(Routledge Research in Teacher Education) Alvino E. Fantini - Intercultural Communicative Competence in Educational Exchange - A Multinational Perspective-Routledge (2018)

Intercultural Communicative
Competence in Educational Exchange
This book explores the nature of intercultural communicative competence

(ICC): a set of abilities required to promote sojourner engagement with
diversity during study abroad and other educational exchange experiences.
A highly original contribution to the intercultural communication literature,
this book bases its multinational perspective of ICC on an extensive
literary search in six languages and spanning 50 years to identify ICC’s
multiple components to develop a comprehensive assessment tool and to
assess its development and impact on exchange participants in multiple
countries.
Alvino E. Fantini serves as education consultant to the Federation of The

Experiment in International Living, as director of the World Learning
institutional archives, as occasional adjunct faculty and lecturer, and as
international consultant in areas of language education, intercultural
communication, and internationalization of curriculum.
Routledge Research in Teacher Education
The Routledge Research in Teacher Education series presents the latest

research on Teacher Education and also provides a forum to discuss the
latest practices and challenges in the field.
Learning to Teach in England and the United States

The Evolution of Policy and Practice
Maria Teresa Tatto, Katharine Burn, Ian Menter, Trevor Mutton,
and Ian Thompson
Learning from Latino English Language Learners

Critical Teacher Education
Edited by Pablo Ramirez, Christian Faltis, and Ester De Jong
Teaching Towards Freedom

Supporting Voices and Silence in the English Classroom
Geraldine DeLuca
Teacher Education Policy and Practice in Europe

Challenges and Opportunities for the Future
Edited by Ana Raquel Simões, Mónica Lourenço, and Nilza Costa
Clinical Experiences in Teacher Education

Critical, Project-Based Interventions in Diverse Classrooms
Edited by Kristien Zenkov and Kristine Pytash
Intercultural Communicative Competence in Educational Exchange

A Multinational Perspective
Alvino E. Fantini
For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.com/

Routledge-Research-in-Teacher-Education/book-series/RRTE
Intercultural Communicative
Competence in Educational
Exchange
A Multinational Perspective
Alvino E. Fantini
First published 2019
by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2019 Taylor & Francis
The right of Alvino E. Fantini to be identified as author of this work
has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of
the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or
reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical,
or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including
photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks
or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and
explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this book has been requested
ISBN: 978-0-815-36967-7 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-351-25174-7 (ebk)
Typeset in Sabon
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
This work is dedicated to the alumni, host families, and mentors
in the many countries that participated in two important
international research efforts designed to substantiate the nature
of intercultural communicative competence, to learn how
intercultural sojourns affect its development, and to reflect on
the outcomes and the impact of educational exchange programs
on their lives. It is hoped that these research findings will help
advance the work of all engaged in providing these activities
and maximize the benefits of intercultural exchange experiences
for future participants.
Contents
List of Figures and Tables viii

Abbreviations xii
Preface xiv
Acknowledgments xvii
Project Staff xix
1 Introduction and Overview 1
2 Reconceptualizing Intercultural Communicative

Competence 28
3 Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence 46
4 The Initial Research Project 63
5 The Follow-on Research Project 113
6 Toward a Multinational Perspective 221
Appendix A: AIC Form 257

Appendix B: AICC Form 283
Appendix C: ALTD Form 308
Appendix D: ALD Form 318
Index 331
Figures and Tables
Figures
1.1 Components of Worldview 9
1.2 Overlapping Configurations of Three Worldviews 12
1.3 A Pasta Hierarchy 16
2.1 Interaction of CC1 and CC2 30
2.2 Components and Aspects of ICC 35
2.3 The Four Dimensions of ICC 36
2.4 World-Readiness Standards: Five Goal Areas 39
3.1 The Gemstone Model 48
3.2 Quadrant of Multiple Assessment Modes 50
4.1 Contrastive Mean ICC Scores (Beginning and
End of Service) 76
4.2 Contrastive Mean ICC Scores: ICC Composite
(Beginning and End of Service) 77
4.3 Improvement in Spanish Language Development 79
5.1 QB12. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of Areas
Developed by the Sojourn 136
5.2 QB13. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of Areas
Developed by Homestays 138
5.3 QC2. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of
Subsequent Educational Choices 141
5.4 QC3. Cross and Within-Country: Frequency Distribution
of Extent to Which the Sojourn Influenced Subsequent
Educational Choices 142
of Extent to Which the Sojourn Influenced Respondent
Choices for Fields of Study 143
Respondent Work Areas 144
Work Positions 145
Professional or Career Choices 147
Figures and Tables ix
of Previous Intercultural Work 148
Duration of Previous Intercultural Work 149
5.11 QC12. Cross and Within-Country: Frequency
Distribution of Extent to Which the Sojourn Helped
Obtain Employment 150
5.12 QC13. Cross and Within-Country: Frequency
Distribution of Extent to Which the Development of
Language Abilities Helped Obtain Employment 151
5.13 QE2. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of
Sojourner Social Contacts after Returning Home 153
5.14 QF2. Cross and Within-country: Frequency Distribution
of Extent to Which the Sojourn Contributed to
Respondent Host Communication Abilities 155
5.15 QF3. Cross and Within-Country: Frequency Distribution
of Extent to Which the Homestay Contributed to
Respondent Host Language Abilities 156
5.16 QG1. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of
Appropriateness of Respondent Speech to Paralinguistic
Aspects 157
5.17 QH1. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of
Quality of Respondent Social Contact with Host
Families and Host Natives 162
5.18 QH2. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of
Quality of Respondent Host Language Communication
with Host Families and Host Natives 163
5.19 QH3. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of Quality
of Respondent Communication in Their Own Native
Language with Host Families and Host Natives 165
6.1 Contrastive Educational Approaches 246
6.2 A NAPI-KEPRA Framework 249
Tables
1.1 Time Requirements for Learning Various Languages 19
4.1 Reliability Analysis (Beginning of Service) 71
4.2 Reliability Analysis (End of Service) 72
4.3 Factor Analysis for Knowledge 72
4.4 Factor Analysis for Attitude 73
4.5 Factor Analysis for Skills 74
4.6 Factor Analysis for Awareness 74
4.7 Composite 75
4.8 Descriptive Statistics for ICC and Its Components 76
4.9 Contrastive Alumni ICC (Beginning and End of Service) 77
4.10 Measuring Effective Size of ICC Components 78
x Figures and Tables
4.11 Percentage Responses for Spanish Language
Development 78
5.1 QB8. Four Countries: Extent to Which Program Components
Contributed to Respondent Overall Learning 130
5.2 QB9. Four Countries: Extent to Which Program
Components Contributed to Respondent Understanding
of the Host Culture 132
Components Contributed to Respondent Understanding
of the Host Language 133
Components Contributed to Respondent Sense of Safety 134
5.5 QB12. Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of
Areas Developed by the Sojourn 136
5.6 QB13. Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of Areas
Developed by Homestays 138
of Educational Levels 140
5.8 QC11. Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of
Duration of Previous Intercultural Work 149
5.9 QG2. Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of
Appropriateness of Respondent Behavior to
Extralinguistic Aspects 159
5.10 QG3. Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of the
Appropriateness of Respondent Behaviors to Aspects
of Sociolinguistic Variation 160
5.11 QH1. Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of the
Quality of Respondent Social Contact with Host
Families and Host Natives 163
5.12 QH2. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of Quality
of Respondent Host Language Communication with
Host Families and Host Natives 164
5.13 QH3. Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of the
Quality of Respondent Communication in Their Own
Language with Host Families and Host Natives 166
5.14 ICC Scale: Distribution of Subjects by Country in the
Final Sample 167
5.15 Four Countries: Final Matrix for PCA of Factor
Loadings, Commonalities (h2), and Corrected Item-
Total Correlation (R) for Each Item (n = 1,189) 168
5.16 Four Countries: Intercorrelation Matrix among
Dimensions Extracted on PCA (n = 1,189) 172
5.17 Brazil: Final Matrix for PCA of Factor Loadings,
Commonalities (h2), and Corrected Item-Total
Correlation (R) for Each Item (n = 406) 173
Figures and Tables xi
5.18 Brazil: Intercorrelation Matrix among Dimensions
Extracted on PCA (n = 406) 177
5.19 Germany: Final Matrix for PCA of Factor Loadings,
5.20 Germany: Intercorrelation Matrix among Dimensions
5.21 Japan: Final Matrix for PCA of Factor Loadings,
5.22 Japan: Intercorrelation Matrix among Dimensions
5.23 US: Final Matrix for PCA of Factor Loadings,
5.24 US: Intercorrelation Matrix among Dimensions
5.25 Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of ICC
Dimensions (n = 1,189) 191
5.26 Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD), and One-Way
ANOVA (F) in ICC Dimensions by Country (n = 1,189) 192
5.27 Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD), and Independent
Sample T-Test in ICC Dimensions by Gender (n = 1,178) 192
ANOVA (F) in ICC Dimensions by Educational Level
(n = 1,153) 193
Sample T-Test in ICC Dimensions by Previous
Intercultural Experience (n = 1,189) 194
Sample T-Test in ICC Dimensions by Previous
Intercultural Relationships (n = 1,179) 194
ANOVA (F) in ICC Dimensions by Duration of Sojourn
(n = 1,163) 195
Sample T-Test in ICC Dimensions by Homestay (n = 1,188) 196
5.33 Pearson Product-Moment Correlation among ICC
Dimensions and Age at Time of Sojourn Participation
(n = 1,180) 196
5.34 Pearson Product-Moment Correlation between Host
Language Ability and ICC Dimensions (n = 1,185) 197
Sample T-Test in ICC Dimensions by Intercultural Work
(n = 1,180) 197
Abbreviations
ACTFL American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages

AIC Assessment of Intercultural Competence
AICC Assessment of Intercultural Communicative Competence
ASK+A Attitudes, Skills, Knowledge + Awareness
ASLPR Australian Second Language Proficiency Ratings
ASPAU African Scholars Program for American Universities
CC Communicative competence
CC1 First (or native) communicative competence
CC2 Second communicative competence
CERCLL Center for Educational Resources in Culture, Language,
and Literacy
CLL Community Language Learning
COP Cooperative Overseas Program
CSD Center for Social Development
EIL The Experiment in International Living
Federation EIL Federation of The Experiment in International Living
FSI Foreign Service Institute
IC Intercultural competence
ICC Intercultural communicative competence
IIE Institute of International Education
ITAIC Interdisciplinary Teaching and Assessment of Intercul-
tural Competence
ISLPR International Second Language Proficiency Ratings
KMO Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Test
L1 First (or native) language
L2 Second language
LASPAU Latin American Scholars Program for American
Universities
MAXSA Maximizing Study Abroad
MO Member organization
NCSSFL National Council of State Supervisors for Foreign
Languages
NGO Non-governmental organization
Abbreviations xiii
PA Process Approach
PCA Principal Component Analysis
PD Project director
RA Research assistant
SD Standard deviation
SIETAR Society for Intercultural Education, Training, and Research
SIT School for International Training
SM SurveyMonkey
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences
TESOL Teaching of English to Speakers of Other Languages
TL Target Language
TPO Time, place, and occasion
TPR Total Physical Response
VIP Volunteers for International Partnership
Preface
Intercultural Communicative Competence in Educational Exchange: A

Multinational Perspective is the result of two research efforts dedicated
to learning about the nature of intercultural communicative competence
(ICC) from a multinational perspective, its development during intercul-
tural sojourns, and the outcomes and impact of intercultural educational
exchange experiences on participants—the sojourners, their hosts, and
their mentors. The studies were possible given the existence of an inter-
national exchange organization—a federation of member countries with
alumni records dating back nearly nine decades that provided access to
participants in eight countries, on four continents, and in multiple lan-
guages. The studies examined the effects of sojourns on individuals from
diverse language and culture backgrounds who spent time abroad in an
even greater number of countries around the world.
Participating country members, known collectively as Federation of
The Experiment in International Living (Federation EIL), founded in
1932, is one of the oldest such institutions in the world today. Although
its member organizations (MOs), which organize and provide these
exchanges, collected scores of anecdotes over the years about participant
experiences in these programs and the outcomes, this work represents a
new effort. It is a systematic attempt to collect and document data from
participants who describe their experiences in detail, substantiating and
supporting the testimonies recorded over the years, and providing evi-
dence of the organization’s success in furthering its vision and mission of
developing understanding across cultures.
To conduct these studies, extensive preliminary research was first
undertaken to define the nature of ICC, to identify its multiple com-
ponents, and to devise ways to measure and monitor its development.
These efforts were followed by surveys involving exchange participants
and hosts to assess the impact and outcomes of these experiences upon
their lives and their work long after the programs ended.
The work is presented in six chapters: Chapter 1 begins with an over-
view of educational exchange programs and describes the international
Preface xv
federation through which this research was carried out. It also discusses
the importance and need for developing ICC in today’s world; explores
the nature of worldview and the nexus between language, culture, and
worldview (all elements involved in educational exchange); and explores
fundamental concepts relevant to understanding the nature and value of
intercultural experiences.
Chapter 2 synthesizes information derived from a search of the inter-
cultural literature of the past half century, drawing first upon earlier
concepts of communicative competence (CC) in order to arrive at a
broader conceptualization of ICC. It then identifies the multiple com-
ponents that comprise ICC, stressing host language proficiency, a com-
monly omitted but essential and fundamental component.
Chapter 3 follows with an exploration of assessment processes, dis-
tinguishing between summative and formative approaches. It describes
instruments for measuring and monitoring ICC development and dis-
cusses aspects that ensure a comprehensive assessment approach needed
to monitor all of the ICC components previously identified.
Chapter 4 introduces the first of two multinational research proj-
ects (2005–6) that investigated ICC development among educational
exchange participants in three countries. It describes the project design
and implementation, data collection procedures (of both quantitative
and qualitative data), data analysis, and findings.
Chapter 5 presents the second multinational research project under-
taken 10 years later (2015–16), which expands upon the work and
findings of the initial project by investigating educational exchange par-
ticipants in five additional countries. Whereas the analysis of quantitative
data in both research projects may present some difficulty for readers
without a background in statistics, the qualitative analysis will help to
contextualize the statistical information by providing commentary in the
words of participants themselves, followed by syntheses of the results
from individual countries.
Chapter 6 summarizes collective results obtained from the five par-
ticipating countries in the second research project, reviews ten a priori
assumptions underlying both research projects based on new findings,
followed by discussion of implications and applications of the findings
toward multiple aspects of educational exchange: participant selection,
program design, orientation, interventions, assessment, and post-pro-
gram follow-up. A summary of lessons learned and questions posed is
presented in addition to suggested areas for further work. The final sec-
tion shifts from theory to practice and provides several models and activi-
ties to help enrich the implementation of future programs.
Finally, four appendixes provide copies of the English version of the
assessment forms used in the two research projects, a self-assessment form
for language educators, and a self-assessment form for language learners.
xvi Preface
Intercultural Communicative Competence in Educational Exchange is
an important resource for advanced undergraduate- and graduate-level
students in the fields of language education and intercultural communi-
cation. It is especially valuable for researchers, educators, and trainers
interested in ensuring quality educational exchange efforts. Most impor-
tantly, it is hoped that this work will be of benefit for study abroad pro-
fessionals, their students, future program participants, and host natives.
Acknowledgments
I am indebted to several institutions and many individuals for their sup-

port, participation, and contributions to the research on which this work
is based. Both research efforts, in fact, would not have been possible
without the fortuitous collaboration of the sponsoring organization,
Federation EIL, its MOs, and their staff and alumni, in conjunction with
two funding agencies, which supported the research.
For the Initial Research Project (IRP) (2005–6), I thank the Center for
Social Development (CSD) at Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri,
and two colleagues at CSD who were responsive and helpful through-
out the project—Maricelly Daltro and Amanda Moore McBride. For the
Follow-on Research Project (FRP) (2015–16), which expanded signifi-
cantly upon the initial effort, I am indebted to the Center for Educational
Resources in Culture, Language, and Literacy (CERCLL) at the University
of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, for funding and to CERCLL co-directors,
Beatrice C. Dupuy and Chantelle Warner. I am especially grateful to my
principal contact and liaison at CERCLL, Katharine Mackay, who was
responsive and helpful with every request from start to finish.
I am also indebted to three Federation EIL MOs for their participa-
tion in the IRP. This included national directors Anne Alvear, Ecuador;
David Shaddick, Great Britain; and Brigitte Schwarzenbach, Switzerland.
Collaboration was provided by research assistants (RAs) in each of the
respective MOs: Jorge Flores, Chris Harris, and Michèle Hofstetter, and
German and Spanish translators, Georg Steinmeyer, Lisa Jaramillo Power,
and Beatriz C. Fantini, respectively. Project assistants were also extremely
important to this effort: A. Mario Fantini in initial stages, Rebecca
DiCandilo for tracking and compiling data, and Jessica Rodríguez, who
assisted in final verification of data. Ilene Todd, former executive director
of Federation EIL, was especially helpful in supporting the initial project,
providing needed information and monitoring expenses; Dona Alpert and
Aqeel Tirmizi, SIT Graduate Institute faculty in Brattleboro, Vermont;
and Noor Tirmizi, statistician, who assisted with statistical analysis.
In the FRP, I relied on resources of five additional MOs and the sup-
port of their national directors: Fernanda Zocchio Semioni and Patricia
xviii Acknowledgments
Zocchio, Brazil; Tom Kurz and Bettina Wiedmann, Germany; Kevin
Hickey, Ireland; Yoshihiro Suzuki, Japan; Aaron Morehouse, US; and
John Lucas, Provost, SIT Graduate Institute. I especially wish to cite
contributions of MOs in Ireland and the US, which participated in this
study at their own expense. RAs engaged in this phase who translated
documents, accessed alumni records, sent out local mailings and emails,
conducted interviews, and processed and translated data were Paul
Minto and Tania Minto, Brazil; Eva Meseck, Germany; Aimie Brennan,
Ireland; Nobuko Kamiya and Emiko Nojima, Japan; and Kate Harris
and Samantha Leonard, USA.
Also engaged throughout in various ways were Federation EIL’s exec-
utive director, Polli-Jo Moryl, who provided coordination and infor-
mation, and monitored expenses; project assistant, Ilene Todd; and
statisticians, Joana Almeida and Cláudia Figuereido, both of Aveiro,
Portugal, who had a major role in guiding the research design, consulting
on the approach, and conducting complex quantitative statistical analy-
ses. For assistance in preparing the final draft, I wish to acknowledge the
help of my able assistant, Rachel Goldstein, graduate student, at the SIT
Graduate Institute.
I am grateful to my colleagues Joana Almeida, research associate at
Newcastle University; Linda Drake Gobbo, professor in International
Education, SIT Graduate Institute; Paula Garrett-Rucks, associate pro-
fessor, Georgia State University; Ann Puyana, assistant vice president for
academic affairs emerita, Valencia College; and Claudia Sánchez, senior
environmental scientist, who provided helpful comments on draft ver-
sions of the manuscript.
Finally, I acknowledge permission to reprint copyrighted materials
in the present work. These include the following items with permission
granted by the following organizations and publishers: Figure 2.2, pre-
viously appearing in the journal Dimensions 2016, permission granted
by David Jahner, executive director, Southern Conference on Language
Teaching; Figure 2.4, permission granted by permissions manager ACTFL;
Figure 6.2, permission granted by Teaching of English to Speakers of
Other Languages (TESOL) International Association; and Figures 1.1,
1.2, 1.3, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, and Table 1.1, permission granted by Taylor & Francis
as well as permission to adapt and include materials from Chapters 16
and 24, which I authored, in The Routledge Handbook of Language and
Intercultural Communication, edited by Jane Jackson and published by
Routledge.
At the center of both research efforts, of course, were the alumni,
host families, and mentors who took the time to complete lengthy survey
questionnaire forms and, in some cases, to be interviewed. To all, I am
truly indebted. ¡Mil gracias a todos! Thank you all!
Project Staff
Initial Research Project Staff (2005–6)

Project director: Alvino E. Fantini
Project assistants: Rebecca DiCandilo, A. Mario Fantini, Jessica Rodríguez
CSD, Washington University: Maricelly Daltro, Amanda Moore McBride
Federation EIL executive director: Ilene Todd
EIL member organization directors: Anne Alvear, Ecuador; David Shad-
dick, Great Britain; Brigitte Schwarzenbach, Switzerland
Translators: Georg Steinmeyer, German; Lisa Jaramillo Power, Spanish;
Beatriz C. Fantini, Spanish
EIL member organization research assistants: Jorge Flores, Ecuador;
Chris Harris, Great Britain; Michèle Hofstetter, Switzerland
Consultants and statisticians: Dona Alpert; Aqeel Tirmizi; Noor Tirmizi
Follow-on Research Project Staff (2015–16)

Project director: Alvino E. Fantini
Project assistant: Ilene Todd
Federation EIL executive director: Polli-Jo Moryl
CERCLL, University of Arizona: Katharine Mackay
EIL member organization directors: Fernanda Zocchio Semioni, Brazil;
Tom Kurz and Bettina Wiedmann, Germany; Kevin Hickey, Ireland;
Yoshihiro Suzuki, Japan; Aaron Morehouse, USA
EIL member organization research assistants: Paul Minto, Brazil; Eva
Meseck, Germany; Aimie Brennan, Ireland; Nobuko Kamiya and
Emiko Nojima, Japan; Kate Harris and Samantha Leonard, USA
Consultants and statisticians: Joana Almeida and Cláudia Figueiredo,
Aveiro, Portugal
Final draft assistant: Rachel Goldstein, Graduate Student, SIT Graduate
Institute
1 Introduction and Overview
1.1 Overview
This chapter contains six sections, beginning with an overview of the
promises and challenges of educational exchange programs. One of the
oldest exchange organizations is The Experiment in International Living
(EIL), founded in 1932, which developed into an international federation
of member countries that has provided exchange programs for nearly
nine decades. Federation EIL approved a plan to conduct longitudinal
research to ascertain the nature of intercultural communicative compe-
tence (ICC) and its components, and to determine the extent to which
participants develop ICC during their sojourn, as well as the impact such
experiences have upon their lives years later. Indeed, given globalizing
trends in today’s world, ICCs are needed for all: the ability to transcend
one’s original worldview and to see the world anew from another per-
spective. To this end, the nexus between language, culture, and world-
view is examined as well as fundamental concepts that are relevant to
support ICC development and the value of intercultural experiences. An
argument is made to promote bilingualism-biculturalism, and a discus-
sion of the role of language educators and interculturalists in promoting
these abilities follows. In the end, a common goal is the development of
intercultural communicative abilities for all.
1.2 About Educational Exchange

This work is about the power and the promises of international inter-
cultural educational exchange. One of the oldest exchange organizations
in the world has been engaged in providing just such experiences for
individuals for precisely these reasons. Founded in the US in 1932, The
EIL, recognizing both the power and the promises such experiences hold,
has been committed to providing intercultural educational exchange pro-
grams for over 85 years. Its commitment to these efforts is based on a
vision of world peace; its mission is to help build it by developing under-
standing across cultures (Fantini et al. 2015:235).
EIL’s first attempt at providing educational exchange programs began
with a summer camp in Switzerland with young people from several
countries: Belgium, France, Germany, Switzerland, and the US. Members
of each national group, however, tended to stay together rather than
mix and get to know each other, as the founder, Donald Watt (1967:95–
106), had intended. Watt redesigned the program with the aid of several
European colleagues and, the following year, sought family homestays
in small-town settings in Europe as the venue for the next intercultural
experience. This subsequent model was immediately successful and has
prevailed ever since—one in which an intimate and familial setting serves
as the context for getting to know people of another culture and for gain-
ing an understanding of that culture by establishing relationships with its
members (ibid.:111–18).
Procuring “homestays” was a collaborative effort that required
seeking like-minded individuals in multiple countries. Eventually,
national offices developed around the globe and, in 1954, they banded
together to form a Swiss-registered association to coordinate educa-
tional exchange efforts. The association was known as Federation
EIL, an organization that continues to the present day. Federation EIL
member countries are privately run, nonprofit, nonpolitical, and non-
religious organizations, with consultative status at the United Nations
Economic and Social Council. In 1989, Federation EIL was desig-
nated a Peace Messenger Organization by the Secretary General of the
United Nations. Through its MOs—all autonomous national entities—
Federation EIL constitutes a worldwide network with representation
in multiple countries and on various continents around the globe. Over
the past decades, several hundred thousand individuals of all ages have
participated in intercultural programs through the combined efforts
of Federation MOs. It is the alumni of these programs (and in some
cases, their hosts) whose experiences the research reported in this work
attempted to learn about—assessing the development of their ICC and
the impact of the intercultural experience on their lives long after pro-
grams ended. The existence of this international structure of MOs
with alumni files that date back many years made this multinational
research effort possible.
All Federation MOs exist for a common purpose: They are dedicated to
providing quality intercultural educational opportunities for individuals
in order to develop friendships across borders and to learn to participate
in other societies “on their terms.” To accomplish this, MOs offer a wide
variety of program options in areas of intercultural education, training,
service, and development. Programs are conducted among Federation
members as well as with other qualified partners around the globe who
share similar beliefs and practices. Over the years, MOs have expanded
their activities well beyond the original educational exchange format into
various other related areas. Such is the case of the U.S. Experiment, now
a division of a larger organization named World Learning, to reflect its
wider range of activities. Early on, the U.S. Experiment began expanding
Introduction and Overview 3
its efforts: providing English language training, cultural orientation, and
homestays for Hungarian refugees in 1956; conducting study abroad
programs for numerous American universities, beginning in 1957; train-
ing volunteers for the U.S. Peace Corps, beginning in 1961; providing
language and cultural orientation for the African Scholars Program for
American Universities (ASPAU) and Latin American Scholars Program
for American universities (LASPAU), starting in 1962 and 1963, respec-
tively; and initiating teacher assistant programs and foreign language
assistant programs in 1970 and 1971. These activities were followed
with au pair programs, orientation for Fulbright scholars, refugee orien-
tation in Southeast Asia, assistance to refugee sponsor organizations in
the US, creation of the School for International Training (later renamed
the SIT Graduate Institute, the academic branch providing a variety of
MA programs), and the teaching of over 100 languages.
To ensure quality and consistency within educational exchange pro-
grams, Federation EIL members adhere to a set of operational standards
that guide their work, along with quality assurance procedures that serve
as ongoing review processes. MOs also share common program designs.
Basic program components normally include (1) cross-cultural orienta-
tion; (2) learning the host language; (3) travel in small groups, guided by
experienced leaders working in partnership with local representatives of
the host culture and host community; (4) homestays with host families
in small communities; (5) in-country experiential activities to enhance
and maximize learning during the sojourn; (6) ongoing interventions
conducted by group leaders; (7) reflection, discussions, and evaluation
of the experience; and (8) post-program contact and engagement with
alumni.
This standard format is occasionally augmented with additional fea-
tures, such as programmatic themes (e.g., a focus on art, history, social
justice), group excursions and explorations, school attendance, civic ser-
vice projects, and programs that vary in length from summer to academic
yearlong offerings. In all cases, the experience affords direct and intimate
contact with members of various cultures in the hope of developing life-
long friendships and promoting intercultural understanding.
Federation EIL’s Research Interests

It is well known that educational exchange experiences exert a powerful
effect on both sojourners and their hosts—one that is often life changing.
Indeed, MOs have accrued numerous anecdotes over the years in the form
of letters, testimonies, and publications attesting to the impact that the
experience has on the lives of those involved. Testimonies were initially
collected and made available publicly in the work Letters to the Founder
(Watt 1977). Various other publications followed, written by participants
and others to help tell the story—to wit, One Woman’s India (Clapp
1966), A Time Apart: An Experiment in International Living (Case 1966),
and The Experiment: A Way to Peace (Trivedi 2003), among others.
Stories of these experiences—both the challenges and successes—are
frequently recounted among participants. Alumni commonly speak of
their sojourn as one of the most important educational experiences of
their lives, and examples of well-known luminaries who participated
are often cited: Sargent Shriver, an exchange participant, EIL group
leader in his early years, and later ambassador to France and founding
director of the U.S. Peace Corps in 1961; Jody Williams, an alumna
of the SIT Graduate Institute, an employee of the U.S. MO, and later
a Nobel Peace Laureate in 1997 for her work with the International
Campaign to Ban Landmines; and Wangari Maathai, an EIL board
member and a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate in 2004 for her work in
Kenya as founder of the Green Belt Movement for reforestation, among
others. However, little formal research had been conducted to assess
and document the impact and outcomes of the experience upon large
numbers of sojourners.
It was time to move beyond these wonderful tales and individual
examples. Questions frequently posed were how can we truly know
whether the professed power and promises of educational exchange are
valid and, if so, to what degree? What are the outcomes and the impact
of exchange experiences upon the lives of participants? How can we
truly know whether Federation EIL’s efforts contribute toward its vision
and mission? Now, approaching the organization’s ninth decade of exis-
tence, EIL approved a plan to conduct extensive research to explore
answers to these questions. A long-term effort was envisioned, begin-
ning with an initial research project to start the process, followed by
a later project to expand upon work of the initial effort. The research
approach envisioned was global, longitudinal, and cross-sectional, and
an effort that would involve participants from multiple countries and
span many years.
Funding obtained in 2005 supported the IRP involving three MOs.
Ten years later, in 2015, an additional grant allowed the work to be repli-
cated and expanded in a FRP, adding five more countries. The combined
projects generated quantitative and qualitative data obtained from over
2,000 sojourners and over 200 hosts and mentors from eight countries,
providing the multinational perspective that was envisioned.
The present work is an account of these projects and their findings. It
describes the preparatory work and literary searches conducted to define
basic terms and notions critical to both efforts, the process of construct-
ing assessment instruments needed to obtain the data, approaches to data
collection and analysis, and implications derived from findings and their
applications for future programs. These activities were undertaken in
the hope that this work will contribute toward promoting and providing
enhanced educational exchange experiences for all involved.
1.3 Intercultural Abilities in Today’s World
In today’s world, “globalization” is a commonplace phrase. Whereas the
term rings positive and holds great promise for some, for others, it con-
jures up certain negative aspects. These conflicting reactions (globalism
vs. nationalism) often relate to differing opinions regarding the value of
aggregated geopolitical units toward offering the promise of prosperity
and other advantages versus a desire for political autonomy, local control,
and the preservation of traditional languages and customs. While some
prefer that their nations join together in an effort to enhance commerce,
travel, communication, and, in some cases, a common sense of identity
(e.g., the European Union), others favor separation, independence, and
greater autonomy.
The former Yugoslavia exemplifies a nation in recent history that pre-
viously united various language and ethnic groups for a time but subse-
quently split into several countries in the interest of local control. Great
Britain provides another example of a nation that has chosen to leave
the European Union for many of the same reasons. Catalonia is also a
region whose inhabitants are split over the decision to remain within
Spain or to become an independent nation (despite gaining increased
autonomy and the right to use their own language, Catalán). Examples
of other nations facing similar issues are found around the world, where
tensions exist between preserving identity and heritage versus incorpo-
rating aspects of other languages and cultures into one’s life and lifestyle
when becoming part of a larger whole.
Whatever the case, more people today have more contact than ever
before with people of other cultures, for multiple reasons: travel, tourism,
commerce, educational exchanges, migration, immigration, refugees, and
other factors. In addition, given the widespread availability of electronic
media and devices (e.g., email, cell phones, the Internet, Skype, social
media), more people today also communicate with more people beyond
their own borders than ever before in history. These factors all contribute
to increased intercultural contact (desired or not) and to a need for bet-
ter understanding of others, especially those of different language and
cultural backgrounds.
Given this situation, many institutions of higher learning recognize
a need to respond to these globalizing trends. Colleges and universities
around the world, increasingly attempt to internationalize academic cur-
ricula to better prepare students for life and careers in today’s world (cf.
Deardorff and Arasaratnam-Smith 2017). This need is clearly expressed
in an essay by Sanford Ungar (2016), president emeritus of Goucher
College:
As new global challenges have arisen . . ., American discourse on

world affairs has lacked historical context or deeper understanding.
It has become difficult to stir thoughtful, informed debate on for-
eign policy issues during congressional—or even presidential—
campaigns . . . A candidate who speaks a foreign language appears
almost suspect . . . Luckily, there exists a disarmingly simple way
to help address this problem and to produce future generations of
Americans who will know more and care more about the rest of the
world: massively increase the number of U.S. college and university
students who go abroad . . . and bring home essential knowledge and
new perspectives . . . The benefits of an overseas experience are dif-
ficult to quantify, but there is little doubt that studying abroad can
be beneficial for all.
Although approaches to internationalization vary greatly, one excel-

lent model is a program initiated at Kennesaw State University titled
“Interdisciplinary Teaching and Assessment of Intercultural Competence
(ITAIC).” This model focuses on the professional development of faculty
across disciplines who write, pilot, and assess online intercultural mod-
ules that are then introduced into the varied academic departments across
the campus (Smith and Paracka 2018:17–26). More commonly, institu-
tions seek to increase the number of international students on campus
as well as to develop academic study abroad opportunities for domestic
students. The number of study abroad programs in American universities
continues to increase and, at present, one in ten undergraduates studies
abroad (cf. Institute of International Education 2016).
Within the European Union, the European Region Action Scheme
for the Mobility of University Students (ERASMUS) program, cre-
ated in 1987, promotes exchanges of European students to study in
another European country for a semester or up to two academic years
(cf. European Commission 2015; Almeida 2015). Between 1987 and
2013, more than three million tertiary students in Europe participated
in the ERASMUS program (European Commission 2015:4). In addition,
in 2013, the British Council predicted that approximately 3.85 million
higher education students will take part in study abroad programs by
2024, up from 3.04 million in 2011, with China and India accounting for
35% of the growth. Most East Asian students (China, Hong Kong SAR,
Japan, Korea, Macau SAR, and Taiwan) study in a lingua franca such
as English while abroad, with the US as the most popular host destina-
tion (cf. British Council 2013). Courses in world languages and intercul-
tural communication are important to all these efforts, both for students
attending universities in other countries and for domestic students pre-
paring to participate in educational programs abroad.
In addition to academic institutions, private organizations also serve
as providers of intercultural educational exchange opportunities. The
EIL, described earlier, in addition to other reputable organizations such
as American Field Service, Youth for Understanding, and Children’s
International Summer Villages are all well known, the latter working pri-
marily with younger populations. The Experiment, in fact, which works
with both high school and college-age students, developed many of the
early study abroad programs that currently exist at numerous universi-
ties throughout the US. Beginning in the 1950s, EIL’s programs, known
as cooperative overseas programs, were conducted collaboratively with
universities to provide offerings in many countries before universities had
established their own contacts abroad. The Experiment, for example,
collaborated with institutions such as Dartmouth, the State University
of New York, Pomona, Syracuse University, Tyler Art School of Temple
University, and the University of the Pacific, among many others, to pro-
vide group leaders, cross-cultural orientation, and homestays, preceding
the academic segment in Colombia, France, Italy, Germany, Spain, and
elsewhere (Fantini 2002:3, 7). Today, EIL continues as a provider of aca-
demic study abroad programs for students from many institutions around
the US, especially to places not commonly offered by home institutions,
with nearly 80 programs in over 30 countries worldwide, including com-
parative programs in multiple countries in locations such as Australia,
Bolivia, Cameroon, Chile, China, Ghana, Iceland, India, Jordan, Kenya,
Nepal, Samoa, and Vietnam. Universities and private organizations work
together to increase educational exchange opportunities for students
worldwide.
Success during an intercultural sojourn, of course, requires abili-
ties beyond those needed for academic and social success at home.
“Intercultural” abilities are also necessary (and one might argue that
these abilities are just as important for dealing with ethnic diversity
at home). Given this view, intercultural abilities are important for all,
whether crossing an ocean or simply dealing with those around the block.
Whether we stay at home or travel abroad, indeed, intercultural abilities
are a necessity in today’s world to develop understanding and empathy
toward other human beings, no matter their ethnicity, their religion, their
color, their race, or any other difference. The interests of the intercultural
field and diversity coalesce and, in fact, share this common goal.
1.4 Seeing the World Anew

To explore this common goal further, it will help to consider some
important concepts: First, we examine the concept of worldview; then
the nexus between language, culture, and worldview; and, finally, how
second language culture (LC2) experiences broaden understanding and
appreciation of those around us, both near and far. Later, we explore
abilities that facilitate transcending and transforming our initial way of
seeing things (our native worldview paradigm) as we learn to see the
world anew and investigate strategies that promote positive relationships
between people—the development of ICC.
Worldview, of course, is a term in common use today, especially in
the fields of intercultural communication and language education. But
what exactly is a worldview and what are its components? This concept,
initially introduced by a German philosopher in the early 1800s with the
label Weltanschauung (and later adopted into other languages with labels
such as cosmovisión in Spanish, visão do mundo in Portuguese, vision
du monde in French, desituri ya ulimwengu in Swahili, “worldview” in
English, and so forth), conveys the notion that each person has a particu-
lar way of seeing the world. Stated another way, not everyone attends to
the world, perceives, thinks about, nor expresses in the same way. Much
depends on one’s native language (L1) and culture (C1), which explains
why relative and differing patterns exist across language-cultures.
Much has been written about the concept of worldview over the years
(cf. Whorf in Carroll 1956; Pinker 1994; Taylor 2016; among others),
and although we may understand this concept intellectually and vicari-
ously, it is difficult to grasp directly if one experiences only one culture
and speaks only one language. Full grasp of this concept requires direct
involvement through exposure to another culture and acquisition of
another language—another language that reflects and affects its culture,
another culture that reflects and affects its language. Learning another
language and experiencing the culture it represents is crucial to accessing
another view of the world.
In his work, The Language Animal, Taylor (ibid.:24) explains,
“Expanding articulacy can regestalt our experience” and adds that by
shifting paradigms, “it’s not just a matter of adding words, but of tak-
ing on new models, and recognizing previously unseen patterns.” Taylor
explains that languages are not only designative but also constitutive—
i.e., they not only represent the world as speakers perceive it but also they
create the world as speakers come to know it (ibid.:3–50). Developing
bilingual-bicultural abilities to varying degrees or, better yet, multilin-
gual-multicultural abilities, therefore, is essential to shift paradigms and
experience unseen and unknown possibilities. Without “secondary” (or
alternative) abilities, it is impossible to enter into another view of the
world, as understood, encoded, and reflected through any one of the
7,000 plus languages that exist around the globe.
Examination of the components that make up a worldview helps to
explain why this is so. One component is the set of values, beliefs, and
attitudes held by each cultural group. These are transmitted early in life
through language and behaviors—that is, through “symbol systems,”
which make up the second component of worldview. The term “symbol
systems” is used (instead of language) to ensure that the multiple dimen-
sions of communication are acknowledged. In other words, in addition to
the linguistic component (the sounds, words, script, grammar, etc.), other
areas are the paralinguistic (the tone, pitch, volume, speed, and affect) and
the extralinguistic (or non-verbal) components. The non-verbal component
encompasses further multiple aspects: considerations of space (proxe-
mics), touch (haptics), eye contact (oculesics), smell (olfactics), movement
and gestures (kinesics), and timing (chronemics). These aspects differ, like
language itself, from one communication system to another. Chronemic
patterns, for example, range from monochronic to polychronic and vary
across cultures (i.e., the conversational preferences that favor speaking
one at a time or, conversely, that permit overlaps in conversation, allow-
ing multiple persons to speak together at the same time). Monochronic
behavior is typically displayed by Japanese speakers, whereas polychronic
behavior is favored by speakers of languages such as French, Italian, and
Spanish. These differences result in varied discourse styles, each culturally
determined, which are reinforced by cultural notions of appropriateness.
What one culture may consider polite conversational style, therefore, may
be considered quite impolite in another, and vice versa. It is easy to see
how misunderstandings might occur when monochronic speakers interact
with polychronic speakers, and how individuals in the interaction judge
each other based on their own cultural norms.
We learn these interrelated dimensions of symbol systems from our
earliest years and use them without much thought in order to com-
municate the third component: the semantic component, or meaning.
Meaning, of course, is contemplated in our heads and remains uncom-
municated until and unless we employ symbols to convey our thoughts to
someone else. Hence symbol systems are interrelated with meaning and
with our thoughts that reflect, in turn, our values, beliefs, and attitudes.
Together, these components reflect and affect each other, and together,
they constitute the worldview as we know it and think it and express it
(depicted in Figure 1.1):
Figure 1.1 Components of Worldview

