See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/269096732

Integrating Intercultural and Communicative Objectives in the Foreign

Language Class A Proposal for the Integration of Two Models

Article  in  Language Learning Journal · November 2013

DOI: 10.1080/09571736.2013.836344

CITATIONS READS

13 417

1 author:

Claudia Borghetti
University of Bologna
32 PUBLICATIONS   179 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

IEREST View project

IEREST: Intercultural education resources for Erasmus students and their teachers View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Claudia Borghetti on 03 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Claudia Borghetti

Integrating Intercultural and Communicative Objectives

in the Foreign Language Class
A Proposal for the Integration of Two Models

Abstract
Language teaching, after the 'intercultural turn' of the 1990s which more recently made it possible
to speak of Foreign Language Education or Intercultural Foreign Language Education (IFLE),
proposes broadening the aims of language education to include among its main concerns students'
intercultural competence (IC), personal growth, and intercultural critical citizenship. This
educational broadening of language-teaching horizons raises delicate and controversial issues, first
of all concerning the relationship intercultural objectives have with communicative objectives at
both curriculum and methodology levels. This issue, crucial since teaching a foreign language is
clearly a priority for IFLE, is addressed in the present article through a proposal to integrate two
models: the Methodological Model of Intercultural Competence (MetMIC) (Borghetti 2011), and
the Teaching Unit Model (TUM) (Freddi 1975, 1994; Porcelli 1994; Zorzi 1995; Balboni 2002).
These two frameworks, each within its own area of application (intercultural education in the case
of MetMIC and foreign language teaching in the case of TUM) are focussed on curriculum planning
and put forward methodological suggestions for teachers. Their integration, as suggested in this
article, can be carried out on three levels (general and educational, ‘macro’ or curricular, and
‘micro’ or methodological) and allows for coherently pursuing intercultural and communicative
objectives through theoretically-informed methodological choices about curriculum structure and
teaching methodologies.

