Global+Pathways+Paper

Okay, so...Tuesday night - here is my revised version that I have so far. (Sorry - I keep working on this in a word document and then just cut and paste to here - I know this is not how to really work on a wiki, but...but...still not my most comfortable work mode, I guess.

One result in higher education of the effects of globalization is that the concept of "intercultural competence" [1] is no longer an objective found only in intercultural communication courses. Instead, it is now advocated as one of the specific goals of U.S. higher education. Educational institutes are under more pressure to prepare “global-ready graduates” or “global citizens” (Hunter, White, & Godbey, 2006; Paige & Goode, 2009). Although U.S. institutions have recruited international students and implemented study abroad programs for years, schools did not overtly focus on educating U.S. students to be competent in communication across cultures until recently (Bok, 2006; Kehm & Teichler, 2007). The assumption is that if attained somehow on a personal level, intercultural competence will help students better deal with the current states of diversity and globalization.

This movement in higher education would appear to create an opportunity for campus collaboration, especially among administrators, intercultural communication scholars, and international education professionals. However, this does not happen as expected in many institutions. Kehm and Teichler (2007) noted that the internationalization efforts are mostly initiated and developed among university policy makers or top-level administrators. These conversations often do not include specialists that have actively pursued research in intercultural competence. Instead, each group tends to place emphasis on different areas regarding how to approach the concept of competence. Within international education, the focus tends to be on how to implement intercultural aspects into the curricula; how to encourage students to go abroad; how to increase the school’s administration and leaders to commit to internationalization efforts and so on. Not as much attention has been placed on delineating specific outcomes of study abroad or how to effectively assess internationalization programs. On the other hand, intercultural communication scholars tend to focus on theoretical aspects of intercultural competence, including discussions and debates about components of competence and attempts to validate these components so that effectiveness in cross-cultural communication can be measured. However, this focus on conceptualization and theorization has not adequately allowed them to address practical issues and problems with intercultural competence. As intercultural communication scholars, we believe that collaborative efforts between scholars and universities administrators should add value into the programs. The purpose of this paper is to examine ways in which intercultural communication can provide insight into international education efforts, based on specific theoretical approaches to intercultural competence. First, we will provide an overview of the concept of intercultural competence, as presented in the area of intercultural communication. Then, we will summarize aspects of international education blah blah blah. By using data from study abroad students’ experiences, we will then demonstrate specific ways in which intercultural communication courses would benefit study abroad experiences and international education. **Overview of Intercultural Competence** Intercultural competence is a concept that has been discussed for decades. Currently, the complexity of intercultural competence has been detailed in the //SAGE Handbook of Intercultural Competence// (2009). The first chapter in this handbook summarizes twenty-two different models or ways to conceptualize intercultural competence based on different types of models: compositional (models that list hypothesized components of competence); co-orientational (models that focus on the interaction process to achieve shared meaning); developmental (models that focus on the process and time dimension of developing competence); adaptational (models that focus on the process of mutual adaptation between interactants); and causal process models (models that focus on developing specific interrelationships between components). The number and variety of models of intercultural competence demonstrate the popularity of the topic of competence with regard to theorizing, research, and model development (Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009). Specifically, within intercultural communication, approaches to intercultural competence began with the roots of the discipline, which emerged from the need of the United States government to send military personnel and others abroad after the second World War (Leeds-Hurwitz, 1990; Rogers, Hart, & Miike, 2002). Most of this research was initially concerned with improving communicative abilities of those personnel in order for them to accomplish tasks and establish good relationships with people outside of the U.S. Many scholars in this discipline devoted their efforts to building models that address requirements for a single person, such as a sojourner, to strive successfully in intercultural environments. The goal of this tradition is to predict and improve human interactive behaviors across cultures. Scholars in intercultural communication started by exploring what it means to be an effective intercultural communicator. One influential early study, conducted by Ruben and Kealey (1979, see also Ruben, 1976, 1977, 1989) is widely acknowledged. The researchers approached competence by looking at behaviors of sojourning U.S. Americans. Ruben's assumption was that knowledge about other cultures might not be the best predictor of successful communication since people who know a lot about other cultures might not be able to apply the knowledge to their actions. Observable behaviors were considered a better variable. Ruben and Kealey proposed seven behavioral assessments of communicative competency. These include 1) display of respect, 2) interaction posture, 3) orientation to knowledge, 4) empathy, 5) self-oriented role behavior, 6) interaction management, and 7) tolerance for ambiguity. Another research approach came from Hammer, Gudykunst, and Wiseman (1978), in which 24 abilities were identified based on a review of literature concerning intercultural effectiveness. These abilities were rated by U.S. sojourners and categorized into three dimensions. They are 1) the ability to deal with psychological stress, 2) the ability to effectively communicate, and 3) the ability to establish interpersonal relationships. Hammer et al.'s approach directly focused on characteristics and behaviors of the sojourners. Their studies also aimed to support the assumption that intercultural competence is not culture-specific, and that we can identify components or abilities that lead to competence across cultures. Because these studies tended to focus more on intercultural communication //effectiveness//, which is more goal and outcome-oriented, many researchers called for a re-definition and re-conceptualization of the concept. Spitzberg (1989) clarified that competence is not only effectiveness; it also involves appropriateness. //Appropriateness// refers to “avoiding the violation of valued rules or expectancies” whereas e//ffectiveness// is “the achievement of valued objectives or rewards” (Spitzberg, p. 250). There seems to be an agreement that the term “intercultural communication competence” should be preferred over “intercultural communication effectiveness” (Chen, 1990). Intercultural communication competence is defined as “the ability to effectively and appropriately execute communication behaviors to elicit a desired response in a specific environment” (Wiemann, 1977, cited in Chen, 1990, p. 247). Intercultural communication competence is conceptualized based on cognitive (knowledge), affective (attitude and motivation) and behavioral (skills) approaches (Bennett, 2009, Chen, 1990; Howard Hamilton, Richardson, & Shuford, 1998; Spitzberg, 1989). For instance, Spitzberg suggested that competence depends on the “motivation to communicate, knowledge of the communicative process and context, and skill in implementing motives and knowledge, given the constraints of the context” (p. 250). Chen and Starosta (1996) constructed an intercultural competence model that includes three perspectives that reflect the above approaches: intercultural awareness (cognitive), intercultural sensitivity (affective), and intercultural adroitness (behavioral). Although these three domains are often cited, most research investigating competence pay attention to only cognitive and behavioral aspects (Bradford, Allen, & Beisser, 1998). Interestingly, studies found that knowledge and awareness about other cultures does not guarantee behavioral competence. For instance, Wiseman and Abe (1986) reported that respondents who had higher levels of knowledge about other cultures showed more anxiety and frustration when interacting across cultures. Besides, respondents who had lower levels of knowledge seemed to perceive themselves more as effective communicators. Similarly, Ruben and Kealey (1979) found that respondents who are more aware of personal culture and have a higher degree of empathy experienced more culture shock. These findings led the researchers to conclude that people who are more aware of different cultures might be more sensitive to others, and therefore experience more anxiety and culture shock. One more current model of intercultural competence, Deardorff’s (2006) Pyramid Model demonstrates how intercultural competence blah blah blah. This model is one of the few compositional models that identifies research-based components based off a Delphi methodology instead of just hypothesizing crucial components. The end result is a compilation of 23 intercultural experts’ definitions and components of intercultural competence. One of the visual models developed from this research is a pyramid model of competence, in which the lowers levels (based on requisite attitudes, knowledge, and skills) support and enhance the higher levels (those of desired internal and external outcomes). At the top, some of the desired external outcomes are the ability to both behave and communicate effectively to achieve goals. The desired internal outcomes include aspects of an individual’s frame of reference, including aspects of adaptability, flexibility, and empathy. These are supported by both knowledge and skills; required knowledge involves both cultural general and specific knowledge, along with sociolinguistic awareness and cultural self-awareness. Necessary skills include the ability to listen, observe, interpret, analyze, evaluate, and relate. Finally, the base of the pyramid rests on requisite attitudes, including those of respect, openness and curiosity. This model, then, includes the traditional aspects of affective, cognitive, and skills elements, along with attempts to present aspects of the foundational elements of competence and an ordering of elements to result in the more visible and external outcome, that of communication effectively and appropriately. Therefore, when considering the concept of intercultural competence, there are obviously many theoretical approaches. However, as Bennett (2009) explains, there is an “emerging consensus around what constitutes intercultural competence, which is most often viewed as a set of cognitive, affective, and behavioral skills and characteristics that support effective and appropriate interaction in a variety of cultural contexts (p. 97). The concern is that knowledge of culture does not automatically equate into skills or competence, which Bennett (2009) suggests may be due to an overemphasis or overreliance on cognitive skills. Summary and transition needed here.