Although all worldviews consist of the same three components, the
individual components differ in nature within each language-culture—i.e.,
from linguaculture to linguaculture (cf. Fantini 1995). The components
of values, beliefs, and attitudes, as well as the component comprising
multiple symbols, differ in nature across linguacultures, just as semantic
or meaning components are also construed differently.
To delve into this latter notion further, consider, for example, how
words make up the semantic component. Words have two types of mean-
ing: a referential meaning (e.g., mother = the female head of a household)
and associative meanings (e.g., mother = woman, female, caring, affec-
tionate, security). Note also that words relate one to another in hierarchi-
cal structures: words related to “mother” are either more general or more
specific, above or below the notion of “mother,” forming a hierarchy of
words. Stated another way, words in language cohere in hierarchies such
that each word is related to clusters of other words in fixed relationships,
up and down the hierarchy. For example, one can generalize about a
word by adding a superordinate term above it (e.g., “human” includes
and subsumes “family;” similarly, “herd” includes “animal,” and “liq-
uid” combines both “water” and “tea”). Conversely, one can also be
more specific by adding a word beneath it (e.g., “male” or “female”
under “person,” or “cow” or “dog” under “animal”). Words higher in
the hierarchy are therefore more inclusive and acknowledge shared com-
monalities (e.g., “male” and “female” both share all the same notions
above them in a hierarchy, such as “person,” “human,” “animate,” and
“noun”). Conversely, words descending the hierarchy are more specific
and designate attributes that are unique and more singular (e.g., “man,”
“son,” and “child,” and “John” under “male”).
Moreover, a word hierarchy combines with other word hierarchies,
forming a hetararchy (i.e., a hierarchy of hierarchies), resembling the
construction of a mobile. Whereas all languages organize thought in this
manner, their hierarchies differ in composition and structure across lan-
guages. Hence comparison of a word across two languages—e.g., “fam-
ily” in English and famiglia in Italian—although obvious cognates, differ
considerably when their associative meanings and semantic hierarchies
are also compared. These differences contribute to the relative perspec-
tives encoded and conveyed through each language system that are not
always apparent on the surface. It is of little surprise that language learn-
ers often consider their task to be one of simply learning new vocabulary
for their existing words without suspecting that new words may also con-
vey new ways of conceptualizing and of relating concepts one to another.
An additional challenge relates each language to its culture—that
of contextual variation. This is represented in Figure 1.1 by the circle
labeled “sociolinguistic context” that encompasses the three components
of worldview. Context is extremely important in speech and behavior,
and it directly affects the link between language and culture, further
revealing their interrelationship. In every language and culture, language
is used not solely as a monolithic unit (i.e., spoken always in the same
way at all times, in all places, and with all interlocutors), but rather as
a variable system that utilizes several alternate forms based on context.
We select and choose from among the various linguistic forms available
in accordance with each situation, with the one form considered “appro-
priate” as determined by cultural norms. “Time, place, and occasion”
(or TPO) is a phrase that captures the notion of appropriate speech (and
behavior) for each context.
Sociolinguistic research over the past 50 years or so has helped to
clarify and explain this phenomenon by examining the nexus between
the choice of language variables and social context. The selection of pro-
nouns in English between “he” and “she,” for example, exemplifies word
choice that acknowledges the gender of the person designated. This is
obligatory and necessary in English, and not doing so would seem odd
or strange. Admittedly, language rules and social norms may change over
time, and along with this notions of appropriateness. And, indeed, there
are indications that social attitudes regarding gender in English are in
flux. Another example is the use of titles of address such as “Mrs.,”
“Miss,” and “Ms.” Changes in usage have already occurred in our life-
time, and the form “Ms.” is a relatively recent innovation. Whether to
employ a title, which title to use, or whether to address someone by first
or last name (with or without a title) all reflect sociolinguistic varia-
tions dependent on perceived relative status and relationships between
interlocutors, as determined by culture (cf. MacNeil and Cran 2005).
Examples of sociolinguistic variants in other languages are tu/vous in
French, tú/usted in Spanish, and tu/Lei in Italian. Choosing which pro-
noun to use (and the attendant verb form in the case of some languages)
is often treated primarily as a grammatical task; however, the choice of
which form to use rests entirely on sociocultural norms. Hence knowl-
edge of target cultural norms is required in order to know which gram-
matical forms are appropriate, and these norms, of course, vary from
culture to culture.
Common social determinants that affect variations in many languages
(while not necessarily the same across language-cultures) are factors such
as interlocutors (their age, gender, role), context of the interaction (e.g.
public or private settings, on the street, in a religious space, the pres-
ence or absence of others), relationships between speakers (equals or
differences in position, status, authority), and purpose or topic of the
conversation. Because these and other factors vary across cultures, learn-
ing another language must therefore include learning both the alternate
language forms and the “appropriateness” of each as determined by the
target language (TL) culture. Selecting the correct (i.e., proper) linguis-
tic variant, therefore, is informed by cultural and variable contexts that
determine proper speech choice (and behavior). Language and culture
are interrelated; they affect each other, and both are as important in an
intercultural context as they are at home.
It should be clear that language professionals need to address all three
components to help learners explore, understand, and enter the target
worldview. We must teach language (i.e., the symbol systems in their
multiple dimensions plus their variants in accordance with sociocultural
contexts); understand the attitudes, beliefs, and values that speakers
hold; and decipher the meanings they are likely to convey. Admittedly,
this is a complex task, but one that is also exciting and rich, and one that
will enable us to think, express, interact, and behave in new and appro-
priate ways.
Seeing the world anew presents another interesting possibility: the
ability to compare and contrast newfound differences with our initial
worldview. Indeed, the process of exploring other worldviews enables
us not only to see the world differently but also increases awareness
of our own native paradigm, of what we have always thought to be
so. In the end, while learning to see the world from a new perspective,
we commonly transcend and transform our native paradigm as well: a
two-way process that may be described with the phrase “looking out
and looking in.”
It should now be clear that while all worldviews have the same three
components, those that make up each worldview are configured differ-
ently. Figure 1.2 illustrates how three worldviews might contrast if over-
lapped, given their differing configurations. Each view, constructed with
the same three components, does not exactly match the others. Whereas
linguacultures derived from similar backgrounds and long histories of
interaction might align more closely (e.g., English and Dutch, Italian and
Romanian, Spanish and Portuguese, Swahili and Twi), linguacultures
originating from distinct sources and with little historical connections
may be quite dissimilar. Dissimilar worldviews, of course, are likely to
be more challenging, yet they also expose one to novel and sometimes
Figure 1.2 Overlapping Configurations of Three Worldviews

surprising new insights (e.g., English and Japanese, French and Swahili,
Spanish and Aymara).
Finally, two other aspects of contrasting worldviews are important
to recognize. First, as previously stated, all worldviews share the same
three components—i.e., a “universal” aspect. Second, each worldview
also has a distinctive or “particularist” aspect—i.e., the components of
each are distinctive in configuration and representation. The universal
aspect, however, suggests that all paradigms must be intrinsically acces-
sible across human cultures, one to another. In other words, it is possible
to see the world from other perspectives. Whereas humans are incred-
ibly creative in their ability to develop many varied configurations of
the world, in the end, all worldviews operate within the context of three
components.
The path to accessing a new worldview, then, lies in understanding
how components differ. For adult learners, and especially after puberty,
however, a major impediment exists to grasping a new worldview fully.
The success we have had up to this moment with our own way of being—
our own language and culture, and our own view of the world—stands
between the new paradigm and us. Stated another way, while our native
paradigm serves us well, it also presents the most likely barrier to enter-
ing easily into a new view of the world later on. Complacency, ethno-
centricity, fear, disinterest, and lack of motivation are some reasons we
may be reluctant to explore the challenges, the wonders, the surprises of
other ways of being. Why would anyone want to go through that process
again? Interest? Curiosity? Not everyone possesses the “integrative” (vs.
the “instrumental”) motivation identified by intercultural psychologists
to wander beyond one’s own linguaculture as an adult and to become
part of a new one (cf. Gardner and Lambert 1972). For children raised
bilingually and biculturally, it is quite a different matter. Developmental
studies show that infants begin to interact with their environment almost
at once—to distinguish the familiar from the unfamiliar, the known from
the unknown, and the similar from the different. It is how they experi-
ence the world early on and how they learn to invoke one set of abilities
or another, situationally—a process that is generally evident already by
age three (cf. Fantini 1985:41).
Imaginative and inspiring language-culture teachers, however, can
play a role in encouraging this process by creating classroom experiences
that promote interest and excitement about the target linguaculture and
that pique students’ curiosity, so they will want to explore new possi-
bilities. At the heart of our work (in the classroom as well as through
educational exchange) is the challenge of inspiring interest and curiosity,
and the task of helping students to understand and develop relations with
other people, to develop abilities to enter into a new language-culture,
and, indeed, to explore the world from a new perspective. In the end,
they may well reconfigure their own initial worldview and transform the
way they have always thought of the world, of themselves, and of others.
Educational exchange experiences can help to expand and deepen what
may begin in a language-culture classroom. In addition, a sojourn abroad
may well prove to be a most profound educational experience and one
that will serve students throughout the rest of their lives. As we will see
later on, exchange alumni and others who participated in the research
projects tell us that this is so.
1.5 Some Fundamental Concepts1

In the previous section, we reviewed the concept of worldview and exam-
ined the nexus between language and culture. Unfortunately, however, the
fields of language education and intercultural communication remain quite
unconnected in many institutions and are often treated as separate disci-
plines, despite a common end goal: the development of ICC. To explain how
they share a common goal, let us further examine why language is intrinsic
to worldview and therefore fundamental to entering another culture.
No one questions the importance of language in one’s life, so it is
puzzling to think that developing target language (TL) ability when deal-
ing with a host culture might be given little significance or completely
overlooked. Yet intercultural models commonly omit reference to host
language proficiency when citing attributes needed for successful inter-
cultural entry. Moreover, language is basic to human development and,
indeed, it is the ability to speak that makes the anthropoid “human.”
Human development and human behaviors are directly linked to the abil-
ity to communicate. Language is fundamental to every human society,
and individuals without language are considered less than “human.”
Studies of feral children illustrate this phenomenon.
Reports of feral children, children raised apart from human societies
and without the ability to speak, have been reported throughout history.
Many such reports are well documented as, for example, the story of
Kaspar Hauser, a German youth found in 1812 who grew up in total
isolation in a darkened cell for his entire childhood, barely able to walk
or talk (cf. Masson and Feuerbach 1997); the wolf-children of Bengal,
Amala, and Kamala (cf. Singh and Zingg 1966); and Genie, raised in
isolation from birth until discovered as an adolescent in 1970 (Curtiss
1977), among others. One of the best documented accounts, however, is
that of Victor, the wild child, found in Aveyron, France, in 1797 (cf. Lane
1976)—a well-known story that has also been made into a movie. These
cases are intriguing precisely because they show how language develop-
ment clearly requires human interaction and leads to human behaviors.
Studies of feral children demonstrate less than human conduct when lan-
guage is not developed. They also provide evidence of how language and
culture are intertwined, and how the habits and thoughts of speakers are
inseparable from both.
As Taylor (2016) points out in his work, The Language Animal, we
learn language from others and once inducted into the shared practice of
speech, our individual selves emerge out of the conversation. He explains
that language is more than a tool to encode and communicate, but that
it also plays a crucial role in shaping the very thought it purports to
express. Language does more than describe; it constitutes meaning and
fundamentally shapes human experience.
Now consider something else: language is not really about what it
“is” but rather what it “represents.” As an example, look at the mark-
ings on this page and think also about the sounds they suggest. Markings
are merely ink on a sheet of paper, yet they represent something much
more than ink. Markings are formulaic vehicles created to transmit mean-
ing from one person to another, or, in this case, from a page to you. By
imputing meaning to these markings (and to the sounds we make when we
speak), we use both as a convenient and efficient way to communicate. By
representing something other than themselves, words (i.e., ink markings or
sounds) stand for concepts, mental abstractions from experience, formed
into thoughts, shaped by our linguistic system, conveyed through markings
or sound bites, and sequenced into continuous streams. These representa-
tional symbols (or words) perform an amazing range of functions.
As discussed earlier, we also use words to specify and designate indi-
vidual units or concepts (both tangible and abstract). For example, within
the unit “liquids,” we may further specify other words such as tears, cof-
fee, steam, water. Alternatively, we can generalize about dissimilar things
by employing a single word such as “animals,” an abstraction to group
together dogs, cats, porcupines, and llamas. In other words, we can dis-
tinguish phenomena from each other or group them together and name
and label them as our language system permits. Diverse phenomena can
be lumped together as an entity by a single word (e.g., tree) or separated
into parts (e.g., leaves, branch, bark, trunk, and roots). We learn to do
all these things beginning in infancy and continue to develop these abili-
ties on into childhood and adulthood through a continuing process of
language learning, and with no conscious effort at all.
These functions further illustrate how our view of the world is shaped
in our minds, aided and influenced by words of the specific language to
which we are exposed. They also help to explain our surprise when we
learn how other systems differ from what we are accustomed. The Inuit
of Canada come to mind, often cited for the surprising number of words
they use to designate the entity “snow,” identifying and classifying this
phenomenon into varieties that most other people might not recognize
(except, perhaps, ski enthusiasts). Yet speakers in all cultures categorize
and classify, segment and specify whatever phenomena they consider
important.
Asians categorize and label rice in many more ways than do English
speakers. Bolivian campesinos do the same with potatoes, a food staple
with numerous varieties and names within the Andean region. Americans
likewise create and designate numerous words to identify automobile
makes and models. And Italians use the term pasta to label a variety of
gastronomic experiences. The superordinate word pasta is codified and
further labeled in accordance with methods of preparation—for exam-
ple, major groupings depend on whether pasta is served with a sauce or
garnish (asciutta), stuffed (ripiena), served in soup (in brodo), or baked
(al forno). These four categories are further subclassified in accordance
with their shape, often reminiscent of other objects. For example, the
well-known pasta shape labeled spaghetti literally means “little strings”
(i.e., spago = string, -etto = little, -i = plural); another is farfalle, so named
because it resembles “butterflies.” Figure 1.3 illustrates the hierarchy of
terms that result, producing some 200 plus word labels. Viewed this way,
then, speaking Italian includes recognizing and classifying these phenom-
ena in the Italian way.
Figure 1.3 A Pasta Hierarchy
Indeed, all languages organize words into verbal hierarchies, as dis-

cussed earlier in the section on semantics and word meaning (cf. Anglin
1970). Hierarchies differ, however, in terms of how speakers of each cul-
ture name and label, classify, and organize items in their environment.
Because speakers create word hierarchies based on their own perceptions
regarding the importance and relevance of phenomena, hierarchies natu-
rally vary across languages. These considerations reinforce the interrela-
tionship of language and culture. The oft-quoted phrase, “language as a
two-edged sword,” captures this dual aspect of language—a phenomenon
that arises from culture and, conversely, influences and affects culture.
There is still more to consider regarding the dual nature of language—
for example, language has the capacity to liberate and to constrain. How
is this so? First, it liberates by providing a way to move figuratively
beyond the “here and now.” This is accomplished simply by employing
words such as “there, far away, across the ocean.” Additional utterances
enable us to retrieve past events conceptually, or to project into the future
with other words, such as “was, used to, last year, in 1492,” and “going
to, shall, tomorrow, next year.” Such linguistic devices allow us to convey
a sense of past or future intent (although affirming either linguistically is
obviously no assurance that it did or will occur).
Through language, we can also “know” (cognitively) what we might
not know at all (directly) or have never experienced. We can talk about
“dinosaurs,” “Franz Josef of Austria,” and “World War II.” Through
language, we are indeed beneficiaries of a collective heritage preserved
in language, obtaining access to the thoughts of generations of speakers
in diverse places and across time. Linguistic symbols make this possible
vicariously, of course, certainly not necessarily experientially. Indeed, life
as we know it, is hard to imagine without language.
Language sometimes guides and at times contradicts perception. In the
first case, for example, children learn many facts through language—to
wit, that an airplane is faster than an elephant. However, a child who
peers out an airplane window perceives something quite different. He
reports the speed of the airplane, demonstrating what he sees with a slow
movement of his hand. In contrast, he affirms that elephants run really
fast, now demonstrating their speed with a quick hand motion. He insists
this is so because he saw elephants rampage through a village in a Tarzan
movie. In this case, however, his direct experience is contradicted through
language, and he eventually conforms his perceptions to conventional
wisdom (Fantini 1985:182).
Through language, we can do other amazing things. We can bring
into creation what may not exist at all: The child excitedly describes a
“witch” he has seen in his mommy’s closet. Real or fantasy? No matter.
He can speak about the witch, describe the witch, and bring the witch
into existence through language (ibid.:219).
Through language, we transcend the boundaries of our very exis-
tence (mentally, of course); we can question and speak about alter-
natives to life’s end. After seeing a dead bird, for example, the child
expresses concern and asks about death. While processing this con-
cept, he says, Si yo me voy a morir, ¿por qué yo nací? ¿Por qué nací
como nene? ¿Por qué no nací como Dios, o como el sol . . . como una
bola de fuego? (If I am going to die, why was I born? Why was I born
a little child? Why wasn’t I born instead like God, or like the sun . . .
like a ball of fire?) (ibid.:v).
In summary, these examples demonstrate various roles that language
plays in human life and in making us human. All languages are capable of
just such things (and more). Languages encode our differing experiences,
and they do so in differing ways. As a most fundamental human par-
adigm, language is part of our thoughts, our behavioral patterns, and
our societal norms. The prominent scholar Edward T. Hall (1973:97)
expressed this notion in the early days of the field of intercultural com-
munication when he wrote, “culture is communication,” to which I add,
conversely, to complete the loop, “communication is culture.”
The relation of language to CC, and therefore to ICC as well, is fun-
damental and indisputable. Because linguacultures configure worldview
components differently, many cross-cultural differences are revealed
only by direct access through the host language—not in translation, not
through interpreters, and not through one’s own tongue. For all these rea-
sons, educational exchange programs and intercultural constructs must
address and include the fundamental role that language plays in human
life and its role in accessing our own and other views of the world.
1.6 Beyond Monolingualism and Monoculturalism

The previous section explored concepts related to the nexus between
language, culture, and worldview. That discussion leads directly to rea-
sons one needs to move beyond monolingualism and monoculturalism
in order to gain greater understanding, tolerance, and appreciation for
another culture for access to another worldview. L2 development is an
obvious path to bilingualism, a process that is described both in terms of
“learning” language (as in classroom situations) or “acquiring” language
(in naturalistic settings), two distinctly different processes (cf. Krashen
1988), often with differing results, although both can lead to bilingual-
bicultural behavior.
In an earlier section, discussion of L2 development raised aspects that
extend beyond what is commonly taught in traditional language class-
rooms. More importantly, it explored how L2 symbol systems inter-
relate with other components in forming a worldview. These critical
notions are seldom addressed explicitly in L2 classrooms. Nonetheless,
whether the L2 is learned in a classroom context or acquired in a field
situation, both processes aid exploration of new paradigms. The more
one gains proficiency in a new language, the more likely one can reflect
on one’s native worldview and the less likely one will retain a singular
and monocular vision of the world. Grappling with the TL becomes key
to understanding others on their terms. To make these points another
way, we might ask, is one language (and one culture, one worldview)
adequate for interacting across language-culture groups? In addition,
given increasing heterogeneity in many societies today plus globaliz-
ing trends, one might ask, is one language, one culture, adequate in
today’s world? Is it sufficient to be monolingual and monocultural in
the twenty-first century? How interculturally competent can one be
without some ability to communicate in another tongue?
The case made here is for developing bilingual abilities (in addition
to bicultural abilities). Developing an L2, however, is a formidable task,
but not impossible. Developing L2 proficiency is not a quick or easy
process; it requires considerable time and effort. Educators often fail
to take into account the length of time required to attain varying lev-
els of proficiency (whether in classrooms or in field situations). In addi-
tion, many educational programs start L2 study after puberty, ignoring
the well-known fact that early bilingual development is more effective.
Moreover, most academic programs label courses as “beginning, interme-
diate, and advanced” instead of ratings based on proficiency levels (such
as the ACTFL (1995) Proficiency Scale and Guidelines, the U.S. Foreign
Service Institute (FSI) system, or the Common European Framework of
Reference for Languages (CEFR). Unfortunately, academic course labels
are also not always consistent across institutions, and the terms are rela-
tive to each other and often misleading. For example, “advanced” may
not be very advanced at all in terms of actual performance but only with
respect to a preceding level.
Projection charts and assessment scales that are constructed based
on the performance of many previous students help determine the time
required in classroom hours to attain ascending levels of functioning
in the TL. Table 1.1, taken from one such chart, compiled by the U.S.
Foreign Service Institute (FSI) and adapted for public education by the
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL),
indicates the number of hours needed to develop ability levels in several
languages (cf. Liskin-Gasparro 1982). FSI and ACTFL systems may be
viewed and compared online: http://gauchatranslations.com/wp-content/
Table 1.1 Time Requirements for Learning Various Languages
Time Average Level Attained
Group I: Dutch, French, Italian, Spanish, etc.

8 weeks (240 hours) 1/1+
16 weeks (480 hours) 2
24 weeks (720 hours) 2+
Group II: German, Greek, Farsi, Urdu, etc.
16 weeks (480 hours) 1/2+
Group III: Bengali, Czech, Hebrew, Russian, etc.
Group IV: Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc.
24 weeks (720 hours) 1+
uploads/2017/06/Correspondence-of-proficiency-scales.pdf. This excerpt
lists TLs in four groups, based on levels of difficulty for English speakers,
and indicates the hours and weeks needed on average to achieve profi-
ciency levels ranging from zero to five (five representing a native speaker):
Although this chart is constructed for English speakers learning other
languages, one might hypothesize that speakers of the TLs cited might
take about the same time to learn English. This may not apply, of course,
where languages under consideration are historically and linguistically
related, such as Spanish speakers learning Portuguese or German speak-
ers learning Dutch. In any case, such a chart provides guidance regarding
more realistic time commitments needed to achieve various proficiency
levels in classroom situations. It is understood that time requirements for
L2 development in immersion and in-country situations will differ and
are most probably accelerated.
Another relevant factor affecting language development is the
approach to language teaching. Many innovative teaching methods have
emerged over the past 50 years, each adding a variety of new techniques
that are often quite ingenious; however, a communicative approach seems
most effective given that its main focus is the development of proficiency.
Communicative activities emphasize authentic communication, and, con-
sequently, they are interactive and participatory. They strive to develop
proficiency in all four skill areas: comprehension, speaking, reading,
and writing. And, in addition to ability in the linguistic aspects of lan-
guage, they also address paralinguistic, extralinguistic, and sociolinguis-
tic aspects. Taken together, these combined dimensions ensure effective
and appropriate language use when interacting and communicating with
hosts in their tongue. Viewed this way, language and intercultural educa-
tors have much in common, and they must collaborate, overlap in their
work, and provide useful and constructive redundancies that reinforce all
components that constitute ICC, albeit with differing emphases.
Today, the importance of developing a second, third, even a fourth
language, and moving beyond monolingualism to multilingualism is well
established. Whereas psychologists in the early 1900s viewed dual lan-
guage development as having potentially negative effects, researchers over
the last half century (plus changing world circumstances) now underscore
the desirability (and often the necessity) of bilingual-multilingual abilities,
pointing to cognitive and other benefits (cf. Todeva and Cenoz 2009).
When referring to bilingualism and multilingualism, we are speaking
of degrees of proficiency along a continuum, not of absolutes (cf. Baetens-
Beardsmore 1982). Linguists identify various types of bilinguals—to wit,
simultaneous/sequential, alternating/balanced, active/passive, coordinate/
compound, and ambilingual or equilingual. Of these types, however, the
ambilingual or equilingual speaker is a hypothetical construct and does
not exist in fact. In other words, no individual, proficiency levels aside,
commands two or more languages in identical ways—to the same degree,
on all topics, and in every context (cf. Fantini 2007).
In addition to varied degrees and types of bilinguals, there are also
varied profiles of abilities. For example, consider the following text (or
imagine a stranger approaching you on the street uttering these words);
how might you react: “Desculpe, o senhor, pode-me ajudar? Eu estou
perdido e não posso encontrar o meu hotel. Pode-me explicar como
chegar lá? Estaria muito agradecido. Muito obrigado.” You might tend
to skip over the text entirely (or ignore the person seeking assistance in
a strange tongue). Another reaction, however, might be to show inter-
est, feel intrigued, and try to figure out what is written, or to attempt
to communicate with the stranger in creative ways. Moving beyond
monolingualism, in fact, often begins with what we might term being an
“incipient” bilingual. Simply put, this term stresses an attitude of willing-
ness to engage with others despite the lack of a common tongue. This
view of bilingualism emphasizes attitude—i.e., one that begins with a
willingness to engage, even when no skill level exists. Such an attitude
permits a process to unfold that enables one to develop the communica-
tion skills over time, given opportunity. The Portuguese text noted earlier
underscores a further aspect of language: language as a “tool of com-
munication,” but a tool that can also “excommunicate.” In other words,
languages include those who share the system and exclude those who do
not—another aspect of the dual nature of languages.
Aside from bilingual types, degrees, and profiles, varying combinations
exist when both bilingualism, plus or minus biculturalism, are consid-
ered. One might be bilingual without substantial biculturalism, bicultural
without bilingualism, or bilingual and bicultural. The last combination
links L2 and second cultural competence, as is the case in one’s native
paradigm: everyone is competent in both an L1 and a C1 (i.e., competent
in LC1). The same is desirable in a new language-culture—L2 + C2, or
LC2, albeit with varying degrees of proficiency in accordance with expo-
sure, duration, motivation, opportunity, etc. It is uncommon to achieve
the same level of competence in second language–culture (LC2) that we
have in our first system (i.e., native competence), although some do.
In summary, developing LC2 in addition to native language–culture
(LC1) assures the highest level of ICC. Moreover, those able to participate
in more than one linguaculture obtain something more: two vantage points
through an expanded worldview that allow comparing and contrasting
both LCs, something that monolinguals of neither language-culture can
never hope to achieve.
1.7 Exploring Common Goals
Language Education and Intercultural Communication

The goals of the fields of language education and intercultural communi-
cation are inextricably linked. Each discipline, however, developed quite
separately and with a different emphasis. Whereas language education
has existed for many centuries (cf. Kelly 1969), intercultural commu-
nication is a relatively new field. In fact, IC was formalized a little over
50 years ago when Peace Corps intercultural trainers and language edu-
cators, engaged in preparing volunteers for service, were inventing the
field through their practice. As they oriented volunteers to countries
from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, and taught languages they were mostly
unfamiliar with, their practice lacked a theoretical basis. That came
later. Trainers met sporadically to discuss their evolving practices and to
exchange ideas about their activities. Although intercultural communica-
tion theories and practices have evolved considerably since that time,
and courses in intercultural communication (IC) are increasingly part of
college offerings; its subject matter is still being defined and varies greatly
(cf. Fantini and Smith 1997).
The exchange of training ideas through occasional meetings of Peace
Corps staff from around the country led to the creation of the premiere
intercultural society, the Society for Intercultural Education, Training,
and Research (SIETAR International), eventually spawning 35 local
groups around the world (cf. Wight et al. 1999:11–16). What failed to
happen (and persists to this day) was the integration of theory and prac-
tices of both intercultural professionals and language educators, despite
our common goal of developing ICC.
In general, intercultural educators and trainers leave language con-
cerns to colleagues in the language field. This separation is evident
throughout most published materials, in intercultural educational pro-
grams and training models, and reflected in the tools used for assessment
(Fantini and Smith 1997). It is also reflected in the professional societies
that represent interculturalists (such as SIETAR) and those for language
educators (such as ACTFL and TESOL), which, unfortunately, have not
yet considered the wisdom of holding a joint conference.
Many interculturalists reflect this separate culture-language approach
in their publications, and one scholar, while eschewing L2 proficiency
in his work and models, described fluent L2 speakers who lack intercul-
tural depth as “fluent fools” (Bennett 1997:16–21). Admittedly, there are
individuals fluent in various languages, perhaps dilettantes intrigued by
linguistic systems, with little knowledge or interest in the cultures they
represent. Conversely, there are perhaps even more individuals with sig-
nificant intercultural experience who interact with other cultures with no
host language ability at all. Neither case represents the ideal, and neither
case is desirable. Rather, our common concern should be to promote
both culture and language abilities. It is reasonable to expect that inter-
cultural entry and acceptance will be facilitated and accelerated when
one both speaks the TL and understands the host culture, rather than
having competence in only one of these areas. This expectation, in fact, is
strongly substantiated in the findings of both research projects, discussed
in later chapters.
Although language educators commonly refer to cultural dimen-
sions of language, their focus has generally been on “big C” culture
(i.e., art, music, literature, history, etc.). Nonetheless, various scholars
stand out who have attempted to change this paradigm through their
works: Damen (1987), Kramsch (1993), Brown (1994), Phillips (1999),
Sheth et al. (2002), Byram et al. (2002), Bai (2006), Littlemore and Low
(2006), Spinthourakis et al. (2009), Kramsch (2014), Garrett-Rucks
(2016), and Drewelow (2017), among others. Graduate students in vari-
ous programs around the world are also beginning to draw attention
to the need to combine language and IC through research they have
conducted for their doctoral dissertations (cf. Almeida 2015; Lima and
Guimarães 2017). This situation is being remedied to an even greater
extent by the promulgation of ACTFL’s World-Readiness Standards
for Learning Languages that identify five areas (communication, cul-
tures, connections, comparisons, and communities) as the basis for
designing and implementing foreign language curricula (cf. www.actfl.
org/publications/all/world-readiness-standards-learning-languages ).
Interculturalists, conversely, despite their focus on cross-cultural inter-
actions, seldom refer to the specific language through which interaction
occurs. Given the role of language to communication, it seems short-
sighted to focus attention on interactions and ignore the language that
mediates those same transactions.
Separate approaches to the development of ICC are still quite com-
mon. The ubiquetousness of English worldwide may contribute to this
situation since English speakers can travel widely and still find persons
who speak their language. However, not all cross-cultural communica-
tion takes place in English. More typically, it transpires in one, two, or
several languages and monolinguals are excluded when communication
switches into other languages. Monolingual English speakers, indeed,
are dependent on the goodwill of others to talk with them in English.
The preparation of individuals for intercultural participation using mul-
tiple languages needs to be rethought. Expanded goals are needed that
include the ability of individuals to make themselves understood linguis-
tically as well as to gain acceptance behaviorally.
Expanded goals, of course, lead to reformulating how best to pre-
pare and assist individuals for the intercultural experience. New models
based on shared language-culture goals will help language and intercul-
tural educators focus on common areas, enhance positive redundancies,
and reinforce each other’s work. Where culture-specific orientation is
conducted, the TL must be included. Where culture-general orientation
is conducted, language learning techniques (and general communica-
tive strategies) can be introduced that promote active learning in field
situations. In either case, attention must be given to the host language.
And, in both disciplines, the common goal must support the develop-
ment of ICC.
The Role of Educators
For some, formal intercultural contact and processes often begin in for-
eign language classroom settings, although informal exposure may also
occur at home, given the diversity of society (especially for members of
ethnic minority groups). In the latter case, ethnic minorities often live
interculturally throughout their entire lives, given contrasts between
their home linguaculture and a dominant one outside. However, there
is little recognition of the intercultural nature of the experiences of eth-
nic minorities, nor of the development of their CC2 abilities through
constant contact with other members of the mainstream culture. In con-
trast, language-culture classrooms provide a formal arena where learn-
ing about another society occurs. The language classroom is a place
where contact with differentness is the subject matter and intercultural
comparison is the focus. Educational exchange programs provide fur-
ther opportunities for learners to explore other languages and cultures
in real situations. All are opportunities that point in the same direction,
working toward the same end goal. Hence, what is done vicariously in
the artificiality of a classroom can be enhanced by drawing on cultural
diversity that may exist in the institution by inviting diverse guests into
classrooms and by sending students out to investigate ethnic neighbor-
hoods and to research diversity in communities (cf. Fantini 1984).
Within academia, language educators are especially well positioned
to play a central role in developing intercultural abilities. For this to
happen, however, the role of language teachers needs to be reconceptual-
ized as linguaculture teachers. This is important also because as native
English speakers, we often view English as our biggest asset; however,
it is also our greatest liability. It is an asset because English is increas-
ingly the L2 of many people around the world, and they come to know
us through our language. Conversely, it is also a liability because we are
often less motivated to learn an L2 (and culture). We lack experience in
grappling with communication through another tongue and the atten-
dant humility and challenges it poses, and we are unaware of the joys
and insights derived when we succeed in communicating with others in
their language.
Language educators who prepare students for experiences abroad
normally understand the need to foster abilities and behaviors beyond
speaking the TL. Yet this same preparation is valuable for all students,
including those in domestic classrooms, whether or not they cross a bor-
der or travel across an ocean. Successful relationships, both within cul-
tures and across cultures, ultimately depend on the ability to deal with
racial, religious, ethnic, and cultural differences in positive ways—to
understand them, to appreciate them, and to respect them. Learning an
L2 and concomitant intercultural abilities together, promotes this possi-
bility in a powerful way. For this reason, the goals of learning an L2 and
of developing intercultural abilities must be clearly articulated as one and
the same goal—i.e., to enable our students to develop positive and mean-
ingful relationships within and across cultures. While we have natives of
other languages and cultures in mind, however, we must not overlook the
fact that these abilities are just as important for relationships at home—
with classmates, friends, and neighbors who may also represent diverse
backgrounds.
Academic study abroad experiences and educational exchange further
opportunities to build on what should begin in language-culture class-
rooms. Immersion experiences, in real contexts, ideally with a homestay
in a host family, and perhaps with a civic service project in the local com-
munity, all greatly advance the development of ICC. Peace Corps service
serves as an example of an opportunity that has displayed many of these
features over the past half century, creating one of the most important
educational experiences of a lifetime for many people, young and old (cf.
Wight et al. 1999).
Together, language-culture teachers, interculturalists, and providers of
educational exchange sojourns have a truly compelling and important
task to perform. This study acknowledges the worthiness of that task and
the research projects explained in the sections that follow elaborate on
the challenges and opportunities in working toward helping participants
become increasingly bilingual and bicultural.
Note
1. Adapted in part from Fantini in Jackson (2012:16, 263–78).
References
ACTFL. (1995) ACTFL National Foreign Language Standards (renamed World-
Readiness Standards for Learning Languages). Online. Available: www.actfl.
org/publications/all/world-readiness-standards-learning-languages (accessed
20 January 2018).
Almeida, J. (2015) Mobilidade Estudantil Europeia e Aprendizagem Intercultural
numa Universidade Portuguesa, Aveiro, Portugal: Universidade de Aveiro.
Anglin, J. (1970) The Growth of Word Meaning, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Baetens-Beardsmore, H. (1982) Bilingualism: Basic Principles, Clevedon,
England: Multilingual Matters.
Bai, R. (2006) “Foreign language teachers and intercultural competence: An
international investigation,” in Teachers College Record, 108(8):1589, New
York, NY.
Bennett, M.J. (1997) “How not to be a fluent fool,” in A.E. Fantini (ed.) New
Ways in Teaching Culture, Alexandria, VA: TESOL, pp. 16–21.
British Council (2013) The Future of the World’s Mobile Students to 2014.
Online. Available: http://ihe.britishcouncil.org/educationintelligence/future-
world-mobile-students 2024 (accessed 20 January 2018).
Brown, H.D. (1994) Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, 3rd edn.,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Byram, M., Gribkova, B., and Starkey, H. (2002) Developing the Intercultural
Dimension in Language Teaching: A Practical Introduction for Teachers,
Strasbourg, France: Language Policy Division, Council of Europe.
Carroll, J.B. (1956) Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benja-
min Lee Whorf, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Case, R.S. (1966) A Time Apart: An Experiment in International Living, Pitts-
burgh, PA: Dorrance Publishing Co., Inc.
Clapp, E.B. (1966) One Woman’s India: Experiment in Living, DeLand, FL:
Everett/Edwards, Inc.
Curtiss, S. (1977) Genie: A Psycholinguistic Study of a Modern-Day “Wild
Child,” New York, NY: Academic Press.
Damen, L. (1987) Culture Learning: The Fifth Dimension in the Language Class-
room, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Deardorff, D.K. and Arasaratnam-Smith, L.A. (2017) Intercultural Competence
in Higher Education: International Approaches, Assessment and Application,
London and New York, NY: Routledge.
Drewelow, I. (2017) “A socio-constructivist approach to developing intercul-
tural empathy,” in Issues in Language Program Direction: Social Pedagogies
and Entwining Language with the World, AAUSC (American Association
of University Supervisors, Coordinators, and Directors of Language Pro-
grams), Vol. 2017.
European Commission (2015) A Statistical Overview of the ERASMUS Pro-
gram in 2012–2013. Online. Available: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_
culture/repository/education/library/publications/erasmus-stat-2012–13_
en.pdf (accessed 20 January 2018).
Fantini, A.E. (1984) Beyond the Language Classroom: A Guide for Teachers,
Brattleboro, VT: The Experiment Press.
——— (1985) Language Acquisition of a Bilingual Child: A Sociolinguistic Per-
spective, Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
——— (ed.) (1995) Special issue: “Language, culture and world view,” in Inter-
national Journal of Intercultural Relations, 19(2).
——— (ed.) (2002) Study Abroad: Student Essays and Research Papers, 3rd
edn., Brattleboro, VT: School for International Training.
——— (2007) “Exploring bilingualism: Its development, use, and effects,” in
U.D. Scheu Lottgen and J. Saura Sánchez (eds.) Discourse and International
Relations, Berne: Peter Lang, pp. 263–77.
——— (2012) “Language: An essential component of ICC,” in J. Jackson (ed.)
The Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural Communication,
London and New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 263–78.
Fantini, A.E. and Smith, E.M. (1997) “A survey of intercultural communication
courses,” in D. Landis (ed.) International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
21(1):125–45.
Fantini, A.E., Todd, I., Almeida, J., and Figuereido, C. (2015) Exploring Intercul-
tural Communicative Competence: A Multinational Perspective, Brattleboro,
VT: Federation of the Experiment in International Living, Unpublished report,
p. 235.
Gardner, R.C. and Lambert, W.E. (1972) Attitudes and Motivation in Second
Language Learning, Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.
Garrett-Rucks, P. (2016) Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language
Learning: Bridging Theory and Practice, Charlotte, NC: Information Age
Publishing.
Hall, E.T. (1973) The Silent Language, Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co.
Institute of International Education (2016) Open Doors Report on Interna-
tional Educational Exchange. Online. Available: www.iie.org/Research-and-
Publications/Open-Doors/Data/US-Study-Abroad#.WLSUoTt97D4 (accessed
20 January 2018).
Kelly, L.G. (1969) 25 Centuries of Language Teaching, Rowley, MA: Newbury
House Publishers.
Kramsch, C. (1993) Context and Culture in Language Teaching, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
——— (2014) “Teaching foreign languages in an era of globalization: Introduc-
tion,” in The Modern Language Journal, 98(1).
Krashen, S.D. (1988) Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learn-
ing, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall International.
Lane, H. (1976) The Wild Boy of Aveyron, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Lima, R.R. and Guimarães, J.E. (2017) Competência Intercultural e o Ensino de
Inglês Língua Estrangeira: Uma Experiência na Educação Básica, Pará, Belem:
Universidade do Estado do Pará, Unpublished PhD dissertation.
Liskin-Gasparro, J.E. (1982) ETS Oral Proficiency Testing Manual, Princeton,
NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Littlemore, J. and Low, G. (2006) “Metaphoric competence, second language learn-
ing, and communicative language ability,” in Applied Linguistics, 27(2):268,
London.
MacNeil, R. and Cran, W. (2005) Do You Speak American? New York, NY: Nan
A. Talese.
Masson, J. and Feuerbach, P.J. (1997) The Wild Child: The Unsolved Mystery of
Kaspar Hauser, New York, NY: Free Press Paperbacks.
Phillips, J.K. (1999) Foreign Language Standards: Linking Research, Theories,
and Practices, Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Co.
Pinker, S. (1994) The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language, New
York, NY: William Morrow and Co.
Sheth, A., Southard, S., and Bates, C. (2002) “Promoting intercultural commu-
nicative competence through foreign language courses,” in Technical Commu-
nication, 52(1):105.
Singh, J.A.L. and Zingg, R.M. (1966) Wolf-Children and Feral Man, Hamden,
CT: Archon Books.
Smith, S.H. and Paracka, D.J. (2018) “Global learning is shared learning: Inter-
disciplinary intercultural competence at a comprehensive regional university,”
in International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 63:17–26, Elsevier, Ltd.
Spinthourakis, J.A., Karatzia-Stavlioti, E., and Roussakis, Y. (2009) “Pre-service
teacher intercultural sensitivity assessment as a basis for addressing multicul-
turalism,” in Intercultural Education, 20(3):267–76.
Taylor, C. (2016) The Language Animal: The Full Shape of the Human Lin-
guistic Capacity, Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University
Press.
Todeva, E. and Cenoz, J. (2009) The Multiple Realities of Multilingualism, Berlin
and New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
Trivedi, A. (2003) The Experiment: A Way to Peace, New Delhi, India: The
Indian Association of The Experiment in International Living.
Ungar, S. (2016) “The study-abroad solution: How to open the American mind,”
in Foreign Affairs. Online. Available: www.foreignaffairs.com/authors/sanford-j-
ungar (accessed 20 January 2018).
Watt, D.B. (1967) Intelligence Is Not Enough, Putney, VT: The Experiment
Press.
——— (1977) Letters to the Founder, Brattleboro, VT: The Experiment Press.
Wight, A.J., Wasilewski, J., Arzac, A., and Jones, D. (1999) “SIETAR’s past, pres-
ent, and future,” in A.E. Fantini (ed.) The SIETAR Journal, 1(1):11–16.
2 Reconceptualizing Intercultural
Communicative Competence
2.1 Overview
This chapter explores the concept of intercultural communicative com-
petence (ICC) based on a synthesis of an extensive search of the intercul-
tural literature in various languages and spanning more than 50 years.
It harks back to an early notion of “communicative competence” (CC)
well known within the field of language education, which expands the
notion of language beyond grammar and vocabulary to include paralin-
guistic, extralinguistic, and sociolinguistic dimensions, and focuses on
interactional behaviors appropriate to the target culture. CC serves as the
fundamental concept to keep in mind when dealing with a second CC,
and, despite nearly 50 terms used in the literature, “intercultural” CC
emerges as the most comprehensive description of the abilities needed to
perform appropriately and effectively in a new culture. Having defined
ICC, its components are also identified from the literary search. These
include certain characteristics or attributes, three dimensions (relation-
ships, communication, and collaboration), four components (attitudes/
affect, skills, knowledge, and awareness), target or host language abil-
ity (a commonly omitted but essential component), and a developmen-
tal process over time. To promote ICC development, the evolution of
practices in the fields of language education and intercultural communi-
cation are traced from the 1960s to the present, ending with recommen-
dations to strengthen the interrelationship between both fields in order to
maximize ICC development in academic settings and during educational
exchanges.
2.2 About Communicative Competence