Introduction

Any well-grounded form of teaching involves some contemplation about the ultimate goals of the
learning process: Will it prove useful to the individual student and/or to society at large? Will it
foster individual success within a specific job sector, distinction within specific social circles,
and/or personal development? And when the aims behind teaching/learning are above all social in
nature, is the objective to educate individuals so that they can develop 'a convergent way of thinking
about what it means to be a citizen in a given state' (Martin and Feng 2006: 53), or that individuals
learn to participate in today's global society with a heightened degree of awareness and a more
critical eye? Or is the underlying goal one of shaping students who will go on to help build a better
society (Giroux 1992)? No single response exists to these questions, especially within today's
'global knowledge' society where there are so many different contexts and reasons for teaching and
learning. Even if we were to limit the scope of our analysis exclusively to formal education, a large
number of factors (such as the various educational policies of different countries or disciplinary
mainstreams) would still make for a highly diversified picture within meta-educational reflection
and discourse.
The history of foreign language teaching (FLT) itself could be reinterpreted in the wake of
the roles that FLT has created for itself within and among societies, as well as within and among
individuals, through its different approaches and methods. Without presenting an exhaustive
historical review, it is possible to affirm that it was primarily a greater awareness of the importance
of the questions raised above, as well as of the educational and social roles played by foreign
language teaching and learning, which formed the basis of what could be termed the 'intercultural
turn' taken by the discipline since the 1990s. Indeed, Foreign Language Education (Byram 1989) -
also referred to as 'Intercultural Foreign Language Education' (IFLE) (Borghetti 2008, 2011) -
disputed the mainly instrumental value of language and culture learning as it was implicitly
assumed in communicative language teaching. If the emphasis placed on the appropriateness and
efficacy of communication by the communicative methods resulted in the introduction of some
cultural content within language curricula, this content was often isolated and simplified, while at
times stereotyped and strictly functional, for communicative objectives (Swan 1985; Byram 1989;
Cherrington 2004). It was in objection to this conception of the role of language and culture
teaching that Byram (1989) emphasized the profound educational and social role which linguistic
teaching could assume if only it were to tap into the cultural aspects of the language being studied.
Therefore, for IFLE, the study of a foreign language becomes an opportunity for students to acquire
and develop knowledge, attitudes, and skills beyond the specific languaculture (Agar 1994) studied,
which as a whole constitute intercultural competence (IC) (Byram 1997). Definable as 'an integral
whole of cognitive, affective and behavioural factors that influence the understanding of, and
interaction with, diversity in a broad sense, and which can be developed through education and/or
experience' (Borghetti 2011: 143), IC is not a content in the syllabus but an educational goal of
superior order which redefines the roles of communicative and cultural competences. More recently,
the educational impact of IFLE has been additionally reinforced by a shift from a mainly 'national
paradigm' - which pedagogically implies comparing the source and the target (national)
languacultures - to a 'transnational' paradigm, according to which 'languages spread across cultures,
and cultures spread across languages' (Risager 2007: 2). In addition, IFLE is being discussed and
related to post-structuralist discourse about diversity, as well as a multiple, hybrid, fluid identity. An
emphasis on personal, relational and contextual identities was already implicit in the concept of the
'third place' as expressed by Kramsch (1993) and the 'third space' as defined by Bhabha (1994) in
order to emphasize that individuals manoeuvre beyond their target or source cultures since 'they
move to a position in which their developing intercultural competence informs their language
choices in communication' (Kramsch 2009: 244). Studies such as Guilherme (2002) and Block
(2007) or the state-of-the-art article by Norton and Toohey (2011) have further explored identity in
language education. However, much of the research on this topic is concentrated on offering
students 'multiple identity positions from which to engage in the language practices of the
classroom, the school, and the community' (Norton and Toohey 2011: 432) and does not explore in
depth the view that students should become aware of unequal power relations and multiple
identities so that they can better give voice to others, starting with their own classmates. This latter
kind of recognition and educational direction, which more openly addresses the others, their
diversities and their rights, is often preferred within IFLE: By means of the stimulation of students'
intercultural competence, surely teachers are invited to guide them to explore and understand their
sense of cultural belonging, included the intrinsic instability and context-related nature of such
affiliations; however, this educational aim is seen as inseparable from the attempt to open a
dimension of agency for students as critical intercultural individuals (Byram 2008) and world
citizens committed to social transformation (Giroux 1992) towards more equal and fair societies.
How these theoretical arguments should be concretely translated into curriculum planning
and teaching methodology is a critical issue which continues to be debated. Any attempt in this
direction must begin by examining how communicative and intercultural objectives might coexist in
the pursuit of IFLE's educational goals at both curriculum and teaching methodology levels. This is
because the development of students' communicative competence in the target language still
remains a priority, even in the broader educational framework of IFLE. At the same time, questions
about what relationship intercultural objectives have with communicative ones within the
curriculum, and what methodological principles should be adopted in order to promote them jointly
in the foreign language classroom, are still largely unexplored. Most existing models of intercultural
competence do not specify how IC is linked to communicative competence in the foreign language,
in part because many of these have arisen from contexts outside of FLT (see Brislin and Yoshida
(1994), Fantini (2009) or Deardorff (2006), and in particular Borghetti (2012) for a review of twelve
models of IC). Byram's model (1997) is the only one which defines the relationship between
intercultural and communicative objectives; such relationship is implicitly founded upon the
distinction between IC and ‘intercultural communicative competence’): In the former case
individuals have the ability to interact in their own language with people from another culture; in
the latter case, while interacting, they also put into practice their linguistic, socio-linguistic and
discourse competences in the foreign language (Byram, 1997: 70-71). The significance of the issue
of connecting intercultural and communicative competences is illustrated by the fact that, even
when language teachers recognize the importance of developing students' intercultural competence,
they often drop intercultural aims in planning their courses, since they feel that 'language and
culture cannot be taught in an integrated way' (Sercu et al. 2005: 164).
This article aims to indicate how teaching (curricular and methodological) practice can
follow from IFLE theoretical stances and principles. It suggests integration of the Methodological
Model of Intercultural Competence (MetMIC) (Borghetti 2011) with the Teaching Unit Model
(TUM), which has been largely known and adopted - for communicative purposes exclusively -
within the Italian FLT tradition since the 1970s (Freddi 1975). Since the two models are based on a
number of conditions relative to (inter)cultural and language learning respectively, and share an
operational approach in their conception of curriculum structure and teaching methodologies, their
integration can help in the objective of jointly pursuing communicative and intercultural
competences in the language class. In what follows, each model is presented and discussed, and
then, on the basis of the characteristics emerging from the two reviews, the integration of the two
frameworks is proposed and commented on, in order to pursue in a holistic manner IFLE
educational aims as they result after the 'intercultural turn' and the more 'traditional' FLT
communicative objectives.

The Methodological Model of Intercultural Competence

The Methodological Model of Intercultural Competence (MetMIC) (Borghetti 2008, 2011) aims to
offer a reformulation of IFLE principles so that they can be easily translated into choices relative to
curriculum planning and teaching methodologies (materials, activities, and procedures). Firmly
rooted in IFLE literature (above all Byram's 1997 proposal for developing intercultural
competence), it attempts to help bridge the gap between theoretical formulation of intercultural
competence on the one hand and educational practice on the other. MetMIC accepts Byram’s above-
mentioned distinction between IC and ‘intercultural communicative competence' and, consequently,
postulates a relative independence of intercultural education and language teaching.
Notwithstanding its assumptions and even the original name of the framework, 'Methodological
Model of Intercultural Communicative Competence' (Borghetti 2008), MetMIC mainly addresses
foreign language on metacultural and metalinguistic levels rather than in its communicative nature
and function. It suggests ways for students to use languages as a key through which to read cultures
and as systems to be aware of, while it partially sidesteps the issue of the actual use of the foreign
language in and beyond the class. As a consequence, it has done little to resolve the issue central to
this article: the integration of intercultural and communicative objectives.