**Intercultural Competence in Settings of Higher Education** Within the field of international education, the foundations of study abroad efforts began in the 1950’s. Vande Berg and Paige (2009) discuss the impact of a pamphlet published in 1955 by the US State Department. The assumptions outlined in the pamphlet with regard to study abroad still carry considerable influence. First, intercultural competence was conceived as mainly a cognitive phenomenon, with culture-general information acknowledged, but most emphasis placed on culture-specific knowledge. The way to approach learning about culture was from a contrastive method, comparing how US American behavior could be compared to local practices in other countries. The way to become competent was to spend time in the culture to acquire necessary culture-specific information and to learn the local language. These assumptions have lead to the focus in study abroad and also the focus in fostering intercultural competence being on immersion programs. The assumption is that contact with difference will automatically lead to intercultural competence. While study abroad has always been an emphasis in international education, the “internationalization” of higher education has become a topic of interest among school administrators and researchers after the mid-1990’s (Kehm & Teichler, 2007; Knight, 1997). Internationalization refers to “the process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of post-secondary education” (Knight, 2004, p. 11). The current internationalization effort shifts the focus from only enrolling students in study abroad programs to also helping students to develop intercultural competence by utilizing what happens domestically, a concept called “Internationalization at Home” (IaH) (Turner & Robson, 2008). This IaH effort involves, but is not limited to, enrolling more students in courses related to global issues or international affairs, encouraging students to advance their foreign languages, engaging them in cultural and diversity events at school and in the community, and better utilizing international students and scholars on campus (Bok, 2006; Otten, 2003).

There are a number of articles that discuss the best practices for internationalizing a campus at the institutional level (e.g., Bok, 2006; Knight, 2004; Olson, Evans, & Shoenberg, 2007; Otten, 2003; Paige, 2003). These articles aim to emphasize the importance of and provide reasons why campuses should pay attention to the internationalization effort. They also call for collaboration within an institution, especially those parties directly involved with diversity and international students. Olson et al. (2007) stated that it is critical for campuses to provide opportunities for collaboration between the division of multicultural affairs, office of international students, and study abroad programs; this collaboration should assist students to realize the importance of globalization and to learn how to effectively work and live in international and intercultural environments.

One concern is that while the major goal of these current activities and discussions regarding internationalization is to prepare U.S. students to be interculturally competent or global-ready graduates, there is still a limited conceptualization of what this actually means. Most studies mention the terms “intercultural competence,” “global-ready graduates,” or “global citizen” without giving specific definitions (Deardoff, 2006). This impacts how institutions attempt to enact preparation and training for intercultural competence and also how they conduct program assessment to further improve the internationalization effort.

A study by Deardorff (2006) investigated how schools are assessing students’ intercultural competence. Of 24 institutions identified as having a strong commitment for internationalization, only 38 percent have some forms of assessment for students’ intercultural competence. Moreover, a widely used method is self-report pre and post test, which was warned by many scholars as insufficient to assess intercultural competence. Deardorff’s survey results to school administrators and scholars indicated that assessment should be accomplished by both quantitative and qualitative methods. The qualitative measures including interviews, observation, case studies, and narrative diaries are highly recommended for better analysis of the students’ intercultural competence. Remarkably, the programs designed by many schools have already required students’ assignments such as reflection papers, portfolios, and journal entries. These assignments are great artifacts that tell the story of what students learn, how they interact with people, the intercultural obstacles/conflicts they faced, and how they acquire intercultural awareness during the program. Yet, these good data are under-utilized by most schools. Therefore, within the field of international education, the development of competence is a crucial yet challenging component. The role of competence with regard to the work of international educators has not been a common focus of research (Paige & Goode, 2009). Paige and Goode (2009) call for a challenge to link international education and intercultural competence. For example, Goode (2008) conducted a study of faculty members involved in leading study abroad programs and discovered that within the research participants there was a limited understanding of intercultural learning and how to facilitate such learning. Therefore, Paige and Goode (2009) highlight three main considerations to help integrate approaches to intercultural competence with international education. First, foundational frameworks of intercultural concepts and theories pertaining to international education should be established. Second, intercultural training of international educational professionals needs to develop. Finally, the design of international education and study abroad experiences should be developed intentionally. Instead of relying on a “trial and error” method, an appropriate pedagogy to better enhance intercultural competence in students needs to be developed. For example, Deardorff (2008) states that oftentimes pre-departure orientations for study abroad programs tend to focus on logistics instead of on intercultural training. This concern can be addressed if careful pedagogical decisions are made regarding how to foster intercultural competence. Along these lines, Vande Berg and Paige (2009), after examining six different study abroad programs as types of exemplars of different approaches, highlight that intercultural learning is enhanced by much more than just immersion. Cultural mentoring throughout the entire study abroad experience, including pre-departure training, support during the overseas experience, and follow-up is crucial. In other words, a “non-interventionist” approach to study abroad is slowly decreasing. Need a paragraph here tying these two elements together – basically that components of intercultural competence have been researched within intercultural communication, and the need for this as an outcome has been emphasized within higher education settings, specifically that of international education. However, there has not been enough collaboration between these two areas even though certain objectives are shared. Therefore, this study is designed to examine qualitative data from students’ study abroad and overseas internship experiences with the purpose of identifying how components of intercultural competence are represented in descriptions of learning. The guiding question in this study is: //In self-report data of intercultural learning, how do students describe aspects of cognitive, behavioral, and affective skills?// The second question, then, is: //How can these descriptions help develop pedagogy to enhance intercultural competence in international education efforts?// **Methods** This study is based on the analysis of 18 reflection papers of students at a university in the southeast region of the United States. These students enrolled in a certificate program that aims to prepare them to be more cross-culturally adept and that can mark them as gaining global citizenship skills. One of the requirements of this certificate program is for students to engage in an international experience which may involve study abroad or international internship that lasts for at least one week. Once the students have returned from their overseas experience, they must write a reflection paper and submit it to their advisor in order to complete this requirement.

The purpose of the assignment is to have students reflect on their international experience and their direct interactions with people from different cultures. Five specific questions included to prompt the students’ reflections: 1) the students’ experience of cultural difference, 2) the students’ adjustment during the international experience, 3) the students’ collaboration with people from a different culture, 4) the students’ experience communicating or speaking the local language, and 5) the students’ specific skills, knowledge, or abilities they used or the new ones they have gained through this international experience. The students have to write at least 200 words for each prompt question.

There is no standard course required for students prior to their international experience. However, the students who enroll in this certificate program are required to take at least four courses that address international or cross-cultural issues that are related to their majors or fields of study. They are also required to study a foreign language if their native language is English. **Data Collection** The students in the certificate program who have submitted their reflection papers after their international experience were contacted through email from the researchers. The email message explained to the students the goal of this research study and asked for their participation. If the students agreed to participate, they were granted access to electronic consent form and declared their agreement. The researchers then received a notification and were able to request the students’ papers from their advisors.

The data collection process started in March 2010 and ended in January 2011 (11 months). Thirty nine students have turned in their reflection papers. All of them have been contacted by the researchers. Twenty of them consented to this research. However, two of these 20 papers have to be excluded because they did not reflect international experience where students immerse in a different culture outside of the United States as the rest of the papers represent. As a result, this research is based on 18 reflection papers. **Data Analysis** Within this category, the emphasis on acquisition was based on specific information that participants could identify as having learned. Many of the comments were about specific aspects of the new culture, such as the religion, economy, politics, or history of the location in which they visited. Some participants also gained knowledge about decision-making and goal setting because of their experience in international internships (Participants M and Q). This category is important to mention because students did acknowledge specific knowledge and information that they gained. While this is not surprising considering they were part of a “study” abroad experience, it is still important to note, since cognitive skills are often what are emphasized with regard to intercultural learning within current study abroad models of intercultural competence (OH – don’t know if I can say this, but need to think about the angle from which we’ll approach this). This area needs a lot of help!!! I think it will be useful to look through the handbook (and perhaps our earlier paper) Example of cognitive skills learned throughout the experience are as follows: “My conversations with her [host mother] helped me improve my knowledge of the Catholic faith” (Participant A, studying in Costa Rica). “I increased my understanding of Central America – their customs, culture, political and educational systems” (Participant J, studying in Costa Rica) “After visiting Central Europe, my interest in the area, instead of being sated, grew exponentially. Since I got back, I have attempted to digest as much knowledge about thearea as possible” (Participant L, studying in Germany and Central Europe). “I gained a new experience about Chinese culture, and learned the difference in American and Chinese differences in education.” (Participant S, studying in China).
 * Descriptions of Acquired Cognitive Skills**

One very large theme area in this category has to do with the list of cultural differences that students reported learning from their experiences. While not always stated directly, these cultural differences were, of course, stated in comparison to life in the USA. Because of the diversity of experiences, it is not easy to summarize this information. Ah…not doing so well with this – need to let this one simmer a bit – and I think the real angle is to, perhaps, not overemphasize this – since this might be the one are that is traditionally viewed as important in the traditional approach to study abroad.