The previous chapter proposed new goals and expanded paradigms for
educational exchange—ones that promote the full development of inter-
cultural communicative competence (ICC). The development of new
paradigms, however, depends on clear, comprehensive, and consistent
notions of ICC. Yet a degree of inconsistency in intercultural constructs
and terms persists in the field. Interculturalists employ varying terms to
Reconceptualizing Intercultural Communicative Competence 29
identify the abilities needed for intercultural entry. In addition to using
varied terms, they commonly stress certain intercultural attributes while
ignoring others, resulting in assessment processes that also address vary-
ing and only partial components. Educational exchange programs, like
all intercultural interactions, provide rich opportunities to develop a full
range of competencies, and it would be less than useful to account for
only some of the many benefits of such an experience.
The intercultural literature is replete with examples of such incon-
sistencies and omissions. For this reason, a necessary preliminary step
before undertaking our research efforts was to review and reconceptual-
ize the notion of ICC to ensure that we investigated all aspects, includ-
ing language as a fundamental component. The discussion that follows
responds to these concerns before addressing the actual design and imple-
mentation of the research projects (described later)—first, by examining
CC, and then ICC and its multiple components, followed by creation of
an instrument to measure and monitor this complex phenomenon.
To understand “intercultural” communicative competence (ICC), we
return first to the notion of communicative competence (CC). The term
CC was well known among language educators some 50 years ago (and
advanced through other disciplines). CC proved to be an important notion
in the field of language education because it broadened traditional views
of the language field, expanding the subject matter to encompass more
than grammar structures and vocabulary. CC embraced all of the multiple
abilities required to perform as a competent and comprehensible member
within any language and cultural group.
Every individual, in every culture, develops CC; in other words, every-
one is competent in some CC system. Like language itself, we do not think
about this competence because we have been communicatively competent
for as long as we can remember. Moreover, like other aspects of our sym-
bol systems, CC develops through a process of enculturation, beginning
at birth. The process evolves so quickly that, by five, children are already
native members of their society; moreover, they can identify those who are
not. Even children with hearing or sight limitations develop alternative
CC systems. They communicate in comprehensible and intelligible ways.
In fact, they only become intelligible and acceptable members of society
because of their ability in its communication system. Assuming no mental
or physical limitations, we all master our LC1 system and, without realizing
it, our LC1 system masters us (a phenomenon referred to as “language-
culture unawareness”). In other words, we know of no alternative—that is,
until and unless we enter into an LC2.
Native communicative competence (or CC1), then, displays the pre-
cise combination of attributes that we also need to develop (in as far as
possible) to participate in any language-culture system. Subsequent com-
municative competencies (CC2, CC3, CC4, etc.) all require precisely the
same abilities that made us acceptable and intelligible within our initial
CC. In summary, one’s CC1 includes shared values and beliefs, language
30 Reconceptualizing Intercultural Communicative Competence
and communicative behaviors as appropriate by context, and a shared
semantic system. Clearly, this must be the same for meaningful participa-
tion in an LC2 (at least to some degree).
Given this understanding of CC, we turn to encounters with an LC2
sometime later in life. Whereas all children acquire the language and cul-
ture to which they are exposed (including dual languages and cultures
in bilingual settings), the same does not necessarily occur with adults
entering a new society. Despite ideal circumstances, developing a CC2,
CC3, or CC4 later in life is never quite the same as developing the CC1.
What is quite clear is that the processes (and the results) of developing
a subsequent CC later in life, especially beyond puberty, are increasingly
different for a host of reasons. Psycholinguists, in fact, have contrib-
uted numerous studies that identify differences and similarities between
sequential development of CCs, as well as differences and similarities
when developing two or more systems simultaneously in infancy (as in
the case of bilingual and multilingual children). Various factors such as
social, psychological, and biological are some of the aspects that come
into play (cf. Saporta and Bastian 1961).
The greatest impediment to entering a CC2 later in life, however, is
the fact that one already possesses a well-established CC system. One’s
native CC exists and persists. One’s native CC simply cannot be set aside
or ignored. It has served as the sole lens through which one has viewed
the world, conceptualized, expressed, interacted, and behaved up to the
moment of contact with the CC2, and its influence is total. It is how we
operate in the world.
Nevertheless, developing a new CC in another language-culture, to
whatever degree and in whatever manner, constitutes “intercultural”
contact and an “intercultural” process ensues. Contrasts between the two
language-cultures come into play during periods of contact and interac-
tion. One views and interprets the new CC through the only lens one cur-
rently has; one judges, hypothesizes, and configures in one’s most natural
way. Developing a second, new, and different lens is therefore appropriately
termed “ICC” because one’s CC1 and CC2 both demand our attention in
several areas—through intercultural interaction, communicative behaviors,
and cultural competencies. We might envision it as shown in Figure 2.1.
Communicative competence1 Communicative competence2

Intercultural communicative competence
Figure 2.1 Interaction of CC1 and CC2
Note that the addition of CC2 to CC1 is interactive (indicated by the

arrow pointing in both directions)—i.e., development of a CC2 often
has an impact on and affects one’s CC1. One’s CC1 does not remain
unaltered but is commonly affected, revised, and transformed as a result
of contact with another system. An additional aspect of interest is that
CC2 development enables another possibility: the ability to compare and
contrast the two languages, two cultures, and two views of the world
involved. Finally, it is normally the case that no matter how proficient
one becomes in a CC2, that new ability is seldom on par with one’s native
competence, even when it might exceed one’s native ability in certain
areas (given one’s interests and experiences in specific areas of endeavor).
In any case, intercultural contact (in positive contexts) opens the pos-
sibility of entering a new and different language-culture. This experience
is enriching because possession of a LC2 allows one not only to know
more but also to know differently. However, there is more: the LC2 per-
mits interacting with representatives of another worldview; it expands
options and choices (each of which bears consequences), and it affects
one’s original perspective of the world. A popular proverb captures this
thought: “If you want to know about water, don’t ask a goldfish.” Like
the goldfish, we are often unaware of our own medium—that is, until we
have left our own medium behind.
2.3 Toward a Concept of Intercultural Communicative Competence

Whereas communicative competence is a well-known concept and
widely understood (especially within the field of language education),
“intercultural”communicative competence is not, despite many attempts
to address and define it: Martin (1989), Samovar and Porter (1991),
Lusting and Koester (1993), Wiseman and Koester (1993), Byram (1997),
Martin and Nakayama (2000), Alpetkin (2002), Deardorff (2004), and
Humphrey (2007), among others.
An abundance of published literature on the topic reveals a wide range
of terms in use, not always meaning the same thing. In addition, a recent
study (cf. Edelstein 2014) that reviewed research on study abroad out-
comes concluded that there is no clear, measurable consensus regarding
the abilities needed to be “globally competent” and what study abroad
experiences should be teaching students in order to produce “intercultur-
ally competent” graduates. Several subsequent surveys echo this observa-
tion, including one that reviewed 1,204 citations based on an extensive
electronic search of databases (cf. Alizadeh and Chavan 2015). This sur-
vey, moreover, confirmed a lack of empirical studies to substantiate the
benefits of intercultural competence (IC) as described in most works. It
should be noted, however, that the electronic survey was conducted solely
in English. This is beginning to change, however, as the search continues
among younger graduate students pursuing the task in other parts of the
world, including a recent attempt by Malaysian scholars who proposed a
model of ICC for their own context (cf. Nadeem et al. 2017).
Although Bennett (2015:xxiii) reports that “there appears to be an
emerging consensus around what constitutes intercultural competence,
most often viewed as a set of cognitive, affective, and behavioral skills
and characteristics,” certain other inconsistencies cannot be easily dis-
missed. Evidence continues to reveal a lack of consistency not only about
what IC should be termed but also about the attributes it encompasses.
For this reason, before undertaking the two research projects on which
this work is based, we felt compelled to conduct an extensive review of
the literature as a preliminary step—a review, however, conducted in mul-
tiple languages and spanning 50 years. RAs in multiple countries assisted
in the literary search in an attempt to ascertain areas of convergence and
divergence regarding ICC. The compilation produced a surprising array
of terms—to wit, biculturalism, cross-cultural adaptation, cross-cultural
awareness, cross-cultural communication, cultural competence, cultural
or intercultural sensitivity, effective intergroup communication, ethnorel-
ativity, global competence, global competitive intelligence, global minded-
ness, global mind-set, intercultural competence, intercultural cooperation,
intercultural effectiveness, intercultural interaction, international commu-
nication, international competence, metaphoric competence, multicultur-
alism, plurilingualism, and transcultural communication, among others.
And this is only a partial list.
Most terms allude to incomplete aspects of a more complex phenom-
enon. Some terms stress global knowledge, others sensitivity, and still
others highlight certain skills. Our long involvement with exchange pro-
grams and the field of IC suggested that most terms, definitions, and
models in use inadequately encompass all that occurs when individuals
engage in intercultural contact. Lacking a single unifying concept, it is
also not surprising, therefore, that a myriad of different assessment instru-
ments exists to measure intercultural outcomes (we collected 140 and
found still others are under development) (cf. Fantini et al. 2015:247).
Assessment instruments, of course, are only as good as the concepts on
which they are based and the components they attempt to measure.
Among these terms, the board of directors of ACTFL endorsed and
promoted “global competence” in 2014. Consequently, global compe-
tence is in wide use today, especially among foreign language educators
in the U.S. The term, however, posits an unlikely goal—one impossible
to attain given that no individual can become “globally” competent.
Whereas one may develop competence in a second, third, or several
language-cultures, no one can develop competence in all. Competence
in another language-culture, of course, may facilitate and accelerate the
learning of still others, but it is impossible to develop competence on a
global scale. Perhaps a nation may aspire to global competence as a col-
lective among its citizens, but global competence is not achievable by a
single individual. And, despite its use as a superordinate term in several
published articles, those same articles employing this phrase frequently
interchange it with “IC” throughout the text as though both terms were
equivalent.
Among the many other terms cited in the literature, the most com-
monly used label is “intercultural competence” (IC). Yet, based on our
search (and the discussion earlier regarding CC), a more descriptive
and complete term appears to be “intercultural communicative com-
petence” (ICC). Furthermore, since the field is commonly known as
“intercultural communication”” or “cross-cultural communication,”
why would the ability we speak of not be termed competence in IC, or
“intercultural communicative + competence?” Again, the emphasis is on
communication—speaking, behaving, and interacting. Although longer
and perhaps more cumbersome, this latter term ensures that the focus is
on communication (i.e., language), indispensable and fundamental to a
complete concept of ICC.
In the end, the varied terms and the concepts they reflect, orient and
affect the work of researchers and educators with regard to their objec-
tives, lesson plans and program designs, and approaches to assessment.
The lack of consensus leads to a diversity of approaches, from start to
finish. Consensus regarding ICC and its components will help to for-
mulate clearer educational objectives and expectations, as well as aid
in designing and implementing better training efforts to develop ICC
in participants. A comprehensive notion is also necessary to determine
what and how to monitor and measure what is at the heart of our con-
cern: the development of interculturally and communicatively competent
individuals.
Finding the most appropriate label, formulating a proper definition,
and identifying the constituent components that comprise ICC presented
the most basic challenge preceding implementation of the actual research
projects themselves. This preliminary work was essential for the design,
plan, and implementation of both research efforts. It also formed the
basis for compiling the assessment instrument used to measure and moni-
tor the outcomes of those who underwent intercultural sojourns. After
completing the literary search, we compared findings with the ideas we
held, informed by our academic and empirical work in the field over
many years (cf. Fantini 2000; Fantini et al. 2001). This approach resulted
in a construct that we felt was holistic and comprehensive compared to
others reported in the literature to date. This construct, in turn, provided
the basis for creating the Assessment of Intercultural Competence (AIC)
and Assessment of Intercultural Communicative Competence (AICC)
Survey Forms employed in the first and second study, respectively (cf.
Appendix A: AIC Form and Appendix B: AICC Form).
Having concluded the term ICC to be the most appropriate designa-
tion, our search then focused on the question, what exactly is ICC? What
are its components? To this end, we reviewed well-known models and
found that many were developed by individual scholars with a few based
on limited surveys involving other interculturalists. With few exceptions,
most represented ideas based on work conducted within a single language
(mostly English) and within a single culture (often North American) (e.g.,
Bennett’s model 1993; Byram et al.’s model 2001; Deardorff’s model
2008, among others).
To ensure a more inclusive and comprehensive perspective, our
Research Assistants (RAs) helped in reviewing the intercultural litera-
ture of scholars over the past half century, in multiple languages, and
in multiple countries. The international team identified those ICC com-
ponents most consistently cited in the literature as the basis for con-
structing the multiple components used in our model. This expanded
model provided the objectives, the guidelines for achieving them, and
the criteria on which to measure and monitor the outcomes. The result
is a multinational perspective that undergirded our research efforts, a
concept of ICC, briefly defined as “a complex of abilities needed to
perform effectively and appropriately when interacting with others who
are linguistically and culturally different from oneself” (Fantini and
Tirmizi 2006:12). The terms “effective” and “appropriate” are both
equally important in this definition (and are now widely used) because
they acknowledge that input is needed from two perspectives—that of
self and that of other. Early on in our work with the U.S. Peace Corps,
trainers spoke mostly of “effective.” During Peace Corps training pro-
grams, for example, the phrase used was to prepare volunteers for
“effective functioning overseas.” Much later, and largely thanks to the
work of sociolinguists, the concept of appropriateness became clearly
acknowledged—appropriateness of speech and behaviors as determined
by context and situation within a given language-culture. As a result,
both terms (“effective” and “appropriate”) became extremely impor-
tant, bolstered by another concept: that of “etic” and “emic,” in which
etic refers to one’s own view of the context and situation (i.e., an outsid-
er’s view of the target linguaculture). Conversely, emic refers to the view
of context and situation as seen by members of the target linguaculture
(an insider’s view).
A sojourner’s etic view in a new linguaculture is highly influenced and
affected by his or her own native CC. Naturally, the views of sojourn-
ers and hosts often differ. Hence the task of trainers and educators is to
help sojourners understand this variance and to help them to develop an
understanding of the emic view of the culture (that is, a native’s view).
While this requires time and perseverance, an emic view is ultimately
the view of a culture that natives themselves hold of the world. In addi-
tion, approaching an emic viewpoint also affects and reduces problems
of self-report (when sojourners perform self-assessments), acknowledg-
ing the distinctive views held by both sojourners and hosts regarding
outcomes. Whereas perceptions may differ, it is instructive to under-
stand etic-emic contrasts and to compare and account for them precisely
because they arise from differing cultural perspectives of the same situa-
tion. In this, we are reminded of a statement by Plato who said, “If there
is not contradictory impression, there is nothing to awaken reflection”
(Heifetz 1994:6).
2.4 Components of Intercultural Communicative Competence
A definition of ICC, of course, requires further elaboration for opera-
tional use. Whereas ICC is the superordinate term, it has multiple sub-
components. For this reason, the literary search also sought to identify
precisely the components and aspects that comprise it. The following
components emerged consistently from the survey: (1) various charac-
teristics or attributes, (2) three areas or domains, (3) four dimensions,
(4) host language proficiency, and (5) degrees of attainment that evolve
through a longitudinal and developmental process. These components
and aspects are illustrated in Figure 2.2.
Figure 2.2 Components and Aspects of ICC
Following is an elaboration of each component:
1) Characteristics—Common ICC characteristics cited in the literature

include the following attributes: flexibility, humor, patience, open-
ness, interest, curiosity, empathy, tolerance for ambiguity, and sus-
pending judgments, among others. While participants in the research
projects echoed all of these same characteristics in their responses,
they also added several more to this list (cited in the research reports
that follow).
It is useful to distinguish acquired characteristics (related to one’s
cultural and situational context) from traits (i.e., innate personal
qualities)—a sort of nurture versus nature distinction. This distinc-
tion may be helpful for educational and training programs because it
poses the question: Which aspects form part of an individual’s intrin-
sic personality and which can be developed or modified through
training and educational efforts?
2) Three areas or domains—The survey also identified three areas or
domains: the ability to establish and maintain relationships, the ability
to communicate with minimal loss or distortion, and the ability to col-
laborate in order to accomplish something of mutual interest or need.
Not surprisingly, these are relevant to success within one’s native LC1
as well.
3) Four dimensions—Whereas IC models commonly identify only three
dimensions, the literature survey revealed four dimensions as impor-
tant: (positive) attitudes/affect, skills, knowledge, and awareness. Of
these, awareness, however, appears to be central to the other dimen-
sions (and therefore placed at the center in Figure 2.3), and it is espe-
cially critical to cross-cultural development. Awareness is furthered
through developments in positive attitudes, skills, and knowledge,
while it in turn also enhances and furthers their development.
Figure 2.3 The Four Dimensions of ICC
Awareness is increased through reflection and introspection in which

the LC1 and LC2 are compared and contrasted—a process that occurs
quite naturally during intercultural encounters but is also enhanced
through discussion and interventions. Awareness differs from knowl-
edge. Knowledge can be forgotten, but once one is aware, it is difficult
to become unaware. In addition, awareness is always about the “self”
vis-à-vis everything else in the world (other things, other people, other
thoughts, etc.) and ultimately helps to clarify what is deepest and most
relevant in one’s identity. Awareness involves exploring, experiment-
ing, and experiencing (the subtitle of a book by Stevens 1971). It is
pivotal to cross-cultural entry and to acceptance by members of other
cultures (and for this reason, it deserves a clear role in orientation
models and procedures). The well-known Brazilian educator, Paulo
Freire (1970, 1973, 1998), placed awareness or conscientização at the
center of his approach to education, reinforcing this notion with sev-
eral important observations:
• conscientização is awareness of selfhood
• conscientização is a critical look at the self in a social situation
• it can produce a transformation of the self and of one’s relation
to others
• it can lead to dealing critically and creatively with reality (and
fantasy)
• it is the important task of education.
4) Target language proficiency—Ability to communicate in the TL
enhances ICC development in quantitative and qualitative ways.
This is firmly substantiated by the findings of both international
research projects. After assessing host language proficiency levels
attained by sojourners, many respondents gave testimony about how
their increasing levels of proficiency positively affected their inter-
cultural adjustments. Here are a few quotes made by respondents
(more detail provided in later chapters dealing with the research):
[Learning the host language affects ICC development/language was
vital to overall intercultural success/it would have been impossible to
perform duties without it/it opened a new world of opportunities and
experiences/things changed as I gained proficiency in the language/
language was key to everything, to communicating, and to under-
standing the culture].
Sojourners also provided eloquent and insightful written narra-
tives attesting to the importance of host language ability, and this
came from individuals who were initially monolingual and unsophis-
ticated with foreign languages. Their insights were derived not from
linguistic study but from their own field experiences. They wrote not
only of the importance of host language ability but also of the limita-
tions imposed without it.
In summary, it is clear that increased host language proficiency
enhances entry possibilities, whereas lack of proficiency constrains
entry adaptations and understanding of the host culture. Grappling
with another language also fosters development of alternative com-
munication strategies, diverse discourse styles, and on someone else’s
terms, a humbling and challenging process. Lack of an L2, even at a
minimal level, constrains one to continue to think about the world
and act within it entirely in one’s native system, depriving the indi-
vidual of one of the most valuable aspects of intercultural learning.
5) Levels of attainment—ICC is a gradual process that develops over
time, occasionally with moments of stagnation and even regression.
Much depends on the strength of one’s motivation (instrumental or
integrative) and attitudes regarding the host culture. Establishing
benchmarks (rubrics) can help to monitor and measure progress in
this journey. Here are some examples of gross levels:
• Level I: Educational traveler—participants in short-term exchange
programs (1–2 months)
• Level II: Sojourner—participants engaged in extended cultural
immersion—e.g., internships of longer duration (3–9 months)
• Level III: Professional—individuals working in intercultural or
multicultural contexts—e.g., faculty and staff employed in inter-
national institutions or organizations
• Level IV: Intercultural/multicultural specialist—trainers or edu-
cators engaged in training, educating, consulting, or advising
international students.
In summary, this definition of ICC and its components is based on
a compilation culled from over 200 publications, in several languages,
spanning half a century—a multinational perspective. As a result, our
research team believed it to be a more comprehensive construct than
existing models to use in the two research projects that followed. These
research projects, in turn, were also designed to test empirically the
validity of this construct and substantiate whether these components
were indeed borne out in actual field situations by exchange partici-
pants from eight countries having sojourns in more than 40 other coun-
tries. Additional multinational studies conducted in the future may
add further detail to this model. In the end, a construct of ICC will
benefit from the contributions of many, and from many perspectives,
based on different types of sojourners and in varied cultural immersion
situations.
2.5 Trends in Language Education and Intercultural Communication

Language education has made enormous strides over the past half
century. Breaking tradition with a centuries-old, grammar-translation
approach, the Audio-Lingual Method shifted the focus in the 1960s
from earlier teaching practices that emphasized memorization, gram-
mar, and translation to newer principles founded on behaviorism. Other
ideas quickly ensued, leading to a succession of innovative methods—
from Audio-Lingual to the Direct Method, Silent Way, Community
Language Learning (CLL), Situational Reinforcement, Suggestopedia,
Total Physical Response (TPR), and Notional-Functional Syllabus,
among others. Although each new method experienced varying
degrees of success, most educators today have moved beyond a single
“method” as attention shifted from pedagogy (or teaching) to acquisi-
tion and learning—i.e., how individuals develop languages, differences
in learning styles and strategies, and, eventually, to the crux of the
matter—to communicating.
Today, communicative and competency-based approaches are wide-
spread, stressing language proficiency and developing the learner’s abil-
ity to perform specific tasks or functions in the LC2, such as greeting,
asking/giving autobiographical information, asking/giving directions,
requesting, commanding, negotiating, apologizing, etc. Although this
shift represents an important step toward communicating in a second
tongue, many language educators still focus heavily on linguistic aspects
of communicating and neglect concomitant interactive and behavioral
dimensions required to communicate appropriately. There are, however,
hopeful signs of change. An issue of the Foreign Language Annals (2010),
for example, featured several articles that promote language awareness,
social interaction, and pragmatic development—all steps in the right
direction.
ACTFL, the professional society of language educators, also promoted
another important step forward in 1996 when it convened a group of
professionals to develop National Foreign Language Standards for lan-
guage teachers. These standards, later renamed the World-Readiness
Standards, are configured as interlocking circles depicting five goal areas
for developing language curricula, as shown in Figure 2.4.
Figure 2.4 World-Readiness Standards: Five Goal Areas

To help implement these standards in the design of curriculum, one
model is the Process Approach (PA) Framework, which posits cycles of
seven stages in developing lesson units: from presentation of new material
to practice, grammar exploration, transposition or use, sociolinguistic
exploration, culture exploration, and, finally, intercultural exploration
(Fantini 1997:40–4). Use of this framework ensures that teachers address
language, interactions, behaviors, cultural aspects, and cultural compari-
sons in each lesson before beginning the next cycle.
That said, implementation of a communicative approach is spotty,
and its use varies from institution to institution and country to country.
Although many countries have made a serious commitment to integrate
foreign languages into their curriculum, the quality of language teaching
varies dramatically. In recent years, for example, Chile, China, and Korea
mandated study of English as part of public education. Although Japan
has done likewise, its instructional approach is mainly ineffective at pres-
ent, as teachers are inadequately prepared, speak mostly in Japanese, and
focus primarily on grammar. This attempt contrasts with the European
Union’s policy designed to make all students minimally trilingual by high
school graduation by initiating L2 study in the early years and adding a
third language a few years later.
In many cases, however, language is often taught without adequate
cultural context, although attempts at change are occurring. Several edu-
cators have helped to redefine the role of the foreign language teacher.
In Europe, an article by Sercu (2006), for example, speaks of “the for-
eign language and IC teacher: the acquisition of a new professional iden-
tity.” Works by Byram et al. (2002), Sercu et al. (2005), and Usó-Juan
and Martínez-Flor (2006) address this same issue. In the US, ACTFL’s
adoption of the new standards explicitly incorporate context. These stan-
dards include a model labeled the “Three Ps” (products, practices, and
perspectives), which expands the teaching paradigm (based on a model
of artifacts, sociofacts, and mentifacts developed by Fantini and Fantini
1997:57–61).
ACTFL also produced an excellent series of videos featuring exem-
plary teachers in language classrooms across the US demonstrating com-
municative teaching activities situated in cultural contexts (cf. ACTFL
[2003] Foreign Language Video Series). These are signs of the language
field moving in a direction that begins to overlap and reinforce the efforts
of intercultural education and closer to an integrated model of ICC. The
increasing use of creative technology, such as telecollaboration, virtual
reality, and digital storytelling, add other resources toward this goal.
Concurrently, unease about the spread of languages of wide commu-
nication as instruments of imperialism (especially English, Spanish, and
French) seems to have diminished. This may be because minority lan-
guage speakers increasingly choose to learn these lingua francas. In many
cases, L2 ability (especially in “world” languages) is viewed as a sign of
prestige, opportunity, and modernity, affording advantages to bilingual
and multilingual speakers (cf. Graddol 2006). Another article, moreover,
points to the fact that there are now more French speakers in the world
outside of France than in France itself and that speaking French no longer
relates only to the culture of France (cf. Kimmelman 2010). Certainly,
the same must be true of English. Esperanto, an auxiliary language devel-
oped over 100 years ago (cf. Zamenhof 1887) and with an estimated
ten million speakers worldwide today, presents a contrasting scenario.
Artificially created, it pertains to no specific culture, yet its spread contin-
ues around the world for quite different reasons. In general, Esperantists
simply wish to get to know others from many cultures, rather than a
single or a specific culture, and they find that Esperanto makes this pos-
sible. Curiously, using a language that transcends all cultures makes most
Esperantists into another type of interculturalist. The Esperantic Studies
Foundation (cf. www.esperantic.org) provides information, conferences,
courses, and workshops on developments in the field of planned lan-
guages and interlinguistics.
As with language education, the intercultural field has also spread
around the world and changes continue to evolve in how it is concep-
tualized and practiced. Representing educators and trainers in the inter-
cultural field is the professional organization SIETAR, akin to TESOL,
ACTFL, and other professional societies. Through conferences and pub-
lications, local chapters of SIETAR provide venues and networks through
which interculturalists can share models, methods, and techniques for
preparing people to live, study, and work interculturally.
Today, IC courses are well established in many universities, especially
in North America and Europe, and many institutions offer degrees in
this field as well (cf. Fantini and Smith 1997:125–45). Courses and train-
ing programs are commonplace for students, business people, and pro-
fessionals preparing for overseas sojourns. Often, these programs are
offered concurrently with language courses. Cross-cultural orientation is
provided not only for predeparture but also during and upon return from
an overseas experience. Orientation efforts are both culture specific and
culture general, as the context requires; they are content and process ori-
ented and, typically, they employ interactive and participatory techniques
and significant experiential and field-based activities.
2.6 Summary and Conclusions

“How can I speak of the sea to the frog if it has never left its pond?” This
oft-quoted statement by Chung Tzu, a fourth-century BCE Chinese phi-
losopher, captures the significance of educational exchange. Intercultural
experiences are transformative, and they contribute significantly to
human development in general. Just as entry into one’s initial language-
culture paradigm is fundamental for every being to become human,
access to a second linguaculture can also be a powerful catalyst toward
opening up further possibilities and expanding on that original view of
the world. As one develops competence, these possibilities are further
enhanced. Essential to these competencies, however, is the development
of L2 proficiency. In Whorf’s words, “A change in language can trans-
form our appreciation of the Cosmos” (Carroll 1956:vii). Conversely,
ignorance of the host tongue seriously constrains participation, impedes
the ability to grasp alternative ways of being, and leaves one with mon-
ocular vision.
Developing ICC competencies, however, is not a simple task. Despite
modern language teaching approaches that stress communication, devel-
oping L2 proficiency requires time, effort, and constancy. Moreover, it is
not easy for most individuals to question, introspect, and reconfigure the
view that they hold of the world. For this reason, intercultural sojourns
are arguably one of the most provocative educational experiences imag-
inable, challenging the sojourner on every level. In addition, although
intercultural learning may occur without knowledge of the host lan-
guage (cf. Bennett 1997:16–21), it is qualitatively different and severely
impoverished by comparison. Without host language ability, one can-
not directly access the thoughts, the culture, and the worldview of their
hosts. One can only learn about these things vicariously and intellectu-
ally, but not experientially. L2 completes the whole and provides access,
fully and directly.
Developing intercultural competencies with language, then, facili-
tates full entrance into a new society. It allows participation and inter-
action in ways otherwise not possible. It extends relationships, evokes
new sentiments, weakens stereotypes, and crumbles prejudices. It
provokes new questions and stimulates reflection and introspection.
Moreover, it leads toward bilingualism-biculturalism. If an L2 serves as
a roadmap to another view of the world, then trilingualism is even bet-
ter. A third language (and still others) breaks down potentially polar-
ized views of the world common to bilinguals (e.g., Mexicans are like
this and Americans are like that) and promotes the understanding that
cultural aspects may also be shared by several groups instead of con-
trasting only two.
Moreover, intercultural experiences are multidimensional. Returnees
from a sojourn abroad often affirm its provocative and educational
nature with comments like “I learned a lot about my host culture but,
surprisingly, I learned even more about myself.” Such statements under-
score the two-way nature of intercultural contact—in learning about
others, we learn more about ourselves. In addition, in learning about
differences, we gain insights into our common humanity underlying the
many linguacultures around the globe. For all these reasons, intercul-
tural experiences are typically transformative and result in a profound
paradigm shift.
Paradigm shifts of this magnitude are difficult to imagine within a
monolingual, monocultural individual, shifts so deep that they produce
that “crack in the cosmic egg” that Pearce (1971) described over 40 years
ago, shifts that give new meaning to the challenge from Don Juan when
he admonished,
Who the hell do you think you are to say the world is so and so . . .
just because you think it is so and so? Who gave you the authority?
To believe that the world is only as you think, is stupid. The world is
a strange place . . . full of mystery and awe.
(Castaneda 1972:88)
To summarize, language is fundamental to participation in any society.