General characteristics of the MetMIC Model

MetMIC represents a frame thanks to which IC is conceptualised and described with an eye to its
pursuit in formal educational settings. Therefore, in the present context, it helps in identifying and
organising a first set of teaching objectives - those which are ‘intercultural’ - which will be
integrated and completed by communicative objectives as proposed by TUM.
MetMIC is a 'prescriptive model', since it 'describes the main characteristics of intercultural
competence in some detail' for teaching purposes (Byram 2009: 325). However, its defining
characteristic is its presentation as a ‘developmental model of the teaching process’ which suggests
a curriculum structure to promote the acquisition of IC in formal educational contexts and
describes the teaching phases and methodologies needed to guide students in developing their
competence. Consequently, it differs both from frameworks which provide ‘synchronic’
descriptions of competence by referring to the IC components and characteristics to be considered
by teachers (e.g. Byram 1997), and developmental frameworks which ‘diachronically’ represent the
steps of competence acquisition (e.g. Bennett 1993). Similar to Kramsch's (1993) and Brislin and
Yoshida's (1994) proposals, MetMIC concentrates on the progression of teaching acts and only
alludes to the complex issue of the learning processes involved in acquiring intercultural
competence. Even if, ideally, deriving intercultural objectives directly from these learning processes
would offer a more solid theoretical basis from which teaching choices could be made, too little is
currently known about IC acquisition to sustain this option. A number of studies have tackled the
theme of second culture acquisition and intercultural learning (Bennett 1993; Robinson-Stuart and
Nocon 1996; Lantolf 1999; Pavlenko and Lantolf 2000). The results of these studies have however
not always proved encouraging, and at times their postulation of acquisition phases has been
excessively rigid. These studies can often only inform IFLE in general terms rather than offering
significant and unambiguous contributions to curriculum planning and teaching practice.

The theoretical dimensions of MetMIC

Like most intercultural competence models (e.g. Byram 1997; Deardorff 2006; Fantini 2009),
MetMIC can be conceptualised in terms of components (attitudes, knowledge, skills, and
awareness). However, given the developmental and dynamic nature of the model, and its aims to
shape curriculum, such components as well as the relationships which bind them together are
reformulated. In particular IC, as it is understood in MetMIC, posits both cognitive and affective
processes at its basis. All the while cognitive and affective processes are at work, both awareness
and skills develop. As shown in Figure 1, the major innovation of MetMIC resides in its postulating
a module or course whose curriculum is structured on the basis of intercultural competence
dimensions.

Figure 1. MetMIC dimensions (Borghetti 2011). ©Peter Lang.

Reproduced with kind permission

The model should be read from left to right. The two smaller arrows represent teaching actions
aimed at stimulating students’ cognitive (A) and affective (B) processes respectively. The larger
arrow (C) depicts the first and most immediate effect of the educational effort, the evolution and
structuring of students’ cultural, intercultural and self-awareness and, at the same time, the teaching
actions aimed at this development. Cultural and intercultural awareness are closely tied together,
since one can become aware that culture exists and influences values, attitudes and behaviour
(cultural awareness) only after experiencing difference and realising, indirectly, that all cultures
influence every aspect of human life in an equivalent, be it different, manner (intercultural
awareness). Self-awareness is of a different nature, as the object of cognition is the person who
recognises their (and therefore the other's) fluid, changing, and context-related identities. These
various forms of awareness gradually lay the foundations (i.e. of critical evaluation, intra- and
interpersonal monitoring) which allow for fully reaching ‘critical cultural awareness’ (Byram 1997),
defined as the engaged component of the competence, thanks to which students affirm their own
position as critical intercultural individuals and committed world citizens.
The lines crossing all three arrows indicate the skills that students progressively develop,
based on the dynamics arising between emotional and cognitive components on the one hand, and
educational actions carried out with the aim of promoting these skills on the other. Skills represent
both IC 'external outcomes' (i.e. mediating among interlocutors' conflicting perspectives) and
'internal outcomes' (i.e. willingness to question one’s own values) (Deardorff 2006). However, their
true singularity consists in the fact that skills can translate all the other IC dimensions into external,
observable behaviour, therefore linking competence to performance.
Various references to intercultural learning are implicit in the diagram; its arrow shape
(which alludes to students' continuance of IC development after module completion), the increasing
width of the arrows (which signals a hypothetical and hoped for progress in competence
acquisition) and, finally, the suggestion made to teachers to privilege teaching activities primarily
aimed at developing cognitive processes at the beginning of the module.
This last point is a key feature of the model: since it is expressly designed for foreign
language (FL) teaching contexts - conceptually distinct from second language (SL) contexts -
teaching activities that most affect students' cognitive and awareness processes are given
precedence and more ample space. In most foreign language contexts (multicultural classes
representing significant exceptions) students usually do not have urgent emotional needs tied to
diversity in the foreign culture but tend to spontaneously adopt an analytical point of view on
cultural matters (Byram 1989; Block 2007). Beyond this, since working with emotional and identity
processes is a very delicate task, in monocultural and multicultural classes alike, it is advisable for
teachers not to intervene in the emotional dimension until they have clearly deciphered the power
dynamics at play within the class, student and teacher-student relations have solidified, and learners
have reached a good level of cultural, intercultural, and self-awareness (Borghetti 2008).