The second category in this theme is behavioral skills that participants acknowledged gaining. Within specific behavioral skills listed, there were two main emphases. The first is on language and communication skills. Many participants also described greatly improving their language skills based on their immersion to a foreign language: “The biggest thing I got while abroad was a better confidence in my ability to speak the language, as I was very insecure about it before” (Participant P, studying in Spain). “Principally, skills in the Spanish language were what I used throughout my time in Iquitos. My language abilities were definitely improved as well” (Participant Q, studying in Peru). Before discussing the most important themes that surfaced with regard to language issues, there is the concern of how prepared students were for their overseas experience with regard to language. Close to half of the students mentioned having some amount of language skills prior to their overseas experience, and most of these students traveled to Spanish-speaking countries. There was one student who had studied Arabic previously before traveling to Morocco, and another who had studied Chinese before traveling to China. For other places traveled (Italy, France, Central Europe, Turkey, etc.) no language preparation occurred at all. Therefore, students in these countries were either there for more short-term programs, or received instruction solely in English. This also meant that they formed more relationships with other English-speakers and didn’t engage in home-stay situations as much as other students did. Language learning for these individuals was more focused on “survival” language skills such as ordering food in restaurants and navigating public transportation. One area that was mentioned with a lot of frequency was with regard to the importance of nonverbal communication. Many participants described how they learned to use hand gestures and body language to make their communication as clear as possible. “A specific skill I developed from the lack of communication is my ability to use my body language to make myself understood. I always smiled and acted confidently, and used my hands to point to where I wanted to go and used my body and hands to try and describe what I wanted” (Participant S, studying in China). “…my non-verbal communication skills got me very far when I encountered someone who did not know much English” (Participant L, studying in Central Europe). “…do not be afraid to use your hands. Communication reaches far beyond using only your voice and you would be surprised to see how much can be translated through simple hand movements” (Participant I, studying in Panama). This is important to note for two reasons. First of all, this implies that students were immersed in foreign language settings in which they were not fluent enough in language skills that they could rely more on their oral skills. Hence, the necessity for gestures to aid in their communication. Also, most of their description about their use of nonverbal skills implies that this was the first time in their lives that they realized the usefulness of gestures in such a manner. This is also important for the way it emphasizes how these participant must not have experienced in any significant way being in the language minority. Even students who have studied foreign languages are still studying these languages while in the USA, so are still surrounded by English speakers, which means that if their foreign language skills fail them, it is quick and easy to revert back to English and to maneuver the situation in such a manner. However, for these study-abroad participants, their relative isolation from other native-English speakers and their immersion into a new language community was a new experience. This was able to prompt them to realize, some for the first time, that they could get by much more completely than they had originally realized with distinct gestures and nonverbal skills. Students not only improved in their nonverbal behavior, but they also listed many different language learning strategies that were necessary for them to adequately function. So, language learning strategies were another behavioral skill that participants learned. Examples of strategies listed are continuously carrying a phrasebook or dictionary, not to be afraid to ask many questions, emphasized listening a lot, being willing to try to speak to anyone and everyone, and not being bothered if people happened to laugh at poor grammar. One student described how food was a way to learn vocabulary words: “Another way I worked on my Italian was on weekly trips to the grocery store…Luckily they would have a picture of the time and then above it the name of the item. This was a kind of self teaching process that made this experience easier, comfortable, and more enjoyable. Speaking with the waiters and waitresses at the restaurants was a very rewarding experience. Usually they would help you say what you wanted in Italian” (Participant D, studying in Italy). Another example of an important language learning strategy: “…never be scared to immerse yourself in a society of non-English speakers. You will surely get laughed at once in a while but that is all part of the learning experience, and maybe when you think back about what you were actually telling someone, you might laugh yourself as well” (Participant I, studying in Panama). These learning strategies are all specific to being immersed in a foreign language; therefore, these experiences were noteworthy for students because, even if they had studied a language for years in the education system in the USA, these specific learning strategies would not have necessarily been utilized until the immersion experience. Finally, one more aspect with regard to language skills that is worth noting from the student narratives is the frequency of the mention of issues with pronunciation, slang, or colloquial expressions. Even if students were familiar with a specific language, such as Spanish, most of them realized that in their specific location, there were pronunciation issues unique to that geographical location. As one student explained: “I had to do a constant adjustment of colloquial experiences relevant to my background and even the background of the people who have taught me the Spanish language. The different ways that phrases are interpreted in one area of the world are very different than in my own culture. On the other hand, I was continuously to find such a large number of similarities in common expressions and sayings. I found that the ideas behind the phrases were the same although at times the verbs and nouns chosen to represent those ideas couldn’t be farther apart” (Student Q, studying in Peru) Another student discusses her challenge with pronouncing the local dialect in a city in Morocco: “The local language of Tangier is a dialect of Arabic called Dirijia. The dialect is very different from modern standard Arabic and often when I attempted to speak modern standard I was met with looks of confusion (but maybe this was due to my pronunciation)” (Student O, studying in Morroco). It is not that students were not able to deal with these pronunciation issues as much as the fact that this somewhat complicated matters for them, especially initially. What is interesting about these issues is how it stresses the importance of context. Learning a foreign language outside of a specific context can promote language learning, but there is also an important element of context with regard to language use that is missing in foreign language classrooms. “I learned how to cook the El Salvadoran way…how to figure out whether or not food is good to eat, and how to bargain…I learned how to wash my clothes by hand and how to light a gas stove” (Participant C, studying in El Salvador). “Surprisingly, after all the cross cultural experiences and travel the one thing that I learned how to do well was cook. Using a small electric stove, some pots and pans and fresh Panamanian vegetables, fruit, spices, and meat I was able to keep myself fed everyday. And I was cooking up some decent food here! I guess it just goes back to how the drive to acquire food turns people into geniuses.” (Participant K, studying in Panama). These excerpts highlight two secondary themes that arose in the data, that of the prevalence of comments regarding food and also of public transportation. Besides learning how to cook for some, food was one area in which many participants commented, either on the chance to taste new flavors and dishes, but also learning new eating habits, such as always eating dinner at 9 PM with the entire host family (Participant H, studying in Argentina). Trying new dishes and new food was definitely a memorable experience for many participants, and also an important entry into new cultural experiences, as this participant describes: “During my trip through Central Europe…there were countless opportunities to put myself in various situations so that I was able to experience a cultural exchange. One of the easiest things to do was through food. Instead of going to English-friendly places, such as McDonalds and KFC (there were TONS of KFCs in Central Europe), my classmates and I went to restaurants with more traditional foods…in every city we visited I tried at least one local dish” (Participant L, studying in Central Europe). Along with food, another topic discussed with surprising frequency was aspects of public transportation. “A new skill I learned…was learning how to use all the buses, ferries, subways, and taxis through Istanbul” (Participant T, studying in Turkey) “I took my first taxi in Panama.” (Participant A, studying in Costa Rica and Panama). Because of the number of comments made about using public transportation, these were obviously memorable moments for participants, and often implied a sense of accomplishment in being able to navigate on their own or arrive at the intended destination. For a few students, the accomplishment was in doing a lot of walking to either go to school or to get the shopping done. Another living skill that students commented on having to adjust to involved adapting to a more communal style of living. Participants were often housed in close quarters with many other students, or in host family situations that involved extended family members. There were sharing of bathrooms and washing facilities, roommates to adjust to, and some developed a sense of group in ways that appeared to be novel to them. The third category involves the affective component of competence, which includes aspects of awareness, appreciation, and understanding with regard to attitudes, cultural group membership, and values. The main emphasis in the listing of these acquired affective skills has to do dealing with difference and lack of control: “Studying and living with American students in the United States as well as Turkey, I started to think critically, and was able to ask questions, which made me think even deeper about issues and their implications. Moreover, I knew how to work with others, listening to their opinions and ideas would inspire me and make my perspective more comprehensive and reasonable” (Participant N, studying in Turkey) “An ability I felts as if I acquired from Panama was the ability to be open-minded of others opinions. I have always been fairly hard-headed when it comes to listening to what others think about a certain topic but living with five other guys with entirely different personalities truly helped me understand that I should be more open to how others think. Once I did listen to how these guys felt about certain issues I was actually very glad I did because they offered new perspectives to subjects I though I had a clear understanding with” (Participant I, studying in Panama). Or, having a lack of control: “To know there is literally an infinite amount of possibilities out there that anyone could see live in a lifetime, is a priceless lesson that everyone should experience firsthand. I learned about traveling to and from unknown places where anything could happen” (Participant D, studying in Florence). “I learned that things don’t always have to go my way and things don’t happen on my time” (Participant S, studying in China). “….it pays to be flexible and not to get upset over a change in plans” (Participant F, studying in London and Paris) “We were given a wonderful piece of advice, ‘Embrace the difference.’ Whenever we encountered something foreign to our experience and expectation, rather than focus on the negatives, we should enjoy it as part of the cultural variation we were there to learn about. This phrase became our motto” (Participant F, studying in London and Paris). Within this category, many students wrote specifically about how life-changing their experience was. For example, consider these comments: “I had a profoundly spiritual and emotional experience. I learned to be more patient…to appreciate the simple things in life…I learned a new appreciation for the poor and the struggles they face” (Participant C, studying in El Salvador” “I can definitely say that I came back as a new human being. Experiencing something such as this was something I couldn’t dream of because I didn’t really think it existed. The realization of it all was a learning experience in itself” (Participant D, studying in Italy). When compiled, the students’ list of what they learned with regard to experiencing personal change is a long list of inspirational values, such as learning to be more comfortable in uncomfortable situations, learning to view things from multiple perspectives, learning a new appreciation of the poor, learning to overcome stereotypes of homelessness, learning to adopt an open mind, learning patience, and even learning to consider how one’s actions and communication can influence other’s perceptions of US Americans. **Discussion**
 * Descriptions of Acquired Behavioral Skills**
 * Acquired Language Skills.** Language issues were heavily commented on in the student narratives.
 * Acquired Living Skills.** Another area with regard to behavioral skills gained was an emphasis on basic living skills. Many participants highlighted specific, new experiences that taught them such living skills as how to cook, wash dishes, ride public transportation, exchange money, and adjust to living in crowded living conditions:
 * Descriptions of Acquired Affective Skills**