This is true in our initial cultural experience, and it is just as true in a sec-
ond cultural experience. L2 development must be understood as essential
to a full range of intercultural competencies. When considering the abili-
ties needed for effective and appropriate cross-cultural interactions, the
languages of both parties must form part of the core goal. When both are
not included, an imbalance results.
Monolinguals (especially those born to languages of wider commu-
nication) must recognize their language as both asset and liability. We
cannot allow our languages of influence and power to prevent us from
engaging in the dramatic experience that results when we attempt com-
munication through other systems. The process must be direct, experi-
enced (as well as “intellectual”), reflective, and introspective, and focus
on learning to be and to do in alternative ways. As a result, we will profit
maximally from the benefits of intercultural educational exchange—
experiences that are unequaled, that change our approach to the world,
and that enrich us for the rest of our lives.
References
ACTFL. (1996) ACTFL World-Readiness Standards. Online. Available: www.
actfl.org/sites/default/files/publications/standards/World-ReadinessStandards
forLearningLanguages.pdf (accessed 20 January 2018).
——— (2003) Teaching Foreign Languages K-12. A Library of Classroom Prac-
tices. ACTFL, FL Video Series. Online. Available: www.learner.org/resources/
series185.html (accessed 20 January 2018).
——— (2014) ACTFL Position Statement on Global Competence. Online. Avail-
able: www.actfl.org/news/press-releases/actfl-publishes-position-statement-
global-competence (accessed 20 January 2018).
Alizadeh, S. and Chavan, M. (2015) “Cultural competence dimensions and out-
comes: A systematic review of the literature,” in Health and Social Care in the
Community, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia: Wiley and Sons, Ltd.
Alpetkin, C. (2002) “Towards intercultural communicative competence,” in ELT
Journal, 56(1):57–64.
——— (Spring 2010) Foreign Language Annals, The American Council on the
Teaching of Foreign Languages, 43(1).
Bennett, J.M. (2015) The SAGE Encyclopedia of Intercultural Competence, Los
Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, p. xxiii.
Bennett, M.J. (1993) “Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of inter-
cultural sensitivity,” in R.M. Paige (ed.) Education for the Intercultural Experi-
ence, Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press, pp. 21–71.
——— (1997) “How not to be a fluent fool,” in A.E. Fantini (ed.) New Ways in
Teaching Culture, Alexandria, VA: TESOL, pp. 16–21.
Byram, M. (1997) Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Competence, Clevedon,
England: Multilingual Matters.
Byram, M., Nichols, A., and Stevens, D. (2001) Developing Intercultural Compe-
tence in Practice, Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Byram, M., Cribkova, B., and Starkey, H. (2002) Developing the Intercultural
Dimension in Language Teaching, Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Carroll, J.B. (1956) Language, Thought and Reality: Select Writings of Benjamin
Lee Whorf, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Castaneda, C. (1972) Journey to Ixtlán: The Lessons of Don Juan, New York,
NY: Simon and Schuster.
Deardorff, D.K. (2004) The Identification and Assessment of Intercultural Com-
petence as a Student Outcome of Internationalization at Universities of Higher
Education in the United States, Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University,
Unpublished dissertation.
——— (2008) “Intercultural competence: A definition, model, and implications
for education abroad,” in V. Savicki (ed.) Intercultural Competence and Trans-
formation: Theory, Research, and Application in International Education,
Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC, pp. 32–52.
Edelstein, R. (2014). “Globalization and student learning: A literature review
and call for greater conceptual rigor and cross-institutional studies,” in CSHE
Research and Occasional Paper Series, 14(6).
——— (2017) Esperantic Studies Foundation. Online. Available: www.esperantic.
org (accessed 20 January 2018).
Fantini, A.E. (ed.) (1997) “Developing intercultural competence: A process
approach framework,” in New Ways in Teaching Culture, Alexandria, VA:
TESOL, pp. 40–4.
Fantini, A.E. and Fantini, B. (1997) “Artifacts, sociofacts, mentifacts: A socio-
cultural framework,” in A.E. Fantini (ed.) New Ways in Teaching Culture,
Alexandria, VA: TESOL, pp. 57–9.
courses,” in The International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 21(1):125–45.
Fantini, A.E. (2000) “A central concern: Developing intercultural competence,”
in SIT Occasional Papers Series, Brattleboro, VT. Online. Available: www.sit.
edu/publications (accessed 20 January 2018).
Fantini, A.E., Arias-Galicia, F., and Guay, D. (2001) Globalization and 21st Cen-
tury Competencies, Working Paper No. 11, Boulder, CO: CONAHEC (Con-
sortium for North American Higher Education Collaboration.
Fantini, A.E. and Tirmizi, A. (2006) Exploring and Assessing Intercultural
Competence: Final Report, Brattleboro, VT: Federation of the Experiment in
International Living
Fantini, A.E., Todd, I., Almeida, J., and Figuereido, C. (2015) Exploring Inter-
cultural Communicative Competence: A Multinational Perspective: Final
Report, Brattleboro, VT: Federation of the Experiment in International Living,
pp. 247–54.
Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed, New York, NY: Continuum.
——— (1973) Education for Critical Consciousness, New York, NY: Continuum.
——— (1998) Teachers As Cultural Workers: Letters to Those Who Dare Teach,
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Graddol, D. (2006) English Next 2006, British Council. Online. Available: www.
britishcouncil.org/learning-research-englishnext (accessed 20 January 2018).
Heifetz, R.A. (1994) Leadership without Easy Answers, Cambridge, MA: The
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Humphrey, D. (2007) Intercultural Communication Competence: The State of
Knowledge, London: The National Centre for Languages.
Kimmelman, M. (2010) “Pardon My French,” in The New York Times, 21 April
2010.
Lusting, M.W. and Koester, J. (1993) Intercultural Competence, New York, NY:
Harper Collins.
Martin, J.N. (ed.) (1989) “Special issue on intercultural communication compe-
tence,” in International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13(3).
Martin, J.N. and Nakayama, T.K. (2000) Intercultural Communication in Con-
texts, 2nd edn., Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Co.
Nadeem, M.U., Mohammed, R., and Dalib, S. (2017) “A proposed model of
intercultural communication competence in the Malaysian context,” in Inter-
national Journal of Educational Research Review, 2(2).
Pearce, J.C. (1971) The Crack in the Cosmic Egg, New York, NY: Washington
Square Press.
Samovar, L.A. and Porter, R.E. (1991) Intercultural Communication: A Reader,
6th edn., Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.
Saporta, S. and Bastian, J.R. (1961) Psycholinguistics: A Book of Readings, New
York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Sercu, L., Bandura, E., Castro, P., Davcheva, L., Laskaridou, C., Lundgren, U.,
del Carmen, M., Méndez García, M., and Ryan, P. (2005) Foreign Language
Teachers and Intercultural Competence: An International Investigation, Clev-
edon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Sercu, L. (2006) “The foreign language and intercultural competence teacher:
The acquisition of a new identity,” in Intercultural Education, 17(1):55–72.
Stevens, J.O. (1971) Awareness: Exploring, Experimenting, and Experiencing,
Moah, UT: Real People Press.
Usó-Juan, E. and Martínez-Flor, A. (2006) Approaches to Language Teaching
and Learning: Towards Acquiring Communicative Competence through the
Four Skills, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Wiseman, R.I. and Koester, J. (eds.) (1993) Intercultural Communication Com-
petence, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Zamenhof, L.L. (1887) Unua Libro, Warsaw, Poland: Chaim Kelter.
3 Assessing Intercultural
Communicative Competence
3.1 Overview
A clear notion of intercultural communicative competence (ICC) and its
components is fundamental not only for the design and implementation
of educational exchange programs but also to ensure a comprehen-
sive approach to monitor and measure ICC development throughout
the exchange experience and beyond. Formative assessment processes
are examined in this chapter and distinguished from traditional eval-
uative tasks (or summative assessment), given that the former process
is oriented toward fomenting ongoing and continuing ICC development.
For this purpose, various modes of assessment are presented and discussed
(e.g., global, discrete, direct, and indirect), in addition to specific strate-
gies that reflect each mode. Analysis of existing assessment instruments
follows with presentations of select instruments to assess language profi-
ciency and assess ICC. Assessment and research challenges are discussed,
followed by suggestions for a comprehensive assessment approach that is
reflected in the assessment tools (the AIC and AICC survey forms) used
in the two research projects discussed in the next two chapters.
3.2 Aspects of Assessment

Evaluation and assessment are terms often used interchangeably; how-
ever, they also reflect differences in educational purposes and approaches.
Evaluation (or summative assessment) is based on prescriptive standards
and is generally used to judge the quality of performance to determine
whether specified expectations are met for purposes of selection, place-
ment, promotion, or assigning grades. An evaluative approach is typically
used mid term and at the end of a period of instruction to ascertain (and
often grade) what has been learned. Summative assessment evaluates stu-
dent learning by comparing it against the attainment of a set of objec-
tives. In contrast, formative assessment, based on an established set of
criteria, rubrics, or benchmarks, differs in that its purpose is to monitor
performance to ascertain student progress toward learning objectives in
Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence 47
order to provide feedback regarding their strengths and areas to develop
further. Both summative and formative assessments are integral to edu-
cational processes and both ascertain levels of attainment. However,
because formative assessment is oriented toward fostering development,
it is an ongoing process whereas summative assessment, oriented toward
making decisions, is commonly terminal.
In educational exchange programs (as well as in the research projects
presented in this work), the assessment approach was clearly formative
given the developmental nature of ICC; its purpose was to foster contin-
ual development of ICC in participants during their sojourn. In addition,
given our longitudinal research interests, formative assessment extended
well beyond programs to include alumni in order to learn about the effect
the experience had on their lives years later.
Given the goal of fomenting ICC development, assessment focused
on the attainment of several objectives: development of the various ICC
components. Whereas a goal may be likened to a vision (what one hopes
for), objectives are akin to a mission (what one works to achieve). Goals
are long term and prescribe future directions and are therefore unmea-
surable within a fixed timeframe; objectives, on the other hand, are
what participants strive to achieve within the context of the program.
Objectives are measurable and their attainment leads in the direction of
the desired goal. This is what formative assessment tries to determine.
In all educational processes, therefore, assessment reflects clear objec-
tives; these in turn orient the direction of both educational content and
process. In this sense, assessment may be likened to the “tail that wags
the dog.” Stated another way, assessment addresses the objectives—i.e.,
what is considered important. Assessment is about measuring and moni-
toring the process and outcomes of learning, often expressed as rubrics or
guidelines that articulate performance expectations and proficiency levels
(cf. Andrade 2000). Rubrics help educators measure and monitor student
progress in an ongoing way while also providing a common language
for educators and learners to exchange feedback about the process and
products of learning (cf. McGury et al. 2018).
In this study, the assessment “process” ascertained when, how, and
who was involved in the procedure and the purposes for which assess-
ment was conducted; the assessment “content” specified the develop-
ment of ICC components. For these reasons, the design of assessment
instruments and procedures must be rooted in a holistic concept of ICC,
formulated before the research began. This again stresses the need for
assessment tools that encapsulate how ICC is conceptualized. A holistic
conceptualization determines not only the design and implementation
of the educational program but also establishes precisely what to moni-
tor and measure. In summary, assessment tools and processes serve in
three important ways: (1) to reflect the program objectives, (2) to pro-
vide guidelines for the educational process, and (3) to establish standards
48 Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence
by which to measure outcomes. Since our research also investigated the
impact of sojourns on alumni up to a period of 20 years later, assess-
ment also provided a means of obtaining this additional post-program
information.
The “gemstone” model shown in Figure 3.1 illustrates how compo-
nents of educational programs are interrelated, from initial needs assess-
ment to performative assessment (Fantini 2000–2001:100–5). Whereas
most curriculum plans list parts sequentially, this model configures them
around a circle with intersecting lines to highlight the interconnectedness
of all parts. This model also emphasizes how assessment is linked not
only to goals and objectives but also to all of the other components of the
curriculum plan as well.
Figure 3.1 The Gemstone Model
In this design, the assessment approach is formative; assessment is

conducted not only at the middle or end of the educational process but
also considered from the very beginning along with all other compo-
nents. Commonly termed backward design, course or program goals
and objectives are identified from the onset in addition to identifying
strategies for assessing student progress toward these objectives before
creating the curriculum. One conducts the initial needs assessment
and clarifies the educational precepts on which a course or program is
based (e.g., whether inductive or deductive, teacher-centered or student-
centered, traditional or experiential), and one also establishes the goals
and objectives. The goals and objectives in turn determine the curriculum
design and syllabus, its implementation (i.e., the content and process of
each lesson unit or activity), the resources required, and the assessment
content and process. Included in this model is a long-term assessment
option, suggesting that departments or institutions might also conduct
post-course or post-program assessment to ascertain the effects of a pro-
gram cycle on participants at a later time. In the end, educational quality
depends on the degree to which all curriculum components cohere and
the degree to which they support and reinforce each other. Quality is fur-
ther enhanced—as with a precious gem placed into an appropriate ring
mount (hence the name of this model)—when all parts are appropriate
for both the learners and the context for which they are designed.
To summarize, planning a formative assessment process involves the
following considerations:
1) Determine the purpose and use of assessment

2) Ensure that assessment monitors and measures the attainment of
specified objectives
3) View assessment as an ongoing longitudinal process
4) Outline the assessment procedure (the when and how)
5) Ensure that assessment is multimodal and utilizes a variety of
strategies
6) Identify items and tasks to utilize in the assessment process
7) Analyze items and tasks used for assessment
8) Document, distribute, and report results to all relevant parties
9) Discuss strategies for further improvement with the learner
10) Use findings to modify and improve the curriculum design, as needed.
3.3 Assessment Modes and Strategies

As previously discussed, firmly establishing all ICC components provides
solid ground for the design and implementation of educational programs,
as well as to determine what to assess. Monitoring and measuring, in
turn, are linked directly with the ongoing educational process, as dis-
cussed earlier. Instead of “a tail that wags the dog,” formative assessment
is part of the entire educational design, from start to finish. Moreover,
given the complex nature of ICC, the assessment process is necessarily
multimodal, utilizing multiple strategies.
The assessment process, then, requires devising strategies that moni-
tor the development of all ICC components, not just some. It is imme-
diately apparent that assessment of all ICC aspects is not a simple task
and that assessing multiple components requires diverse strategies con-
ducted at various moments over time. Multiple assessment strategies,
used in combination, ensure a comprehensive approach that will produce
holistic results. Activities such as observations, conversations, inquiries,
reflective diaries and journals, performative tasks, written reports, and
others exemplify such strategies. Indeed, teachers, group leaders, and
participants employed many of these activities throughout the exchange
programs. In addition, given the geographical distance between alumni
and assessors in the two research projects involved in this work, surveys
and telephone conversations were primary tools for gathering additional
research data.
Figure 3.2 identifies four modes of assessment strategies: global, dis-
crete, direct, and indirect. Used individually or in combinations, mul-
timodal strategies provide a variety of assessment indicators. Global
mode strategies involve documenting general impressions regarding
learner motivation, attitude, engagement, appropriateness of interac-
tions, etc., based on performance criteria, whereas the discrete mode
involves strategies based on observations focused on specific performa-
tive acts (e.g., proper greetings and salutations, appropriate discourse
strategies, proper table manners, knowledge of certain facts, and so
forth). The direct mode encompasses strategies typically conducted
through tests or quizzes at a designated time (as in classroom situa-
tions), or by having the sojourner perform specific tasks upon request.
Participants are informed when assessment takes place, and they may
prepare in advance. Indirect assessment strategies, on the other hand,
involve procedures conducted in unstructured situations at any moment
(e.g., during discussions, simulations, roleplays, and field activities); par-
ticipants may or may not be aware that assessment is taking place. In all
cases, however, clearly established criteria guide the assessor’s tasks and
reduce subjectivity.
Figure 3.2 Quadrant of Multiple Assessment Modes
In addition to multiple assessment modes and strategies is the gen-

eration and analysis of quantitative and qualitative indicators, especially
for research purposes, commonly collected through surveys and inter-
views. Whereas quantitative indicators indicate frequency, consistency,
and number of times phenomena occur, qualitative indicators provide
rich descriptive comments, whether positive or negative. Together, these
indicators gather important complimentary information.
Modes and strategies may be purposefully combined; in other cases,
the choice of some strategies may automatically combine modes—for
example, a quiz is both direct and discrete, and performative assessment
during simulations is both global and indirect. In the end, what is impor-
tant is that the assessment process employs multiple modes and strategies
related to the assessment objectives to ensure accurate, complete, and
reliable results.
3.4 Assessment Types and Instruments

A survey of intercultural communication courses conducted in 50
American universities (Fantini 1997) and another survey of over 100
ICC assessment tools (Fantini et al. 2015:247–54) revealed that in many
cases, course goals and objectives were inadequately connected with
assessment types and instruments. The choice of external test instruments
at times further exacerbated this inconsistency. A disconnect may arise
from incomplete or partial views of ICC displayed in the external tool,
especially when the external instrument does not support the same goals
and objectives set forth by trainers and educators.
As stated at various points, lack of clarity about ICC components
makes their assessment especially challenging, often leaving practitioners
confused about what to assess, how to assess, and which assessment types
and tools to use. Several educators at a 2016 CERCLL conference held
in Tucson, Arizona, reported consternation when their use of external
assessment tools indicated that participants appeared to do less well at
the end of a sojourn than at the beginning. This is counterintuitive. One
explanation for this type of result may be that when self-reporting, par-
ticipants tend to rate themselves more critically (i.e., more realistically) at
the end, given increased awareness regarding their own intercultural abil-
ities (or lack of them). Indeed, the possibility of sojourners overestimat-
ing their performance at the beginning of the sojourn was also reported
in one doctoral dissertation focusing on student mobility and intercul-
tural learning (Almeida 2015:218), and in another study addressing the
difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence, resulting in inflated
self-assessments (cf. Krueger and Dunning 2009).
More recent developments in general assessment approaches and
in assessing intercultural competencies in particular now offer a wider
option of assessment types and instruments. In addition to including
learners in formative assessment processes (through self-evaluation,
reflection, feedback, and discussion), newer trends generate more var-
ied and better indicators of participant progress while also enriching the
learning process itself.
Reflective journals exemplify one such activity and are an excel-
lent device for formative assessment. Through journals, students dem-
onstrate their understanding of intercultural concepts, theories, and
practices, through connections they make with their own personal
experiences. Feedback to students on their journal reflections provides
individualized comments that can provide support and challenges to
each student’s needs.
Portfolios is another such activity, widely practiced, that directly
involves the learner, enhancing learning while improving the assessment
information obtained. To assemble a portfolio, the learner reviews his or
her experiences, collects and documents evidentiary materials, analyzes
and synthesizes what has been learned, selects salient aspects that dem-
onstrate achievements, and reflects on the significance of the materials
chosen. The entire process of constructing a portfolio reinforces learning
and provides another basis for formative assessment.
Digital storytelling projects are, according to the Digital Storytelling
Association, “the modern expression of the ancient art of storytelling.”
Over the years, storytelling has always been an important means for
sharing history, wisdom, and knowledge in a variety of forms. Using the
computer, learners are able to exchange tales at a distance. Digital story-
telling typically involves making a brief video that combines images and
narratives; however, the main purpose is to allow students to exchange
their own experiences with each other. This activity can be used for both
formative and summative assessments by being part of an ongoing learn-
ing process that allows feedback to the student and an evaluation of the
learning that has taken place.
Triangulation is another important assessment strategy that utilizes
multiple sources to arrive at a composite profile. In this approach, the
sojourner self-assesses his or her own performance, peers or colleagues
observe and assess each other, and a group leader (or teacher) does the
same. At least three persons are engaged in comparing, contrasting, and
discussing assessment perspectives, often referred to as 360-degree assess-
ment. Guidelines, of course, are required to assist this approach such as
the AIC or AICC Forms used in the research projects (cf. Appendix A and
B). Both forms are designed in a “YOGA” format; the acronym stands
for “Your Objectives, Guidelines, and Assessment.” In other words, the
criteria listed serve not only as the objectives of learning but also as guide-
lines for the learning process and as rubrics for assessment. When pos-
sible, assessment of sojourner performance by a host culture native adds
another valuable dimension, providing an emic perspective to purely etic
assessments. In all cases, however, it is the exchange of multiple perspec-
tives plus the discussion of future strategies that matters. The goal is to
further development by monitoring student learning and providing feed-
back, so students can continue to learn and grow.
In the end, formative assessment approaches are based on the
notion that becoming interculturally competent is an ongoing pro-
cess, one that involves measuring and monitoring the process periodi-
cally, providing feedback to the learners, and guiding them to develop
strategies that will further their development. New approaches are
constantly being developed and improved in universities around
the world as formative assessment gains ground in aiding learners
engaged in intercultural learning (cf. Deardorff 2015; Deardorff and
Arasaratnam-Smith 2017).
Assessing Language Proficiency1

As mentioned earlier, although an important and relevant component,
TL proficiency is often omitted from courses and programs designed to
develop ICC. Yet language is fundamental and integral to our reconcep-
tualization of ICC. Given this perspective, we review approaches that
assess the development of language proficiency here.
Given a communicative approach to language teaching (discussed ear-
lier), and the added possibility of field exposure, traditional language
testing is clearly unsuitable for evaluating language proficiency. Instead,
proficiency assessment is increasingly utilized in places such as the US,
the European Union, and Australia that developed systems to assess lan-
guage proficiency. All of these systems stress communicative ability and
employ several criteria for judging language development (e.g., compre-
hension, fluency, pronunciation, grammar control, and vocabulary), uti-
lizing scales that range from “no proficiency” to levels akin to that of a
“fluent or native speaker of the target language.”
As the examples that follow illustrate, most language assessment tools
utilize a variety of strategies—e.g., dialog with the participant in the TL,
questionnaires, portfolios, and so forth. During these activities, discrete
details such as incorrect verb forms are subsumed within the total com-
munication act, and they are important mostly for their effect on trans-
mitting the message. In other words, importance is given to the global
result—how well the learner communicates in the foreign tongue rather
than discrete linguistic features. Following are descriptions of five such
instruments:
1) ACTFL Proficiency Scale and Guidelines—This instrument measures

foreign language proficiency based on five levels, originally identified
by the U.S. Foreign Service Institute. The scale lists levels of com-
munication functions, range of vocabulary, degree of accuracy, and
conversational flexibility in four skill areas (comprehension, speak-
ing, reading, and writing). Descriptions of each level help to establish
learning goals, plan learning activities, and evaluate proficiency.
2) Assessment of Language Development (Fantini 2012a; cf. Appendix D:
ALD Form)—A questionnaire in a YOGA format, designed for
self-assessment and assessment of language development by peers and
teachers. This tool charts developing levels of language proficiency
over time, providing normative, formative, and summative indicators.
3) European Language Portfolio—This tool, developed by the Modern
Language Division, Council of Europe, was launched throughout
Europe in 2001. The instrument consists of a portfolio with three
components—a language passport, a language biography, and
a dossier—to describe proficiency levels required by existing stan-
dards, tests, and examinations, as well as to facilitate comparisons
among differing systems of qualifications throughout the European
Union (cf. also the Common European Framework).
4) International Second Language Proficiency Ratings (ISLPR)—This
instrument, renamed in 1997, was formerly known as the Australian
Second Language Proficiency Ratings (ASLPR). The instrument rates
L2 proficiency on a scale from zero to native-like, providing perfor-
mative descriptors expressed in terms of practical tasks. Developed
for English L2 teaching, it was adapted for English dialects in Aus-
tralia and for use with various other languages (cf. Wylie and Ingram
1995).
5) MAXSA (Maximizing Study Abroad) instruments—Three instru-
ments designed to assess strategies learners use for language acquisi-
tion, intercultural development, and language gain (cf. Cohen et al.).
The first two, known as the Language Strategy Use Inventory and
the Culture-Learning Strategies Inventory, were created for pre- and
post-study abroad. The third is the Speech Act Measure available in
English, Spanish, and French. The instruments can be used as inde-
pendent measures or within a broader study or program.
Instruments to Assess ICC

In addition to TL proficiency, clearly, all other ICC components also need
to be assessed. To reiterate, these components include characteristics (or
attributes), three areas (relationships, communication, and collabora-
tion), and four domains (knowledge, attitudes/affect, skills, and aware-
ness). Because they develop over time (hence the longitudinal dimension),
these aspects need to be assessed periodically. In addition, because most
components extend beyond cognitive areas (the usual focus of traditional
education), many of these abilities are inferred through observations of
performance, and through multiple modes and strategies in varying com-
binations. Several publications discuss approaches in detail:
1) Testing the Untestable—Can Intercultural Competence Be Tested?

(Mader 2009)—This presentation provides examples of good tests,
criteria, and tasks to evaluate the three areas cited earlier in addition
to several other areas.
2) Teaching and Testing Intercultural Competence (Camerer 2008)—
This presentation also discusses various aspects of ICC and strategies
for assessment.
3) Learning about Language Assessment (Bailey 1998)—This publica-
tion discusses dilemmas, decisions, and directions for assessing lan-
guage proficiency and provides abundant examples.
In addition, a wide range of assessment instruments permits combin-

ing teacher-devised assessment with external tools. The important thing
to remember is that ICC assessment needs to be multidimensional as well
as multiperspective, ongoing, and integrated. By “integrated,” what is
meant is that the external tool must be carefully chosen to align and
support the overall assessment effort. If the tool is not aligned, it may
distract and confuse more than it may help.
Instruments are available from a variety of sources—some in journal
publications, some are accessible online, and others are available com-
mercially. Commercially published instruments often require special-
ized training and/or are administrated only by specialized agencies or
organizations for a fee. When selecting an instrument, investigate exactly
what each instrument purports to measure and ensure that its purpose,
approach, and content are compatible with course or program objectives.
The following questions may help guide selection of an external instru-
ment (adapted in part from Deardorff 2004:203):
1) Is the external instrument compatible with your goals and objectives?

2) Does it contribute to the overall assessment plan?
3) Does it share compatible theoretical foundations?
4) Is it free of cultural bias to allow use with any ethnic or national
group?
5) What is the instrument’s validity and reliability?
6) Is it appropriate for the age and level of those being assessed?
7) What is required to administer the tool?
8) How will results be used (i.e., to inform the teaching/learning pro-
cess, for students, researchers, teachers, administrators, supervisors)?
Following are selected examples of 12 external instruments, followed

by brief descriptions of each. Upon comparison, varied ICC conceptual-
izations (and the components measured) represented in each instrument
become obvious. Some tools are predictive, whereas others are forma-
tive, normative, and/or summative. With the exception of the first instru-
ment cited, the remaining 11 assess ICC with no attention to language
proficiency:
1) AIC and AICC—These forms, designed in a YOGA format, measure

the attainment of ICC, including language proficiency (cf. Appen-
dixes A and B). They may be used for self-assessment and assessment
by peers, teachers, and host mentors. The tools monitor ICC devel-
opment of sojourners (and hosts) over time, providing normative,
formative, and summative indicators. The AIC Form is available in
American English, British English, Swiss German, and Spanish. The
AICC Form is available in American English, German, Japanese, and
Portuguese; the AICC Form for hosts is available in Irish English
(cf. Fantini 2015).
2) Behavioral Assessment Scale for Intercultural Communication
(BASIC)—This instrument provides indicators of cross-cultural
behavior and is used to explore cross-cultural equivalents of the Basic
Assessment Scale. Its eight scales are based on a study that identi-
fied significant skill profiles, validated with 263 university students
(cf. Olebe and Koester 1989).
3) Beliefs, Events, and Values Inventory (BEVI)—This tool is designed to
predict various developmental, affective, and attributional processes,
and outcomes that explain the processes by which beliefs, values, and
worldviews are acquired and maintained, why their alteration is typi-
cally resisted, and how and under what circumstances their modifi-
cation occurs. It is proposed for assessing international learning and
determines whether, how, and to what degree people are likely to be
open to international experiences (cf. Shealy 2010).
4) Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory—A culture-general instru-
ment designed to assess individual potential for cross-cultural
adaptability based on the assumption that individuals adapting to
other cultures share common feelings, perceptions, and experiences
regardless of their own cultural background or target culture char-
acteristics. The tool contains 50 items that result in an individual
profile with scores along four dimensions (cf. Kelley and Meyers
2010).
5) Cross-Cultural Assessor—Designed to improve one’s understanding
of self and others as well as to promote positive attitudes to cultural
difference. The tool also provides a personal navigator system that
allows individuals to conduct self-assessment to aid successful com-
munication across cultures through a program of exercises and ques-
tionnaires that measures, builds, and manages cross-cultural skills
and characteristics (cf. Lewis 1999).
6) Cultural Orientations Indicator®—A cross-cultural assessment tool
designed to help individuals to assess personal cultural preferences
and compare them with generalized profiles of other cultures. Cul-
tural profiles are based on ten dimensions especially relevant to doing
business in multicultural situations (See URL in Reference List).
7) Development Communication Index—A field instrument, designed
to assess the quality of communication and the accuracy of percep-
tion between Canadian advisors and their national counterparts
in development projects abroad. The index presents 30 scenarios
related to issues such as project progress and adaptation skills (cf.
Deardorff and Arasaratnam-Smith 1997).
8) Global Mindedness Scale—Pre- and post-surveys designed to deter-
mine how study abroad influences development of global minded-
ness among university students. The tool measures the effects of
study abroad, using five dimensions: cultural pluralism, responsibil-
ity, efficacy, globalcentrism, and interconnectedness (cf. Hett 1993).
9) Intercultural Competence Questionnaire—A brief questionnaire con-
taining a self-test of IC described as global literacy (cf. URL in Refer-
ence List).
10) Intercultural Development Inventory—An instrument containing
50 items designed to measure individual and group IC along a devel-
opmental continuum focusing on respondent orientation toward cul-
tural differences and readiness for intercultural training. The tool is
statistically reliable and available in 12 languages for use with people
from various cultural backgrounds. A qualifying seminar is required
to administer this instrument (cf. Hammer 2011).
11) Peterson Cultural Awareness Test and Peterson Cultural Style
Indicator—Two tools designed to measure cross-cultural effective-
ness and awareness of cultural differences. Both tools provide pre-
and post-indicators of intercultural learning before and after training
and help to promote global business success (cf. Peterson 1997).
12) Schwartz Value Survey—The tool assesses compatible cross-cultural
values orientation. Based on use with more than 60,000 individuals
in 64 nations, this tool explores the compatibility of a candidate’s
cultural orientation and the anticipated dominant cultural orienta-
tions of the region or country to which assigned. The tool also pro-
vides information about differences in value orientations within a
multicultural team and the effects on a team’s work (cf. Schwartz
1992).
3.5 Assessment and Research Challenges

Tracking ICC development is important not only during courses or pro-
grams preparing individuals for an overseas sojourn but also as a process
that occurs during the intercultural experience itself. Developing ICC
ensues over time as a longitudinal process, occasionally with moments
of stagnation or even regression, but hopefully with forward movement
over the long haul. It is also instructive to document the impact that an
intercultural sojourn exerts upon a person’s life at various points after the
program has ended. For this reason, impact studies that measure the out-
comes of these experiences on individuals sometime later, make important
contributions. One, five, ten, and even 20 years later, it is not uncommon
to hear individuals say, “That experience was the most important educa-
tional experience I have ever had. It changed my entire life.”
Indeed, educational impact studies have a long but sporadic history,
dating back to very early studies such as On the Uses of Foreign Travel
(Hurd 1764) and later, occasional doctoral dissertations such as The
Organization and Outcomes of A European Field Trip in Economics for
Twenty-three College Women (Wallace 1949). Others followed and the
number of impact studies is steadily increasing not only in the US but also
elsewhere as well: Barber (1983), Kealey (1990), Wallace (1999), Akande
and Slawson (2000), Masgoret et al. (2000), Comp (2003), Serban and
Friedlander (2004), Stronkhorst (2005), Bolen (2007), Almeida et al.
(2016), and Deardorff and Arasaratnam-Smith (2017). These studies
are instructive and the results useful in many ways. In the end, findings
obtained from orientation programs, sojourns abroad, as well as research
studies of impact and outcomes might eventually be compiled in an effort
to create a projection chart of norms or expectations similar to the lan-
guage projection chart illustrated earlier. Of course, it would seem easier
to establish norms based on hours and weeks of input in classroom situ-
ations than for developments that ensue in natural settings and field situ-
ations, given the host of variables that might affect each individual case.
It would also be interesting to ascertain which competencies commonly
emerge across cultural groups (universals), as well as which might be spe-
cific only to certain groups (particulars). In other words, in the research
project (described in the next chapter) involving British and Swiss vol-
unteers in Ecuador, are results comparable? Which competencies are
salient for both groups? And what differences emerge across groups? Is
the impact of the British upon their Ecuadorian hosts similar to that of
the Swiss? Did the multilingual Swiss have an easier adjustment than the
mostly monolingual British? There are early indications that similarities
do exist, but differences also emerge. This promises to be an interesting
area for future scholars as researchers investigate and expand upon more
and diverse combinations of sojourners in cross-cultural contact.
Finally, several other research challenges are worth adding or repeat-
ing (including some ideas from Van de Vijver and Leung 1997:413–15).
These are as follows:
1) The need for more widely shared definitions of crucial concepts

2) Further multinational contributions toward the conceptualization of ICC
3) Ensure that assessment plans align with objectives and vice versa
4) Develop an ongoing assessment plan that uses a multimethod, multi-
perspective approach to track the multiple ICC components, includ-
ing language
5) Select external test tools that demonstrate good psychometric prop-
erties (i.e., adequate internal consistency, generally considered to be
above a threshold of 0.70 or 0.80)
6) Choose instruments that are adequate from a cross-cultural perspec-
tive (in areas such as construct bias, method bias, and item bias)
7) Compile and analyze results obtained to use in modifying current
plans or future program designs
These areas are reminders of the challenges facing the assessment of inter-
cultural communicative competence and of research studies designed
to measure the impact on participants as a result of their experiences.
Challenges, yes, but not insurmountable.
3.6 A Comprehensive Approach

As illustrated earlier, numerous instruments exist in the intercultural
field to aid in assessing ICC. Many, however, assess only specific compo-
nents and most ignore the role of host language proficiency (cf. Fantini
2009:456–76). For this reason, to ensure that all ICC components were
addressed in the assessment process, including host language proficiency
development, our research projects required a comprehensive tool. The
tools used were the AIC (cf. Appendix A: AIC Form) and the AICC (cf.
Appendix B: AICC Form). These tools served multiple purposes: (1) to
establish the intercultural objectives, (2) to serve as guidelines for orien-
tation purposes, and (3) to assist assessment at various stages through-
out an ongoing and longitudinal process. In this sense, the assessment
approach was normative, formative, and summative. The tool was also
used for both sojourners and hosts (with slight adaptations), eliciting etic
and emic perspectives (where two-way assessment was used).
In summary, holistic ICC assessment requires the following:
1) A variety of modes and strategies that involve objective scoring

2) Oral and written activities (e.g., presentations, paraphrasing, essays,
journals)
3) Active and passive activities (e.g., experiential activities, reports,
problem-solving tasks)
4) Individual and interactive activities in pairs or small groups (e.g.,
discussions, debates, tasks, reflective activities)
5) Dialogs, interviews, presentations, etc.
6) Demonstrations, poster sessions, simulations, role plays
7) Structured and unstructured field tasks and other experiential
activities
8) Questionnaires (e.g., self-evaluation, peer evaluation, group evalua-
tion, teacher evaluation, and/or host evaluation)
9) Triangulation of several data sources
Assessment is critical to our work, despite the challenges it may pres-

ent. The basic challenge reiterated several times throughout this chap-
ter is the need to define and refine objectives from the beginning, followed
by the process and multiple strategies employed to assess all components
of intercultural communicative competence. Assessment ascertains how
well we accomplish the objectives set forth and tracks their attainment.
By monitoring and measuring participant development as the program
unfolds, assessment provides snapshots at various stages along the way.
This feedback is important to trainers and educators as well as to those
being trained and allows modifications and adjustments as needed
throughout our work.
Quality assessment—assessment based on a thoughtful, varied, and
explicit approach—generates indicators that balance subjective impres-
sions. Happily, increasing assessment options are now available to help
in our efforts. In addition to assessment activities devised by educators,
external instruments, properly aligned with objectives, provide impor-
tant additional information. An assessment process involving multiple
strategies yields rich and reliable information that enhances both educa-
tional practices and results for students and sojourners.
In the end, intercultural experiences are extremely important because
they provide valuable educational opportunities that further human
development. The benefits of intercultural educational exchange that
includes opportunities to experience directly, holistically, and affectively
alternative ways of being in the world must be well documented. We
believe that intercultural experiences are typically transformative; they
change the rest of our life. A comprehensive assessment approach helps
to substantiate that this is so.
Note
1. Adapted from Fantini, Chapter 24, “Multiple strategies for assessing intercul-
tural communicative competence,” pp. 390–405, in The Routledge Handbook
of Language and Intercultural Communication. (London and New York, NY:
2012b).
References
ACTFL. (1985) ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines, Hastings-on-Hudson, NY:
ACTFL Materials Center. Online. Available: www.actfl.org/i4a/pages/index.
cfm?pageid=4236 (accessed 20 January 2018).
Akande, Y. and Slawson, C. (2000) “Exploring the long-term impact of study
abroad,” in International Educator, 10(3):12–17.
Almeida, J. (2015) European Student Mobility and Intercultural Learning at a
Portuguese University, Aveiro, Portugal: University of Aveiro, Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, p. 218.
Almeida, J., Fantini, A.E., Simões, A.R., and Costa, N. (2016) “Enhancing the
intercultural effectiveness of exchange programmes: Formal and non-formal
educational interventions,” in Intercultural Education, 27(6):515–33.
Andrade, H.G. (2000) “Using rubrics to promote thinking and learning,” in Edu-
cational Leadership, 57(5):13–18.
Bailey, K.M. (1998) Learning about Language Assessment, New York, NY:
Heinle and Heinle Publishers.
Barber, E.G. (1983) “The impact of foreign educational experience on individu-
als,” in ISECSI Bulletin of International Exchanges, 20:7–10.
Bolen, M. (2007) A Guide to Outcomes Assessment in Education Abroad, Carl-
isle, PA: Forum on Education Abroad.
Camerer, R. (2008) Teaching and Testing Intercultural Competence, Bonn, Ger-
many: BESIG Conference.
Cohen, A.D., Paige, R.M., Shively, R.L., Emert, H.A., and Hoff, J.G. (2005)
MAXSA (Maximizing Study Abroad) Instruments, pp. 325–55. Online. Avail-
able: www.carla.umn.edu/maxsa/documents/MAXSAResearchReport.pdf
(accessed 20 January 2018).
———. (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
(CEFR), Council of Europe. Online. Available: www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/
cadre_en.asp (accessed 20 January 2018).
Comp, D. (2003) Research on U.S. Students Study Abroad, Co-sponsored by
NAFSA, SECUSSA, and the Center for Global Education. Online. Available:
www.lmu.edu/globaled/ro/index.html (accessed 20 January 2018).
——— (2014) Cultural Orientations Indicator® (COI), A Berlitz Company.
Online. Available: www.tmcorp.com (accessed 20 January 2018).
Deardorff, D.K. (2004) The Identification and Assessment of Intercultural Com-
petence as a Student Outcome of Internationalization at Universities of Higher
Education in the United States, Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University,
Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
——— (2015) Demystifying Outcomes Assessment for International Educators:
A Practical Approach, Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Deardorff, D.K. and Arasaratnam-Smith, L.A. (1997) Development Communi-
cation Index. Online. Available: www.tamas.com/samples/source-docs/ROI-
Briefings.pdf (accessed 20 January 2018).
——— (2001) European Language Portfolio, Modern Languages Division, The
Council of Europe. Online. Available: www.coe.int/t/dg4/portfolio/default.
asp?l=e&m=/main_pages/welcome.html (accessed 20 January 2018).
——— (2017) Intercultural Competence in Higher Education: International
Approaches, Assessment and Application, London: Routledge.
Fantini, A.E. (1997) “A survey of intercultural communication courses,” in The
International Journal of Intercultural Research, 21(1):125–48.
——— (2000–2001) “Designing quality intercultural programs: A model
and a process,” in Interspectives: A Journal on Transcultural Education,
18:100–5.
——— (2009) “Assessing intercultural competence: Issues and tools,” in D.K.
Deardorff (ed.) The Sage Handbook of Intercultural Competence, Los Angeles,
CA: Sage Publications, pp. 456–76.
——— (2012a) Assessment of Language Development (ALD), Brattleboro, VT:
SIT Graduate Institute. Online. Available: www.alvinoefantini.com.
——— (2012b) “Multiple strategies for assessing intercultural communicative
competence,” in J. Jackson (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Language and
Intercultural Communication. London and New York, NY: Routledge,
pp. 390–405.
——— (2015) Assessment of Intercultural Communicative Competence Forms
(AIC and AICC). Online. For versions in other languages, access at the follow-
ing website: www. alvinoefantini.com.
Fantini, A.E., Todd, I., Almeida, J., and Figuereido, C. (2015) Exploring Intercul-
tural Communicative Competence: A Multinational Perspective, Brattleboro,
VT: Federation of the Experiment in International Living, Unpublished report,
pp. 247–54.
Hammer, M.R. (2011) The Intercultural Development Inventory, Hammer Con-
sulting LLC. Online. Available: www.idiinventory.com/ (accessed 20 January
2018).
Hett, E.J. (1993) The Developing of an Instrument to Measure Global Minded-
ness, San Diego, CA: The University of San Diego.
Hurd, R. (1764) On the Uses of Foreign Travel, Dialogue between Lord Shaftes-
bury and Mr. Locke, London: A. Miller.
——— Intercultural Competence Questionnaire. Online. Available: www.7d-
culture.nl/Content/cont053b.htm (accessed 20 January 2018).
Kealey, D.J. (1990) Cross-Cultural Effectiveness: A Study of Canadian Techni-
cal Advisors Overseas, Hull, Canada: Canadian International Development
Agency.
Kelley, C. and Meyers, J. (2010) Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI),
Chicago, IL: Vangent. Online. Available: www.vangent-hcm.com/Solutions/
Krueger, J. and Dunning, D. (2009) “Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficul-
ties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments,”
in Psychology, 1:30–46.
Lewis, R. (1999) Cross-Cultural Assessor (CCA), Richard Lewis Communica-
tions. Online. Available: www.crossculture.com (accessed 20 January 2018).
Mader, J. (2009) Testing the Untestable: Can Intercultural Competence Be
Tested? Frankfurt, Germany: Frankfurt School of Finance and Management.
Masgoret, A.M., Bernaus, M., and Gardner, R.C. (2000) “A study of cross-
cultural adaptation by English-speaking sojourners in Spain,” in Foreign Lan-
guage Annals, 33(5), Tarrytown, NY: ACTFL.
McGury, S., Shallenberger, D., and Tolliver, D.E. (2018) “It’s new, but is it learn-
ing? Assessment rubrics for intercultural learning programs,” in Assessment
Update, 20(4), Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Olebe, M. and Koester, J. (1989) “Exploring the cross-cultural equivalence of the
behavioral assessment scale for intercultural communication,” in International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13(3): 333–47.
Peterson, B. (1997) Peterson Cultural Awareness Test (PCAT) and Peterson Cul-
tural Style Indicator (PCSI), St. Paul, MN: Across Cultures, Inc. Online. Avail-
able: www.acrosscultures.com (accessed 20 January 2018).
Schwartz, S.H. (1992) The Schwartz Value Survey, Israel: Hebrew University.
Online. Available: www.imo-international.de/englItisch/html/svs_info_en.htm
Serban, A.M. and Friedlander, J. (eds.) (2004) Developing and Implementing
Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Shealy, C.N. (2010) Beliefs, Events, and Values Inventory (BEVI). Online. Avail-
able: www.acenet.edu/programs/international/fipse/PDF/BEVI_Abstract.pdf
Stronkhorst, R. (2005) “Learning outcomes of international mobility at two
Dutch institutions of higher education,” in Journal of Studies in International
Education, 9(4):292–315.
Van de Vijver, F.J.R. and Leung, K. (1997) “Methodological issues in researching
intercultural competence,” in D. Deardorff (ed.) The Sage Handbook of Inter-
cultural Competence, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 404–18.
Wallace, D.H. (1999) Academic Study Abroad: The Long-Term Impact on
Alumni Careers, Volunteer Activities, World, and Personal Perspectives, Clare-
mont, CA: Claremont Graduate University, Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Wallace, J.A. (1949) The Organization and Outcomes of a European Field Trip
in Economics for Twenty-Three College Women, Philadelphia, PA: University
of Pennsylvania, Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Wylie, E. and Ingram, D.E. (1995) Australian Second Language Proficiency
Ratings (ASLPR), Nathan, Queensland: Centre for Applied Linguistics and
Languages (CALL), Griffith University. Online. Available: www.apec.edu.tw/
research/eng_3_1.php (accessed 20 January 2018).
4 The Initial Research Project
4.1 Overview
This chapter presents the Initial Research Project (IRP) carried out dur-
ing 2005–6 with educational exchange participants in three countries
(Ecuador, Great Britain, and Switzerland). The discussion introduces
the programs examined in this research, provides a description of the
research project, the participants involved (sojourners, hosts, and men-
tors), advantages and limitations of the project, and the approach to data
compilation and organization. Research findings are based on quantita-
tive and qualitative data compiled from surveys and interviews in three
languages. Data are compiled and analyzed first by language-nationality
groups in an attempt to identify “particularist” aspects (those that apply
to each individual group) and subsequently translated into English and
combined to identify “universal” aspects (those that apply across lan-
guage-nationality groups). Findings are also presented in response to ten
a priori assertions. Among these assertions, clear, strong, and positive
responses highlight the homestay component as most important and
learning the host language as fundamental and critical to the entire expe-
rience, in addition to other interesting findings attested to by alumni even
20 years later. The final section summarizes lessons learned and proposes
areas for further research.
4.2 The Research Design and Plan
About Educational Exchange Service Programs