MetMIC as a taxonomy of methodological principles

Once the dimensions of intercultural competence and the relationships that these dimensions
presumably assume with one another at different moments of the teaching module have been
conceptualised, it is possible to view MetMIC as a tool for translating the theoretical principles of
IC and IFLE into methodological choices (Figure 2).
 Figure 2. MetMIC teaching phases (Borghetti 2011). ©Peter Lang.
Reproduced with kind permission

The hypothetical 'teaching block' is divided into three phases. The first aims at developing
students’ cognitive processes, the second their affective processes and the third their IC in terms of a
broader ethical and socio-political commitment. To reach these general educational goals, each
phase of competence stimulation assumes a set of skills (or teaching objectives) that students must
put into use and develop in the given moment of the teaching process. On the basis of the objectives
identified for each of the three phases, MetMIC proposes three taxonomies of methodological
principles which can help guide teachers in their selection or creation of the most effective activities
for a given moment. The methodological requirements that activities must meet for each phase are
summarised in Table 1:

First Phase Second Phase Third Phase

1 Adopting a comparative Adopting a self- Adopting a problem
approach reflexive approach solving approach
2 Presenting a relatively Being clear and simple Posing high levels of
high level of complexity in explanations in order complexity in order to
in terms of the cognitive to compensate for the make students practice
abilities required of the complexity of emotional their critical and
students requirements strategic thinking
3 Proposing a good Adopting texts which Proposing problems
number of varied stimulate emotional more than texts, in order
cultural texts (articles, involvement or that students position
TV programs, reflection (movies, themselves as active
advertisements, etc.) poems, messages posted intercultural critical
in forums, etc.); citizens (interviews to
 minority communities,
ethnographic studies,
etc.)
4 Using subjects suitable Proposing subjects able Proposing subjects as
for intercultural to arouse individual problems of collective
comparisons thoughts and feelings relevance
5 Adopting an approach to Adopting an approach to Adopting an approach
diversity which diversity intended as a where individual
highlights its collective multiple, fluid, context- instances are re-
worth (for example on related personal identity connected with
national, gender, ethnic, collective ones at varied
religious levels) levels (community,
Europe, world) on
ethical and socio-
political levels
Table 1. The MetMIC taxonomy of methodological principles

Strengths and weaknesses of MetMIC

The MetMIC model has the merit of showing how to concretely pursue intercultural goals in the
educational environment. In particular, this model assumes the teachers' point of view and their
legitimate need for methodological guidance when facing the fascinating but complex challenges
that IFLE entails. If intercultural perspectives are recognized, created and negotiated in the class
context through dialogue, the teachers’ task is to make sure that class discussions do not degenerate
into empty chatter but become fruitful occasions for learning. For this to happen, teachers must be
clearly aware not only of the ultimate goals of their educational efforts, but also of the processes
necessary to reach these goals.
However, despite its initial intentions, the MetMIC model soon proved itself largely unable
to bridge intercultural and communicative goals on its own (Borghetti 2008: 211). This is why its
integration with TUM, which mainly focuses on developing students' FL communicative
competence, appears promising in effectively promoting IFLE educational goals in the foreign
language class.

The Teaching Unit Model

The Teaching Unit Model (TUM) is a self-sufficient and coherent theoretical-operational

framework which translates the theoretical principles of language learning and teaching into
curricular choices and methodological actions. A series of linked teaching units give form to the
language curriculum. Each teaching unit lasts 6-8 hours and has an internal logical structure broken
into five teaching phases. These phases (or ‘stages’) are presented and discussed below. Before this,
however, the origins of the Teaching Unit Model in the version adopted here are briefly outlined.

Origins and opacity of the Teaching Unit Model

The origins of teaching by unit can be found in progressive education and in the structuring of the
curriculum into thematic units, understood primarily as separate issues or projects tied to the
personal and social lives of the students (Freddi 1975). The original idea enjoyed such success that
most textbooks today are still structured by unit, although interpretations vary regarding the nature,
function and progression of the single phases, and are rarely coherent with each other. As concerns
foreign language teaching, for example, teaching by unit lends itself to audio-lingual methods and
communicative methods as well. All of this rendered the unit an opaque concept, which became
considered as a ‘given’, and all further theoretical research related to the unit stopped. This makes it
difficult to outline a coherent history of the teaching unit and to verify its ties to another form of
instructional design within FLT, i.e. the so-called 'Three Ps' or 'PPP' approach ('Presentation,
Practice, Production') (Finocchiaro and Brumfit 1983; Courtillon 1993, 2003; Dolz et al. 2001) or to
general education (e.g. Gagné et al. 1992; Merrill 2002). The concept entered the Italian FLT
tradition thanks to Giovanni Freddi (1994) and remained little changed though articulated in more
detail thereafter.