In a just a quick perusal of six current intercultural communication texts on the market, all six provided definitions of culture and intercultural communication (Jandt, 2010; Liu, Volčič, & Gallois, 2011; Lustig & Koester, 2010; Martin & Nakayama, 2010; Martin & Nakayama, 2011; Samovar, Porter, & McDaniel, 2010). All six texts also had these specific chapters or units in common: verbal communication/language issues; nonverbal communication, cultural identity, and value differences. Other main topics covered in at least four texts or more were interpersonal relationships, aspects of perception and barriers to intercultural communication (such as stereotyping and prejudice), and conflict. Therefore, it appears that basic courses in intercultural communication include similar foundational concepts. These basic intercultural concepts also apply specifically to the components of intercultural competence. With regard to enhancing cognitive skills, definitions and foundational explanations of culture, intercultural communication, and also cognitive information regarding different values and worldviews (such as Hall’s high- low-context communication and Hofstede’s value dimensions) would provide study abroad students with culture-general frameworks to help them better analyze and interpret their experiences. For example, instead of just stating how they learned about educational differences between the USA and China, it might be possible for them to explain the educational differences between the two countries, possibly based on different underlying value systems, such as individualism/collectivism or high/low power distance. The culture-general cognitive frameworks that intercultural communication courses could provide to students would allow them to better process and learn culture-specific information. For behavioral skills, the specific units on verbal and nonverbal communication could enhance communication efforts. Better understanding how language reflects culture, and the role of context in language use would allow students to be more prepared to face language challenges. Also, since so many students reported the use of gestures and nonverbal communication as a new skill that they learned, information on nonverbal communication would greatly benefit them. Finally, for affective skills, units on identity and also the topics of perception, ethnocentrism, stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination would be suitable to help affective skills develop more.

[1] The term “intercultural competence” is widely used in most research in higher education regarding this topic. However, in the communication discipline, scholars use “intercultural communication competence” more frequently. Within our discussion on intercultural communication research, we use this term. However, for the sake of ease, in the rest of this essay we use “intercultural competence,” in no way meaning to downgrade the role of communication involved in such an endeavor.

Elizabeth - My current idea of the paper is that we (ICC scholars) think we can benefit internationalization efforts on campus and can offer some helps (which I don't know yet what). But based on our review of literature, we don't see many studies that are based on students' experiences or voices. In ICC, we focus more on theorizing IC. In International Education, they focus more on curriculum and the importance of sending the students abroad. Both camps barely look at the students' experience. Therefore, our research is important as a first step to understand what is going on with students' experience and how we can adjust the program to be more effective. This, I think, will set up our rationale of the paper. HOWEVER, I don't know if this thought (assumption) is valid. I went through my annotated biblio this morning and I found that to be true for IC -- which is most of them focus on conceptualization. BUT I did not look at current research AND international educ camp. You may have to review your book and hopefully you will find some support or find that this assumption is invalid.

If we will go with this plan, I cut and paste some of the paragraphs from our previous paper below. I also wrote new paragraphs that should be a DRAFT and needed to be edited! Hey... I think it is coming along!! Of course, you may have a different idea. So please let me know.

Looking good so far, Anchalee! So helpful to have a start - and then we can edit, edit, edit. When I looked through the information so far...we might need to shift the focus more to study abroad and not as much regard domestic diversity or IaH efforts. But, there is definitely stuff here to work with.

So...it is time for me to go to yoga soon (!) but I wanted to let you know what I have done so far today (might still work on this tonight, too). I do not know how to easily edit on the wiki, so (sorry) am cutting and pasting from the word document. I am NOT happy yet with the analysis part - but, if you have time...wanted you to see what bad drafts I have been working on. I have played around a bit with the introduction - and also think the literature review might need to focus more on IC competence at the beginning, specifically if that is how we are going to frame the paper. So...questions still in my mind are the main way to frame the paper and then how to organize stuff.

**Title of Paper** One result in higher education of the effects of globalization is that the concept of "intercultural competence" is no longer an objective found only in intercultural communication courses. Instead, it is now advocated as one of the specific goals of U.S. higher education. Educational institutes are under more pressure to prepare “global-ready graduates” (Hunter, White, & Godbey, 2006). Although U.S. institutions have recruited international students and implemented study abroad programs for years, schools did not overtly focus on educating U.S. students to be competent in communication across cultures until recently (Bok, 2006; Kehm & Teichler, 2007). The assumption is that if attained somehow on a personal level, intercultural competence will help students better deal with the current states of diversity and globalization.

This movement in higher education seems to open up an opportunity for campus collaboration, especially among administrators, intercultural scholars, and experts in higher education. However, this does not happen as expected in many institutions. Kehm and Teichler (2007) noted that the internationalization efforts are mostly initiated and developed among school policy makers or top-level administrators. These conversations often do not include specialists or researchers that have actively pursued this topic area.

In fact, the review of research on both international education camp and intercultural communication camp reveals that they put emphasis on different areas. Most discussions from higher education and international education are concerned how to implement intercultural aspects into the curricula; how to encourage students to go abroad; how to increase the school’s administration and leaders to commit to internationalization efforts and so on. Little attention has been seriously paid to, for example, what the outcomes of study abroad are and how to effectively assess the internationalization programs. On the other hand, intercultural communication scholars tend to spend most of their time theorizing about intercultural competence. They have discussed and debated about components of intercultural competence and attempted to validate them so that they can properly measure a person’s effectiveness in cross-cultural communication. However, their decades of debate still left them with inconclusive definition and components of competence. Their focus on conceptualization and theorization also costs them to somewhat withdraw from practical problems.

As intercultural communication scholars, we believe that collaborative efforts between scholars and universities administrators should add value into the programs. As is, the faculty in intercultural communication has helped the programs indirectly by educating students about intercultural communication issues in the classroom. Yet intercultural communication scholars may expand their role to help improve the internationalization efforts in a more direct way.

Although intercultural communication scholars have rich knowledge of intercultural competence, our expertise may fall short when it comes to the students’ experience abroad. While we are able to teach them many concepts such as nonverbal behavior, stereotyping, and prejudices, we have little clue what the students actually encounter and in what situations they may be able to apply their knowledge. Understanding the students’ experiences when they travel into a different culture, therefore, is important if we will further our efforts to support internationalization.