Three Federation EIL MOs participated in the IRP conducted between
2005 and 2006—Ecuador, Great Britain, and Switzerland. From among
various programs, we chose to focus on their educational exchange offer-
ings with a service component. These programs, known as Volunteers
for International Partnership (VIP), had been sponsored by several
Federation MOs for many years; however, a few years before the start of
this IRP, all MOs committed to providing global service offerings.
Once all members committed to service projects, VIP programs were
coordinated under the Federation umbrella. Federation EIL lists world-
wide offerings on its website (www.partnershipvolunteers.org), provid-
ing information about sending and receiving countries, service projects,
inquiry forms, a field album, and news items. It then lists individual
country projects followed by a menu of service projects, host organiza-
tions, program components, photographs, finances, and country infor-
mation. This format allows interested individuals anywhere in the world
to pursue volunteer service opportunities in areas of education, health,
and human service, plus select from a variety of development projects in
various countries, with new program options constantly under develop-
ment. Applicants in countries outside the Federation EIL member net-
work are referred to MOs geographically, linguistically, and culturally
close to their own location for processing. Applicants are matched with
projects in accordance with their skills, interests, talents, and desired
length of service, ranging from one to 12 months.
Several features characterize VIP programs: Participants undergo pre-
departure and in-country intercultural orientation and language study,
they participate in a homestay, and they are supervised by a local men-
tor during their service. Mentors give logistical, technical, and educa-
tional support to ensure a maximally productive experience. Quality is
monitored in each program component through a process of ongoing
reflection and evaluation. Also promoted are opportunities to serve in
multicultural teams, attention to health and safety issues, and attempts
to meet the needs and interests of individuals of varying ages and
backgrounds.
In 2005–6, with 23 sending and 14 receiving countries working with
indigenous non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and local organiza-
tions, VIP programs exert a major impact on communities in need and on
the lives of participants in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Ghana, Guatemala,
India, Ireland, Morocco, Nepal, Nigeria, South Africa, Thailand, and
Turkey. Projects in these countries included the following:
• Aksay Pratishthan, a center in New Delhi for disabled people

• Dhapakjet Health Post in Nepal where volunteers assist medical staff
• Kayamandi Beads Project for women in South Africa
• TEMA, a Turkish environmental association
Additionally, projects available in Ecuador, the host country participating

in this study, included the following:
• CENIT (Center for the Working Female Child)

• FINE (Foundation for the Integration of Special Children)
• Santa Lucía Reserve, community-based conservation organization in
the forests of Northwestern Ecuador
The Initial Research Project 65
• La Dolorosa Shelter, which provides education and a home for chil-
dren whose families are unable to care for them
• Conocoto Rural School, which serves neglected rural communities
lacking basic health facilities
Volunteers cover their own travel and expenses; however, efforts are made
to keep costs low. Some projects provide accommodations in return for
service. Information about scholarship assistance is available from indi-
vidual sending offices. Indeed, one of VIP’s goals is to document program
outcomes in hopes of securing external funds to provide scholarships by
increasing private support.
Project Description
This IRP was designed to accommodate work schedules of participating
MO staff to ensure minimal interference in office routines and maximum
cooperation. RAs were contracted to work within each MO to avoid
assigning additional tasks to already busy and dedicated staff. The time
line for administering survey questionnaires, therefore, took into account
critical stages in MO program cycles plus time needed to complete data
compilation and summary reports at the end.
The research project took place in four stages from July 2005 through
December 2006. Each stage involved several activities:
Stage 1. Preliminary project preparation (Summer 2005)

• update literary search on ICC and related research efforts
• refine research concept and procedures
• collect and analyze existing research instruments
• interview program alumni to obtain additional input for the
research design and survey
• pilot, finalize, and transmit the research survey to collaborat-
ing MOs for translation
Stage 2. Pilot test the survey (Fall 2005)
• orient RAs to the survey and its use
• Ecuadorian RA administers the survey pre-, mid-, and end of
program, and compiles results
• British and Swiss RAs administer survey to alumni and inter-
view selected respondents
Stage 3. Data compilation and initial analysis (Winter–Spring 2006)
• RAs compile quantitative and qualitative data at national levels
• RAs follow guidelines to perform initial analysis of data
• RAs translate data results into English and transmit to Project
Director (PD)
Stage 4. Further data compilation and analysis (Summer–Fall 2006)
• review analysis subsets and list findings
• compile international data and combine findings
• analyze combined data and summarize
Following is an explanation of each stage in further detail: An initial

review of the intercultural literature in addition to our own empirical
experience served as the basis for refining our conceptualization of ICC,
in addition to review of relevant research projects focused on educational
exchange. A search and analysis of available and relevant assessment
instruments provided further basis for creating the survey questionnaire
form used in this study. The assessment instrument was organized in a
series of scales representing a coherent universe of content with items
arranged hierarchically to indicate increasingly deeper involvement. In
the scale designed to assess host language proficiency, items reflected
increasing degrees of language use. Scales were developed in this man-
ner to produce reliable measures of constructs with relatively few items
per scale. Open-ended questions allowed respondents to contribute addi-
tional comments reflecting their own experiences and to raise other issues
of interest. The resulting instrument was lengthy and posed a potential
challenge for respondents. Although keenly aware of this, we decided
to retain all items in order to address the multiple dimensions of ICC in
this initial attempt (anticipating a subsequent item analysis to identify the
most reliable items to produce a shorter form for general use beyond this
research project). Finally, selected respondents were interviewed to gener-
ate additional rich data.
The assessment instrument, as initially constituted, was refined after
piloting and discussing with a small number of past participants. Once
the pilot was completed, the questionnaire was finalized and sent to RAs
for translation into German and Spanish (for use in Switzerland and
Ecuador), and adapted into British English (for use in Great Britain).
Translated forms were back translated into (American) English as a
two-way check on accuracy, corrected as needed, and final versions
were then distributed to current and past participants (cf. Appendix A:
AIC Form). We considered it imperative that recipients complete the
survey in their L1 to ensure accuracy. Questionnaires were sent via
email or regular mail, as needed. Consenting respondents were sub-
sequently interviewed in person or by telephone to obtain additional
information.
Once respondents returned forms and interviews were completed,
RAs tabulated data gathered from questionnaires and interviews in
their respective language, following guidelines provided by the PD,
and converted results into English. Translated forms were forwarded
to the PD who coded, compiled, and inputted data into a single
combined set (i.e., the Banner Set). The project statistician transferred
quantitative data into SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences)
for analysis, and the PD separately analyzed quantitative data directly
from the forms themselves. Details regarding these analyses are nar-
rated next.
The combination of structured and open-ended processes produced
quantitative and qualitative data about program participants from three
MOs. Outcomes that converged or diverged regarding the development
of participant competencies were identified as well as data regarding how
the experience affected their lives after the program was over, resulting in
a combined multinational perspective.
In summary, this study had the following objectives:
1) to substantiate our reconceptualization of ICC in terms of definition,

components and their interconnections, and developmental levels;
2) to pilot the assessment instrument in three languages and refine the
assessment tool, as needed, for future use;
3) to investigate the role of host language proficiency and its effects on
ICC development;
4) to assess the impact of the intercultural experience on alumni, volun-
teers, and hosts;
5) to compile and analyze the combined survey findings; and
6) to disseminate research findings and make the instrument available
for use by others.
We were especially keen to learn about the impact of intercultural

contact on sojourners, hosts, and mentors in terms of how it affected
their values, lifestyles, and work choices in addition to how sojourners in
turn affected others after their return home (the multiplier effect). These
outcomes would provide indicators regarding Federation EIL’s movement
toward its vision and mission, an approach compatible with the trend
toward outcomes assessment, which has become increasingly common
over recent decades.
Participants Involved in the Project

Of the MOs participating in this project, Great Britain and Switzerland
were sending countries whereas Ecuador was a receiving (or host) coun-
try. For this reason, in addition to current program participants, British
and Swiss alumni were also contacted to learn about post-program out-
comes. Great Britain began VIP programs with Ecuador in 2001 and had
18 alumni by 2005 when this project began. Switzerland began VIP pro-
grams in 1998 and had over 100 returnees of whom 76 (those involved in
this study) were German speaking. In addition to alumni, VIP volunteers
currently engaged in the program (one British and four Swiss) and their
host mentors in Ecuador were also tracked. The numbers of individuals
who completed and returned survey forms were as follows:
British Alumni Responses 8 of 22 (+5 interviews)

Swiss Alumni Responses 20 of 76 (+1 interview)
Volunteers (at beginning) 3 of 5
Volunteers (at end) 5 of 5 (+2 interviews)
Mentors (of volunteers at beginning) 4 of 5
Mentors (of volunteers at end) 3 of 5 (+4 interviews)
Mentors (of self at beginning) 3 of 5
Mentors (of self at end) 4 of 5 (+4 interviews)
In the case of Great Britain, all participants who received the survey
forms completed and returned responses. The difference between num-
bers anticipated and those who responded was due to the inability of the
cooperating office to reach alumni given faulty addresses or a lack of for-
warding addresses. Given this situation, the quota to interview respon-
dents assigned to RAs in each country was lowered from the original
nine proposed to five. Great Britain completed the five required interview
reports and Ecuador completed five for mentors and five for volunteers.
Switzerland completed only one interview of the expected five (due to
internal administrative difficulties), severely affecting access to the antici-
pated quantitative data.
Advantages and Limitations of the Project

As previously stated, the IRP was envisioned as the first stage of more
extensive research to follow later. Although participants from only three
countries were involved, the study provided an opportunity to begin
work toward expanding the ICC concept, to design and pilot the assess-
ment instrument, and to conduct an initial survey. A Follow-on Research
Project (FRP) was contemplated (and later conducted in 2015) that
would involve additional MOs in still other countries—organizations
with available alumni records and the capacity to contact alumni, pro-
viding an opportunity to expand upon the IRP and add to its findings.
Two-way assessments (of self and others) like those used with cur-
rent volunteers plus their Ecuadorian mentors, are important and quite
unusual. They provide dual perspectives and permit comparing views
of sojourners and hosts. Although both parties may not concur, their
differing views are instructive. The host view of sojourner performance
is seldom addressed in research studies, yet adds an important research
dimension. This recognition has prompted recent graduate researchers
to pursue such studies, as exemplified by a paper presented at the 2018
CERCLL Conference on the Development and Assessment of Intercultural
Competence, held in Tucson, Arizona, titled “Expectations of Conformity
to Moroccan Cultural Norms,” in which the author reported on host
native views regarding the speech and behaviors of sojourners in their
country (Hannouchi 2018).
Finally, it is instructive to obtain data from diverse and multiple cul-
tural perspectives (in this case, the views of British, Ecuadorians, and
Swiss) and to compare and contrast results by nationality groups. Points
of divergence suggest aspects that are “particularist” in nature (pertain-
ing to a single group), while points of convergence revealed by combin-
ing data, suggest potentially “universalist” aspects (applying more widely
and to several groups).
Limitations of this project, on the other hand, were constraints of
time, resources, staffing, and small sample size, considerations to be con-
sidered in the FRP. In addition, the ideal of having a control group to
allow comparison of results with other populations is difficult in most
social science research. Engaging individuals on a multinational scale
through local MOs who are not involved in intercultural experiences is
quite unlikely. One important and practical area, however, to be taken
up in the subsequent study is to learn more about potential “indirect”
benefits accruing to host natives who have contact with sojourners from
abroad.
The project acknowledged several variables that could not be entirely
controlled. In fact, the project’s design was both its forte and its chal-
lenge. On the one hand, participation of partner MOs in several countries
allowed investigating senders and receivers outside the US, but it required
collaboration with RAs at a distance. Obviously, it was not possible to
supervise administration of survey forms directly, nor the compilation
and analysis of initial data in each language and country involved. We
attempted to minimize discrepancies, however, through detailed guide-
lines and close communication with in-country assistants.
The fact that the study was conducted in languages other than English
also constituted a strength, but added complexity to the task. It was a
strength because many related studies are conducted in English rather
than in the L1 of respondents; hence, this was an opportunity to learn
about what transpires to others, from their perspectives, and in other lan-
guages, but this also comes at a cost given the need to convert responses
from various languages into English for analysis. Clearly, we need studies
conducted elsewhere, by others, and in their own languages. Recognizing
this, we again attempted to minimize the downside through detailed
guidelines and close communication with RAs.
Data Compilation and Organization

Data collection through the AIC Survey Form plus follow-on interviews
provided the corpus of information regarding alumni, participants, hosts,
and mentors, described earlier. This section deals with how data were
compiled and organized. Before compiling data, a preliminary step was to
protect the identity of respondents by coding each form. Upon receipt, each
questionnaire form was grouped first by country and type of respondent
as follows: B or S indicated country of origin, followed by A for alumni,
V for volunteer, MV for Mentor evaluations of volunteers, and MS for
Mentor self-evaluations, followed by a number for each individual. For
example, the eight British respondents ranged from BA1 through BA8 and
Swiss alumni were coded with S + A + number so that the 20 respondents
ranged from SA1 through SA20. In contrast, British Volunteers or Swiss
Volunteers were coded as BV or SV, Mentors evaluating volunteers as MV,
and Mentors evaluating themselves as MS. Since volunteers and mentors
completed forms twice (at beginning and end of service), final evaluations
also bore the prefix FE—for example, FEBV 8 or FEMS5.
To begin the compilation process, a blank survey form was produced
on a web-based survey developed through Perseus Express (http://express.
perseus.com/perseus/asp/login.aspx). Data from completed forms were
entered into the master Perseus form by category. This resulted in a com-
posite electronic copy ready for transfer into a second program designed
to facilitate statistical analyses—the IBM software SPSS (IBM SPSS V.22).
At this point, data were ready for quantitative analysis, discussed in the
next section.
Qualitative data, on the other hand, required additional preliminary
steps given the open-ended information provided by respondents in their
native tongues. For this reason, local RAs compiled and translated data
and forwarded summaries in English to the PD for analysis. Translated
data were treated first as subsets by country and category of participants
(alumni, volunteers, and mentors) and subsequently compiled and ana-
lyzed as composite multinational samples to provide responses to our
research questions. Presentation and analysis of qualitative data is dis-
cussed next, following the quantitative section.
4.3 Quantitative Analysis and Discussion
Overview
Data collection, compilation, and organization resulted in the samples
used for statistical purposes. Although the small size limits generaliza-
tions that might be construed, we were mindful of views regarding the
effects of sample size in restricting certain analytical options. For this rea-
son, two small datasets were eliminated from statistical analyses—those
for volunteers and mentors in Ecuador—leaving comments about these
groups for qualitative scrutiny only. Where British and Swiss alumni
were concerned, however, the combined sample size totaled 28, which
was used toward accommodating the n < 30 requirement. Our statistical
analysis then (limited as it was to specific analytical options described in
the sections that follow), provided important exploratory and initial find-
ings to inform our later research effort. Statistical procedures applied to
data derived from this group of 28 alumni included (1) t-test (cf. Agresti
and Finlay 1997), (2) one-way ANOVA (cf. Levin 1999), and (3) factor
analysis (cf. Kim and Mueller 1978).
As mentioned at various points, the instrumentation (the AIC Form)
developed and used in this IRP was based on a strong set of theoretical
notions regarding the nature of ICC. This study provided the opportu-
nity to test empirically the concepts embodied in the instrument. Select
analyses were applied to evaluate the instrument and others to interpret
the data generated by the instrument: reliability analysis, factor analysis,
descriptive statistics, t-tests, and analysis of variance. However, for the
moment, limitations of sample size and other considerations necessitated
focusing quantitative analyses primarily on measuring the instrumenta-
tion, the underlying ICC construct through each of its four subcompo-
nents (namely, Attitude, Skills, Knowledge, and Awareness), and multiple
items within each component.
Reliability Testing (Validity of the Assessment Tool)

In the 11 tables that follow, the first seven examine and assess the valid-
ity of Part VII of the AIC assessment tool regarding its ability to mea-
sure and monitor ICC. Tables 4.8 through 4.11 in the following section
look at “mean scores” of alumni at the beginning and end of the sojourn
experience to understand whether the ICC construct captured this
development—i.e., to ascertain the validity of assumptions made about
ICC components. To reiterate, analyses were based only on responses
from British and Swiss alumni, and do not include Ecuadorian mentors
or volunteers. In general, an alpha score (i.e., the measure of reliability)
of 0.6 or above for any item is considered a good score.
Cronbach Alphas were employed to test the reliability of inter-item
consistency of individual items cited as the four ICC components.
Tables 4.1 and 4.2 report the resulting scores for beginning and end of
service responses, respectively.
Table 4.1 Reliability Analysis (Beginning of Service)
ICC Components Cronbach Alpha % Component

Variance Explained
Knowledge
Component 1 0.899 68.21
Component 2 0.862 64.81
Attitude 0.984 88.30
Skills 0.966 87.59
Awareness 0.988 68.53
ICC 0.824 69.53
Source: Alumni Survey 2006

Table 4.2 Reliability Analysis (End of Service)
ICC components Cronbach Alpha % Component

Variance Explained
Knowledge
Component 1 0.870 61.89
Component 2 0.800 53.69
Skills 0.944 72.85
ICC 0.892 85.53
In Tables 4.3 to 4.6, Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with vari-

max rotation method was used to obtain factor loadings. These tables
provide factor loadings at the beginning and end of service for each
item of the four components of the ICC construct. For the component,
Knowledge, PCA suggested two underlying factors; consequently, items
were consolidated into two clusters according to factor loadings. In each
of the other three components (Attitude, Skills, and Awareness), how-
ever, most items loaded onto a single factor. In a few cases, where it was
found that items loaded onto two factors at the same time, these items
were excluded. Their exclusion led to single component loadings and
showed an improvement in the explained variance. Tables 4.1 and 4.2
show the percentage of variance explained by each.
Table 4.3 Factor Analysis for Knowledge
Knowledge Factor Loadings Factor Loadings

(Beginning of (End of Service)
Service)
Cluster 1
I knew the essential norms and taboos of 0.848 0.838
the host culture
I could contrast important aspects of the 0.875 0.880
host language and culture with my own
I could contrast my own behaviors with 0.708 0.690
those of my hosts in important areas
I could cite important historical and 0.771 0.682
socio-political factors that shape my
own and host culture
I could describe interactional behaviors 0.886 0.713
common among Ecuadorians in social
and professional areas
I could discuss and contrast various 0.853 0.887
behavioral patterns in my own culture
with those in Ecuador
Knowledge Factor Loadings Factor Loadings

Service)
Cluster 2
I could cite a definition of culture 0.850 0.641
and describe its components and
complexities
I recognized signs of culture stress and 0.660 0.870
some strategies for overcoming it
I knew some techniques to aid my 0.855 0.722
learning of the host language and
culture
I could describe a model of cross-cultural 0.801 0.741
adjustment stages
I could cite various learning processes 0.838 0.743
and strategies for learning about and
adjusting to the host culture
Table 4.4 Factor Analysis for Attitude
Attitude Factor Loadings Factor Loadings

Service)
Interact with host culture members 0.867 0.935

Learn from my hosts, their language, 0.961 0.925
culture
Try to communicate in Spanish and 0.939 0.841
behave in appropriate ways
Deal with my emotions and 0.923 0.782
frustrations with the host culture
Take on various roles appropriate 0.925 0.804
to different situations
Show interest in new cultural 0.934 0.929
aspects
Try to understand differences in 0.985 0.884
the behaviors, values, attitudes,
and styles
Adapt my behavior to communicate 0.975 0.879
appropriately in Ecuador
Reflect on the impact and 0.928 0.771
consequences of my decisions and
choices
Deal with the different ways 0.953 0.762
of perceiving, expressing,
interacting, and behaving
Note: Items 10, 11, and 13 listed in Part VII of the survey form are excluded
Table 4.5 Factor Analysis for Skills
Skills Factor Loadings Factor Loadings

Service)
I demonstrated flexibility when interacting 0.900 0.905

with persons from the host culture
I adjusted my behavior, dress, etc., as 0.904 0.867
appropriate to avoid offending my host
I was able to contrast the host culture 0.822 0.915
with my own
I used strategies for learning the host 0.919 0.866
language and culture
I demonstrated a capacity to interact 0.961 0.912
appropriately in a variety of different
social situations
I used appropriate strategies for adapting 0.918 0.866
to host culture and reducing stress
I used culture-specific information to 0.873 0.704
improve my style and personal interaction
I helped to resolve cross-cultural conflicts 0.920 0.772
and misunderstandings when they arose
Note: Items 7, 8, and 11 in Part VII of the survey form are excluded
Table 4.6 Factor Analysis for Awareness
Awareness Factor Loadings Factor Loadings

Service)
Aware of differences and similarities 0.923 0.865

across my own culture and the host
language and culture
Aware of how varied situations in the 0.940 0.841
host culture required modifying my
interactions
Aware of how host culture members 0.892 0.715
viewed me and why
Aware of myself as a culturally 0.891 0.952
conditioned person with personal
habits and preferences
Aware of diversity in the host culture 0.950 0.845
(such as differences in race, gender, age)
Aware of dangers of generalizing 0.936 0.876
individual behaviors as representative
of the whole culture
Aware of my choices and their 0.939 0.894
consequences (which made me less
or more acceptable)
Awareness Factor Loadings Factor Loadings

Service)
Aware of my personal values that 0.932 0.789

affected my approach to ethical
dilemmas and their resolution
Aware of my hosts reactions to me that 0.968 0.892
reflected their cultural values
Aware of how my values and ethics 0.972 0.887
were reflected in specific situations
Aware of varying cultural styles and 0.968 0.759
language use, and their effect in social
and working situations
Aware of my own level of intercultural 0.949 0.896
development
Aware of the level of intercultural 0.968 0.876
development of those I worked with
Aware of how I perceived myself as a 0.867 0.718
communicator, facilitator or mediator,
in an intercultural situation
Note: Items 2, 6, 16, and 18 listed in Part VII of the survey form are excluded
It is important to note that all factor loadings in Table 4.3 were 0.6
or above, indicating clear associations with the underlying ICC con-
struct. With acceptable Cronbach Alpha scores of 0.7 or above, the item
scores for each ICC component were then added together to compute the
needed index. For Knowledge, a mean score of the two clusters cited was
used to compute the index.
Table 4.7 shows the results of additional PCA performed to assess if
the four components do indeed load onto the single construct defined
in this study as “ICC.” All factor loadings turned out to be very strong
and, therefore, indicate strong association with the defined construct.
(Tables 4.1 and 4.2 also provide the Cronbach Alpha score and percent-
age of component variance explained for ICC).
Table 4.7 Composite
ICC Factor Loadings Factor Loadings

Service)
Knowledge 0.537 0.896

Skills 0.944 0.906

Reliability Testing (Validity of the ICC Construct)
In this section, Tables 4.8 through 4.11 look at the efficacy and validity of
assumptions made about the concept of ICC on which the AIC Form was
based. Table 4.8 includes overall descriptive statistics, including sample
size, mean scores on the four ICC dimensions, and their standard errors.
In support of one of the main assumptions underlying this study, the
mean scores for the overall ICC construct and its four subcomponents
do show measurable changes from beginning to end of service during the
intercultural sojourn.
Table 4.8 Descriptive Statistics for ICC and Its Components
Dimension N Beginning of Service End of Service
Mean Std. Error Mean Std. Error
Knowledge 28 10.13 1.34 34.14 1.37

Attitude 28 21.86 3.58 42.29 1.70
Skills 28 12.14 2.40 30.11 1.76
Awareness 28 19.29 4.27 52.93 3.09
ICC 28 15.85 2.51 39.87 1.81
Naturally, care must be taken not to overgeneralize the results observed

and reported in this study given the limited sample size. A somewhat
higher standard error in Table 4.8 is probably indicative of the size limi-
tation. Even so, additional statistical analysis suggests strong support for
the main assumptions proposed and tested. Mean scores at the end of
service are definitely higher in all four ICC components. On average, sub-
jects showed overall improvements in ICC development, further reflected
and supported by improvements demonstrated in each of the individual
subcomponents. A much larger sample size in the FRP will help to fur-
ther substantiate these interim results. (Note: The information shown in
Table 4.8 is more graphically presented in Figures 4.1 and 4.2.)
Figure 4.1 Contrastive Mean ICC Scores (Beginning and End of Service)
Figure 4.2 Contrastive Mean ICC Scores: ICC Composite (Beginning and End
of Service)
In Table 4.9, we see the results of difference of dependent sample t-test

when respondent assessments of their ICC development at the beginning
and end of service are compared. In this case, the t-values, significant at
p < 0.05 (some even suggest < 0.04), confirm that alumni clearly improved
in overall ICC development and in individual components at the end of
their service experience.
Table 4.9 Contrastive Alumni ICC (Beginning and End of Service)
ICC Component |T| Std. Error
Knowledge 12.518* 1.92

Attitude 5.155* 3.96
Skills 6.034* 2.97
Awareness 6.369* 5.26
ICC 7.750* 3.09
Source: Alumni Survey 2006 (*significant at p < 0.05)
When a dependent variable is measured repeatedly at different time

points (e.g., before and after treatment) for all sample members across
a set of conditions, the design is termed “within-groups” or “repeated
measures ANOVA.” The purpose of repeated measures design is to
assess the same group of subjects at each category of the independent
variable (cf. Levin 1999). This applied in the present study. Thus one-
way ANOVA is generally regarded as an extension of t-test. This study
only reports eta-squared values in order to document variation in ICC
and its dimensions associated with exposure to a new culture (see
Table 4.10).
Table 4.10 Measuring Effective Size of ICC Components
Dimension Eta Squared

H η2p
Knowledge 0.862 0.744

Skills 0.635 0.403
ICC 0.726 0.527
The effects of intercultural exposure at the end of service were further

examined by using the analysis of variance to compute partial etas. Etas
(η2p) show the percentage of variation explained in each of the dependent
variables due to a treatment factor (independent factor). In this case, η2p
shows the effect of having been exposed to a new culture. These effects
on each dependent variable are reflected in the reported eta squared val-
ues. The effect of exposure to a new culture accounts for 74.4% variation
in the Knowledge component. Similarly, 52.7% of the variation in ICC is
associated with intercultural exposure.
Another important assumption of this study is that participation in
an educational exchange service program enhances language proficiency.
Table 4.11 illustrates participant levels of Spanish language proficiency
Table 4.11 Percentage Responses for Spanish Language Development
Spanish Language Development % %

Beginning End
No ability at all 46.4 0.0

Unable to function in spoken language 28.6 0.0
Able to communicate in a limited way 14.3 0.0
Able to satisfy immediate needs 10.7 0.0
Able to satisfy basic survival needs 25.0 0.0
Able to satisfy some survival needs 14.3 3.6
Able to satisfy most survival needs and limited social demands 7.1 3.6
Able to satisfy routine social and limited work requirements 10.7 14.3
Able to communicate on some concrete topics 14.3 42.9
Able to speak with sufficient structural accuracy 7.1 32.1
Able to speak with sufficient structural accuracy and discuss 3.6 21.4
professional areas
Able to speak Spanish fluently on all levels 0.0 14.3
Speaking proficiency sometimes equivalent to an educated 0.0 17.9
native speaker
Proficiency equivalent to an educated native speaker 0.0 1.0
at the beginning and end of service on a 13-point scale ranging from “no
ability at all” to “proficiency equivalent to an educated native speaker.”
In the beginning, the majority of alumni reported “no ability at all”
(46.4) or claimed they were “unable to function in spoken language”
(28.6). At the end of service, significant improvement was reported by the
majority of respondents, ranging from “able to satisfy routine social and
limited work requirements” to “able to speak with sufficient structural
accuracy,” as indicated in Table 4.11 and graphically illustrated again in
Figure 4.3.
Figure 4.3 Improvement in Spanish Language Development
4.4 Qualitative Analysis and Discussion
Overview
In contrast to statistical analysis, concerned with numerical size, quali-
tative analysis is able to utilize and consider data obtained from all
groups of participants (alumni, volunteers, and mentors), conducted
in both surveys and interviews, at various points in time (beginning
and end of the program), and from etic and emic perspectives. To keep
etic and emic perspectives distinct, however, qualitative analysis is pre-
sented in three parts: (1) alumni and volunteers (i.e., participants cur-
rently in a program), (2) mentors (commenting about the volunteers),
and (3) mentors (commenting about themselves). Before presenting
composite multinational views later in this chapter, data are first clus-
tered and analyzed by subsets to reveal information about individual
nationality groups. Data are subsequently examined to obtain insights
regarding ten a priori assertions posited in the research plan and dis-
cussed in the sections that follow.
Alumni and Volunteer Perspectives
Of the total 98 alumni (British and Swiss combined), 28 returned consent
forms and questionnaires. The breakdown by nationality group was as
follows:
1) British alumni and volunteers: Of a total 22, eight responded and five
were subsequently interviewed. Alumni had participated in programs
as follows: one participant in 2000, one in 2001, two in 2002, two
in 2004, one in 2005, and one volunteer currently in Ecuador dur-
ing this study. The remaining 14 alumni were unable to be contacted
due to faulty addresses or a lack of forwarding addresses. Hence
100% returns were received from alumni who actually received sur-
vey forms and five respondents were subsequently interviewed by
telephone.
2) Swiss alumni: Of a total 140 Swiss alumni, 64 were French speak-
ers and were not included in this study. The remaining 76 Ger-
man speaking alumni participated as follows: seven volunteers
in 1999, 10 in 2000, 19 in 2001, 16 in 2002, eight in 2003, 12
in 2004, four in 2005, and five volunteers in Ecuador during this
study. Of the forms distributed, 20 alumni returned the survey
forms. The remainder could not be contacted due to faulty or
unknown addresses. Once again, 100% responses were returned
from alumni who actually received the survey. One individual was
subsequently interviewed in person; unfortunately, the remaining
interviews were not conducted due to administrative problems
within the Swiss MO.
The following summary, then, represents a compilation of qualitative

data extracted from 28 survey forms and 6 alumni interviews based on
the following questions:
1. What abilities do you think are important for intercultural success?

2. To what extent did you develop these abilities? Why or why not?
3. Was learning the host language important to your success? Why or
why not?
4. What impact did this intercultural service experience have on
your life?
5. How and to what extent have you utilized any of these abilities in
your own life and work?
6. Any additional comments?
About alumni (from Part I)—Characteristics regarding respondents are

provided next by individual nationality groups to provide some insight
about differences between British and Swiss alumni, particularly with
regard to previous language and intercultural experience.
1) British alumni
• all eight were native English speakers; one had a second home
language
• six were monolingual, one listed French (B8), and one listed a
home language as Gujarati and some Italian (B6)
• four males/four females
• all completed 2 years of college or higher
• four had prior intercultural experience/four had none
• six had a positive experience/two gave no response
• six continued Spanish language study upon their return
• one had prior work in a related field
• eight developed new intercultural relationships
• three now work in a related field/five do not
• five state they now use their intercultural abilities
• seven maintained contact with hosts after their return
2) Swiss alumni
• 20 are Swiss nationals/one listed other
• 18 are native German speakers/two listed Swiss German/one
listed other
• all are trilingual in German, French, English, and added Spanish/
one also listed Italian and one listed other
• all 20 are females
• all are between 20 to 27 years old
• nine completed high school/11 completed 2 years of college or
higher
• 13 are students/four clerks/four administrators/two other
• 15 had prior intercultural experience outside Switzerland/five
listed none
• 18 had prior significant intercultural relationships (friends and
work colleagues)/two had none
• all had positive IC experiences
• ten continued language study upon return (seven Spanish)
• seven pursued a related field of study upon return/12 did not
• 19 developed new intercultural relationships (friends, colleagues,
one Colombian spouse, one boyfriend)
• six now work in a related field/13 do not
• 19 continue to use their IC abilities
• 19 maintain contact with hosts (by letter, email, telephone, gifts,
four visits, two were visited)
Volunteers completed survey questionnaire forms twice during their

sojourn in Ecuador—at the beginning and end. Three volunteers returned
survey forms at the beginning of their sojourn (one British and two Swiss).
All five volunteers returned survey forms at the end (one British and four
Swiss). Two volunteers were subsequently interviewed. The breakdown
was as follows:
Beginning Evaluations (3) End Evaluations (5)

BV6 FEBV6
(No form) FESV1
SV3 FESV3
SV4 FESV4
(No form) FESV5
About the volunteers (from Part I): Following are characteristics of the
volunteer respondents:
• one was a native English speaker; two were native German speakers
• all three spoke other languages: French (two), English (two), Spanish
(two)
• one male/two females
• education levels ranged from high school to a master’s degree
• two indicated prior intercultural experience/one gave no response
• all three had a positive experience
• one plans to continue Spanish language study upon return home
• all three developed new intercultural relationships
Volunteers were engaged in several different service projects that

included the following:
• Aliñambi, an organization working with people living in the jungle

• Albergue la Dolorosa, a shelter for low-income kids not able to live
with their parents
• Escuela Nuestra Señora de la Paz, a nursery home for low-income kids
• Centro Infantil Miguelito, a nursery home for low-income kids.
Alumni and Volunteer Comments Re Assertions

Following are ten a priori assertions posited for this research, followed
by data gathered, discussion, and summary statements regarding each of
the following:
Assertion No. 1: ICC is a complex of abilities—The 15 attributes
cited in survey forms (cf. Appendix A: AIC Form, Part II. Personal
Characteristics) were compiled from 238 publications addressing ICC
(under various related names). These attributes all proved relevant and
appropriate to alumni and volunteer experiences based on their responses
and comments. They left no item blank nor did they discard or otherwise
judge any item as irrelevant. The attributes included tolerance, flexibility,
patience, sense of humor, appreciate differences, suspending judgment,
adaptability, curiosity, open-minded, motivated, self-reliant, empathy,
clear sense of self, perceptive, and tolerance of ambiguity.
To gain some indication of growth and development among the five
volunteers with regards to these attributes, their ratings were contrasted
at the beginning and end of their sojourn on an ascending scale from 0
to 5. Responses were limited in number, however, and are based on only
three respondents at the beginning and five at the end of the program
(numbers before the slash mark (/) are beginning indicators, numbers
after the slash are end indicators).
Responses to the question “perception of self in own culture” were as
follows:
intolerant 0 = 1/4, 1 = 2/1 open-minded 3 = /1, 4 = 2/3,

5 = 1/1
flexible 3=/1, 4 = 2/2, 5 = 1/2 motivated 4 = 1/4, 5 = 2/1
patient 2 = /1, 3 = /1, 4 = 3/2, 5 = /1 self-reliant 3= /2, 4 = 1/2,
5 = 2/1
lacks sense of humor 0 = 2/3, 1 = /2, 2 = 1/ empathetic 1 = 1/, 3 = 1/,
4 = /3, 5= 1/2
tolerates differences 3 = /1, 4 = 1/1, 5 = 2/3 clear sense of self 3 = /1,
4 = /3, 5 = 3/1
suspends judgment 4 = 3/5 perceptive 3 = /2, 4 = 1/2,
5 = 2/1
adaptable 4 = 2/3, 5 = 1/2 tolerates ambiguity 3 = 1/,
4 = /3, 5 = 2/2
curious 3= 1/, 4= 1/3, 5 = 1/2 other qualities (none listed)
Responses to the question “how perceived in Ecuador” were as follows:
intolerant 0 = 2/3, 1 = 1/2 open-minded 3 = /2,

4 = 2/2, 5 = 1/1
flexible 3 = /1, 4 = 2/2, 5 = 1/2 motivated 3 = 1/, 4 = 1/5,
5 = 1/
patient 2 = /1, 4 = 2/3, 5 = 1/1 self-reliant 3 = /1, 4 = 1/3,
5 = 2/1
lacks sense of humor 0 = 2/3, 2 = 1/, 3 = /1, empathetic 2 = 1/, 3 = 1/1,
4 = /1 4 = /2, 5 = 1/2
tolerates differences 3 = /1, 4 = 1/1, clear sense of self 3 = /1,
5 = 2/3 4 = 1/3, 5 = 2/1
suspends judgment 4 = 3/5 perceptive 3 = /2, 4 = 2/2,
5 = 1/1
adaptable 3 = /1, 4 = 2/2, 5 = 1/2 tolerates ambiguity 2 = 1/,
3 = 1/1, 4 = 1/4
curious 3 = 2/, 4 = /4, 5 = 1/1 other qualities [none
listed]
Note that the first and fourth items listed earlier (in the first columns)
differ in presentation from the others since both are stated in the nega-
tive; all other items are stated in the positive. For example, the first item
(intolerance) remains almost the same with most claiming 0 intolerance
(1 initially and 4 at the end, but since 0 is still 0, there is no change).
On the other hand, two individuals rated themselves at the 1 (or low
level of intolerance) at the beginning and only one did so at the end;
hence, a minor shift is noted. The fourth item (lack of humor) can be read
similarly: two volunteers rated themselves at 0 level at the beginning and
three did so at the end; again, still 0 and therefore no change. Another
rated self at the low level of 2, but at the end, only two rated themselves
at 1, so some slight shift occurred in how they saw changes in their own
sense of humor.
All remaining items show a general upward shift on the scale sug-
gesting positive changes in the development of attributes. Of course, a
better comparison could be made between the beginning and end of the
sojourn had all volunteers completed the entrance survey form. What is
clear, however, is that no volunteer indicated reversal in any attribute.
(It should be noted that respondents did not have access to their original
assessments when completing end-of-program forms).
Additional evidence of growth and development is revealed through
volunteer comments made in open-ended responses in the forms and in
interviews conducted at the end of the program. Following are open-
ended comments provided in the survey forms:
• I now have a more open mind; I’m going to appreciate nature even
more (SV4)
• I always develop and get to know myself better (SV3)
• I have new perspectives on issues important in Ecuadorian culture
(BV6)
• I improved my language skills (BV5)
• I increased my confidence in dealing with other cultures (BV6)
In addition, they made the following comments during exit interviews:
(BV6+I) “Communication, which means not only to speak but also

to listen and watch differences and characteristics of different
background people without being judgmental. It is important to
be patient and to understand people from other cultures.”
(SV3+I) “(I learned that) the most important thing towards intercul-
tural success is not to be judgmental since many things at the host
culture differ.”
Indeed, volunteers reported that they learned important life les-

sons: open-mindedness, appreciation for others, a deeper level of
self-knowledge, new perspectives, language skills, confidence, commu-
nication, observation skills, a non-judgmental attitude, patience, under-
standing, reasoning, self-development, and independence. In the end, all
respondents indicated some degree of progress in each area.
It seems possible to arrange attributes hierarchically in terms of
descending or ascending importance—that is, some may contribute
more than others to intercultural success (however, this might also vary
depending on the target culture). It also seems possible that some attri-
butes may overlap and be combined. The survey form, of course, did not
list attributes in order of importance nor does the intercultural literature
suggest any hint of a hierarchy of attributes. On the other hand, it might
be interesting to quantify the number of times attributes were cited by
respondents—both alumni and volunteers—in open-ended sections of
the survey form and in interviews.
Before attempting to organize attributes in terms of frequency of
citation, a cluster analysis would be required. Some terms are synony-
mous or might overlap in their spheres of meaning. An initial cluster, for
example (to be further substantiated), might be “open-minded, positive
attitude, acceptance” or “language, communication,” in which cases
items could be grouped together. Following this line of thought, here are
such results in order of frequency of responses (the number of responses
follows in brackets). Attributes based on the intercultural literature are
cited in bold in the list that follows to distinguish them from additional
attributes suggested by respondents. Attributes are followed by exam-
ples cited by alumni and volunteers that provide additional context to
their comments:
• open-minded, positive attitude, acceptance, tolerance (26)