TUM and its phases

The Teaching Unit Model presented in this paragraph is based on a reworking of the approach put
forward by Daniela Zorzi in her introduction to the Italian language textbook Tocca a te (1995).
Nevertheless, some terminology used as well as some characteristics of the phases can be traced
back to the works of Freddi (1994), Porcelli (1994) and Balboni (1994, 2002).
Normally - but not necessarily - TUM is broken into five phases:
1. Orientation/Warming up;
2. Input presentation;
3. Focusing;
4. Practice;
5. Reflection, Review, Checking, Games.
Despite its appearance, the model should not be interpreted rigidly; it constitutes a coherent and
cohesive whole made up of methodological indications which are prescriptive enough to help guide
teachers, while, at the same time, adaptable and sensitive to the specific needs of each
teaching/learning context (target language, age of learners, language level, and educational/training
contexts, both in Italy and elsewhere) and of the individuals involved. TUM is a logical structure, an
abstraction, or a model. Its phases often encroach on each other, overlap and fuse together. Beyond
this, as Freddi clearly illustrated, 'it is not definitive - nor could it ever be - since the incessant progress
of both foreign language teaching and other sciences which examine language teaching imposes the
continuous updating and revision of teaching models' (1994: 112 – our translation).

Orientation and Warming up

In the first phase of TUM the teacher makes an explicit introduction of the objectives and contents in
the teaching unit, so that students can feel and become responsible for their own learning process. This
orientation phase also serves to contextualise new contents (e.g. lexical, functional, morphosyntactic),
connecting them to what was studied in previous units, as well as to students' own encyclopedic
knowledge. In this way, through open conversation, brainstorming or spidergrams, students prepare
themselves to build on what they already know, while they make their own personal competencies
available to the group-class. This is a warming up phase, and it is also aimed at stimulating students'
motivation to learn; indeed, some consider this aspect so important as to constitute the entire purpose
of the phase (Porcelli 1994). Regardless of the differing emphases which can be attributed to one or
another of these components, TUM proposes that teachers focus their attention first and foremost on
the students' knowledge and needs throughout the entire teaching 'block'.

Input presentation
The activities proposed above act in preparation of the second phase, a fundamental stage in the
teaching unit. Here students are presented with the pivot ‘text’, which may be oral or written, comics,
images, TV programmes or even events or persons, chosen to introduce them to exploration and use of
the foreign language. Given that linguistic input can be acquired only when it is meaningful and
comprehensible (Krashen 1981), in this phase it is important that students concentrate on
understanding the text. To this end, and in line with the Gestalt theory of perception, teachers propose
reading and listening activities which help students explore the text first in its global meaning, and then
in a more analytical way. Students are thus guided in exploiting contextual and co-textual redundancy
as much as possible so that they can formulate hypotheses on the overall meaning of the text. They
then verify their ideas by applying reading strategies which gradually become more and more
analytical (i.e. skimming and scanning) (Balboni 1994: 65-66).

Focusing
The analytical reading strategies adopted at the end of the last phase constitute a bridge leading into
this phase, where there is a focusing on the various aspects of communicative competence. The text
offers cues which help tackle the unit objectives in terms of its functional, phonological, lexical,
morphosyntactic and textual elements. Here the teacher aims to highlight what they would like to call
to the students' attention in the text, so as to guide them in additional activities involving metalinguistic
experimentation and reflection. More specifically, in this phase, students are guided in: 'noticing'
(Schmidt 1990) certain aspects regarding the language used in the text; formulating hypotheses on the
function of language in terms of regularity and irregularity; testing those hypotheses, either through
other easily understandable texts or activities created for this purpose; and summarising what they have
learned in the form of a metalinguistic reflection. In short, this procedure is what Ellis would call an
implicit proactive instruction, since 'tasks are designed to elicit the use of a specific linguistic target,
and performance of the task naturally creates opportunities for experiencing the target feature' (2009:
17).

Practice
At this point students experiment with the aspects previously focused on in various contexts beyond
the initial text. The teacher proposes new texts and situations in which students can practice what they
have learned in a progressively free manner: at first through pattern drills, games or guided dialogues;
then through more unstructured teaching techniques such as information-gap activities or role-plays.
This progression is used in order to arrive at forms of communication that are as authentic as possible,
helping students to practice and develop their communicative skills. In short, this phase is the most
focussed on linguistic production in all its forms. Student-student and student-teacher interaction
continues to play an important role throughout the entirety of the teaching unit.

Reflection, review, checking, game playing

This final phase is particularly rich, varied and flexible. It is at this point that the teacher verifies
whether students have reached the set objectives and, if necessary, suggests activities for review and
reinforcement. During this phase, the group/class and teacher can reflect on the learning process
undertaken in terms of both knowledge and abilities acquired, as well as learning/teaching processes
used and developed. This metalinguistic, meta-communicative and meta-cognitive reflection in turn
offers the motivational and cognitive basis which prepares students for the next teaching unit. Finally,
this is the time when all can enjoy lighter and more recreational teaching activities.