Based on our review of literature, we found that most research in IC focuses on conceptualization. Very limited studies reveal students’ voices or experiences. This study then attempts to. . . **Review of Intercultural Competence** Intercultural competence is a concept that has been discussed for decades, mostly within the field of intercultural communication. Intercultural communication scholars focus on conceptualizing intercultural competence and operationalizing its components that can lead to measuring the competence. Scholars in intercultural communication started by exploring what it means to be an effective intercultural communicator. Among many attempts, the study by Ruben and Kealey (1979, see also Ruben, 1976, 1977, 1989) seems to be widely acknowledged. The researchers approached competence by looking at behaviors of sojourning U.S. Americans. Ruben's assumption was that knowledge about other cultures might not be the best predictor of successful communication since people who know a lot about other cultures might not be able to apply the knowledge to their actions. Observable behaviors were considered a better variable. Ruben and Kealey proposed seven behavioral assessments of communicative competency. These include 1) display of respect, 2) interaction posture, 3) orientation to knowledge, 4) empathy, 5) self-oriented role behavior, 6) interaction management, and 7) tolerance for ambiguity. Another research approach came from Hammer, Gudykunst, and Wiseman (1978), in which 24 abilities were identified based on a review of literature concerning intercultural effectiveness. These abilities were rated by U.S. sojourners and categorized into three dimensions. They are 1) the ability to deal with psychological stress, 2) the ability to effectively communicate, and 3) the ability to establish interpersonal relationships. Hammer et al.'s approach directly focused on characteristics and behaviors of the sojourners. Their studies also aimed to support the assumption that intercultural competence is not culture-specific, and that we can identify components or abilities that lead to competence across cultures. Because these studies tended to focus more on intercultural communication //effectiveness//, which is more goal and outcome-oriented, many researchers called for a re-definition and re-conceptualization of the concept. Spitzberg (1989) clarified that competence is not only effectiveness; it also involves appropriateness. //Appropriateness// refers to “avoiding the violation of valued rules or expectancies” whereas e//ffectiveness// is “the achievement of valued objectives or rewards” (Spitzberg, p. 250). There seems to be an agreement that the term “intercultural communication competence” should be preferred over “intercultural communication effectiveness” (Chen, 1990). Intercultural communication competence is defined as “the ability to effectively and appropriately execute communication behaviors to elicit a desired response in a specific environment” (Wiemann, 1977, cited in Chen, 1990, p. 247). Intercultural communication competence is conceptualized based on cognitive (knowledge), affective (attitude and motivation) and behavioral (skills) approaches (Chen, 1990; Spitzberg, 1989). For instance, Spitzberg suggested that competence depends on the “motivation to communicate, knowledge of the communicative process and context, and skill in implementing motives and knowledge, given the constraints of the context” (p. 250). Chen and Starosta (1996) constructed an IC model that includes three perspectives that reflect the above approaches: intercultural awareness (cognitive), intercultural sensitivity (affective), and intercultural adroitness (behavioral). Although these three domains are often cited, most research investigating IC pay attention to only cognitive and behavioral aspects (Bradford, Allen, & Beisser, 1998). Interestingly, studies found that knowledge and awareness about other cultures does not guarantee behavioral competence. For instance, Wiseman and Abe (1986) reported that respondents who had higher levels of knowledge about other cultures showed more anxiety and frustration when interacting across cultures. Besides, respondents who had lower levels of knowledge seemed to perceive themselves more as effective communicators. Similarly, Ruben and Kealey (1979) found that respondents who are more aware of personal culture and have a higher degree of empathy experienced more culture shock. These findings led the researchers to conclude that people who are more aware of different cultures might be more sensitive to others, and therefore experience more anxiety and culture shock. Currently, the complexity of intercultural competence has been detailed in the //SAGE Handbook of Intercultural Competence// (2009). The first chapter in this handbook summarizes twenty-two different models or ways to conceptualize intercultural competence based on different compositional, co-orientational, developmental, adaptational, and causal path models, demonstrating the popularity of the topic of competence with regard to theorizing, research, and model development. For the sake of space, we will one provide details of one of these models, Deardorff Pyramid Model of Intercultural Competence (Deardorff, 2006). This model is one of the few compositional models that clarifies research-based components based off a Delphi methodology (Deardorff, 2006). 23 intercultural experts were consulted and the end result is a compilation of their definitions and components of intercultural competence. One of the visual models developed from this research is a pyramid model of competence, in which the lowers levels (based on requisite attitudes, knowledge, and skills) support and enhance the higher levels (those of desired internal and external outcomes). At the top, some of the desired external outcomes are the ability to both behave and communicate effectively to achieve goals. The desired internal outcomes include aspects of an individual’s frame of reference, including aspects of adaptability, flexibility, and empathy. These are supported by both knowledge and skills; required knowledge involves both cultural general and specific knowledge, along with sociolinguistic awareness and cultural self-awareness. Skills include the ability to listen, observe, interpret, analyze, evaluate, and relate. Finally, the base of the pyramid rests on requisite attitudes, including those of respect, openness and curiosity. This model, then, includes the traditional aspects of affective, cognitive, and skills elements, along with attempting to present aspects of the foundational elements of competence and an ordering of elements to result in the more visible and external outcome, that of communication effectively and appropriately. Summary and transition needed here. **(Education Camp – focus on what and lack what)** The internationalization of higher education has become a topic of interest among school administrators and researchers after the mid-1990’s (Kehm & Teichler, 2007; Knight, 1997). Internationalization refers to “the process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of post-secondary education” (Knight, 2004, p. 11). The current internationalization effort shifts the focus from only enrolling students in study abroad programs to helping students to develop IC by utilizing what happens domestically, a concept called “Internationalization at Home” (IaH) (Turner & Robson, 2008). This IaH effort involves, but is not limited to, enrolling more students in courses related to global issues or international affairs, encouraging students to advance their foreign languages, engaging them in cultural and diversity events at school and in the community, and better utilizing international students and scholars on campus (Bok, 2006; Otten, 2003).
 * A General Overview**. Since the roots of intercultural communication emerged from the need of the United States government to send military personnel and others abroad after the second World War (Leeds-Hurwitz, 1990; Rogers, Hart, & Miike, 2002), most of the research was initially concerned with improving communicative abilities of those personnel in order for them to accomplish tasks and establish good relationships with people outside of the U.S. Many scholars in this discipline devoted their efforts to building models that address requirements for a single person, such as a sojourner, to strive successfully in intercultural environments. The goal of this tradition is to predict and improve human interactive behaviors across cultures.

There are a number of articles that discuss the best practices for internationalizing a campus at the institutional level (e.g., Bok, 2006; Knight, 2004; Olson, Evans, & Shoenberg, 2007; Otten, 2003; Paige, 2003). These articles aim to emphasize the importance of and provide reasons why campuses should pay attention to the internationalization effort. They also call for collaboration within an institution, especially those parties directly involved with diversity and international students. Olson et al. (2007) stated that it is critical for campuses to provide opportunities for collaboration between the division of multicultural affairs, office of international students, and study abroad programs; this collaboration should assist students to realize the importance of globalization and to learn how to effectively work and live in international and intercultural environments.

While the major goal of these current activities and discussions regarding internationalization is to prepare U.S. students to be interculturally competent or global-ready graduates, there is still a limited conceptualization of what this actually means. Most studies mentioned the terms “intercultural competence,” “global-ready graduates,” or “global citizen” without giving specific definitions (Deardoff, 2006). This impacts how institutions attempt to enact preparation and training for IC and also how they conduct program assessment to further improve the internationalization effort.

**(Issues on both)** Deardorff (2006) reported that a divergence of opinions is found among administrators and scholars regarding the definition of intercultural competence, its components, and assessment methods. For example, while administrators approved of pre- and post-test quantitative methods, the intercultural communication scholars tended to reject them. Also, the issue of whether language should be a prerequisite for IC is still controversial. It is apparent that this increasing attention on the internationalization of U.S. American campuses calls for more research that will help further the effort and encourage more cooperation within campuses on this issue.

it is our contention that the importance of context for IC has been overlooked in intercultural communication. Assumptions have been made that even though initial definitions of IC were for the experience of sojourners, these definitions can be valid for any possible context in which intercultural interactions happen. The influence of the sojourner-context on all the ensuing definitions of IC, however, has not been adequately addressed. For example, if someone is only dealing with one foreign culture, then aspects of cultural knowledge become more obtainable; the more diverse the setting, the more daunting it is to be able to "know" about all the cultures involved. Therefore, definitions and components of IC are actually limited to concerns regarding whose perspective of IC is considered, such as only perhaps Caucasian Westerners from North America, and how are these components measured, such as basing assessment mainly on self-report data.

A study by Deardorff (2006) investigated how schools are assessing students’ intercultural competence. Of 24 institutions identified as having a strong commitment for internationalization, only 38 percent have some forms of assessment for students’ intercultural competence. Moreover, a widely used method is self-report pre and post test, which was warned by many scholars as insufficient to assess intercultural competence. Deardorff’s survey results to school administrators and scholars indicated that assessment should be accomplished by both quantitative and qualitative methods. The qualitative measures including interviews, observation, case studies, and narrative diaries are highly recommended for better analysis of the students’ intercultural competence.
 * (importance of students’ experience)**

Remarkably, the programs designed by many schools have already required students’ assignments such as reflection papers, portfolios, and journal entries. These assignments are great artifacts that tell the story of what students learn, how they interact with people, the intercultural obstacles/conflicts they faced, and how they acquire intercultural awareness during the program. Yet, these good data are under-utilized by most schools.

This study will explore the context in which U.S. students in the global-ready preparation program have been experiencing. The initial effort will be to analyze the students’ reflection about their experiences from written assignments.

**Methods** This study is based on the analysis of 18 reflection papers of students at a university in the southeast region of the United States. These students enrolled in a certificate program that aims to prepare them to be more cross-culturally adept. One of the requirements of this certificate program is for students to engage in international experience which involves study abroad or international internship that lasts for at least one week. Once the students have returned from abroad, they write a reflection paper and submit it to their advisor in order to complete this requirement.

The reflection paper prompts students to reflect on their international experience and their specific interactions with people from different cultures. Five specific prompt questions are concerned 1) the students’ experience of cultural difference, 2) the students’ adjustment during the international experience, 3) the students’ collaboration with people from a different culture, 4) the students’ experience communicating or speaking the local language, and 5) the students’ specific skills, knowledge, or abilities they used or the new ones they have gained through this international experience. The students have to write at least 200 words for each prompt question.

There is no standard course required for students prior to their international experience. However, the students who enroll in this certificate program are required to take at least four courses that address international or cross-cultural issues that are related to their majors or fields of study. They are also required to study a foreign language if their native language is English.


 * Data Collection**

The students in the certificate program who have submitted their reflection papers after their international experience were contacted through email from the researchers. The email message explained to the students the goal of this research study and asked for their participation. If the students agreed to participate, they were granted access to electronic consent form and declared their agreement. The researchers then received a notification and were able to request the students’ papers from their advisors.

