language classes to some extent. Bennett’s model highlights that intercultural competence needs time to progress. It reveals a long-term perspective on the understanding of intercultural competence and in that, is useful when it comes to the design of syllabi31. The model demonstrates that the development of intercultural competence is a continuous process with several stages. Concluding from that, it is necessary to determine which stage students and teachers32 have

7

reached before lesson plans and lessons designed. Only with this knowledge can lessons and tasks be effective when it comes to the development of intercultural competence33. Byram’s model of intercultural The best known model of intercultural competence is supplied by Byram (1997). It is the model that most definitions of intercultural competence are clear today. Byram explicitly states that his model is designed to help teachers of languages understand the concept intercultural competence. The model also had a major influence on the definition of intercultural competence in the CEF, as well as in the national standards and the curricula for English in Berlin and Brandenburg. Byram’s model is depend on Hymes and van Ek’s model of communicative competence. He starts off with a thorough analysis of the factors that influence intercultural communication, namely attitudes, knowledge and skills. According to Byram are necessary for successful intercultural communication. Another important factor is individuals which bring knowledge to intercultural. Byram divides this knowledge into two categories. The first is “knowledge about social groups and their cultures in one’s country, and a similar knowledge of the interlocutor’s country”. The second category considers procedural knowledge and summarized “knowledge of the processes of interaction at individual and societal levels. This knowledge takes into account linguistic and cultural behavior of the participants in intercultural communication. Finally, Byram comments on two skills that are dependent on the participants’ knowledge and attitudes, and thus have an influence on the effectiveness of intercultural communication. For one, there are skills of interpreting and relating understood as “the ability to interpret a document or event from another culture, to explain it and relate it to documents from one’s own’’. The second set of skills, discovering and interacting, is described as the “ability to acquire new knowledge of a culture and cultural practices and the 8

ability to operate knowledge, attitudes and skills under the constraints of real-time communication and interaction”. Both skills require an active engagement of the participants in intercultural communication. Concluding from these factors, intercultural competence has an affective domain (attitudes), a cognitive domain (knowledge) and a skills domain. In the model, Byram additionally combines intercultural competence with communicative competence, and thus calls for a model of intercultural communicative competence in language teaching. Conclusion Opinions and works of scholars in the field of language teaching have defined and described what is intercultural competence and the intercultural approach. It is clear that culture has an important part in language teaching and that it is necessary to prepare students for intercultural communication as it will happen inside and out of their native country. To define culture, the intercultural approach, and intercultural competence according to the three models of intercultural competence have presented to explain the concept and Byram’s model of intercultural communicative competence has been rated as most useful for language teachers. The summary of this paper has described that language teachers will have difficulties to find material to implement the intercultural approach into the language classroom. However, if they have in the authentic material, it will be clear to teach intercultural approach through content of the book.

9

References Bennett, M. J. (1986). A developmental approach to training for intercultural sensitivity. International journal of intercultural relations, 10(2), 179-196. Bennett, M. J. (1993). A Developmetal Model of Intercultural Sensistivity. Brusch, W. (2009). Didaktik des Englischen: ein Kerncurriculum in zwölf Vorlesungen. O. Börner (Ed.). Schroedel. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Multilingual Matters. Byram, M. (1999). Teaching landeskunde and intercultural competence. R. Tenberg: Intercultural Perspectives: Images of Germany in Education and the Media. München: Iudicium, 54-70. Van Ek, J. A. (1993). Objectives for foreign language learning (Vol. 2). Council of Europe. Fenner, A. B. (2008). Cultural awareness in the foreign language classroom. In Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 2025-2037). Springer US. Hu, A. (1995). Spielen Vorurteile im Fremdsprachenunterricht eine positive Rolle?. In 15. Kongress für Fremdsprachendidaktik, veranstaltet von der DGFF vom 4.-6. Oktober 1993 in Giessen (pp. 487-495). Brockmeyer.

10

Hu, A., & Byram, M. (2009). Intercultural Competence and foreign language learning. Models, empiricism, assessment. Lund, R. (2007). Questions of Culture and Context in English Language Textbooks A Study of Textbooks for the Teaching of English in Norway. The University of Bergen. Risager, K. (2009). Intercultural competence in the cultural flow. Interkulturelle Kompetenz und fremdsprachliches Lernen: Modelle, Empirie, Evaluation–Intercultural competence and foreign language learning: Models, empiricism, assessment, 15-30. Spencer‐Oatey, H., & Franklin, P. (2009). Intercultural interaction. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.. Weier, U. (2002). Interkulturelles Lernen und Stereotype englischer Alltagskultur. na.

11