[people, places, sights, and sounds/willing to absorb the culture/
willingness to learn/willingness to try new things (2)/willingness to
interact with people/be prepared not to demand one’s own standards/
not questioning why (acceptance)/accept differences/don’t expect too
much of yourself too soon (a gradual process)/don’t take one’s own
culture as a yardstick for another /other cultures not inferior/take a
step back/can’t change things/don’t be a missionary/become like
a native to a certain degree/don’t carry own cultural beliefs abroad/
getting out of one’s own comfort zone/have no expectations (remain
open)]
• motivation (5)
[motivation is the key/work hard/not always fun or a holiday/lots of
work and effort/take the initiative/new perspectives, observe differ-
ences, understanding, sense of realism (5)/self-development, indepen-
dence, confidence (3)/adaptability (2)/communication/language skills
(2)/non-judgmental (i.e., suspend judgment) (2)/patience (2)/sense of
humor (2 / appreciation (2)/self-awareness (2)/ability to like people
and get on with them (1)/curiosity (1)/reflective (1)]
Before settling on any hierarchy, however, we would also need to add

results from items checked in the attribute list itself. Of the 15 attributes,
alumni most often stressed open-mindedness; one stressed adaptability,
curiosity, and understanding; several others emphasized qualities of tol-
erance and empathy. In Part I, item 36 of the AIC Form, some added:
awareness, understanding, knowledge, acceptance, tolerance, and empa-
thy. In Part II, items 16 and 32, the following qualities were cited: coop-
erativeness, stamina, a desire to learn (motivation), and language ability
(the last two are explored further below). Not specifically cited in open-
ended responses from the original list of 15 were the following 3 items:
flexibility, perceptive, and tolerance of ambiguity.
In summary, respondents confirmed all items cited in the literature
as relevant and important attributes for intercultural success (see a. in
the list that follows). All participants reported that they progressed and
developed in each attribute during their sojourn. From among the 15
attributes cited, they highlighted several in particular (see b. in the list
that follows). They also suggested additional attributes not on the origi-
nal list (see c. in the list that follows), including host language ability
(discussed further under Assertion 2):
a. attributes cited in the literature (in no particular order): tolerance,

flexibility, patience, sense of humor, appreciation of differences, sus-
pending judgment, adaptability, curiosity, open-mindedness, motiva-
tion, self-reliance, empathy, clear sense of self, perceptiveness, and
tolerance of ambiguity
b. attributes stressed by respondents (in order of importance): open-
mindedness, positive attitude, acceptance, tolerance, motivation, new
perspectives, observe differences, understanding, sense of realism,
self-development, independence, confidence, adaptability, commu-
nication, language skills, non-judgmental (i.e., suspend judgment),
patience, sense of humor, appreciation, self-awareness, ability to like
people and get on with them, curiosity, reflective, and empathy
c. attributes added by respondents to those cited in the literature:
awareness, understanding, knowledge, acceptance, cooperativeness,
stamina, language ability, ability to establish relations, and sense of
realism
It may be the case that individuals already possessed some of these

attributes to varying degrees before intercultural contact. Psychologists
distinguish between attributes such as traits (innate qualities) and charac-
teristics (qualities developed in specific cultural contexts and experiences).
Combining the identification of traits and characteristics with attributes
ordered hierarchically in terms of intercultural success might produce an
interesting tool for selection, monitoring, and measuring a candidate’s
relative preparedness and subsequent development in intercultural situa-
tions (in other words, a normative, formative, and summative assessment
approach). Finally, although the intercultural literature seldom mentions
communicative ability in terms of specific host language abilities as a
criterion for success, the importance of language development did not go
unnoticed by alumni and volunteers (discussed under Assertion 2).
Assertion No. 2: Learning the host language affects ICC development—
A marked difference emerged between British and Swiss participants
regarding previous foreign language and intercultural experience. All
British participants, for example, were monolingual and most had little
Spanish language proficiency at the start of their sojourn (five respon-
dents had no host language proficiency; three others listed “extremely
low” proficiency); [one able to communicate in a limited manner/one
able to communicate at a basic survival level/one with some survival
language].
In sharp contrast, all Swiss participants were trilingual in German,
French, and English; 9 knew no Spanish at the start of their sojourn
and 11 listed a range of proficiency levels, as follows: [1 able to satisfy
immediate needs/3 able to satisfy basic survival needs/3 able to satisfy
some survival needs/1 able to satisfy most survival needs/1 able to sat-
isfy routine social demands/2 able to communicate concretely/1 with
sufficient structural accuracy/1 with sufficient structural accuracy and
vocabulary].
At the conclusion of the sojourn, the five British volunteers who began
with no language ability achieved some proficiency, and those who began
with “extremely low” ability attained higher levels of fluency. By the end,
all attained abilities ranging from “routine social abilities” to “higher
levels” of proficiency, as follows: [two with routine social greetings/four
able to communicate concretely/one with sufficient structural accuracy/
one with structural accuracy plus professional vocabulary].
As might be expected, results for Swiss volunteers were more dra-
matic, given their previous language experience and trilingualism. By
the end of the sojourn, all indicated ability to communicate in the host
tongue, including the five who began with “no Spanish” or “no ability at
all.” All 20 indicated progress in their proficiency levels in the ranges as
follows: [1 able to satisfy routine social demands/6 able to communicate
concretely/6 with sufficient structural accuracy/2 with sufficient struc-
tural accuracy and vocabulary/1 able to speak fluently on all levels/3 able
to speak sometimes as an educated native speaker/1 able to speak as an
educated native speaker].
Despite greater strides in learning Spanish made by the Swiss, it is
interesting to compare their comments with those made by British volun-
teers whose remarks were far more elaborate and enthusiastic, revealing
that they felt a greater sense of accomplishment. Here is what British
volunteers said:
• I have more confidence in speaking to new people and also speaking

Spanish (BA1)
• I gained more confidence in speaking with Spanish speakers
• Learning Spanish was extremely fun (BA4)
• I learned a new language, gained a much greater sense of perspective
on all aspects of life, and an understanding of a different culture . . .
I continue to have Spanish lessons . . . and I continue to be fascinated
by Latin American culture
• I realize I am not the typical volunteer; on the plus side, I could bring
a great deal of maturity to the experience; on the negative side, lan-
guage ability reduced my communication skills . . . In most instances,
I was able to find someone who wanted to practice their English in
order to find out more about the culture. I am very curious and asked
lots of questions. I look upon Ecuador as my second home
• The language tuition focused on speaking, which was good as this is
the part of the language most needed day to day (BA8)
In contrast, only 4 of the 20 Swiss volunteers commented at all and

only 1 expressed surprise at the progress made (as though it was expected
they would indeed learn the language):
• I am still working on my accent (SA1)

• I was surprised at how quickly I learned Spanish (SA4)
• I learned more Spanish with my host family and friends than in the
course (SA6)
• I am now pursuing a masters in Spanish literature and linguistics
(SA10)
Aside from levels of host language proficiency attained, alumni also

gave significant testimonies during interviews, which speak to how they
viewed the relevance of knowing the host language with regards to inter-
cultural adjustments. Key ideas are listed following quoted narratives
given next:
(BA1) “Learning the host language was vital to the success of my

trip. I had learned Spanish at school so I had some basics before
arrival. I was grateful for the 4-week individual language course
and felt this really boosted my confidence. The host family did
not speak any English so I had to communicate straight away.
This I was able to do by putting simple sentences together but
as the weeks went by I became much more confident in talk-
ing to my host family and co-workers on the project. Part of my
project duties were to guide visitors around the sanctuary, so I
also needed the language for that.”
[vital to the success of trip/grateful for the language course/
boosted confidence/family did not speak English so had to com-
municate straight away/able to talk to host family and co-workers
on the project/duties included guiding visitors around in Spanish].
(BA3) “Language is definitely important as you are closed to both
communication and the culture if you don’t speak the language. It
is the main medium for everything else. At first, I was hindered by
a lack of Spanish but the language did come quickly. I thought the
Spanish lessons were excellent.”
[definitely important/otherwise closed to communication and the
culture/the main medium for everything else/hindered without the
language/language is the key to everything].
(BA4) [if younger, learning the language was vital to success of visit/
also tried English with anyone willing/also relied on other volun-
teers to translate/would have enjoyed the experience even more if
spoke more Spanish at every opportunity].
(BA6) [studied more than required from course so I could speak more
quickly/important to have basic language skills/smiled, laughed
and used hand gestures /willing to be corrected, wouldn’t take
offense/language contributed greatly to the overall success of the
program].
(BA8) “I really, really wanted to learn Spanish well, so I made a
real effort to speak Spanish even when the other person spoke
or understood English, as I knew that if I reverted to speaking
English all the time whenever I could, I would never had made
progress so fast . . . Learning the host language is definitely impor-
tant to success. If you don’t speak the host language you miss out
on so much. It’s all part of the experience and makes the whole
thing much more enjoyable. If you can’t understand what people
are saying to you it gets frustrating and boring for both parties.
Language is the key to understanding the culture.”
[motivation, really wanted to learn Spanish/made a real effort/
host language important to success/otherwise you miss out on so
much/it’s part of the experience/makes the whole thing much more
enjoyable/otherwise, it gets frustrating and boring/language is the
key to understanding the culture/learning Spanish has opened up
a whole new world of opportunities and experiences/impossible
to immerse myself in the local culture with being able to speak/
would probably have been ripped off all the time too].
(SA14) [host language very important/enables one to take part in con-
versations/improved to level of political discussions/important in
order to communicate and to understand people/otherwise nuances
get lost/in contact with Quechua but didn’t learn it/people who did
not speak Spanish were not integrated or were excluded from con-
versations/English sometimes used as a means of communication].
In summary, for plurilingual Swiss volunteers, learning the host

tongue was assumed. Since they all had already acquired three languages,
learning a fourth was a natural (and perhaps easy) progression, in con-
trast with monolingual British volunteers who were amazed that they
could indeed learn to communicate in another tongue (their first time).
Given this background (and insights typical of multilingual individu-
als), learning Spanish was expected, and it is interesting that the Swiss
volunteers focused their comments more on details of how they learned
and of improving accent rather than marvel at their accomplishments.
Overall, Swiss volunteers achieved higher proficiency levels than their
British counterparts (of whom only two achieved levels of “structural
accuracy”), while five of the Swiss volunteers exceeded this level.
Aside from proficiency, all alumni expressed important insights about
the significance of being able to speak the host language and its relevance
to their experience. Here is what British and Swiss volunteers said in
their own words during interviews (combined and consolidated where
possible):
(BV6+I) “Communication, which means not only to speak but also to

listen and watch differences and characteristics . . . helped in many
ways, especially with my family. At the beginning, I felt as a child
because I wouldn’t understand most things. This wouldn’t let me
know how to react before many different situations that changed
as I got more experienced in the language and culture. Learning of
the host language helped me overcome this ambiguity.”
[communication helped in many ways/helped to know how to
react in different situations/learning host language helped over-
come ambiguities].
(SV3+I) “(Language) important to have intercultural success . . . . It
would have been impossible to perform my duty without Spanish . . . .
if I hadn’t been capable of communicating with (the kids I worked
with), my work would have failed.”
[important to intercultural success/impossible to perform my
duty without it/if not capable of communicating, my work would
have failed].
It is impressive that volunteers, who were not professors of language,

linguistics, or intercultural communication, were able to articulate
the role of language as fundamental to ICC success. Their words and
thoughts are worthy of enumerating below (followed by the number of
individuals who made similar statements in parentheses, if more than
one): [language is the key to everything, to communicating and under-
standing the local culture, to overall success (7)/it opened a new world of
opportunities and experiences/language was vital/very important to my
success (7)/(things) changed as I got more experienced in the language/it
boosted confidence/was the main medium for everything/enabled me to
take part in conversations/helped in many ways, helped enjoy the expe-
rience (4)/helped overcome ambiguity/allowed integration/not excluded/
otherwise, closed to communication and culture/am grateful/able to talk
to hosts and co-workers/able to perform job/hindered without language/
felt like a child/wouldn’t understand most things/my family did not speak
English/impossible to perform without language/otherwise tried English
when possible (2) otherwise work would have failed/relied on others to
translate/smiled, laughed, and used gestures/otherwise would miss out
on so much, frustrating, boring (2)/would probably have been ripped off/
otherwise nuances get lost/and I studied more than required so I could
speak/willing to be corrected/really wanted to learn/made a real effort].
Their grasp of the relevance and importance of speaking the host lan-
guage is eloquent and insightful, especially from individuals who were
initially monolingual and unsophisticated with foreign languages. Their
thoughts derive not from linguistic study but from their own direct field
experience. They state not only why knowledge of the host language was
important to success but also speak to limitations imposed without an
ability to speak. In addition, given this realization, they comment on
why both the positive and negative aspects motivated them to work even
harder to develop proficiency.
The quest to correlate increasing levels of proficiency with potentially
increased ICCs remains an intriguing area of investigation, sorely over-
looked by researchers in both language education and the intercultural
field. More work needs to be done to clarify this relationship and the effect
one has on the other. Although at first glance, a correlation may seem
intuitive, the connection between both needs to be made explicit especially
given that many prominent interculturalists—in my own experience—are
themselves appallingly monolingual, this despite their years of prominence,
research, publications, and international travel. Also, what might be the
implications of this clarification toward preparing future intercultural
sojourners in terms of program development and requirements? Can the
intercultural sojourner transcend his/her native worldview without also
struggling with the process of entering another tongue? Or is it adequate
for interculturalists only to “know about” other worldviews intellectually
and vicariously, but not experientially? The language-culture-worldview
nexus raises important and fundamental questions.
What is clear is that a total lack of proficiency in the host tongue
must certainly constrain entry, adaptation, and understanding of the
host culture on various levels and in many ways (unless, of course, one
assumes interactions will occur through English, albeit not qualitatively
the same), while increased levels of host language proficiency must cer-
tainly enhance entry possibilities although not a sole guarantee of success
since other factors also come into play.
Finally, language proficiency aside, much is yet to be said about par-
ticipant awareness and development of alternative communicative styles
and discourse strategies (cf. Appendix A: AIC Form, Part V.), another
important contribution to expanding communicative repertoires, which
goes beyond linguistic proficiency to embrace interactional patterns that
form part of all communicative acts.
Assertion No. 3: Intercultural experiences are life altering—British
alumni described changes they experienced through comments in open-
ended sections of the survey questionnaire form as follows:
(BA1) “I have more confidence in speaking to new people.”

(BA2) “More open-minded and tolerant of other cultures, more
politically aware of South American politics and issues.”
(BA3) “I do not think it would be an over exaggeration to say that I
returned a completely different person. I was more relaxed, more
confident, sharper, fitter, and healthier. I had learnt a new lan-
guage, gained a much greater sense of perspective on all aspects of
life and an understanding of a different culture.”
(BA3) “Empathy towards other countries. More motivated to
immerse in other cultures.”
(BA4) “It was one of the most important experiences of my life
because I went at the age of 60 to a country I had never visited
with a language I did not know and whose customs I was unfamil-
iar with on my own after nearly 40 years of marriage doing most
things with my husband.”
(BA8) “I have become more confident and understanding, patient,
and flexible.”
Swiss participants expressed similar thoughts through comments they

also made in open-ended sections of the form:
(SA1) “We now have many friends from South America and other
intercultural couples. I’ve become more adventurous; I have new
contacts with people from Latin America. I have learned to switch
between two cultures . . . try to act to the degree possible in a less
ethnocentric way . . . more zest for life and equanimity, new interests
and abilities. I have made new friends. I am coming to grips with
living in a country in South America. I learned to behave appropri-
ately. I’m now planning to carry out my field studies in Ecuador.”
(SA2 & SA8) “I’ve become more spontaneous, calmer, and more
even tempered.”
(SA3) “Now working in a development organization.”
(SA4) “The experience means a lot to me—the independence and
the new environment as well as the lively and warm people have
made me perk up. I can’t remember having sensed anything as a
constraint. Quite the contrary, I could unfold and enjoy life. I have
learned a lot and the stay has done me a lot of good.”
(SA5) “Learned how to find one’s way in a different world; to
approach other people.”
(SA5 & SA8) “There are many things which I don’t take for granted
anymore, such as warm water in the shower, heating.”
(SA6) “I can better understand their attitude on Switzerland and I
can also deal with it better.”
(SA6) “My stay in Ecuador has changed me a lot. I’m fascinated
about the country, the people, the culture, and the landscape.”
(SA6) “After returning to Switzerland, I kept talking about Ecuador
and I wanted to go back there as soon as possible. I have learned a
lot about myself. This journey has stamped my life in many ways.”
(SA8) “I’ve become more patient.”
(SA8 & SA14) “I was shocked about the wealth in Switzerland and
about the fact that people are still not happy with it. I have real-
ized that things with material value cannot replace inner content-
edness. One can be happy with fewer goods.”
(SA9) “Now working in Ecuador . . . learned to express my feelings
better. I’ve become more expressive when it comes to my feelings;
I’ve learned to accept things which I don’t know . . . my situation
in life has changed with my boyfriend from Ecuador; I now have
a third home country.”
(SA9, SA8, & SA14) “To appreciate my own country and also to
appreciate others.”
(SA12) “I learned a lot about myself during the time in Ecuador; this
journey has stamped my life in many ways.”
(SA15) “I gained a lot of new experiences, understanding for other
ways of living, other cultures . . . a sad insight that basically one
cannot make the world a better place; one cannot really change
things.”
(SA16) “I appreciate it much more that I’m so happy and that I have
everything I need and want. I try harder not to throw away any
food.”
(SA19) “I think above all I learned a lot of new things about myself.
In the beginning, I thought that I could adapt completely to a
totally different way of life and get used to living that way also.
With time, I had to admit that that isn’t so easy. I did not have
enough time for myself while living with the family and I did not
like it at all that you cannot move freely all day in the city itself—a
luxury that is practically never taken from me at home. I am still
just as curious as I was before my stay, and will also take advan-
tage of the next opportunity to get to know other cultures. I think
that I also now have very different expectations about countries
that I will visit in the future, because I now have an idea how it
might be. When I went to Ecuador, I only had a limited idea about
the country’s politics and history, but otherwise I knew so little
that I held no expectations about my visit.”
(SA20) “I do not get stressed as quickly now . . . and I don’t let
myself be bothered by other people . . . . One learns to appreci-
ate the advantages in Switzerland (infrastructure, cleanliness, less
poverty).”
Additional insights about the impact of this experience on their lives

were evident from comments made during interviews of alumni and
volunteers:
(BA1) “It is no exaggeration to say that this project has impacted on

my life totally. In the future, after completion of a university degree,
I plan to return to Ecuador and my future career will be based within
the environmental sector. I feel that the whole experience in Ecuador
has given me so much more confidence in my own abilities.”
[impacted on my life totally/I plan to return/future career based on
experience/increased confidence in my own abilities].
(BA3) [I returned a completely different person/gained a much a
greater perspective on all aspects of life/gained an understand-
ing of a different culture/a much greater global outlook/increased
confidence/a life-changing experience].
(B4) [I feel stronger, know I can make it in another country/more
confident].
(BA6) [has broadened my horizons/gained empathy about how dif-
ficult life can be for others/am mindful to be helpful and courteous
with those with disabilities/gained extra confidence].
(BA8) [it has changed my life/I went for 3 months and stayed for
1–1/2 years/also traveled in Latin America and want to go back/it
has changed me as a person/broadened my horizons/great on my
CV and led to other interesting jobs].
(BV6+I) “Had many abilities before the project. These were theo-
retical and I was able to put them into practice . .very different
from my previous experiences. I increased my interpersonal skills,
which I didn’t know much before going to Ecuador. Helped know
many aspects of my life on a deeper level” [put the theoretical into
practice/increased interpersonal skills/helped in many aspects of
my life on a deeper level].
(SV3+I) [became more patient (used to lose his temper)/less judg-
mental/growing as a person/strengthened his personality/learned
alternative ways].
In summary, it is abundantly clear from comments made by all alumni

that the sojourn was indeed powerful and provocative and that it affected
them in a variety of ways and on many levels—in behavior, personal-
ity, abilities, and characteristics, in addition to ASK+A (Attitudes, Skills,
Knowledge + Awareness) aspects. They commented in various ways on
how the experience “changed my life.” They gained in self-confidence,
became more open-minded and tolerant, developed language skills, and
even improved in health! They also made new or different life choices
upon returning home (more on this later too). This item relates to
Assertions 4, 5, and 7, and is discussed in more depth next.
Assertion No. 4: Participant choices during the sojourn produce cer-
tain intercultural consequences—Participants expressed varying levels of
motivation and interest before arriving in Ecuador and most indicated
even higher levels upon arrival, with motivation continuing to increase
midway and at the end of the experience. On a scale from 0 to 5 (from
none to extremely high), British volunteers ranked their motivation at
the end of the experience as follows: 1 person at level 3, 2 at 4, and 5 at
5; while Swiss volunteers ranked theirs as 1 at 3, 2 at 4, and 17 at 5. Of
the total 28, then, 23 ranked their motivation at the highest possible level
while only 2 ranked their motivation at a mid-point and 4 ranked their
motivation as high.
One might expect participants in a volunteer program (presupposing a
self-selected group who elected a specific choice) to display high motiva-
tion and interest before arriving in-country and, in fact, most indicated
even higher degrees upon arrival in the host culture. These attitudes con-
tinued midway and through to the end of the experience. One might
also expect that these attitudes were important toward sustaining them
throughout the experience and helped them through admittedly difficult
times (culture bumps). For example, despite the fact that all expressed
high motivation and interest, half of the participants acknowledged chal-
lenges at times and occasional low points during their stay, such that
they “sometimes wanted to return home/felt not learning very much/felt
forced or obliged to adjust/tried to survive as best they could.” These
thoughts were offset by the fact that all participants, from a medium
to high degree, also “desired to get along well/desired to adjust as best
they could/admired hosts so that they worked to become as bilingual and
bicultural as possible.”
These latter thoughts are reminiscent of contrasts between the so-
called instrumental and integrative types of motivations. Clearly, volun-
teers were mostly inclined toward the latter, given their willingness to
learn and adapt, and in their positive feelings about their experiences.
Here are their thoughts conveyed in their own words:
(B4) [feel gratitude for own standard of living back home/I now
make more generous donations to support these efforts].
(B6) [am more appreciative of what I have at home/gained insight
into the less privileged/grateful for free state care in the UK].
(B8) [developed friendships, now have friends all over Latin Amer-
ica/none of this would have happened if I hadn’t gone to Ecuador,
learned Spanish, and immersed myself in the life there].
In summary, intercultural service programs naturally attract volun-

teers with high degrees of motivation. They seek the experience, undergo
selection, pay a sum of money, travel halfway around the world, and
brave the challenges of participating in another linguaculture. Indeed,
their motivation must lean more toward the integrative than the instru-
mental type, which means that sojourners desire to go beyond mere
acceptance. As a result, they seek to emulate their hosts and work toward
higher degrees of bilingualism and biculturalism than might be witnessed
by others within the same timeframe. Integrative motivation does more
than sustain them through difficult and challenging moments. It gives
them pleasure in “becoming” like their hosts and “becoming” part of
their host society and culture—not a likely disposition shared by all who
enter other cultures. They undergo voluntary acculturation and welcome
efforts by their hosts to “assimilate” them. The result, at whatever their
level of attainment, is a satisfying, rewarding, and enriching experience
in which positive aspects outweigh the negative, as they perceive them.
They seek to move beyond the etic and into an emic posture insofar as
possible. They transcend and transform their native paradigm as they
seek to grasp another.
These are all reasons captured by the data (although there may be
others) that successful intercultural sojourners seek to perpetuate and
extend this significant, provocative, and life-altering experience even
after it has ended, and they return home. They reflect these sentiments
through their own words and actions. After re-entry, six of the eight
British volunteers spoke of the positive nature of their experience, six con-
tinued to study Spanish, eight developed new intercultural friendships,
three now work in related fields, five continued to use their intercultural
abilities, and seven maintained ongoing contact with hosts in various
ways. And, after returning home, all 20 Swiss volunteers spoke of their
experience in positive terms: ten continued to study another language
(seven in Spanish), seven pursued a related field of study, 19 developed
new intercultural relationships, six now work in a related field, 19 con-
tinued to use their intercultural abilities, and 19 maintained contact with
hosts in various ways—by letter or email (19), occasional phone con-
versations (12), exchanging gifts (six), return visits (four), and receiving
their hosts as visitors in Switzerland (two).
Assertion No. 5: All parties in intercultural contact are affected to
some degree and in various ways—From survey responses and inter-
view comments, it became apparent how intercultural service volunteers
were affected by their experience. They described the experience as life
changing—they learned more about others, about the world, and about
themselves. They developed positive attitudes, new skills, knowledge,
and awareness (cf. AIC Form, Part VII). This was obvious in the earlier
section and carries over into this area as well. Comments like those that
follow reflect the impact of the experience upon participants even after
the program had long since ended: [I will be in touch with my hosts for
many years to come/I returned to Ecuador with husband/I maintain regu-
lar contact with my host family/I am still in contact with hosts even after
5 years/host family also visited them in the UK].
In summary, how volunteers were affected is clear from the comments
cited here and those mentioned earlier. How mentors (and other hosts)
were also affected will become apparent in later sections that deal with
responses obtained from mentor survey forms.
Assertion No. 6: Service programs offer unique opportunities for
sojourners and hosts, beyond traditional educational exchanges—This
assertion was inadequately explored in the survey since no specific ques-
tions addressed this area in the questionnaire form.
Assertion No. 7: People are changed (presumably in positive ways)
as a result of this experience—Responses provided in Part I of the sur-
vey provided insights in this regard. For example, the following are
based on comments made by British and Swiss alumni: [all alumni
stated that they had had positive IC experiences/16 continued language
study (13 in Spanish) upon returning from Ecuador/7 pursued a related
field of study upon return / 1 remained in Ecuador to work in another
capacity/27 (i.e., all but 1) developed new intercultural relationships
(friends, colleagues, a boyfriend, a Colombian spouse, and 2 by hosting
visitors from abroad/10 now work in a related field or in intercultural
or multicultural settings/and all cited a variety of ways they continue to
utilize their newly developed intercultural abilities such as a desire and
interest to learn more about other cultures, respect for diverse perspec-
tives, increased intercultural understanding, enhanced communication
skills, and continued use of Spanish].
Others commented that they [developed an ability to make friends
quickly and easily/confidence to go to a country and survive/learned salsa
dancing, a great social activity/realized how privileged they are in the UK/
learned to make the most of every opportunity/appreciate more what one
has, one’s own country/got to know another part of the world/can more
easily approach people from a different culture/accept how other cultures
function differently/more open to accept differences (even among the
French-Swiss)/more open to new things/adapts more easily/more easygo-
ing (e.g., accepts restructuring at work)].
Comments made by volunteers in interviews at the end of their pro-
gram reinforced many of the same ideas made by alumni who had already
returned home:
(BV6+I) [experience very enjoyable/now thinks more about her own

culture and its components/knows more about Ecuador and South
America/changed her point of view/has new perspectives of life/
plans to keep in touch with host family and friends/plans to help
her place of work/wants to keep the closeness she learned from
her hosts in her own family].
(BV6+I) [developed intercultural abilities important for her future/
overcame ambiguity/able to adapt to new culture/helps to under-
stand foreign people in own country].
(SV3+I) [has grown in many ways /views things differently/developed
a higher level of consciousness and awareness/learned to live with
less materialism and luxury].
(SV3+I) [helped to get to know himself on higher level/knows his life
will change back home/more aware of the world/won’t be as self-
centered/will appreciate everything back home more].
In summary, as the comments noted earlier indicate, even when

alumni acknowledged challenges and difficulties, they expressed no
truly negative comments about the experience or its effects upon them.
All comments concerned growth, development, expansion, opening,
learning, and changing. And, despite occasional comments about what
they learned about Ecuador, a preponderant amount of comments was
really about themselves and their own societies—not unusual for inter-
cultural sojourners who, while learning about others, are surprised by
how much they also learn about themselves, an aspect they seldom
anticipate.
In the end, self-awareness is perhaps the most powerful change that
takes place and something that continues to serve participants for the
rest of their lives. Many believe that self-awareness is the most impor-
tant aspect of human development. Perhaps for this reason, it is at the
center of the world’s great religions: “know thyself” and at the core of
a Freirean approach to education: “conscientização” (cf. Freire 2012).
Interviewees became more aware of their own beliefs and limitations.
They became more grateful for what they have at home and they broad-
ened and deepened their perspectives about themselves, others, their gov-
ernment, country, indeed, their own worldview.
Assertion No. 8: Some returnees lean toward specific life choices,
life partners, lifestyles, values, and jobs as a result of this experience—
Evidence for this assertion is somewhat sparse and is taken up again in
the FRP. This may be attributable to the fact that, except for one individ-
ual, all alumni were young adults (between the ages of 19–28) and have
yet to make such choices. The sole exception (a woman of 63) obviously
already made these choices and would be unlikely to change at this point.
Nonetheless, numerous indicators suggest that alumni were (re)oriented
as a result of their experience.
All but two returned to their previous home situations: one British
alumna remained in Ecuador because she enjoyed the experience so
much and was employed at the Embassy in Quito as did also one Swiss
volunteer. Of the returnees, one Swiss alumna stated that she was pur-
suing courses related to her recent experience, while many others were
pursuing further language study (Spanish or another language); still oth-
ers were pursuing related fields of study, and several were contemplating
intercultural careers. One returnee said she had chosen her career path
before Ecuador but that the experience confirmed her choice and made
her more excited and prepared for her chosen field in environmental
studies. Other indicators were embedded in comments made in open-
ended sections of the survey form and in the interviews that followed:
The British Volunteers

(B1) [retained language ability and plan to revisit Ecuador/rein-
forced decision to pursue a career in the environmental section
(as per my project in Ecuador)].
(B3) [mentoring, coaching seven English people and one person each
from France and Germany at work/often encounters people at
her firm from other countries and go out of her way to welcome
them using their own language/would like to take a career break
so I could volunteer again/her company offered her the chance
to travel to another country/wants to work in South America].
(B5) [psychologist for offending behavior programs, working with
about ten persons per group].
(B8) [gave direction to career and life/went traveling throughout
Latin America on own/began teaching English, gave private les-
sons, worked for a filming company/also as journalist and edi-
tor for a tourism website/then worked as assistant in Embassy].
The Swiss Volunteers
(S1) [planning to carry out my field studies in Ecuador].
(S3) [cultural anthropology/development cooperation].
(S4) [political science, general linguistics].
(S5) [international relations/international relations, planning to
work for an international relief organization].
(S6) [course on project management in intercultural fields/husband
is Colombian/now have many friends, intercultural couples,
people from South America/new contacts with people from
South America].
(S9) [now working for EIL Ecuador/promotes intercultural pro-
grams to people from Ecuador (50 people)/now have a third
home country].
(S10) [will take advantage of the next possible opportunity to get
to know other cultures/pursuing a master’s degree in Span-
ish literature and linguistics/want to discover the whole world
(that’s why I’m working at the airport)].
(S15) [school for health and social work/teaching language to a
woman from Albania/have made many new friends].
(S16) [recently conducted a fundraiser for scouts/helped to accept a
job in the French part of Switzerland].
In summary, although the mostly young adult population under study

was still too young to have made many important life choices with
regards to career, marriage, and lifestyles, it is evident that they generally
adopted a particular life “orientation” that built on their sojourn experi-
ence in Ecuador. Despite lack of definitive evidence for this assertion at
this point due to age, other important changes did occur, as reported in
Assertion 5. Other indicators pointed to their newfound intercultural dis-
positions, such as [interest in further developing language ability/plans to
return/work/stay in South America (6)/influenced or confirmed decision
about career (17)/mentoring, coaching, welcoming foreigners/diversity
(5)/interest in travel, getting to know other cultures (5)/engaged to or
married to a South American (2)/new friends from South America (4)].
Clearly, their interests in learning other languages, foreign travel and
work abroad, meeting foreigners, getting to know other cultures, marry-
ing someone from abroad, and wanting to make new friends from other
cultures, were all consistent with individuals who have undergone inter-
cultural experiences and were affected in positive ways. No comments
suggested retreat or withdrawal from intercultural contact; all comments
pointed in the direction of wanting to expand further upon what was
already experienced.
Assertion No. 9: Alumni often engage in activities that impact on
others—Of 28 alumni, two indicated involvement in an intercultural
engagement or marriage, four indicated the pursuit of related studies,
ten indicated that they now work (or plan to work) in related fields
(three of whom work or plan to work in Ecuador), and 18 indicated
involvement in activities where they utilize their intercultural abilities
to advantage. Examples include (numbers in parentheses indicate how
many responded similarly) [an intercultural marriage and an intercul-
tural fiancé (two)/pursuing course work or degrees in Spanish litera-
ture and linguistics, international relations, and project management in
intercultural fields/teaching or mentoring immigrant co-workers (two)/
providing psychological counseling in a prison (nine)/doing charity work
(one)/working at the British Embassy (15+)/careers in health and social
work, political science, general linguistics, and cultural anthropology,
and development/plans to work for an international relief organization
and another to study in Ecuador/promoting intercultural programs to
people from Ecuador (50 people)].
In summary, although the number of persons the alumni and volun-
teers affected or will affect in the future is difficult to calculate, it is clear
that all of the alumni are having an impact on others, especially in fields
such as teaching, counseling, health, social work, development, and ser-
vice. Although not startling in terms of numbers, several indicated some
multiplier effects with two, two, eight, nine, 15+, and 50+ persons being
affected in the cases cited, totaling 86+ persons presumably benefiting
from abilities the alumni developed during their service experience abroad.
Several other respondents did not indicate the number of persons they
work with in four areas, so there is no way of truly calculating these
effects. Despite this, it remains clear that others are also affected by the
actions of returnees from intercultural service programs.
Assertion No. 10: These activities further the organizational mission—
Federation EIL’s vision is one of world peace; its mission is to help build
it. As one of the oldest organizations engaged in international, intercul-
tural education, service, and development, Federation EIL maintains
both academic and service project capabilities dedicated to promoting
intercultural understanding, social justice, and world peace. Since its
founding, its values have become ever more relevant in today’s world,
and its programs have grown in scope and intensity. Through collab-
orative work among MOs, distinctive methods based on experiential
approaches to education and training and the integration of theory and
practice, Federation EIL’s diverse programs are designed to provide life-
changing experiences that develop ICCs, create leaders, contribute to
global development, and effect positive change.
In summary, the approach to developing world peace, one person
at a time, mirrors Gandhi’s challenge when he said, “You must be the
change that you wish to see in the world.” In other words, change occurs
from the inside out. Federation EIL programs help this to occur in the
context of quality educational exchange programs, including those with
a service component. All of these experiences include selection, orienta-
tion, language study, a homestay, and usually an additional component.
In Federation EIL’s VIP programs, this additional component involves
participation in a service project. Most importantly, each intercultural
sojourn is conducted in-country and on that culture’s terms. This means
that participants learn in the way of the culture of the host society, requir-
ing development of an emic approach.
Findings in this study reinforce the numerous anecdotal and statistical
reports accumulated over more than three-quarters of a century. Because
the nature of intercultural encounters is always provocative, it promotes
deep introspection and reflection. Rarely does one return with more ste-
reotypes or intolerant attitudes. In addition, learning about others pro-
vides new vantage points for learning more about oneself. The returnee
typically remarks, “I learned so much about Ecuador, but I learned even
more about myself.” Understanding and changes of perspective occur for
most and, as a result, they return home deeply changed. The intercultural
experience, many state, has been the most profound educational experi-
ence of their lives. And changed participants return to live their lives
differently, affecting others in the process. In so doing, they are helping
to further the institutional vision and mission. This is a consistent theme
throughout all of the reports provided in this study.
Host Perspectives
As previously stated, Ecuadorian mentors completed two types of sur-
vey forms addressing: (1) their views of volunteer performance (labeled
Mentors/Volunteers or MV), and (2) about their own intercultural devel-
opment (labeled Mentors/Self, or MS). In the first case, of five super-
vising mentors, four completed questionnaire forms at the beginning
of the volunteers’ programs, three at the end, and four gave personal
interviews, indicated by (+I). This first section examines mentor views of
volunteer performance, guided by questions pertaining to the ten asser-
tions. These provide the emic view, from the hosts’ point of view, an
often-missing viewpoint in intercultural research and one that deserves
increased attention.
Mentor Views of Volunteer Performance