The data collection process started in March 2010 and ended in January 2011 (11 months). Thirty nine students have turned in their reflection papers. All of them have been contacted by the researchers. Twenty of them consented to this research. However, two of these 20 papers have to be excluded because they did not reflect international experience where students immerse in a different culture outside of the United States as the rest of the papers represent. As a result, this research is based on 18 reflection papers.

There are 18 countries represented across the 18 papers (although one student traveled to four countries in Europe). These 18 papers reflect students’ experience abroad between 2007 and 2010. Most students traveled in 2009. The duration of travel ranges from one week to six months. Five to eight weeks are the most common duration (9 students out of 18). The length of the students’ reflection papers ranges from 936 words to 5702 words. The average word count is 1670 words. The total word count of all 18 papers is 30,064 words.


 * Data Analysis**


 * Results**

Knowledge Acquired in the Cognitive Component Within this category, the emphasis on acquisition was based on specific information that participants could identify as having learned. Many of the comments were about specific aspects of the new culture, such as the religion, economy, politics, or history of the location in which they visited. Some participants also gained knowledge about decision-making and goal setting because of their experience in international internships (Participants M and Q). This category is important to mention because students did acknowledge specific knowledge and information that they gained. While this is not surprising considering they were part of a “study” abroad experience, it is still important to note, since cognitive skills are often what are emphasized with regard to intercultural learning within current study abroad models of intercultural competence (OH – don’t know if I can say this, but need to think about the angle from which we’ll approach this). This area needs a lot of help!!! I think it will be useful to look through the handbook (and perhaps our earlier paper) Example of cognitive skills learned throughout the experience are as follows: “My conversations with her [host mother] helped me improve my knowledge of the Catholic faith” (Participant A, studying in Costa Rica). “I increased my understanding of Central America – their customs, culture, political and educational systems” (Participant J, studying in Costa Rica) “After visiting Central Europe, my interest in the area, instead of being sated, grew exponentially. Since I got back, I have attempted to digest as much knowledge about thearea as possible” (Participant L, studying in Germany and Central Europe). “I gained a new experience about Chinese culture, and learned the difference in American and Chinese differences in education.” (Participant S, studying in China).

One very large theme area in this category has to do with the list of cultural differences that students reported learning from their experiences. While not always stated directly, these cultural differences were, of course, stated in comparison to life in the USA. Because of the diversity of experiences, it is not easy to summarize this information. Ah…not doing so well with this – need to let this one simmer a bit – and I think the real angle is to, perhaps, not overemphasize this – since this might be the one are that is traditionally viewed as important in the traditional approach to study abroad.

Elizabeth - Perhaps this theme "Knowledge Acquired in the Cognitive Component" might be too big to cover, I think? That is to say, in the first paragraph, it made a lot of sense that students said they have learned something, and of course, learning the cultural differences should be included here too and then I can see you get stuck. Would you consider re-naming the theme to like "Culture-specific knowledge" or "New information learned" (bahh.. I certainly don't like these either!!) But then, if so, we can make "cultural difference" another theme -- I am thinking out loud that this "cultural difference" might be a good one because it can be linked (or support) the Bennett's model (from "we all the same" category to "we are different" cat -- certainly cannot remember the label Bennett put!!!).

The second category in this theme is behavioral skills that participants acknowledged gaining. Within specific behavioral skills listed, there were two main emphases. The first is on language and communication skills. //Acquired Language Skills// Language issues were heavily commented on in the student narratives. Many participants also described greatly improving their language skills based on their immersion to a foreign language: “The biggest thing I got while abroad was a better confidence in my ability to speak the language, as I was very insecure about it before” (Participant P, studying in Spain). “Principally, skills in the Spanish language were what I used throughout my time in Iquitos. My language abilities were definitely improved as well” (Participant Q, studying in Peru). Before discussing the most important themes that surfaced with regard to language issues, there is the concern of how prepared students were for their overseas experience with regard to language. Close to half of the students mentioned having some amount of language skills prior to their overseas experience, and most of these students traveled to Spanish-speaking countries. There was one student who had studied Arabic previously before traveling to Morocco, and another who had studied Chinese before traveling to China. For other places traveled (Italy, France, Central Europe, Turkey, etc.) no language preparation occurred at all. Therefore, students in these countries were either there for more short-term programs, or received instruction solely in English. This also meant that they formed more relationships with other English-speakers and didn’t engage in home-stay situations as much as other students did. (This can be your assumption though) Language learning for these individuals was more focused on “survival” language skills such as ordering food in restaurants and navigating public transportation. One area that was mentioned with a lot of frequency was with regard to the importance of nonverbal communication. Many participants described how they learned to use hand gestures and body language to make their communication as clear as possible. “A specific skill I developed from the lack of communication is my ability to use my body language to make myself understood. I always smiled and acted confidently, and used my hands to point to where I wanted to go and used my body and hands to try and describe what I wanted” (Participant S, studying in China). “…my non-verbal communication skills got me very far when I encountered someone who did not know much English” (Participant L, studying in Central Europe). “…do not be afraid to use your hands. Communication reaches far beyond using only your voice and you would be surprised to see how much can be translated through simple hand movements” (Participant I, studying in Panama).
 * Skills Acquired in the Behavioral Component**

This is important to note for two reasons. First of all, this implies that students were immersed in foreign language settings in which they were not fluent enough in language skills that they could rely more on their oral skills. Hence, the necessity for gestures to aid in their communication. Also, most of their description about their use of nonverbal skills implies that this was the first time in their lives that they realized the usefulness of gestures in such a manner. This is also important for the way it emphasizes how these participant must not have experienced in any significant way being in the language minority. (good point!) Even students who have studied foreign languages are still studying these languages while in the USA, so are still surrounded by English speakers, which means that if their foreign language skills fail them, it is quick and easy to revert back to English and to maneuver the situation in such a manner. However, for these study-abroad participants, their relative isolation from other native-English speakers and their immersion into a new language community was a new experience. This was able to prompt them to realize, some for the first time, that they could get by much more completely than they had originally realized with distinct gestures and nonverbal skills. (so will this support Study Abroad even more since they now experience first-hand and not only in their homeland context? -- something for us to think about!)

Students not only improved in their nonverbal behavior, but they also listed many different language learning strategies that were necessary for them to adequately function. So, language learning strategies were another behavioral skill that participants learned. Examples of strategies listed are continuously carrying a phrasebook or dictionary, not to be afraid to ask many questions, emphasized listening a lot, being willing to try to speak to anyone and everyone, and not being bothered if people happened to laugh at poor grammar. One student described how food was a way to learn vocabulary words: “Another way I worked on my Italian was on weekly trips to the grocery store…Luckily they would have a picture of the time and then above it the name of the item. This was a kind of self teaching process that made this experience easier, comfortable, and more enjoyable. Speaking with the waiters and waitresses at the restaurants was a very rewarding experience. Usually they would help you say what you wanted in Italian” (Participant D, studying in Italy). Another example of an important language learning strategy: “…never be scared to immerse yourself in a society of non-English speakers. You will surely get laughed at once in a while but that is all part of the learning experience, and maybe when you think back about what you were actually telling someone, you might laugh yourself as well” (Participant I, studying in Panama).

These learning strategies are all specific to being immersed in a foreign language; therefore, these experiences were noteworthy for students because, even if they had studied a language for years in the education system in the USA, these specific learning strategies would not have necessarily been utilized until the immersion experience.

Finally, one more aspect with regard to language skills that is worth noting from the student narratives is the frequency of the mention of issues with pronunciation, slang, or colloquial expressions. Even if students were familiar with a specific language, such as Spanish, most of them realized that in their specific location, there were pronunciation issues unique to that geographical location. As one student explained: “I had to do a constant adjustment of colloquial experiences relevant to my background and even the background of the people who have taught me the Spanish language. The different ways that phrases are interpreted in one area of the world are very different than in my own culture. On the other hand, I was continuously to find such a large number of similarities in common expressions and sayings. I found that the ideas behind the phrases were the same although at times the verbs and nouns chosen to represent those ideas couldn’t be farther apart” (Student Q, studying in Peru) Another student discusses her challenge with pronouncing the local dialect in a city in Morocco: “The local language of Tangier is a dialect of Arabic called Dirijia. The dialect is very different from modern standard Arabic and often when I attempted to speak modern standard I was met with looks of confusion (but maybe this was due to my pronunciation)” (Student O, studying in Morroco). It is not that students were not able to deal with these pronunciation issues as much as the fact that this somewhat complicated matters for them, especially initially. What is interesting about these issues is how it stresses the importance of context. Learning a foreign language outside of a specific context can promote language learning, but there is also an important element of context with regard to language use that is missing in foreign language classrooms.