Strengths and weaknesses of TUM

As stated above, TUM is based on a variety of assumptions about learning in general and second
language acquisition (SLA) in particular: the role of motivation, emphasis placed on functional
teaching and communicative activities, mainly inductive grammar teaching, the role of interaction, the
attempt to balance implicit and explicit learning. Underlying this attempt to theoretically bind together
different assumptions which are not always coherent or in agreement with one another is a conception
of language learning as largely implicit in general and under Krashen's influence in particular.
Two additional characteristics of TUM should also be highlighted. First, its centering on
students, their expectations, knowledge and feelings. This feature signals the distance between TUM
and other operational teaching models, like the PPP, which generally exclusively concentrate on
(grammatical) lesson contents. The second aspect to be stressed is the importance which TUM gives to
free and, in as much as is possible, authentic student-student and student-teacher interaction.
Cultural aspects are included in TUM, although their learning is to be understood and fostered
in various ways depending on its specific version. Freddi comments for example that 'the experience of
civilization is not […] an isolated moment, collocated and concluded in time; rather it unravels in
parallel and in relation to the linguistic experience throughout the entire teaching unit' (1975: 116 – our
translation). Nonetheless he suggests focussing the first phase of TUM on the presentation of the
foreign culture). Differently, Balboni sees the target culture as part of the teaching contents to be
analysed during the focussing phase of TUM (2002). Interestingly, Zorzi advocates intercultural
comparisons, which however she places quite firmly within the final phase of TUM (1995). Apart from
this partial exception, the target culture is mainly understood in essentialist and national terms, and
adopted either as a device to support students' motivation or as a backdrop for communicative
activities.
One final aspect worth noting is that TUM, in contrast to MetMIC, does not distinguish
between foreign and second language teaching contexts. Rather, it seems to implicitly accept what
Lantolf (2011) has critically called the 'Universal Acquisition Hypothesis' and to assume that 'language
acquisition comprises fundamentally the same psychological process no matter where it occurs'
(Poehner and Lantolf 2010: 314).

Proposal for Integration

Both models presented above are theoretical frameworks, and each within its own area of
application (intercultural education in the case of MetMIC and FLT in the case of TUM) focuses on
curriculum planning and puts forward methodological suggestions for teachers. In other words,
based on their respective literatures, they propose 'provisional specifications, not prescriptions'
(Ellis 1997: 83) about teaching progression, procedures and methodologies, that practitioners can
and must evaluate in their own contexts of action. This shared characteristic makes their integration
possible and allows for conceiving courses where intercultural and communicative objectives are
fully integrated.
In order to combine these two models it is first necessary to postulate a higher or secondary
education module/course that aims at developing students' intercultural and communicative
competence in a given foreign language. While the duration of this course could vary, depending on
the institution, national education policies, number of credit hours, here an overall length of 60
hours is postulated as an example. This time-span is dedicated to number of teaching units (inspired
by TUM) aimed at reaching set FL communicative objectives. Since each unit would have a
duration of 6 to 8 hours, an organization of the course into a total of 7-10 teaching units (TUs) is
conceivable. Integration of the intercultural dimension takes place as this structure interacts on
various levels with MetMIC. On a first general and educational level, MetMIC shapes the ultimate
aims of the entire course. On a second level, which could be defined as ‘macro’ or ‘curricular’, the
concatenated sequence of teaching units is inscribed into MetMIC so that the first 3-4 TUs of the
curriculum aim at developing students' IC cognitive processes, while the following 3-4 TUs aim at
promoting IC affective processes, and the last 2-3 TUs aim at cultivating students' IC in terms of
their ethical and socio-political commitment as well as their intercultural citizenship. The third level
of interaction, termed ‘micro’ or ‘methodological’, takes place at the level of TUM, since the
methodological principles indicated by MetMIC are adopted in selecting the intercultural activities
to be proposed throughout the instructional phases of each teaching unit.

First level of interaction: general and educational

On the general and educational level, MetMIC informs the educational goals - on individual and
social levels - of the entire teaching module on the basis of IFLE principles. The TUs which
constitute the overall curriculum are inscribed within the wider IFLE theoretical education
framework. At this level of interaction MetMIC indicates the final goals of language teaching and
learning as contributing to transforming global and local societies into better and more equal places
(Giroux 1992), to stimulating students' intercultural competence (Byram 1997) and 'intercultural
citizenship' (Byram, 2008), to guiding them in creating 'third places' through interactions (Kramsch
1993), and to recognising their own and other people's multiple identities (Norton and Toohey
2011). This educational stance assured by MetMIC influences teaching practice throughout the TU
series towards the choice of citizenship-sensitive pivot texts, the adoption of an open-ended critical
approach to culture, diversities, and identities, as well as towards the avoidance of definitive
responses and privileged points of view about them.

Second level of interaction: macro or curricular

The second level concerns curriculum planning and is also called ‘macro’ because MetMIC
intercultural principles here inspire groups of TUs taken as a whole, on the basis of each TU's
chronological placement within the course. For example, when considering the first 2-3 teaching
units, beyond the communicative objectives they pursue, these units would be aimed specifically at
stimulating students' IC cognitive processes, following MetMIC methodological principles for the
first phase of the educational action (see the first column in Table 1). Accordingly, when planning
curriculum, teachers would choose a variety of texts spinning off from the pivot text which presents
themes suitable for intercultural comparison, where diversity is intended in collective terms
(national, but also religious, gender-based). Teachers should then guide and monitor class
discussions so that students have abundant opportunity to analytically explore their own and other
people's cultures, and to reflect on the possible interpretations of those facts with a critical eye. Thus
MetMIC curriculum structure, which is based on IC dimensions (mainly cognitive and affective
processes, but also awareness and skills), helps planning chains of communicative-oriented TUs
that are in agreement with intercultural objectives at every stage of the curriculum.