Assertion No. 1: ICC is a complex of abilities (important attributes)—
Mentors described volunteers at the end of programs in the following
ways:
(FEMV1+I) SV1 was initially impatient, became more adaptable,

now a more open person. She is now [respectful/patient/reflective/
gentle/caring].
(FEMV3+I) SV3 was initially very judgmental, criticized a lot, noted
many problems, didn’t share the way he handled the problems,
intelligent. He now [has his character well defined (set in his
ways?)/learned to be more tolerant with different ideas and situa-
tions/more reflective before taking an action].
(FEMV4+I) SV4 is [very active/very helpful].
(FEMV5+I) BV6 was very patient, adaptable, humble, and a hard
worker. She now [continues to have these same abilities/developed
them to a higher level/especially patient/does good work/considers
the needs of others before her own].
Mentors confirmed many of the attributes cited in the literature (i.e.,

those with numbers in parentheses show the number of respondents who
cited particular attributes): [tolerance (1)/flexibility/patience (3)/sense
of humor/appreciate differences/suspending judgment/adaptability (1)/
curiosity/open-minded/motivated (1)/self-reliant/empathy (1)/clear sense
of self/perceptive/tolerance of ambiguity]. In addition, they added two
other qualities they had observed: [respect (1)/reflective (2)]. They also
cited several qualities when referring to specific individuals, all positive
and one negative (i.e., set in his ways): [gentle (1)/caring (1)/active (1)/
helpful (1)/humble (1)/set in his ways (1)].
In summary, by completing all items in Part II of the survey form
and leaving none blank, mentors confirmed all 15 attributes listed.
In open-ended interviews, they spontaneously confirmed five and they
identified two others not on the list. They also cited several positive
and negative individual qualities without generalizing about them.
Comparing comments between volunteers and hosts raises intriguing
new questions: Are qualities cited as important to ICC success viewed
in the same way by sojourners and hosts? Do they share the same order
of importance? Are any qualities which hosts consider important not
considered in the same way by sojourners (and interculturalists), and
vice versa?
Spontaneous comments made by mentors concerning language and com-
munication when dealing with their international volunteers were as
follows:
(FEMV1+I) [helps to understand the situation on a deeper level/

allows her to comprehend better/to be less judgmental].
(FEMV3+I) [this is one of the most important aspects/necessary,
because she works with kids who speak only Spanish].
(FEMV4+I) [learning the host language is really important/otherwise
would need to find alternate ways to communicate which would
be difficult].
(FEMV5+I) [fundamental to success/admires volunteers who come
and learn a new language].
In summary, whereas the question regarding the significance and

necessity of learning the host tongue may be discussed by language edu-
cators and interculturalists from an etic viewpoint, it is interesting to
learn about this issue from the hosts’ point of view, especially from hosts
who are themselves monolingual. From the mentor perspective, it was
obvious that they all viewed volunteer knowledge of their language as
important: “One of the most important aspects” and “fundamental to
success; it is necessary to life and work; one cannot function without
it.” Aside from practical aspects of speaking the host language, the vol-
unteers’ language ability drew admiration thereby enhancing how hosts
viewed volunteers even further.
Assertion No. 5: All parties engaged in intercultural contact are
affected to some degree and in various ways (impact of ICC contact on
mentors). Also: Assertion No. 3: Intercultural experiences are life alter-
ing; Assertion No. 4: Participant choices during the sojourn produce cer-
tain intercultural consequences; Assertion No. 6: Service programs offer
unique opportunities for sojourners and hosts, beyond traditional educa-
tional exchanges; Assertion No. 7: People are changed as a result of this
experience; and Assertion No. 8: Some returnees lean toward specific life
choices, life partners, lifestyles, values and jobs as a result of this experi-
ence (use of ICC abilities in my own life and work)—Here’s what men-
tors said during interviews (Is) regarding the impact of this experience
upon volunteers as they saw it:
(FEMV1+I) [the volunteer faced many difficult situations and over-

came them/has been very helpful/strengthened her vocation/now
sure about direction chosen for her life/she’s more aware of prob-
lems in the world/will help her in her future job/learned new aspects
of health care systems/learned to deal with bureaucratic issues].
(FEMV3+I) [has become more open/will help his personal develop-
ment/now has more expectations about life/more open/got to know
new people/experienced new things/life changed without a doubt].
(FEMV4+I) [more awareness of differences/more open-minded/
helped her on many different levels/changed attitude/will be a
helpful person throughout life].
(FEMV5+I) [will try to help poor people in her own country/a
changed person/will want more different experiences/more aware
of own values].
In summary, it is clear that mentors felt that volunteers were impacted in

many positive ways—in areas of attitudes, skills, knowledge, and
awareness—and they noted how volunteers had changed, expected
volunteers to pursue their life choices more effectively, and to be helpful
to others. The mentors also appreciated the contributions of volunteers
to their projects: [the volunteers stay for short periods of time/experience
with volunteers is excellent/have low budget and can’t hire adequate staff/
volunteers are a great help]. Given low project budgets and inadequate
staff, the mentors recognized that volunteers provided much needed
assistance. The mentors’ only complaint was the short duration of the
volunteers’ stay, but all in all, they were “a great help.”
Mentor Perspectives
Finally, what about the host mentors involved in this study? The impact
of intercultural contact on those who never leave home is seldom part of
research but raises some interesting questions: Did interaction with for-
eigners also affect their lives? Did the mentors also develop ICC abilities?
These questions are examined in this section.
Of five supervising mentors, three completed survey forms about
themselves at the beginning of their contact with volunteers, four com-
pleted forms at the end, and four were interviewed in person at program
end. The following summary explores the impact of this experience on
the Ecuadorian counterparts.
About the Mentors/Self (MS)

The following information was summarized from Part I of the survey
form:
• all four mentors were female

• their ages were 35, 43, 55; one did not answer this question
• all were Ecuadorian monolingual Spanish speakers
• three were college graduates and one held a doctoral degree
• they worked in civic service for 3, 12, 15, and 25 years
• three had never been outside of Ecuador, one in Bolivia
In summary, all mentors were well educated and dedicated to civic

service. All were monocultural and monolingual in Spanish notwith-
standing their involvement with indigenous peoples, often Quechua
speakers. Only one had traveled outside of Ecuador to neighboring
Bolivia. Following is the information they provided with relation to the
ten assumptions:
Assumption No. 1: ICC is a complex of abilities—In discussing their own
attributes required for their work, mentors cited the following qualities:
(FEMS1+I) [respect/willingness to adapt/understanding differences/

patience/reflection/problem solving/to see our reality].
(FEMS3+I) [willingness to help/sharing].
(FEMS4+I) [be active/willingness/attitude/creativity/communication/
developing relationships].
(FEMS5+I) [openness/interest/relationships/knowledge of local culture].
In their responses, mentors also confirmed nearly half of the attributes

commonly cited in the literature (i.e., those marked in bold): [tolerance/
flexibility/patience/sense of humor/appreciate differences/suspending
judgment/adaptability/curiosity/open-minded/motivated/self-reliant/
empathy/clear sense of self/perceptive/tolerance of ambiguity].
They also added several qualities (not cited in the literature) that they
considered important; numbers in parentheses indicated the number of
responses provided by mentors: [respect (1)/reflective (1)/problem solving
(1)/language, communication (4)/attitude (1)/creativity (1)/relationships
(2)/knowledge of local culture (1)].
In summary, by completing all items in Part II of the survey form and
leaving no item blank, mentors acknowledged all 15 attributes. In open-
ended interviews, they spontaneously confirmed seven without prompts
and they identified eight additional qualities not on the original list.
Among this last group, all four cited knowledge of the language and
communication as important to intercultural success.
Spontaneous comments made by mentors concerning the role of lan-
guage and communication in their interactions with volunteers were as
follows:
(FEMS1+I) “It is important that volunteers learn Spanish since it makes

them more self-confident and helps them communicate in a better
way. Working in this environment allows them to learn the language
on a deeper level. For mentors, it is very important that the volunteers
learn Spanish because with this knowledge they can exchange
ideas with each other and this makes their experience richer.”
(FEMS3+I) “Volunteers tend to communicate in many different ways
when they aren’t able to express something. When it comes to the
working with kids (language) is fundamental since kids tend to be
very curious and volunteers have to find a way to communicate
with them.”
(FEMS4+I) “Learning the language is basic to having a fluid relation-
ship since we (the hosts) don’t speak other languages.”
(FEMS5+I) “Without learning the host language, there would have
been a barrier which would have made this more difficult, espe-
cially when it comes to this type of work.”
In summary, it is important to note that communication and learning

the host language were both factors cited by all mentors as important for
intercultural success. This being so, they clearly affect and contribute to
ICC development as well. Additional spontaneous comments made by
mentors in this regard were that language was [important/helps the vol-
unteers gain confidence/improves communication/allows a deeper level/
allows exchange of ideas/makes the experience richer/it’s fundamental/
basic to relationships]. Conversely, without language, [a barrier/more
difficult/mentors don’t speak their languages/kids they work with are
curious].
These comments not only substantiate why mentors thought knowl-
edge of the host language was important for volunteers in terms of what
they contribute, but they also point to how a lack of host language abil-
ity would seriously constrain relationships and interaction, especially since
most hosts and mentors don’t speak other languages. Oddly, with the
exception of only one mentor, the others did not reverse this thought to
consider their own need or desire to learn another language (given that
Quechua is frequently spoken in their areas). However, since only one had
traveled to nearby Bolivia and most do not imagine the possibility of inter-
national travel, this may explain why they did not see the need to speak
other languages.
Assertion No. 5: All parties engaged in intercultural contact are
affected to some degree and in various ways (impact of ICC contact
on mentors). Also: Assertion No. 3: Intercultural experiences are life-
altering; Assertion No. 4: Participant choices during the sojourn produce
certain intercultural consequences; Assertion No. 6: Service programs
offer unique opportunities for sojourners and hosts, beyond traditional
educational exchanges. Following is what mentors said in open-ended
questions of the survey forms (+SFs) and in interviews (+Is) regarding the
impact of their work with foreign volunteers:
(FEMS1+SFs) [noted two sides of life (unstructured life of street chil-

dren/structured life of volunteers)/respect/tolerate differences as
got to know foreign volunteers].
(FEMS1+I) “Contact with people from other cultures . . . is an
opportunity to meet new people, develop myself, and learn from
the volunteers who have different points of view.”
(FEMS3+I) [learned about communication/strengthened relation-
ships I had due to contact with volunteers].
(FEMS3+I) “Sharing a new culture is important. While working
with volunteers, I constantly learn to collaborate with them and
this helps me to work better. This also helps me to know them
(foreigners) better and be more open to them. There are some
(customs) that volunteers don’t share (with us since) they haven’t
lived our reality. As they get to know this reality better (through
language), they tend to adapt better to this situation.”
(FEMS4+I) “This experience has helped me to recognize many dif-
ferences between our cultures and theirs: the way they live, the
way they dress, and the things they eat. I find (the volunteer) also
very curious about other cultures. She told me this experience
has made her want to travel and get to know other cultures on a
deeper level.”
(FEMS5+I) “This contact has allowed me to understand volunteers
better and to become friends with them. Outside the work envi-
ronment, I have become more open.”
(FEMS5) [learned from contact with volunteers/became more under-
standing/more open/more tolerant/has helped me with my daily
tasks].
In summary, intercultural research generally focuses on the sojourner—

on those traveling to a new environment. However, their presence
among their hosts most certainly must also exert some effect on people
with whom they interact. It is clear in this case that the monolingual-
monocultural mentors were challenged by this intercultural contact
even while remaining at home. As a result, they too have grown
although perhaps not in all the same ways (e.g., language) nor to the
same degree.
Mentors specifically cite the following effects on themselves: [derived
insights by comparing/developed respect/opportunity to meet new people/
develop relationships (2)/learned about communication/opportunity to
develop myself/constantly learn from them (3)/this helps me to work bet-
ter (2)/became more open (3)/helps me to recognize differences among
cultures (2)/learned of the impact this experience has on them/helps me
to understand (2)/to become friends/to become more tolerant].
It is clear that host mentors were impacted in various ways through
interactions with the volunteers in areas of attitudes, skills, knowledge,
and awareness. ICC contact does affect all parties in the interaction—
volunteer sojourners and hosts alike. The phrase “looking out is looking
in” acquires more significance when we include the hosts who through
contact with foreigners also began processes of reflection and introspec-
tion that might not otherwise have occurred. Hence, the provocative
two-way nature of intercultural contact is clear no matter the setting.
Assertion No. 7: People are changed as a result of this experience +
Assertion No. 8: Some returnees lean toward specific life choices, life
partners, lifestyles, values and jobs as a result of this experience (use of
ICC abilities in life and work)—Mentors speak to these two points dur-
ing interviews in the following ways:
(FEMS1+I) “I’ve been applying these abilities in my work day by

day because my job demands this. Respect and openness are the
basis of this job since it allows people to respect and care about
themselves and these are the values we also try to share with the
people who live in extreme poverty. This experience (with the
volunteers) helps me to understand many differences among peo-
ple of diverse cultures and even inside the same culture. On the
personal side, this experience has turned me into a more respect-
ful person.”
(FEMS3+I) “My job involves interpersonal skills, therefore the expe-
rience (with volunteers) helps me to know how to get along with
people from other cultures. (My experience with volunteers) has
helped me to improve these skills.”
(FEMS4+I) “I use these abilities all the time since I have constant
contact with volunteers at work. In my own life, I find that I
miss this contact later because we become so close to each other.
During this experience, I learned to respect people from other
countries on a higher level, avoiding the use of terms such as
‘gringo’ which offends foreigners and explaining this to those
around me.”
(FEMS5+I) “This experience has helped me a lot and due to this con-
tact, I am now more open-minded when it comes to relationships
with people from other countries. I am always hoping to have
more volunteers because they have proven to be very responsible
individuals.”
In summary, it is interesting to note the connections mentors make

between their experience with foreign volunteers and what they learned
from them, within their own lives and work. They commented on these
correlations in various ways: [I apply this to my work every day/respect
and openness are the values we try to share with the people we work
with in extreme poverty/this experience (with the volunteers) helps me
to understand many differences among people of diverse cultures and
even inside the same culture/on the personal side, this experience has
turned me into a more respectful person/helps me to know how to get
along with people from other cultures/(my experience with volunteers)
has helped me to improve these skills/I use these abilities all the time/
during this experience, I learned to respect people from other countries
on a higher level/this experience has helped me a lot/due to this contact,
I am now more open-minded when it comes to relationships with people
from other countries].
Both parties were mutually enriched through contact. Without always
realizing it, they had much to offer each other. They both grew and devel-
oped, and the growth experienced by mentors had direct application to
their lives and work.
Assertion No. 9: Alumni (and mentors) often engage in activities that
impact on others—As persons involved in civic service, this is the chosen
life course for all the Ecuadorian mentors.
Assertion No. 10: These activities further the organizational vision
and mission—Mentors, as well as volunteers, contribute since service
projects advance the vision and mission of the umbrella organization.
4.5 Summary and Conclusions
Lessons Learned
Numerous insights were gleaned about “process” aspects of this study.
The lessons learned were considered when undertaking the FRP and
included the following:
1) The challenges of collaborative international research efforts on sev-

eral levels, especially administratively, cross-culturally, and linguisti-
cally; despite this, the promises are quite attractive
2) Contracting and supervising RAs as project employees emerged as
an important factor (as opposed to contracting personnel within the
local MOs) to avoid the difficulties experienced with one MO, which
interfered with the RA performing her tasks
3) Working through untrained, nonprofessional RAs presents specific
challenges in guiding them to ensure their efforts will result in pro-
ducing reliable results
4) The need to ensure that the MOs involved have updated alumni
files with current contact information (especially email, where
possible)
5) The challenges, benefits, and necessity of working through local lan-
guages (and the native tongues of research subjects involved) and
ensuring that surveys and documents are properly translated
6) The intercultural challenge of designing questionnaires for
respondents from a variety of cultural backgrounds, inexperi-
enced with surveys and who may hold differing attitudes about
participation
7) The need to perform an item analysis to reduce an acknowledged
lengthy questionnaire into the briefest possible instrument, yet one
that will yield desired results
8) The importance of follow-on interviews toward producing a rich
corpus of qualitative data
9) The value of combining quantitative and qualitative data to get com-
plete and accurate results
10) Ways to apply the findings identified in the survey to enhance pro-
gram design and implementation, promotion, selection, orientation,
and assessment of outcomes
Areas for Further Work
Because the data obtained are extremely rich, they have the potential to
yield many more insights. Following are questions and areas for further
analysis in future studies:
1) General correlations across and within subgroups:

• How do different subgroups compare in several areas—e.g., British
and Swiss volunteers? What do they share? How do they differ?
• What comparisons can be made by gender? By age? Length of
sojourn?
• Based on previous cross-cultural experiences?
• Based on monolingual versus bilingual or multilingual participants?
• Specific development in each area of ASK+A?
• What other etic-emic comparisons can be made?
2) What specific changes occurred in worldview?
3) General correlations among mentors (self):
• Comparisons by gender? By age?
• Development in each specific area of ASK+A?
• What etic-emic comparisons can be made?
• What changes occurred in world view?
Additional questions and areas of interest to explore are as follows:
1) The ten assertions:

• Which assertions might coalesce (e.g., Assertions 3, 4, 5, and 7)?
• How should assertions be reframed or restated?
• What new assertions might be added?
2) ICC attributes:
• Which attributes might cluster or coalesce?
• Is there a hierarchy or order of importance?
• Are attributes viewed the same from etic and emic points of
view?
• Do attributes vary in accordance with target host culture?
3) Language/communication:
• How does language/communication transcend/affect other
attributes?
• What is the role of language to ICC development in general?
• How to use and relate communicative styles to this area (Part V)?
4) Etic-emic:
• How do volunteer and mentor assessments compare?
5) Assertion 6 (service programs offer unique opportunities for sojourn-
ers and hosts beyond traditional educational exchanges):
• Needs more information, otherwise eliminate?
6) The AIC instrument:
• Perform an item analysis to determine which items to keep, elim-
inate, or combine.
• Revise and shorten the instrument accordingly.
• What new areas might need to be added?
References
Agresti, A. and Finlay, B. (1997) Statistical Methods for the Social Sciences,
3rd edn., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall International.
Freire, P. (2012) Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 30th anniversary edn., New York,
NY: Bloomsbury.
Hannouchi, S. (2018) Expectations of Conformity to Moroccan Cultural
Norms, Unpublished paper presented at the Conference on the Develop-
ment and Assessment of Intercultural Competence, Tucson, AZ: University
of Arizona.
Kim, J.O. and Mueller, C.W. (1978) Introduction to Factor Analysis: What It Is
and How to Do It, London: Sage Publications.
Levin, I.P. (1999) Relating Statistics and Experimental Design, Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
5 The Follow-on Research
Project
5.1 Overview
Chapter 5 presents the second multinational research project undertaken
between 2015 and 2016, which expands upon the work and findings of
the Initial Research Project (IRP): The research design and plan provides
a description of the project, lists participating countries involved in this
study (Brazil, Germany, Ireland, Japan, and the USA), describes modi-
fications and expansions made to the research instrument, the advan-
tages and limitations of the project, and approaches to data compilation
and organization, and findings. A major change in the Follow-on
Research Project (FRP) was the availability of SurveyMonkey (SM), an
online program, allowing direct access to participants, facilitating their
ability to respond, and providing instantaneous statistical data compi-
lation. The quantitative and qualitative data represent responses from
over 2,000 sojourners and 200 host families and were again obtained
through survey questionnaires and telephone interviews. This study sup-
ports and confirms findings in the initial study, plus it provides new
information regarding the relative value of individual program compo-
nents toward supporting the development of ICC. The core component
remains undoubtedly the homestay sojourn, and all respondents affirm
the significance of learning to function in the host language. Results are
reported based on data from individual countries to identify particular-
ist aspects (those specific to a given language-cultural group) and sub-
sequently compiled to reflect universal aspects (those that apply across
language-culture groups).
5.2 The Research Design and Plan

The design and plan of the FRP were significantly advanced by the
experience and findings of the IRP. Further developments in the inter-
cultural field during the intervening decade, however, required updating
the review of the intercultural literature. The search expanded to include
publications in related areas of research design and outcomes assessment;
bilingualism-biculturalism (plurilingualism); education, orientation, and
114 The Follow-on Research Project
training; constructs of IC; intercultural programs; international educa-
tion; language, culture, and worldview; related research and studies; and
developments in study abroad programs.
The search of assessment tools was also updated, and newly devel-
oped instruments were again analyzed to compare and to update the
AIC Form for use in this FRP. This effort resulted in expanding the
original AIC Form to learn more details about specific aspects of ICC
development and study abroad program design and delivery. At this
point, we also wanted to investigate the relative value of specific pro-
gram components in terms of how each contributes to the overall expe-
rience. The result was a revised survey form, renamed the Assessment of
Intercultural Communicative Competence (AICC) (more on this later).
A major advance in the FRP was possible given the availability
of SurveyMonkey (SM), an online computer software program. This
program enabled more extensive research, especially across multiple
countries—to wit, (1) direct online access to alumni located in five
countries, (2) easy access for participants to the survey form plus
instantaneous submission upon completion, (3) the ability to moni-
tor data collection in process, and (4) the program’s ability to per-
form ongoing data tabulation and compilation as each questionnaire
was received. The program facilitated collection and processing of a
large amount of quantitative data plus the inclusion of open-ended
questions allowing respondents to contribute additional insights
about their experiences. This enhanced approach to data collection
was supplemented with interviews of consenting respondents from
each country. The combination of structured and open-ended ques-
tions generated quantitative and qualitative data regarding the expe-
riences of program participants in five countries: alumni from Brazil,
Germany, Japan, and the US, and host family participants in the case
of Ireland.
To summarize, objectives of the FRP were as follows:
1) To refine and substantiate a revised concept of ICC—definition, com-

ponents and their interconnections, and developmental levels
2) To pilot a revised and expanded assessment instrument in 5 countries
3) To validate our theoretical model empirically (requiring a minimum
of 300 subjects to ensure that the testing be more accurate as well as
the instrument’s reliability)
4) To investigate the value of each program component (i.e., orienta-
tion, homestay, language training, group leaders, interventions, and
program theme)
5) To assess the effect of host language proficiency on ICC development
6) To assess the impact of the experience on alumni and hosts during
and beyond the program
The Follow-on Research Project 115
7) To compile survey findings about each country and to produce a
composite multinational perspective
8) To learn whether certain ICC components characterize specific
national groups (particularist aspects) and which apply to all (uni-
versal aspects)
9) To consider implications and applications of findings for designing
and conducting future educational exchange programs
10) To contribute to general knowledge in the field of educational
exchange
In addition, aligning with current educational trends that place

increased emphasis on outcomes assessment, we were especially keen
to learn more about the impact of educational exchange experiences on
both sojourners and hosts. We wanted to know how it affected their val-
ues, lifestyles, and work choices (hence the retrospective survey design),
as well as how their experience, in turn, affected others with whom they
had contact after return home (the multiplier effect).
Project Description
This FRP, conducted from January 2015 through January 2016, involved
a multinational approach, possible again thanks to the federated nature
of EIL (federationeil.org). Again, we engaged RAs placed within each
participating MO to assist with in-country tasks. The project took place
in four stages, each involving the following tasks:
Stage 1. Preparatory phase

• identify and contract RAs in five countries
• update the research of the literature
• collect and analyze recently developed research instruments
• update, refine, and pilot the survey instrument with a small
group of alumni
• orient RAs to the revised assessment tool and its use
• RAs translate the instrument into their own language, back
translate, and pilot locally
• utilize the aforementioned information (plus guidance of statisti-
cians) to finalize the research plan
• post the final instrument in the language of each participating
country on SM
Stage 2. Data collection

• RAs access and compile alumni records in each participating
MO for the statisticians
• statisticians produce randomized alumni lists and establish tar-
get goals of survey responses needed from each MO
• RAs email notification of survey to alumni (or mail notifications
to host families)
• RAs collect and compile quantitative data on SM (or compile
responses from families)
• RAs conduct telephone interviews and document qualitative
data
Stage 3. Data compilation and analysis

• RAs compile quantitative and qualitative data at national levels
in local languages
• RAs translate results into English and transmit to the PD
• the PD reviews results individually by country and also compiles
multinational results
• statisticians conduct analysis of quantitative data; PD analyzes
qualitative data
Stage 4. Dissemination
• PD summarizes findings and prepares a composite research
report
• PD disseminates findings to MOs and other interested parties
Participants Involved in the Project

Funding for this research project provided support for the involvement
of three MOs; in addition, two other countries participated at their own
expense, resulting in five participating MOs: Brazil, Germany, Ireland,
Japan, and the US, representing different cultures located on three
continents.
Although most Federation EIL MOs were founded over 60 years
ago and currently offer a variety of programs, this study chose a focus
on alumni from summer, semester, and yearlong exchange programs
meeting the following criteria: high school and college students, ages
16–25 (at the time of their sojourn) and participation within the past
20 years (i.e., between 1995–2015). After ascertaining the total num-
ber of alumni meeting these conditions within each MO, qualified
alumni listed on Excel spreadsheets allowed statisticians to produce
randomized lists in appropriate ratios to the total alumni population
by country. RAs then used these lists to email invitations to alumni to
participate in the study. Each MO was assigned a specific number that
represented its ideal response target (with a 10% buffer) needed to
generate a sample size that would allow generalizing findings as rep-
resentative of the entire alumni cohort of each country. The following
summaries show the total alumni population (meeting research condi-
tions) per country, the target number of survey responses desired, the
number of responses received, and the number over or under desired
targets. RAs were also to conduct 20 recorded telephone interviews in
order to generate additional qualitative information as an important
aspect of the data collection:
Brazil
Total alumni population: 35,517
Target number of survey responses desired: 591
Survey responses received: 712
Number of responses exceeding target: 121
Telephone interviews conducted: 20
Germany
Total alumni population: 7,127 (4,238
with email
addresses)
Number of responses exceeding target: 28
Ireland
Total host family population: 1,660
Target number of survey responses desired: 120–200
Number of responses under target: 89
Japan
US
These numbers require further comment to explain some of the chal-
lenges and procedures implemented during the research to achieve the
figures cited earlier:
• After statisticians produced randomized lists and the targeted num-

ber of responses needed, RAs emailed alumni to explain the survey
and to invite participation with a stated deadline.
• The deadline was extended by one month to attain the targeted goals
needed to assure our confidence level and to reduce the margin of
error.
• Periodic reminders were sent to alumni regarding the survey ques-
tionnaire deadline.
• Some MOs later extended invitations to all qualified alumni (beyond
the randomized list) in order to secure the number of responses
needed.
• A lack of current email addresses (especially in Japan), required RAs
to update alumni records during the research process.
• In the US, a concurrent alumni survey and a fundraising campaign
were factors that affected obtaining less than the desired target.
• Ireland, the only MO surveying host families, utilized snail mail.
• In a few cases, the difference between the number of survey responses
desired and responses received was due to faulty email addresses or a
lack of forwarding addresses.
At the conclusion of the survey, the combined number of responses

received from the five MOs totaled 2,099. Of this total, Brazil, Germany,
Japan, and the US surveyed 1,988 alumni, whereas Ireland surveyed 111
host families.
The Research Instrument

As mentioned at various points in this work, the revised AICC Form is
based on a strong set of theoretical arguments regarding the nature and
components of ICC, strengthened by findings from the IRP. This follow-
on project provided a second opportunity to test empirically the concep-
tual model, the assessment instrument itself, and the data it generated.
Select analyses were applied to accomplish these tasks, utilizing descrip-
tive and psychometric approaches (more on this later).
The revised AICC instrument (cf. Appendix B: AICC Form) was
organized in a series of checklists, frequency scales, numerical rat-
ings, and Likert-type scales. Numerical rating scales were based on a
set of numbers with anchored endpoints—e.g., “did not contribute”
(0) versus “contributed very strongly” (5). Likert scales allow grasping
a coherent universe of content with items arranged hierarchically to
reflect increasingly deeper involvement. In the scale designed to assess
language, for example, items reflected ascending degrees of language
proficiency.
The resultant AICC Form was once again necessarily lengthy, pos-
ing a potential challenge for respondents. While keenly aware of this,
we again chose to retain all items to assess properly the validity of our
theoretical model as well as to include new items to assess the contri-
butions of various program components. Despite the wisdom of brief
questionnaires to ensure maximum responses, we proceeded with the
extended form for several reasons: (1) we were bolstered by the 100%
response rate obtained in the IRP, (2) we felt confident about alumni
enthusiasm for their sojourn experience, and (3) we wanted to assess
all ICC components in addition to specific program components. At a
future time, we envision conducting an analysis of the AICC to identify
the most reliable items, eliminate redundancies, and produce a shorter
form for routine use.
After updating the (American) English version of the instrument, the
form was piloted with a small number of past participants to test its
face validity, followed by discussion and consideration of their reac-
tions. Additional revisions were made and the finalized questionnaire
was distributed to RAs for translation (or adapted) into their respective
languages: Portuguese, German, Irish English, and Japanese. Translated
forms were piloted in each country with small local groups, adjusted as
necessary, and back translated into English. This required step provided
a two-way check on accuracy. The form was again revised as needed
and final versions were distributed for use in three languages plus two
varieties of English. Although a lengthy and complicated procedure, we
considered it imperative that respondents be able to complete the survey
in their own L1.
Once the deadline arrived and the survey was completed on the SM
program, RAs accessed and tabulated open-ended responses from ques-
tionnaires and documented the interviews in their respective languages,
following guidelines provided by the PD. Data were converted into
English and quantitative results were provided to the statisticians who
transferred them into IBM SPSS V.22 for analysis; qualitative data were
provided to the PD for separate analysis. Details regarding both analyses
are narrated below.
Advantages and Limitations of the Project

As stated earlier, the FRP was a planned sequel, adding five countries to
the three involved in the initial survey. In addition to providing a second
opportunity to refine the test instrument and a new opportunity to assess
individual components of the exchange programs, it had the advantage
of involving host families (in the case of Ireland) in addition to sojourn-
ers. The family cohort allowed learning something regarding how host
natives viewed the experience and about the impact on participants who
had not left their own culture but experienced intercultural contact by
hosting others. This important cohort provides an emic perspective of the
exchange experience and deserves further exploration in future studies.
Finally, as with the IRP, it was again instructive to view data represent-
ing individual language-nationality groups as well as combined data rep-
resenting multiple language-nationality groups (in this case, Brazilians,
Germans, Irish, Japanese, and Americans), providing further insights
regarding both “particularist” and potentially “universalist” aspects.
This second project again lacked a control group to allow compar-
ing results obtained from participants in this study with populations not
involved in educational exchange. One continues to wonder to what
extent those who choose to participate in educational exchange consti-
tute a pre-selected population. The fact that they sought intercultural
opportunities may already suggest inclinations that contribute to the
overwhelmingly positive results.
Given its multinational scope, the FRP again dealt with variables not
directly supervised; the project’s multinational design again being both its
forte and its challenge. Working through RAs at a distance is obviously
necessary when dealing across countries, but it requires detailed guide-
lines and close communication to ensure proper results.
While this FRP study was conducted in several additional languages,
this also constituted a strength and potential weakness. Extreme care is
needed to ensure accurate translations of both the instruments and the
data. On the other hand, the value of learning more about what tran-
spires with others in diverse languages and cultures is inestimable. On
the downside, as an example, a major study conducted by the Canadian
Development Agency, cited earlier, regarding the performance of English
and French speaking technical advisors working in various countries
where still other languages were spoken, is weakened by the fact that
questionnaires and interviews were conducted solely in English (Kealey
1990). Sociolinguists, of course, are keenly aware of how the language
medium may affect results obtained and would hasten to point out this
research flaw. Clearly, we need studies conducted elsewhere, by others,
and in a variety of languages, with due attention given to proper cross-
cultural survey methods and their challenges. Happily, that this has begun
to happen is evidenced by studies of Italian secondary school students
abroad (cf. Baiutti 2017), cross-cultural contributions from over 19 coun-
tries (cf. Deardorff and Arasaratnam-Smith 2017), and the assessment of
study abroad outcomes in Chinese (cf. Taguchi et al. 2017), among others.
Data Compilation and Organization

Availability of the SM computer program greatly enhanced this study,
facilitating data collection and compilation. The SM program made
the survey questionnaire immediately available to alumni located in
a variety of locations at great distances, its completion was easy, and
submission was done with a click. Moreover, the SM program compiled
data automatically as each survey response was submitted electroni-
cally. The result was a composite providing instantaneous tabula-
tion of responses for each questionnaire item, graphs and charts that
illustrated percentages, and lists of the write-in comments. However,
because the AICC Form was provided in several languages—American
English, German, Irish English, Japanese, and Portuguese—the results
required further processing. Questions that required answers to be
checked off (as on numerical rating scales) were easily understood
regardless of language given the identical format and questions for
all countries. However, open-ended responses (listed as “other”)
eliciting written comments, required translation from the target lan-
guage (TL) into English. Translated responses were first reviewed to
see whether they overlapped with pre-set categories in the survey or
whether they required new categorizations before entering data onto
an Excel spreadsheet to allow statisticians to transfer data to the SPSS
program. Once transferred, data were ready for quantitative analysis,
discussed in the next section.
Qualitative data also required preliminary steps before analysis, given
that information was obtained from respondents in recorded telephone
interviews (with permission granted), and conducted in their native
tongues. In these cases, local RAs compiled and translated interview data
into English before forwarding to the PD. Translated data were analyzed
as subsets by country and by category of participants (i.e., alumni or host
family members) and subsequently compiled and analyzed as composite
samples to provide answers to research questions from a multinational
perspective. Presentation and discussion of quantitative data are pro-
vided next, followed by the analysis of qualitative data.
5.3 Quantitative Analysis and Discussion
Overview
Quantitative analysis begins with a description of the statistical proce-
dures used in this study, divided into three sections: (1) Descriptive analy-
sis maps variables of interest and describes the data collection instrument
employed. Descriptive analysis was computed considering the full range
of observations by variable. (2) Psychometric analysis addresses issues
concerned with scale validity and measurement utilizing multivariate
analytical approaches. (3) Comparative analysis relates and contrasts
variables of interest with the results obtained in the preceding section.
All aspects of statistical analysis were conducted entirely with IBM SPSS
(V. 22) software.
Procedures for descriptive analysis involve frequency counts and rela-
tive frequencies for nominal and ordinal variables, central tendency sta-
tistics (mean and mode), and dispersion statistics (minimum, maximum,
and SD) for discrete and continuous variables (cf. Field 2009). In inferen-
tial analysis, a statistical test was considered significant when it showed
a p-value of less than 0.05. This value represents a 5% probability that
the results observed occurred by chance (cf. Field 2009; Howell 2006).
Psychometric analysis encompasses the factorial validity of the scale in
the survey questionnaire used in this project to measure the construct of
intercultural communicative competence (hereafter referred to as the ICC
“scale” or “construct”). To assess the factorial validity of this scale, a
PCA was performed—i.e., a data reduction technique that aims to extract
underlying dimensions of the ICC scale in order to understand better its
dimensional composition (cf. Stevens 1986; Tabachnick and Fidell 2007).
Varimax rotation, an orthogonal procedure, was employed to maximize
the dispersion of loadings within factors, resulting in more interpretable
and independent factors (cf. Tabachnick and Fidell 2007; Field 2009;
DeVellis 2012). A cutoff point of 0.45 in factor loading was adopted
as a fair measure for item retention in each component, as suggested by
Tabachnick and Fidell (2007). For commonalities, a cutoff point above
0.40 was assumed (cf. Stevens 1986).
With regard to the reliability analysis, the internal consistency of each
extracted dimension was calculated using Cronbach’s alpha, the most
common reliability index for instruments using rating scales. Accordingly,
a value of 0.70 was adopted as a lower acceptable boundary for alphas
that provide an adequate measure of psychological constructs (cf.
Nunnally 1978; DeVellis 2012). To assess the quality of individual items
composing the summated score in each dimension, a corrected item-total
correlation was computed (cf. Muñiz 2001).
To analyze the level of association between paired continuous vari-
ables, Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was used (cf.
Howell 2006; Field 2009). To assess the strength of correlation coeffi-
cients, Cohen’s effect ranges were used, assuming that a 0.10 correlation
coefficient constitutes a small effect, a 0.30 a medium effect, and a 0.50
a large effect (cf. Cohen et al. 2003).
For univariate group differences, independent samples t-test was
computed to explore significant mean differences in numerical variables
when categorical variables with two groups were used. Homogeneity of
variances was verified with Levene’s test and, whenever the assumption
of homogeneity was not met, the correction of the test result and degrees
of freedom provided by the software were assumed (cf. Howell 2006;
Field 2009).
Finally, one-way analysis of variance (i.e., one-way ANOVA) was
computed to determine mean differences of numerical variables with
more than two groups. Whenever results were statistically significant,
post hoc procedures were used. Post hoc procedures consider the pair-
wise comparisons correcting the level of significance for each test so that
all comparisons remain at a 0.05 error. Two post hoc statistics were used:
(1) Tukey’s test, when assumptions were generally met, and (2) Games-
Howell test, whenever homogeneity of variances could not be assumed
(considering Levene’s test) (cf. Howell 2006; Field 2009).
Descriptive Analysis
Descriptive analysis is organized into eight sections corresponding to the
first eight components of the AICC Form. The ninth and last survey com-
ponent (Section I: Intercultural Abilities) is addressed within the psycho-
metric analysis given the psychometric properties of the scale measuring
the underlying components of the ICC construct. Each section of the
descriptive analysis contains the same number of questions as the cor-
responding section in the AICC survey form. The data analysis yielded
by these survey questions is carried out in separate subsections and is
preceded by a brief explanation of the survey section under examination
(A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H). Where questions elicit complementary or
adjunct data, they are grouped within the same subsection.
The AICC questionnaire contains 51 questions and 1 scale that mea-
sures the ICC construct. The division of questions by survey section is as
follows:
• A. About yourself [11 questions]

• B. About your sojourn [13 questions]
• C. Beyond your sojourn [13 questions]
• D. Personal characteristics [1 question]
• E. Motivation [2 questions]
• F. Language proficiency [4 questions]
• G. Communication styles [4 questions]
• H. Intercultural areas [3 questions]
• I. Intercultural abilities [1 scale]
Section A: About Yourself