//Acquired Living Skills// Another area with regard to behavioral skills gained was an emphasis on basic living skills. Many participants highlighted specific, new experiences that taught them such living skills as how to cook, wash dishes, ride public transportation, exchange money, and adjust to living in crowded living conditions: “I learned how to cook the El Salvadoran way…how to figure out whether or not food is good to eat, and how to bargain…I learned how to wash my clothes by hand and how to light a gas stove” (Participant C, studying in El Salvador). “Surprisingly, after all the cross cultural experiences and travel the one thing that I learned how to do well was cook. Using a small electric stove, some pots and pans and fresh Panamanian vegetables, fruit, spices, and meat I was able to keep myself fed everyday. And I was cooking up some decent food here! I guess it just goes back to how the drive to acquire food turns people into geniuses.” (Participant K, studying in Panama). These excerpts highlight two secondary themes that arose in the data, that of the prevalence of comments regarding food and also of public transportation. Besides learning how to cook for some, food was one area in which many participants commented, either on the chance to taste new flavors and dishes, but also learning new eating habits, such as always eating dinner at 9 PM with the entire host family (Participant H, studying in Argentina). Trying new dishes and new food was definitely a memorable experience for many participants, and also an important entry into new cultural experiences, as this participant describes: “During my trip through Central Europe…there were countless opportunities to put myself in various situations so that I was able to experience a cultural exchange. One of the easiest things to do was through food. Instead of going to English-friendly places, such as McDonalds and KFC (there were TONS of KFCs in Central Europe), my classmates and I went to restaurants with more traditional foods…in every city we visited I tried at least one local dish” (Participant L, studying in Central Europe). Along with food, another topic discussed with surprising frequency was aspects of public transportation. “A new skill I learned…was learning how to use all the buses, ferries, subways, and taxis through Istanbul” (Participant T, studying in Turkey) “I took my first taxi in Panama.” (Participant A, studying in Costa Rica and Panama). Because of the number of comments made about using public transportation, these were obviously memorable moments for participants, and often implied a sense of accomplishment in being able to navigate on their own or arrive at the intended destination. For a few students, the accomplishment was in doing a lot of walking to either go to school or to get the shopping done. Another living skill that students commented on having to adjust to involved adapting to a more communal style of living. Participants were often housed in close quarters with many other students, or in host family situations that involved extended family members. There were sharing of bathrooms and washing facilities, roommates to adjust to, and some developed a sense of group in ways that appeared to be novel to them.

//Motivation and Values Acquired in the Affective Component// The third category involves the affective component of competence, which includes aspects of awareness, appreciation, and understanding with regard to attitudes, cultural group membership, and values. The main emphasis in the listing of these acquired affective skills has to do dealing with difference and lack of control: “Studying and living with American students in the United States as well as Turkey, I started to think critically, and was able to ask questions, which made me think even deeper about issues and their implications. Moreover, I knew how to work with others, listening to their opinions and ideas would inspire me and make my perspective more comprehensive and reasonable” (Participant N, studying in Turkey) “An ability I felts as if I acquired from Panama was the ability to be open-minded of others opinions. I have always been fairly hard-headed when it comes to listening to what others think about a certain topic but living with five other guys with entirely different personalities truly helped me understand that I should be more open to how others think. Once I did listen to how these guys felt about certain issues I was actually very glad I did because they offered new perspectives to subjects I though I had a clear understanding with” (Participant I, studying in Panama). Or, having a lack of control: “To know there is literally an infinite amount of possibilities out there that anyone could see live in a lifetime, is a priceless lesson that everyone should experience firsthand. I learned about traveling to and from unknown places where anything could happen” (Participant D, studying in Florence). “I learned that things don’t always have to go my way and things don’t happen on my time” (Participant S, studying in China). “….it pays to be flexible and not to get upset over a change in plans” (Participant F, studying in London and Paris) “We were given a wonderful piece of advice, ‘Embrace the difference.’ Whenever we encountered something foreign to our experience and expectation, rather than focus on the negatives, we should enjoy it as part of the cultural variation we were there to learn about. This phrase became our motto” (Participant F, studying in London and Paris). Within this category, many students wrote specifically about how life-changing their experience was. For example, consider these comments: “I had a profoundly spiritual and emotional experience. I learned to be more patient…to appreciate the simple things in life…I learned a new appreciation for the poor and the struggles they face” (Participant C, studying in El Salvador” “I can definitely say that I came back as a new human being. Experiencing something such as this was something I couldn’t dream of because I didn’t really think it existed. The realization of it all was a learning experience in itself” (Participant D, studying in Italy). When compiled, the students’ list of what they learned with regard to experiencing personal change is a long list of inspirational values, such as learning to be more comfortable in uncomfortable situations, learning to view things from multiple perspectives, learning a new appreciation of the poor, learning to overcome stereotypes of homelessness, learning to adopt an open mind, learning patience, and even learning to consider how one’s actions and communication can influence other’s perceptions of US Americans.

** WSCA Paper **

**Introduction**

One result in higher education of the effects of globalization is that the concept of "intercultural competence" is no longer an objective found only in intercultural communication courses. Instead, it is now advocated as one of the specific goals of U.S. higher education. Educational institutes are under more pressure to prepare “global-ready graduates” (Hunter, White, & Godbey, 2006). Although U.S. institutions have recruited international students and implemented study abroad programs for years, schools did not overtly focus on educating U.S. students to be competent in communication across cultures until recently (Bok, 2006; Kehm & Teichler, 2007)

These days, it seems to be an undisputed fact that diversity is a widespread experience in the USA, specifically on university and college campuses (Fluck, Clouse, & Shooshtari, 2007; Ramburuth & Welch, 2005). In order to address this widespread diversity, the concept of “intercultural competence [1] ” (IC) is no longer only an objective found in intercultural communication courses. Instead, it is now advocated as one of the specific goals of U.S. higher education. Although U.S. institutions have recruited international students and implemented study abroad programs for years, schools did not overtly focus on educating U.S. students to be competent in communication across cultures until recently (Bok, 2006; Kehm & Teichler, 2007). One major driving force for this movement is due to the effects of globalization (Turner & Robson, 2008). Educational institutions are under more pressure to prepare a “global-ready graduate” (Hunter, White, & Godbey, 2006). The assumption is that IC, if attained somehow on a personal level, will help students better deal with the current states of diversity and globalization.

This movement in higher education seems to open up an opportunity for campus collaboration, especially among administrators, intercultural scholars, and experts in higher education. However, this does not happen as expected in many institutions. Kehm and Teichler (2007) noted that the internationalization efforts are mostly initiated and developed among school policy makers or top-level administrators. These conversations often do not include specialists or researchers that have actively pursued this topic area.

In fact, the review of research on both international education camp and intercultural communication camp reveals that they put emphases on different areas. Most discussions from higher education and international education are concerned how to implement intercultural aspects into the curricula; how to encourage students to go abroad; how to increase the school’s administration and leaders to commit to internationalization efforts and so on. Little attention has been seriously paid to, for example, what the outcomes of study abroad are and how to effectively assess the internationalization programs. On the other hand, intercultural communication scholars tend to spend most of their time theorizing about intercultural competence. They have discussed and debated about components of intercultural competence and attempted to validate them so that they can properly measure a person’s effectiveness in cross-cultural communication. However, their decades of debate still left them with inconclusive definition and components agreed upon by their members. Their focus on conceptualization and theorization also costs them to somewhat withdraw from practical problems.

As intercultural communication scholars, we believe that collaborative efforts between scholars and universities administrators should add value into the programs. As is, the faculty in intercultural communication has helped the programs indirectly by educating students about intercultural communication issues in the classroom. Yet intercultural communication scholars may expand their role that helps improve the internationalization efforts in a more direct way.

Although intercultural communication scholars have rich knowledge of intercultural competence, our expertise may fall short when it comes to the students’ experience abroad. While we are able to teach them many concepts such as nonverbal behavior, stereotyping, and prejudices, we have little clue what the students actually encounter and in what situations they may be able to apply their knowledge. Understanding the students’ experiences when they travel into a different culture, therefore, is important if we will further our efforts to support internationalization.

Based on our review of literature, we found that most research in IC focuses on conceptualization. Very limited studies reveal students’ voices or experiences. This study then attempts to. ..

**Literature Review**


 * (Education Camp – focus on what and lack what)**

The internationalization of higher education has become a topic of interest among school administrators and researchers after the mid-1990’s (Kehm & Teichler, 2007; Knight, 1997). Internationalization refers to “the process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of post-secondary education” (Knight, 2004, p. 11). The current internationalization effort shifts the focus from only enrolling students in study abroad programs to helping students to develop IC by utilizing what happens domestically, a concept called “Internationalization at Home” (IaH) (Turner & Robson, 2008). This IaH effort involves, but is not limited to, enrolling more students in courses related to global issues or international affairs, encouraging students to advance their foreign languages, engaging them in cultural and diversity events at school and in the community, and better utilizing international students and scholars on campus (Bok, 2006; Otten, 2003). There are a number of articles that discuss the best practices for internationalizing a campus at the institutional level (e.g., Bok, 2006; Knight, 2004; Olson, Evans, & Shoenberg, 2007; Otten, 2003; Paige, 2003). These articles aim to emphasize the importance of and provide reasons why campuses should pay attention to the internationalization effort. They also call for collaboration within an institution, especially those parties directly involved with diversity and international students. Olson et al. (2007) stated that it is critical for campuses to provide opportunities for collaboration between the division of multicultural affairs, office of international students, and study abroad programs; this collaboration should assist students to realize the importance of globalization and to learn how to effectively work and live in international and intercultural environments. While the major goal of these current activities and discussions regarding internationalization is to prepare U.S. students to be interculturally competent or global-ready graduates, there is still a limited conceptualization of what this actually means. Most studies mentioned the terms “intercultural competence,” “global-ready graduates,” or “global citizen” without giving specific definitions (Deardoff, 2006). This impacts how institutions attempt to enact preparation and training for IC and also how they conduct program assessment to further improve the internationalization effort.