Third level of interaction: micro or methodological

MetMIC influences each teaching unit on a micro or methodological level, as its taxonomy of
methodological principles would be adopted by teachers when choosing the most appropriate
teaching activities to propose in each specific TUM phase. For example, when considering the final
TUs of a module, with the aid of the third column of MetMIC taxonomy, the teacher would select
activities which most challenge students with complex problem-solving tasks aimed at eliciting
their positions as intercultural critical citizens. Moreover, they would link them within the TUM
phases, usually the first ('Orientation & Warming up') the fourth ('Practice'), and the fifth
('Reflection'). The greater opportunity for dialogue offered by these phases facilitates teaching
actions aimed at collective analyses of problems of collective relevance, web-based task-projects
and class discussion. The fact that the TUM version adopted here also privileges forms of implicit
language learning through the progression and nature of its phases (though the importance it places
on classroom interaction, motivation and input comprehension) constitutes another aspect
favourable to the integration of the two models on the ‘micro’ level. The moments in which
students' attention is mainly focused on meaning and interaction (phases 1, 4 and, in part, 5), and
thus where language 'acquisition' in Krashen's terms is presumably at work, are those most suitable
for stimulating students' IC development. Such intercultural learning seems to be mainly explicit
and awareness-based, as proved by many of the IC models which attribute to awareness a central
and critical role in IC definition and development (e.g. Bennett 1993; Byram 1997; Fantini 2009).
The proposal to integrate MetMIC and TUM does not attempt to relate specific
communicative objectives to specific intercultural objectives. This decision was made in view of
what Byram (1997) implicitly affirmed in his distinction between IC and ‘intercultural
communicative competence’: that intercultural and communicative competence in a foreign
language are relatively independent of one another. The main consequence of this conceptualisation
is that the integration of the two models proposed in this article can prove valid no matter what the
linguistic level of the class. The only device the teacher may need to adopt is a freer recourse to the
language of instruction (or, even better, to forms of code-switching and code-mixing) when the
intercultural tasks require communicative performance that lower-level students are not yet able to
carry out in the foreign language.

Conclusion

The main objective of this article is to contribute to the joint pursuit of intercultural and
communicative objectives in IFLE contexts by making suggestions about curriculum planning and
methodological issues. In particular, it proposes the integration MetMIC and a version of TUM as it
is known in the Italian FLT tradition. MetMIC translates IFLE educational goals into curriculum
and methodological choices; at the same time, chains of TUMs, which, in general, are mainly
focussed on communicative objectives, are informed by the MetMIC framework on the educational,
curriculum, and methodological levels.

This proposal is put forward on the basis of models that are neither exclusive nor necessarily
complete and definitive. As a consequence, it retains some of their defects: from MetMIC for
example, some theoretical doubts regarding the internal processes of intercultural learning and an
excessively stringent distinction between FL and SL teaching contexts. The innovation of this
proposal, however, lies in its offering a complete framework thanks to which both course planners
and teachers can easily make theoretically-informed methodological choices about their IFLE
courses and classes in whatever teaching contexts they work, regardless of the specific target
language, language level, and age of students.

Another crucial feature of this integration of MetMIC and TUM is its attempt to tie IFLE back into
the teaching contexts from which it began, and from which it can draw much of its future vitality. It
is reasonable to suppose that language teachers' reticence to pursue the educational goals of IFLE is
largely due to the fact that no sufficient curriculum planning and methodological guidelines have
yet been offered towards the effective integration of communicative and intercultural objectives
(Sercu et al. 2005). Given this, Ellis's reflection that 'researchers need to attend to the how of
application as well as the what' (1997: 88) appears all the more true. In the specific case of this
contribution it is thus of primary importance that the suggested integration of MetMIC and TUM is
tested and evaluated through classroom experimentations in order to shed more light on the concrete
potential of this proposal.
References