Intercultural communication scholars focus on conceptualizing intercultural competence and operationalizing its components that can lead to measuring the competence. Since the roots of intercultural communication emerged from the need of the United States government to send military personnel and others abroad after the second World War (Leeds-Hurwitz, 1990; Rogers, Hart, & Miike, 2002), most of the research was initially concerned with improving communicative abilities of those personnel in order for them to accomplish tasks and establish good relationships with people outside of the U.S. Many scholars in this discipline devoted their efforts to building models that address requirements for a single person, such as a sojourner, to strive successfully in intercultural environments. The goal of this tradition is to predict and improve human interactive behaviors across cultures. Intercultural scholars offer diverse approaches to conceptualizing IC and propose several lists of IC components. However, not much effort has been focused on verifying the concept or testing the components (Bradford et al., 1998; Spitzberg, 1989). As Spitzberg pointed out, the scholarly efforts in this topic are diversified instead of unified, and when some models were being tested, sample size was often too small, which raises the question of validity. More studies are required in order to verify the concept and components as well as to answer specific questions concerning, for instance, whether IC is culture-general or culture-specific.
 * (ICC Camp – focus on what and lack what)**

Deardorff (2006) reported that a divergence of opinions is found among administrators and scholars regarding the definition of intercultural competence, its components, and assessment methods. For example, while administrators approved of pre- and post-test quantitative methods, the intercultural communication scholars tended to reject them. Also, the issue of whether language should be a prerequisite for IC is still controversial. It is apparent that this increasing attention on the internationalization of U.S. American campuses calls for more research that will help further the effort and encourage more cooperation within campuses on this issue. it is our contention that the importance of context for IC has been overlooked in intercultural communication. Assumptions have been made that even though initial definitions of IC were for the experience of sojourners, these definitions can be valid for any possible context in which intercultural interactions happen. The influence of the sojourner-context on all the ensuing definitions of IC, however, has not been adequately addressed. For example, if someone is only dealing with one foreign culture, then aspects of cultural knowledge become more obtainable; the more diverse the setting, the more daunting it is to be able to "know" about all the cultures involved. Therefore, definitions and components of IC are actually limited to concerns regarding whose perspective of IC is considered, such as only perhaps Caucasian Westerners from North America, and how are these components measured, such as basing assessment mainly on self-report data.
 * (Issues on both)**

A study by Deardorff (2006) investigated how schools are assessing students’ intercultural competence. Of 24 institutions identified as having a strong commitment for internationalization, only 38 percent have some forms of assessment for students’ intercultural competence. Moreover, a widely used method is self-report pre and post test, which was warned by many scholars as insufficient to assess intercultural competence. Deardorff’s survey results to school administrators and scholars indicated that assessment should be accomplished by both quantitative and qualitative methods. The qualitative measures including interviews, observation, case studies, and narrative diaries are highly recommended for better analysis of the students’ intercultural competence. Remarkably, the programs designed by many schools have already required students’ assignments such as reflection papers, portfolios, and journal entries. These assignments are great artifacts that tell the story of what students learn, how they interact with people, the intercultural obstacles/conflicts they faced, and how they acquire intercultural awareness during the program. Yet, these good data are under-utilized by most schools.
 * (importance of students’ experience)**

This study will explore the context in which U.S. students in the global-ready preparation program have been experiencing. The initial effort will be to analyze the students’reflection about their experiences from written assignments.

**Methods**

This study is based on the analysis of 18 reflection papers of students at a university in the southeast region of the United States. These students enrolled in a certificate program that aims to prepare them to be more cross-culturally adept. One of the requirements of this certificate program is for students to engage in international experience which may involve study abroad or international internship that lasts for at least one week. Once the students have returned from abroad, they write a reflection paper and submit it to their advisor in order to complete this requirement.

The reflection paper prompts students to reflect on their international experience and their specific interactions with people from different cultures. Five specific prompt questions are concerned 1) the students’ experience of cultural difference, 2) the students’ adjustment during the international experience, 3) the students’ collaboration with people from a different culture, 4) the students’ experience communicating or speaking the local language, and 5) the students’ specific skills, knowledge, or abilities they used or the new ones they have gained through this international experience. The students have to write at least 200 words for each prompt question.

There is no standard course required for students prior to their international experience. However, the students who enroll in this certificate program are required to take at least four courses that address international or cross-cultural issues that are related to their majors or fields of study. They are also required to study a foreign language if their native language is English.


 * Data Collection**

The students in the certificate program who have submitted their reflection papers after their international experience were contacted through email from the researchers. The email message explained to the students the goal of this research study and asked for their participation. If the students agreed to participate, they were granted access to electronic consent form and declared their agreement. The researchers then received a notification and were able to request the students’ papers from their advisors.

The data collection process started in March 2010 and ended in January 2011 (11 months). Thirty nine students have turned in their reflection papers. All of them have been contacted by the researchers. Twenty of them consented to this research. However, two of these 20 papers have to be excluded because they did not reflect international experience where students immerse in a different culture outside of the United States as the rest of the papers represent. As a result, this research is based on 18 reflection papers.


 * Data Analysis**

** WSCA Paper **

**Introduction** These days, it seems to be an undisputed fact that diversity is a widespread experience in the USA, specifically on university and college campuses (Fluck, Clouse, & Shooshtari, 2007; Ramburuth & Welch, 2005). In order to address this widespread diversity, the concept of “intercultural competence [1] ” (IC) is no longer only an objective found in intercultural communication courses. Instead, it is now advocated as one of the specific goals of U.S. higher education. Although U.S. institutions have recruited international students and implemented study abroad programs for years, schools did not overtly focus on educating U.S. students to be competent in communication across cultures until recently (Bok, 2006; Kehm & Teichler, 2007). One major driving force for this movement is due to the effects of globalization (Turner & Robson, 2008). Educational institutions are under more pressure to prepare a “global-ready graduate” (Hunter, White, & Godbey, 2006). The assumption is that IC, if attained somehow on a personal level, will help students better deal with the current states of diversity and globalization. This movement in higher education seems to open up an opportunity for campus collaboration, especially among administrators, intercultural scholars, and experts in higher education. However, this does not happen as expected in many institutions. Kehm and Teichler (2007) noted that the internationalization efforts are mostly initiated and developed among school policy makers or top-level administrators. These conversations often do not include specialists or researchers that have actively pursued this topic area. Similarly, Deardorff (2006) reported that a divergence of opinions is found among administrators and scholars regarding the definition of intercultural competence, its components, and assessment methods. For example, while administrators approved of pre- and post-test quantitative methods, the intercultural communication scholars tended to reject them. Also, the issue of whether language should be a prerequisite for IC is still controversial. It is apparent that this increasing attention on the internationalization of U.S. American campuses calls for more research that will help further the effort and encourage more cooperation within campuses on this issue. In fact, the review of research on both international education camp and intercultural communication camp reveals that they put emphases on different areas. Most discussions from higher education and international education are concerned how to implement intercultural aspects into the curricula; how to encourage students to go abroad; how to increase the school’s administration and leaders to commit to internationalization efforts and so on. Little attention has been seriously paid to, for example, what the outcomes of study abroad are and how to effectively assess the internationalization programs. On the other hand, intercultural communication scholars tend to spend most of their time theorizing about intercultural competence. They have discussed and debated about components of intercultural competence and attempted to validate them so that they can properly measure a person’s effectiveness in cross-cultural communication. However, their decades of debate still left them with inconclusive definition and components agreed upon by their members. Their focus on conceptualization and theorization also costs them to somewhat withdraw from practical problems. As intercultural communication scholars, we believe that collaborative efforts between scholars and universities administrators should add value into the programs. As is, the faculty in intercultural communication has helped the programs indirectly by educating students about intercultural communication issues in the classroom. Yet intercultural communication scholars may expand their role that helps improve the internationalization efforts in a more direct way. Although intercultural communication scholars have rich knowledge of intercultural competence, our expertise may fall short when it comes to the students’ experience abroad. While we are able to teach them many concepts such as nonverbal behavior, stereotyping, and prejudices, we have little clue what the students actually encounter and in what situations they may be able to apply their knowledge. Understanding the students’ experiences when they travel into a different culture, therefore, is important if we will further our efforts to support internationalization. Based on our review of literature, we found that most research in IC focuses on conceptualization. Very limited studies reveal students’ voices or experiences. This study then attempts to. ..