Agar, M. 1994. The Intercultural Frame. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18, n. 2:
221-237.
Balboni, P.E. 1994. Didattica dell’Italiano a Stranieri. Roma: Bonacci.
Balboni, P.E. 2002. Le Sfide di Babele. Torino: UTET.
Bennett, M.J. 1993. Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensibility. In
Education for the Intercultural Experience, ed. R.M. Paige, 21-71. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural
Press.
Bhabha, H.K. 1994. The Location of Culture. New York: Routledge.
Block, D. 2007. Second Language Identities. London: Continuum.
Borghetti, C. 2008. 'Un modello metodologico per l’insegnamento interculturale della lingua
straniera. Dalla pratica didattica alla generazione teorica. Ph.D. Thesis. National University of
Ireland, Galway.
Borghetti, C. 2011. How to teach it? Proposal for a Methodological Model of Intercultural
Competence. In Intercultural Competence: Concepts, Challenges, Evaluations, ed. A. Witte, and
T. Harden, 141-160. Oxford: Peter Lang.
Borghetti, C. 2012. Pursuing intercultural and communicative goals in the foreign language
classroom: Clues from selected models of intercultural competence. In Translation, Technology
and Autonomy in Language Teaching and Learning, ed. P. Alderete-Díez, L. Incalcaterra
McLoughlin, L. Ní Dhonnchadha, and D. Ní Uigín, 333-359. Bern: Peter Lang.
Brislin, R., and T. Yoshida. 1994. Intercultural Communication Training: An Introduction.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Byram, M. 1989. Cultural Studies in Foreign Language Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Byram, M. 1997. Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Byram, M. 2008. From Foreign Language Education to Education for Intercultural Citizenship.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Byram, M. 2009. Intercultural competence in foreign languages: The intercultural speaker and the
pedagogy of foreign language education. In The SAGE Handbook of Intercultural Competence,
ed. D.K. Deardorff, 321-332. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cherrington, R. 2004. Stereotypes. In Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning,
ed. M. Byram, 574-576. London: Routledge.
Courtillon, J. 2003. Élaborer un Cours de FLE. Paris: Hachette Livre.
Deardorff, D.K. 2006. Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student
 outcome of internalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10, n. 3: 241-266.
Ellis, R. 1997. SLA and language pedagogy. An educational perspective. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition 20: 69-92.
Ellis, R. 2009. Implicit and explicit learning, knowledge and instruction. In Implicit and Explicit
Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing and Teaching, ed. R. Ellis, and S. Loewen,
and C. Elder, and R. Erlam, and J. Philp, and H. Reinders, 3-25. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Fantini, A.E. 2009. Assessing intercultural competence: Issues and tools. In The SAGE Handbook of
Intercultural Competence, ed. D.K. Deardorff, 456-476. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Finocchiaro, M., and C. Brumfit. 1983. The Functional-Notional Approach: From Theory to
Practice. New York: Oxford University Press.
Freddi, G. 1975. Metodologia e Didattica delle Lingue Straniere. Bergamo: Minerva Italica.
Freddi, G. 1994. Glottodidattica: Fondamenti, Metodi e Tecniche. Torino: UTET.
Gagné, R.M., L.J. Briggs, and W.W. Wager. 1992. Principles of Instructional Design. Fort Worth,
TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
Giroux, H.A. 1992. Border Crossings: Cultural Workers and the Politics of Education. New York:
Routledge.
Guilherme, M. 2002. Critical Citizens for an Intercultural World: Foreign Language Education as
Cultural Politics. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Kramsch, C. 1993. Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kramsch, C. 2009. Third culture and language education. In Contemporary Applied Linguistics.
Language Teaching and Learning, ed. L. Wei, and V. Cook, 233-254. London: Continuum.
Krashen, S.D. 1981. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Lantolf, J.P. 1999. Second culture acquisition: Cognitive considerations. In Culture in Second
Teaching and Learning, ed. E. Hinkel, 28-46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lantolf, J.P. 2011. The sociocultural approach to second language acquisition. In Alternative
Approaches to Second Language Acquisition, ed. D. Atkinson, 24-47. New York: Routledge.
Martin, S., and A. Feng. 2006. The construction of citizenship and national building: The Singapore
case. In Education for Intercultural Citizenship: Concepts and Comparisons, ed. G. Alred, M.
Byram, and M. Fleming, 47-66. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Merrill, M.D. 2002. First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and
Development 50, n. 3: 43-59.
Norton, B., and K. Toohey. 2011. Identity, language learning, and social change. Language
Teaching 44, n. 4: 412-446.
Pavlenko, A., and J.P. Lantolf. 2000. Second language learning as participation and the
 (re)construction of selves’. In Socio-Cultural Theory and Second Language Learning, ed. J.P.
Lantolf, 155-77. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Poehner, M.E., and J.P. Lantolf. 2010. Vygotsky's teaching-assessment dialectic and L2 education:
The case for dynamic assessment. Mind, Culture, and Activity 17: 312-330.
Porcelli, G. 1994. Principi di Glottodidattica. Brescia: La Scuola.
Risager, K. 2007. Language and Culture Pedagogy. From a National to a Transnational Paradigm.
Clevedon: Multilingual Maters.
Robinson-Stuart, G., and H. Nocon. 1996. Second culture acquisition: Ethnography in th foreign
language classroom. Modern Language Journal 80, 431-449.
Schmidt, R. 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11,
129-158.
Sercu, L., E. Bandura, P. Castro, L. Davcheva, C. Laskaridou, U. Lundgren, M.C. Méndez García,
and P. Ryan. 2005. Foreign Language Teachers and Intercultural Competence. An International
Investigation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Swan, M. 1985. A critical look at the communicative approach (2). ELT Journal 39, n. 2: 76-87.
Zorzi, D. 1995. Introduction. In Tocca a Te, ed. Marinolli, G., and M.G. Zanetti, 6-20. Bolzano:
Athesia-Tappeiner.

View publication stats