Section A of the questionnaire elicits respondent demographic and socio-
cultural variables relevant to their participation in a sojourn abroad. This
section contains 11 questions: 3 elicit demographic information and 8
concern sociocultural variables, and their potential relationship to the
intercultural sojourn.
Questions A1, A2, and A3 address demographic variables of gender
and age, respectively. The resulting data show similar distributions across
three subsamples wherein three-fourths of the respondents are female
and one-fourth are male. Japan differed in that it registers the highest
percentage of females at 77.9% and the lowest percentage of males at
22.1%. With regard to age (at the time survey questionnaires were com-
pleted), respondents of subsets span different age groups. Brazilian and
German age groups range from adolescence to middle age (15–46 and
13–52 years of age, respectively), while American and Japanese respon-
dents are seniors (69 and 71 years of age, respectively). The average age
in the total sample of 1,656 participants is 23.78 years (SD = 6.26).
Question A4 is open-ended, eliciting varied responses regarding foreign
languages learned by respondents. However, since it was not always pos-
sible to infer which foreign languages were learned where respondents did
not also list their native tongues, their responses were excluded from the
frequency count to ensure data accuracy. A total of 846 valid responses was
obtained showing a range of 32 foreign languages learned. The subsample
registering the widest variety of languages was the US (n = 29), followed
by Germany (n = 13) and Brazil (n = 9), with Japan yielding the smallest
range of foreign languages learned (n = 4). The ten most frequently learned
foreign languages by respondents were English, Spanish, Japanese, French,
Chinese, Latin, German, Hebrew, Polish, and Portuguese. English was the
most commonly learned foreign language in all countries, except in the US
subsample where Spanish ranked first (n = 51; 34.5%).
Questions A5 and A6 seek to learn whether respondents had had
intercultural experience prior to their sojourn abroad, followed by the
type of intercultural experience when respondents answered affirma-
tively. Analysis showed that 69.4% of respondents had no intercultural
experience prior to their educational exchange abroad in contrast to a
smaller group of 30.6% who had. The Japanese are an exception to this
pattern given that more respondents (51.9%) had previous intercultural
experience contrasting with 48.1% who did not. Regarding types of
intercultural experiences elicited by Question A6, open-ended responses
generated 15 categories across the 4 countries. The results show three
types of intercultural experiences as most common: “Participation in
exchange programs” ranks first, gathering 34.0% (n = 198) of valid
responses, “travel abroad” at 20.1% (n = 117), followed by “language
study and travel abroad” with 9.8% of responses (n = 57).
The breakdown of data demonstrates that what respondents in one
subsample consider their most common early intercultural experience
may not necessarily be a frequent experience in another subsample. In
effect, the most frequent intercultural experiences differed across sam-
ples. Thus, in Brazil, “travel abroad” ranks first by assembling 55.4%
of responses, while in Germany 48.5% of respondents selected “partici-
pation in exchange programs.” For Japanese respondents, “homestays
abroad” are the most frequent intercultural experience listed at 33.1%,
while 15.1% of American respondents checked either “born or lived
abroad.”
Question A7 sought to ascertain the duration of any prior intercultural
experience in years and months. Given the varied experiences respon-
dents embarked upon, duration also varied considerably. As the previ-
ous survey question shows, intercultural experiences range from simple
travel abroad to living/being born in another country. As such, measure-
ment units range from days to months and several years. To group these
disparate units of measurement, it was necessary to change the variable
level of measurement from numerical to ordinal. Hence three intervals
were created to indicate duration—viz., (a) less than 1 year, (b) between
1 to 3 years, and (c) more than 3 years. According to the results, 83.5%
(n = 340) of respondent intercultural experiences prior to the educa-
tional exchange experience had a duration spanning from days to several
months (“less than 1 year”). This interval encompasses the widest range
of experiences, such as participation in exchange programs, language
schools abroad, homestays, youth camps abroad, school trips abroad,
and so forth. Few respondents had medium and long-term experiences,
given that the categories “between 1 and 3 years” and “more than 3
years” assembled only 8.3% of responses (n = 38) in each. In the former
interval, one finds medium-term intercultural experiences like work or
study abroad; the latter refers essentially to respondents who lived or
were born abroad.
Within-country results reproduce data patterns drawn from the total
sample. All subsamples show that a majority of respondents undertook
short-term intercultural experiences (“less than 1 year”), corresponding
to a percentage share of 85.1% in Brazil, 83.6% in Germany, 83.0% in
Japan, and 81.7% in the US. With regard to medium short-term expe-
riences (“between 1 and 3 years”), subsamples registering the highest
percentage of responses are Brazil and Japan at 10.5% and 10.4%,
respectively. In Germany and the US, only 6.3% and 6.1% underwent
intercultural experiences of medium duration.
In long-term experiences (“more than 3 years”), Germany and the US
represent the two subsamples with more respondents who had sojourns
of a long duration. In terms of percentages, this is the case for 12.2% and
10.1% of subjects in American and German subsamples, respectively. In
Brazil and in Japan, only 4.4% and 6.6% of subjects had intercultural
experiences of long duration, respectively.
Question A8 elicited respondent relationships with people from
diverse cultural backgrounds prior to the educational exchange experi-
ence, while Question A9 ascertains the type of relationships within a
range of pre-set categories. Questions A10 and A11, in turn, ask respon-
dents who had developed relationships with “diverse others” prior to
sojourning whether those relationships were a positive experience (A10)
and/or whether they had a bearing on their decision to participate in an
educational exchange experience (A11).
Results from survey Question A8 show that 70.4% of respondents
had developed relationships with people from other cultural backgrounds
prior to their educational exchange experience. Those who had not rep-
resent a minority of 29.6%. The within-country analysis demonstrates
that this data pattern repeats itself across subsamples, with the American
subsample reaching the highest proportion of prior intercultural relation-
ships at 76.3%. Finally, Brazil represents the subsample where the pro-
portion of respondents who developed this kind of relationship and those
who did not is nearly balanced at 58.4% and 41.6%, respectively.
With regard to type of intercultural relationships developed, respon-
dents had a choice of four pre-set categories in addition to an open-ended
category “other,” that included (1) friends, (2) classmates, (3) co-work-
ers, and (4) family members. Each category accounts for 100%, with per-
centage shares reflecting the number of positive (“yes”) answers. Results
show that sojourner relationships vary between friendship (71.6%),
schooling (58.7%), professional (8.5%), and family ties (24.0%). In the
category “other,” most answers duplicated responses that fell within pre-
set categories and were therefore excluded from the frequency counts.
The remaining open-ended answers create new categories, but with low
frequencies, such as (5) teachers-Brazil (n = 8; 3.7%), Germany (n = 5;
1.7%), Japan (n = 4; 4.2%), and (6) au pair-Germany (n = 7, 2.3%).
Within-country data show that although the category “friends”
assembles the highest number of positive responses in all four subsam-
ples, in American and German cases the percentage share of “friends”
and “classmates” is nearly equal. This is particularly evident in the
German subsample wherein this divide represents a 1.5% difference.
Multicultural working environments reach the greatest percentage share
in the Brazilian case (17.4%), whereas multicultural family environments
are most common in the US (34.6%).
Of the 1,137 participants who developed intercultural relationships,
99.5% deemed these relationships to be positive in contrast to 0.5%
who did not. The latter case represents five respondents across Brazilian,
German, and Japanese subsamples. Finally, of the 1,137 respondents who
developed intercultural relationships, 57.5% considered these relation-
ships to have influenced their decision to participate in an educational
exchange experience. For 42.5% of respondents, these intercultural rela-
tionships were not an influence on their participation. This data pat-
tern is applicable to all but the German subsample wherein 55.0% of
respondents did not consider previous intercultural relationships to have
influenced their decision to participate in a sojourn abroad.
Section B: About Your Sojourn

This section of the survey questionnaire poses a set of 13 questions
focusing on the educational exchange experience itself. Here respondents
are asked to base comments on their first sojourn experience (in cases
where they may have had more than one sojourn abroad). The first seven
questions seek information about key aspects, such as (QB1) country of
sojourn, (QB2) year the sojourn took place, (QB3) respondent age at
time of participation, (QB4) duration of the experience, (QB5) type of
exchange program, (QB6) inclusion of homestay as part of the program,
and (QB7) duration in months and weeks. The remaining six questions
are a self-assessment component regarding each aspect of the sojourn and
its potential effect on the development of respondent skillsets.
Question B1 is open-ended, eliciting countries where sojourns took
place. A total of 1,599 valid responses was obtained representing a range
of 46 countries. The three main host countries are English speaking coun-
tries, with the US ranking first (n = 671; 42.0%), followed by Canada
(n = 175; 10.9%) and Ireland (n = 87; 5.4%). To summarize, main des-
tinations are the US, Canada, Ireland, United Kingdom, France, Spain,
New Zealand, Australia, and Japan.
Germany emerges as the top exporter of sojourners to the US, repre-
senting 57.2% of German outbound flows (n = 273). Brazil and Japan
follow the same trend at 44.4% (n = 253) and 56.6% (n = 141), respec-
tively. In these two subsamples, Canada ranks second as a host country at
22.6% (n = 129) and 12.9 % (n = 32), respectively, while in the German
subsample it ranks fourth at 2.9% (n = 14). The second destination for
German outbound sojourners is Ireland at 13.8% (n = 66). The main
destination for the American subsample of sojourners is France at 14.5%
(n = 44), followed closely by Spain (n = 34; 11.2 %).
Questions B2 and B3 elicit the starting year of respondent sojourns and
their age at the time of participation. A total of 1,557 valid responses was
obtained for both questions, spanning 25 years and 5 decades—from the
1970s to the 2010s—as yielded by Question B2. According to the results,
most intercultural experiences took place in the 2010s. This is the case
of 55.0% (n = 857) of all respondents in the total sample. This data pat-
tern is also repeated within two subsamples: Brazil (n = 382; 67.9%) and
Germany (n = 256; 53.2%). For Japan, most sojourns took place in the
2000s at 45.7% (n = 102). The US, in turn, yielded the same number of
sojourns over a span of 20 years that comprise the decades of 2000 and
2010 (n = 103; 44.8%). Question B3 shows that the 1,557 respondents
participated in most sojourns at an average age of 17.44 (SD = 2.88).
In all but one subsample, most respondents had their sojourn experience
during adolescence. Brazil is the exception wherein most respondents
sojourned in early adulthood.
Finally, Question B4 ascertained the duration of the first sojourn.
Similar to Question A7, the best way to interpret the wide range of
responses was to convert the measurement system of the variable from
numerical to ordinal. Interval categories were therefore created to
reflect the different types of duration, but not the time ratio between
observations. These intervals are: (a) less than 1 month, (b) between
1 and 2 months, (c) between 3 and 12 months, and (d) more than 12
months. The results show that the sojourn for most respondents (926;
59.1%) lasted between 3 and 12 months. Stated differently, for 59.1% of
respondents, the sojourn did not exceed 1 year in duration. The second-
most common duration is between 1 and 2 months, reflecting 32.4%
of responses. Programs lasting less than 1 month were infrequent, with
only 4.3% of respondents having had a sojourn with such a duration.
Similarly, sojourns of more than 12 months are also few, gathering 4.1%
of responses. Within-country results indicate that all but one subsam-
ple reproduce similar data patterns to the total sample. In summary, the
sojourn of most respondents lasted between 3 and 12 months, assem-
bling 49.7%, 99.2% and 67.1% of responses. Contrariwise, 99.1% of
American sojourners had shorter immersions, between 1 and 2 months.
Question B5 ascertained the type of exchange program in which
respondents participated, given a set of six formats: (1) travel only,
(2) homestay only, (3) homestay and travel, (4) high school year/semester
abroad, (5) au pair program abroad, and (6) volunteer or community
service abroad. Given that programs offered by Federation EIL MOs
may vary, the category “other” was added to pre-set categories in the
questionnaire.
As the measurement level of the variable was based on mutually
exclusive categories, open-ended responses were included in frequency
counts. Within this type of response, those answers falling in pre-set
categories were added to frequency counts, whereas those that fell out-
side the pre-set range were categorized. This process generated six new
categories—viz., (7) language study, (8) homestay and language study,
(9) language study and work, (10) work program, (11) work and travel, and
(12) other programs. The results show that the most attended exchange
programs were: (1) high school/semester abroad at 41.9%, (2) homestay
and travel at 20.5%, and (3) homestay only at 10.3%.
Within-country results also show some variation among observations.
According to these results, “high school year/semester abroad” is the
most frequently attended program in all but one subsample. In German,
Japanese, and American subsamples, this program ranks first by assem-
bling 83.1%, 66.8%, and 83.0% responses, respectively. In Brazil, first
place is held by “language study” at 20.7%. It should be noted that this
program is exclusive to the Brazilian MO, emerging from the categoriza-
tion process.
The second-most attended exchange program offered by participating
countries is “homestay and language study” in Brazil (19.8%), “homestay
only in Germany” (16.3%), “homestay and travel” in Japan (18.2%),
and “volunteer or community service abroad” in the US (12.6%). Two
aspects are worth noting: first, that the program “language study” is
exclusive to the Brazilian MO and second, that the next most popular
exchange program in the total sample (“homestay and travel”) is not
offered by the German MO. Finally, the third-most attended exchange
program is “high school year/semester abroad” in Brazil (17.5%), “vol-
unteer or community service abroad” in Germany (0.4%), “homestay
only” in Japan (13.0%), and “travel only” in the US (1.4%).
Question B6 expands upon the previous survey question by ascer-
taining the incidence of the homestay as a programmatic feature of the
exchange experience. Of the 1,601 respondents who answered this ques-
tion, 90.9% (n = 1,456) had a homestay as part of their program. Those
who did not stay with a host family during their exchange experience
represent a minority of 9.1% (n = 145). This pattern is replicable in all
four subsamples where the majority of alumni had a homestay as part of
their program. Brazil is the subsample that registers the greatest propor-
tion of respondents who did not have a homestay at 22.6% (n = 129).
Finally, Question B7 ascertains the duration of the homestay. Given
the distribution of observations, it was possible to retain the numeri-
cal level of measurement in the four subsamples by using two different
units of measurement. In Brazilian, German, and Japanese subsamples,
the unit of measurement used is “months,” while in the US it is “weeks.”
Stated differently, two measurement units emerged: “months” in the for-
mer three subsamples and “weeks” in the latter. Results show that home-
stays lasted on average 5.88 months for Brazilian alumni, 8.77 months
for German alumni, and 7.55 months for Japanese alumni. There is a
strong variance of observations, particularly in Brazilian and Japanese
cases where answers range from 0.5 months (less than 2 weeks) to 48 and
24 months, respectively. Typical homestay duration in the German sub-
sample is more consistent, lasting on average 8.77 months (SD = 2.60).
American sojourners had shorter homestays than their peers, lasting on
average 2.32 weeks. This result is consistent with results drawn from
survey Question B6 wherein most American respondents had sojourns
lasting between 1 and 2 months. The minimum duration of homestays in
the US subsample was 1 week and the maximum 12 weeks.
Questions B8, B9, B10, and B11 seek to understand how respondents
assess the contribution of individual programmatic features to their
a) overall learning, b) understanding of the host culture, c) learning of the
host language, and, finally, d) to creating a sense of safety. Each of the
four questions lists the same ten program components while also giving
participants the possibility of identifying additional aspects through
the open-ended category “other.” The ten pre-set program components
include (1) orientation, (2) language study, (3) group or academic leader,
(4) homestay, (5) program theme, (6) group travel, (7) service compo-
nent, (8) educational component, (9) school attendance, and (10) end-of-
program debriefing.
The measurement of each program component occurs through par-
ticipant assessment ratings based on a six-point numerical scale wherein 1
(“did not contribute”) represents the lowest point and 6 the highest
(“contributed very strongly”).1 All pre-set program components and the
open-ended category “other” required the attribution of ratings on this
measurement scale. For analysis purposes, central tendency and disper-
sion measures were calculated for the ratings attributed to the ten pre-set
program components. Although the open category “other” had a rank
order as well, calculation of the aforementioned univariate measures for
this category would most likely bias the results. In effect, after translating
and categorizing the full range of open-ended information yielded by this
category, two patterns emerged: (1) most of the open-ended responses
coincided with the pre-set categories and (2) other responses did not rep-
resent programmatic features of the exchange programs.
The rank order elicited by all pre-set program components invalidated
calculations of central tendency and dispersion measures for open-ended
responses that fit into pre-set categories because these answers would rep-
licate previously attributed ratings (Pattern 1). With regard to Pattern 2, not
only were respondent open-ended comments too varied but also they did
not represent programmatic features of exchange programs. For these rea-
sons, central tendency and dispersion measures were computed only on
ratings attributed to the ten pre-set variables. This same procedure was
employed with all four questions addressing programmatic features.
Question B8 ascertains the extent to which program components
contributed to respondent overall learning during the sojourn. Central
tendency and dispersion measures are presented for the ten pre-set
exchange program components in Table 5.1. The open-ended category
“other” is excluded from the statistical analysis for reasons explained
earlier. According to central tendency and dispersion measures for the
Table 5.1 QB8. Four Countries: Extent to Which Program Components Contrib-
uted to Respondent Overall Learning
Program Components Min Max M SD Mo
Orientation (n = 1,408) 1 6 4.53 1.29 6

Language study (n = 1,384) 1 6 5.02 1.35 6
Group or academic leader (n = 1,364) 1 6 4.06 1.59 4
Homestay (n = 1,398) 1 6 5.21 1.40 6
Program theme (n = 1,355) 1 6 4.30 1.55 6
Group travel (n = 1,361) 1 6 3.99 1.89 6
Service component (n = 1,334) 1 6 3.56 1.84 1
Educational component (n = 1,367) 1 6 4.67 1.42 6
School attendance (n = 1,352) 1 6 4.66 1.66 6
End-of-program debriefing (n = 1,346) 1 6 3.98 1.73 6
Note: Highest means are given in bold

total sample in Table 5.1, the three programmatic features that regis-
tered the highest ratings were: (1) the homestay (M = 5.21; SD = 1.40);
(2) language study (M = 5.02; SD = 1.35); and, finally, (3) educational
and school attendance components. The latter two components yielded
practically the same mean values of 4.67 (SD = 1.42) and 4.66 (SD = 1.66),
respectively. In all three programmatic components, the most common
rating (the mode) was always 6, meaning that most respondents deemed
these components as having contributed very strongly to their overall
learning.
Within-country results show some variation between ratings. With
the exception of the homestay, the other two top programmatic fea-
tures differed by subsample. Additionally, the homestay registered the
highest mean for three subsamples—viz., Germany (M = 5.36), Japan
(M = 5.63), and the US (M = 5.59). It should be noted, however, that
in all three cases not only did the homestay register considerably high
mean values but also SDs were relatively small (between 0.78 and 0.99).
Interestingly, the Brazilian subsample rates “language study” (M = 5.94;
SD = 0.92) in importance over the “homestay,” which ranked in fourth
place (M = 4.69; SD = 1.89), reflecting its primary program offering.
In second position, the highest mean differed considerably across sub-
samples. Whereas for Brazilian respondents, the education component
featured as the second-highest mean value (M = 5.07; SD = 1.26); for
German and American respondents, it was “school attendance” and
“group travel” at M = 5.29 (SD = 1.04) and M = 5.41 (SD = 0.84),
respectively. In the Japanese group, with the exception of the homestay,
average ratings in other program components were quite similar (between
4.02–4.85), making it impossible to distinguish the relative importance
of each.
The third-place component also varies across countries. This posi-
tion is held by “school attendance” in Brazil (M = 4.96; SD = 1.42),
“language study” in Germany (M = 5.20; SD = 1.13), and “group or
academic leader” in the US (M = 5.16; SD = 0.99), evident in Table 5.2.
In the Japanese subsample, average ratings are so similar that it may be
not very accurate to differentiate between second and third top program-
matic features. As mentioned earlier, for cross-country results (Table 5.1),
however, the “homestay” was the only component which consistently
stood out among the ten programmatic features (M = 5.63; SD = 0.78).
Question B9 ascertains the extent to which program components con-
tributed to respondent understanding of the host culture during their
sojourn. As in the previous question, answers to the open-ended cate-
gory “other” were not included in calculations for reasons described in
Section A. Of the ten pre-set program components, the top-three fea-
tures for the total sample are: (1) “homestay” (M = 5.42; SD = 1.33);
(2) “language study” (M = 4.94; SD = 1.36); and, finally, (3) “school
attendance” (M = 4.63; 1.72), summarized in Table 5.2. These results
are on par with the mode that yielded the value 6 for all three program-
matic features. Finally, the contribution of the “educational component”
to understanding the host culture should not be ignored as the top-four
programmatic features (M = 4.54; SD = 1.49).
Table 5.2 QB9. Four Countries: Extent to Which Program Components Contrib-
uted to Respondent Understanding of the Host Culture
Orientation (n = 1,380) 1 6 4.46 1.40 6

Language study (n = 1,359) 1 6 4.94 1.36 6
Homestay (n = 1,378) 1 6 5.42 1.33 6
Program theme (n = 1,323) 1 6 4.20 1.62 6
Group travel (n = 1,319) 1 6 3.86 1.88 6
Overall, within-country results reproduce the data pattern drawn from

the total sample for the top programmatic feature—i.e., the homestay. The
homestay is, once again, the programmatic feature registering the high-
est mean values across subsamples. This tendency is reflected, yet again,
in three subsamples: Germany (M = 5.73; SD = 0.76), Japan (M = 5.70;
SD = 0.80), and the US (M = 5.75; SD = 0.77). Brazil is the exception
where “language study” (M = 5.34; SD = 1.03) assumes importance over
the homestay (M = 4.83; SD = 1.86), which comes in third place in Brazil
(again reflecting its program offerings).
The second-place feature varies across subsamples. Whereas in Germany
this feature is “school attendance” (M = 5.66; SD = 0.67), in Japan and
in the US, the educational component and group travel assume this posi-
tion, respectively. In Japan, the average of the educational component
is 5.70 (SD = 0.80), and in the US, group travel registers an average of
5.06 (M = 1.13). It is worth noting that in the case of the US, the impor-
tance of the two group features toward sojourner understanding of the host
culture (from among the ten program components) is essentially on par—to
wit, the mean value for group travel is 5.06 and SD is 1.13, while for group
or academic leader the mean is one decimal under (5.05) but SD is smaller
(1.06). In other words, even though the average for group travel is slightly
smaller than for group/academic leader, there is less variance in scores in
the former. In Brazil, the educational component ranks third, with a mean
value of 4.84 (SD = 1.50), which is quite close to the top-third programmatic
feature—the homestay (M = 4.83; SD = 1.86), as evident in Table 5.6.
Finally, the programmatic feature registering the third-highest mean
values across subsamples is “language study” in both Germany and
Japan at 5.01 and 1.20, respectively. Standard deviations vary from 1.20
(Germany) to 1.46 (Japan). The top-third programmatic feature in the
US is “program theme” (M = 4.69; SD = 1.39).
contributed to respondent learning the host language during their
sojourn. Central tendency and dispersion measures for the total sample
are reported in Table 5.3. As in previous survey questions, the open-
ended category “other” is excluded from this analysis. According to
results in Table 5.3, the three top programmatic features contributing to
sojourner development of host language proficiency are: (1) homestay,
(2) language study, and (3) school attendance. The homestay stands out,
once again, as the component with the highest average (5.35) as well
as with the smallest SD (SD = 1.40). Stated another way, not only does
the homestay register the highest mean value of importance but also
there is high agreement among respondents given the relatively small
SD. Language study, while holding second position, has a mean value
of 5.19 (SD = 1.41), and school attendance, in turn, has a mean value of
4.78 (SD = 1.74).
Table 5.3 QB10. Four Countries: Extent to Which Program Components Con-
tributed to Respondent Understanding of the Host Language
Orientation (n = 1,352) 1 6 3.57 1.76 4

Language study (n = 1,348) 1 6 5.19 1.41 6
Homestay (n = 1,366) 1 6 5.35 1.40 6
Program theme (n = 1,309) 1 6 3.77 1.85 6
Group travel (n = 1,303) 1 6 3.55 1.92 1
Within-country results show some variation among respondent

groups. The homestay holds first position only in the Japanese and
American cases, with mean values of 5.71 and 5.17, respectively. SDs
range from 0.81 to 1.52. It should be noted that in the German case, the
homestay is on par with school attendance, distanced by one decimal
point. Whereas the mean value for school attendance is 5.75 (SD = 0.73);
for the homestay, it is 5.74 (SD = 0.81). In Brazil, first position is
held by “language study” (M = 5.60; SD = 0.93). This programmatic
feature ranks second for the three remaining subsamples—to wit,
Germany (M = 5.43; SD = 1.23), Japan (M = 4.87; SD = 1.43), and the
US (M = 4.29; SD = 1.87).
The third position varies substantially across subsamples. In Brazil,
this place is held by “school attendance” (M = 5.12; SD = 1.45),
whereas in Germany and Japan it is the “educational component,”
with mean values of 4.18 and 4.66, respectively. SD in both cases is
relatively small (between 1.45 and 1.75). In the American case, the fea-
ture of the “group/academic leader” occupies third position (M = 4.17;
SD = 1.87)—a tendency already registered in the previous survey ques-
tion for this subsample.
contributed to respondent sense of safety during the sojourn. Central
tendency and dispersion measures for the total sample are reported
in Table 5.4. As in the three questions noted earlier, the open-ended
category, “other” is excluded from this analysis. According to results
in Table 5.4, the three programmatic features that most contributed
to sojourner sense of safety are (1) homestay, (2) orientation, and
(3) language study.
Table 5.4 QB11. Four Countries: Extent to Which Program Components Con-
tributed to Respondent Sense of Safety
Orientation (n = 1,378) 1 6 4.92 1.32 6

Language study (n = 1,353) 1 6 4.68 1.59 6
Homestay (n = 1,361) 1 6 5.00 1.46 6
Program theme (n = 1,296) 1 6 3.81 1.79 6
Group travel (n = 1,291) 1 6 4.01 1.89 6
Again, “homestay” stands out as the component with the highest

average (5.00; SD = 1.46) of perceived contribution, followed by “ori-
entation” and “language study.” The mean value for the former fea-
ture is 4.92 and for the latter is 4.68. SDs range from 1.32 to 1.59.
Considered together, respondents regarded the homestay, orientation,
and language study as program components that most contributed to
creating a sense of safety. This finding is reinforced by the mode, as
the most frequent attributed rating is 6 in these three programmatic
features.
Within-country results indicate some variation among respondent
perceptions regarding features that contributed most strongly to creat-
ing a sense of safety during their sojourn experience. The top feature in
total sample results is manifest only in the German and Japanese cases,
with mean values of 5.18 (SD = 1.16) and 5.00 (SD = 1.34). Among
Brazilian and American alumni, however, first place is held by “language
study” and “group/academic leader,” with average ratings of 5.06 and
5.49, respectively. The dispersion of scores is relatively small, particu-
larly for “group/academic leader” (SD = 0.89). Language study has a
greater SD of 1.38.
The second top programmatic feature is “orientation” in Brazil
and Japan, “homestay” in the US, and “language study” in Germany.
Orientation registers mean values of 4.93 and 4.92 in Brazil and Japan,
with SDs of 1.47 and 1.34, respectively. In the American subsample, the
average rating attributed to the homestay is 5.26 (SD = 1.04). In the
German subsample, the study of language emerges essentially on par
with orientation, with average ratings of 4.84 and 4.02 and SDs of 1.37
and 1.20, respectively.
Finally, the third top programmatic feature differs in each subsample.
In Brazil, it is the “homestay” (M = 4.70; SD = 1.84), in Germany “school
attendance” (M = 4.74; SD = 1.25), and in Japan “language study”
(M = 4.77; SD = 1.45). For the American subsample, “orientation” and
“group travel” have a similar relative importance toward creating a sense
of safety. In the former component, the mean value is 5.05 (SD = 1.17);
in the latter, it is just one decimal place behind (M = 5.04; SD = 1.25).
Questions B12 and B13 ascertain areas which the sojourn and home-
stay most helped respondents to develop, respectively. To this end, these
two questions listed 17 pre-set categories in addition to the open-ended
possibility (“other”). Respondents checked the three areas they perceived
helped them most. Each category accounts for 100% with percentage
shares reflecting the number of positive (“yes”) answers. Frequency
counts were only calculated for pre-set categories because the majority
of responses in the category “other” overlapped with pre-set categories.
Thus, as in other survey questions, these answers were excluded from the
frequency counts to avoid duplicating results.
Figure 5.1 illustrates the frequency distribution of the 17 pre-set
categories in the total sample within Question B12. According to
results shown in this chart, the three areas that the sojourn most
helped respondents to develop are: (1) communication skills at 50.2%,
(2) relationships with others at 49.7%, and (3) confidence/self-esteem
at 45.0%.
Figure 5.1 QB12. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of Areas Developed

by the Sojourn
Within-country results yield some variation, as reported in Table 5.5.

Communication skills ranked first in only two subsamples—viz., Brazil
and Japan at 57.3% and 67.6%, respectively. In Germany and the US,
this place was held by “relationships with others” at 61.4% and 63.3%.
The second-most common category was the same for Germany and
Japan where 52.0% and 43.3% of respondents deemed the sojourn to
have helped them develop confidence/self-esteem. American respon-
dents, in turn, deemed communication skills as the second-most devel-
oped skillset area, assembling 51.4% of respondent answers. In the
Brazilian subsample, 46.5% of respondents selected “dealing with dif-
ficult people/situations” (Table 5.5).
Table 5.5 QB12. Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of Areas Developed

by the Sojourn
EIL sojourn: Areas Brazil Germany Japan USA

developed (n = 492) (n = 247) (n = 238) (n = 259)
N % N % N % N %
Relationships with others 226 45.9 262 61.4 97 40.8 164 63.3
Communication skills 282 57.3 180 42.2 161 67.6 133 51.4
Cooperating with others 43 8.7 58 13.6 33 13.9 43 16.6
EIL sojourn: Areas Brazil Germany Japan USA

developed (n = 492) (n = 247) (n = 238) (n = 259)
N % N % N % N %
Dealing with difficult people 229 46.5 136 31.9 69 29.0 99 38.2
and/or situations
Negotiation 23 4.7 8 1.9 24 10.1 11 4.2
Creativity 47 9.6 20 4.7 16 6.7 24 9.3
Problem solving 87 17.7 44 10.3 47 19.7 31 12.0
Decision making 117 23.8 76 17.8 49 20.6 32 12.4
Confidence/self-esteem 223 45.3 222 52.0 103 43.3 129 49.8
Study skills 47 9.6 65 15.2 20 8.4 4 1.5
Research and analytical skills 13 2.6 14 3.3 14 5.9 3 1.2
Self-motivation 61 12.4 84 19.7 88 37.0 46 17.8
Leadership 24 4,9 3 0.7 20 8.4 50 19.3
Time management 38 7.7 8 1.9 9 3.8 9 3.5
Presentation skills 21 4.3 10 2.3 39 16.4 4 1.5
Critical thinking 75 15.2 75 17.6 13 5.5 23 8.9
Stress management skills 69 14.0 29 6.8 40 16.8 22 8.5
Note: Highest frequencies are given in bold. Each category accounts for 100.0%
The third-most common area that the sojourn helped develop was
“relationship with others” in Brazil (46.5%) and Japan (40.8%), “com-
munication skills” in Germany (42.2%), and “confidence/self-esteem” in
the US (49.8%). It should be noted that in the Brazilian subsample, the
category “relationships with others” (45.9%) was closely followed by
“confidence/self-esteem” (45.3%).
Question B13 addresses areas the homestay most helped respondents
to develop. These skill domains do not necessarily coincide with those
drawn from the sojourn. Figure 5.2 shows the frequency distribution of
the 17 areas respondents perceived as most helpful with reference to the
homestay. Of these, three areas stand out: (1) relationship with others at
62.8%, (2) communication skills at 62.4%, and (3) dealing with difficult
people/situations at 37.4%. Interestingly, communication skills ranked
first in the previous survey question and relationships with others ranked
second. Furthermore, respondent perceptions suggest that the homestay’s
distinguishing features pertain mostly to affective and communicative
realms. Closer examination of Figure 5.2 shows that while communi-
cations skills rank second, the first-, third-, and fourth-most common
areas belong to the affective domain of the host culture experience—viz.,
(1) relationship with others, (2) dealing with difficult people and/or situ-
ations, and (3) cooperating with others.
Figure 5.2 QB13. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of Areas Developed

by Homestays
Overall, within-country results of this survey question are similar

to data patterns drawn from the total sample just discussed. Table 5.6
reports the frequency distribution of the 17 areas by individual countries.
Based on these results, areas that hold first and second places in the total
sample remain the same in the individual subsamples—viz., “relation-
ship with others” and “communication skills.” There is, however, slight
variation in the first- and second-most commonly developed areas within
Table 5.6 QB13. Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of Areas Developed

by Homestays
Homestay: Areas Brazil Germany Japan USA

Developed (n = 418) (n = 420) (n = 233) (n = 256)
N % N % N % N %
Relationships with others 289 69.1 248 59.0 140 60.1 156 60.9
Communication skills 222 53.1 238 56.7 165 70.8 203 79.3
Cooperating with others 177 42.3 145 34.5 66 28.3 57 22.3
Dealing with difficult 198 47.4 157 37.4 72 30.9 69 27.0
people and/or situations
Negotiation 26 6.2 25 6.0 25 10.7 12 4.7
Creativity 19 4.5 26 6.2 11 4.7 37 14.5
Problem solving 59 14.1 72 17.1 64 27.5 37 14.5
Homestay: Areas Brazil Germany Japan USA

Developed (n = 418) (n = 420) (n = 233) (n = 256)
N % N % N % N %
Decision making 56 13.4 48 11.4 25 10.7 14 5.5

Confidence/self-esteem 70 16.7 77 18.3 50 21.5 88 34.4
Study skills 10 2.4 63 15.0 6 2.6 6 2.3
Research and analytical 3 0.7 17 4.0 6 2.6 3 1.2
skills
Self-motivation 22 5.3 46 11.0 66 28.3 30 11.7
Leadership 12 2.9 1 0.2 5 2.1 7 2.7
Time management 47 11.2 13 3.1 15 6.4 8 3.1
Presentation skills 15 3.6 1 0.2 9 3.9 8 3.1
Critical thinking 29 6.9 41 9.8 8 3.4 15 5.9
Stress management skills 64 15.3 34 8.1 54 23.2 31 12.1
Note: Highest frequencies are given in bold. Each category accounts for 100.0%
American and Japanese subsamples. In both groups, “communication

skills” rank first, assembling 70.8% and 79.3% of responses, respec-
tively. “Relationships with others” holds second place, gathering 60.1%
of responses in Japan and 60.9% in the US; third place is “dealing with
difficult people and/or situations” in Brazil, Germany, and Japan. The
percentage shares are 40.4%, 37.4%, and 30.9%, respectively. In the US,
the third-most chosen area is “confidence/self-esteem” (n = 88; 30.4%).
Section C: Beyond Your Intercultural Sojourn

This section of the AICC questionnaire concerns alumni educational
and professional or career choices. Section C contains 13 questions, 6 of
which elicit contextual information about these choices. The remaining 7
questions relate this information to the potential bearing the sojourn may
have had on educational and professional or career choices.
Question C1 ascertains the highest level of education completed by
alumni, based on a nominal level of measurement. To this end, respon-
dents checked the category that best described their educational
attainment out of seven choices—viz., (1) less than high school degree,
(2) high school degree or equivalent, (3) some college but no degree,
(4) 2-year college/associate degree, (5) 4-year college or university/
bachelor’s degree, (6) master’s degree, and (7) doctorate. As in other sur-
vey questions, the open-ended category “other” is also provided.
Given individual characteristics of educational systems across the four
countries, it was necessary to systematize the original seven categories.
For this purpose, the seven pre-set categories were reduced to three taking
into account the highest level of education completed by subjects—to
wit, (1) less than high school degree → less than secondary education,
(2) high school degree or equivalent → secondary education, (3) some
college but no degree → secondary education, (4) 2-year college/associate
degree → higher education, (5) 4-year college or university/bachelor’s
degree → higher education, (6) master’s degree → higher education, and
(7) doctorate → higher education.
Where respondent educational attainment did not match pre-set catego-
ries, the open-ended category “other” could be selected and the level of edu-
cation specified. All open-ended answers were examined and incorporated
into one of the three major educational levels. Table 5.7 reports the fre-
quency distribution of the three major educational levels in combined and
individual samples. Based on results, the most frequent educational level is
higher education which assembles 75% of responses in the German sub-
sample (n = 293), 61.1% in the Brazilian (n = 297), 57.7% in the Japanese
(n = 132) and 55.4% in the US (n = 140). Considering the overall sample,
the majority of respondents completed higher education (n = 862; 63.4),
followed by those who completed secondary education (n = 395; 29.1%).
Table 5.7 QC1. Cross and Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of Educa-

tional Levels
Educational Brazil Germany Japan USA Four

Levels Countries
N % N % N % N % N %
Less than 25 5.1 15 3.8 28 12.2 34 13.4 102 7.5

secondary
education
Secondary 164 33.8 83 21.2 69 30.1 79 31.2 395 29.1
education
Higher 297 61.1 293 75.0 132 57.7 140 55.4 862 63.4
education
TOTAL 486 100.0 391 100.0 229 100.0 253 100.0 1359 100.0
Question C2 ascertains the potential influence of the sojourn experi-

ence on three types of subsequent educational choices—viz.: (1) higher
education choices, (2) international study, and (3) extracurricular activi-
ties. Each category accounts for 100%, with percentage differences
reflecting the number of positive and negative responses. Figure 5.3
illustrates the frequency distribution of these three educational catego-
ries. Each category accounts for 100%—i.e., the sum of the number of
positive and negative responses. In all categories, the number of positive
responses outnumbers the negative ones at a) 51.2% for higher education
choices, b) 74.8% for international study, and c) 72.2% for extracur-
ricular activities. It is worth noting that the proportion of positive and
negative answers is nearly balanced for the category “higher education
choices,” with a percentage difference of 2.4%. For the remaining two
categories, the number of positive responses represents a clear majority
of viewpoints.
Figure 5.3 QC2. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of Subsequent Educa-

tional Choices
A breakdown of data by country reveals some variation among data pat-

terns, particularly for the category “higher education choices.” Whereas
in American and Japanese subsamples, most respondents considered the
educational exchange experience to have influenced their higher educa-
tion choices at 86.4% and 63.1%, respectively; for Brazilian and German
respondents, it was the opposite. In the latter two cases, for the majority
of respondents, the sojourn did not have a bearing on higher education
pursuits—for 65.0% of respondents in Brazil and 57.8% in Germany.
For the remaining categories, subsamples behaved in the same way. Most
respondents in the four countries considered the sojourn to have influ-
enced their pursuit of international study opportunities as well as activi-
ties that fall outside the realm of regular school or university curricula.
Questions C3 and C4 elicit the extent to which the sojourn helped
respondents gain acceptance to academic programs and fields of study,
respectively. Answers to Question C3 are based on a three-point frequency
scale of usefulness: (1) not helpful, (2) moderately helpful, and (3) very
helpful. Figure 5.4 illustrates the frequency distribution for the extent
to which the sojourn contributed to respondent access to academic pro-
grams (Question C3). The bar chart illustrates that most respondents
consider their sojourn experience moderately or very helpful at 47.0%
and 45.1%, respectively. The breakdown by country shows that while in
Brazilian, German, and American subsamples, most respondents consid-
ered the sojourn experience only reasonably helpful in gaining academic
entrance, in the Japanese subsample 64.1% of respondents found the
sojourn very helpful.
Figure 5.4 QC3. Cross and Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of Extent to

Which the Sojourn Influenced Subsequent Educational Choices
Question C3 asked participants to rate the extent to which their sojourn

influenced their decision regarding educational pursuits toward a given
field of study. Answers are again based on a three-point frequency scale
of usefulness: (1) not helpful, (2) moderately helpful, and (3) very helpful.
Figure 5.5 illustrates cross and within-country results. Similar to Question
C4, respondent viewpoints oscillate between moderate and a great extent.
Again, Japan is the only subsample wherein the majority of respondents
(55.7%; n = 127) regarded the intercultural experience as having had a
great influence on their decision to pursue a given field of study.
Figure 5.5 QC4. Cross and Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of Extent to

Which the Sojourn Influenced Respondent Choices for Fields of Study
Finally, Question C5 seeks to document actual fields of study pursued

by respondents. These are a) architecture, b) arts and humanities, c) busi-
ness, d) education, e) engineering, f) law, g) life sciences, h) medicine
and health sciences, i) physical sciences and mathematics, and j) social
and behavioral sciences. Of these ten fields of study, the top three are
(1) social and behavioral sciences (n = 325; 35.0%), (2) arts and humani-
ties (n = 217; 22.7%), and (3) business (n = 123; 12.9%).
Questions C6 and C7 ascertain areas respondents have worked in and
their current work positions, respectively. Both variables are based on a
nominal level of measurement wherein respondents checked pre-set cat-
egories that best described their personal cases (multiple choice allowed).
Where respondent personal situations did not match pre-set categories, the
open-ended category “other” could be selected and information added.
Given the array of responses in this last category and the duplication of
responses already given within the range of pre-set categories, it was not
accurate to compute frequencies for these types of answers. Therefore, as
in survey Questions B8, B9, B10, and B11, answers in the open-ended cat-
egory “other” were not included in the frequency counts of Question C6.
Question C6 lists eight categories plus the open category in order to
ascertain areas respondents have worked in. Pre-set categories include:
(1) business, (2) government, (3) development, (4) international organi-
zation, (5) health, (6) public service, (7) education, and (8) NGOs. Each
category accounts for 100%, reflecting the number of positive responses.
Figure 5.6 illustrates the frequency distribution of the eight categories in
the total sample. Based on results, business assembled the greatest per-
centage of positive responses (31.8%), followed by education (25.0%),
and public service (14.0%).
Figure 5.6 QC6. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of Respondent Work

Areas
Within-country results show some variation by individual countries.

The results show that business was first place only for Brazilian and
Japanese alumni at 33.3% and 23.8%, respectively. In Germany and the
US, education ranks first at 19.8% and 28.0%, respectively. The second-
most common work area across subsamples is education in Brazil and
Japan at 14.9% and 16.1%, respectively, business in Germany (18.2%),
and public service in the US (15.8%). The third-most frequent work area
is common to German and Japanese subsamples, but differs in the remain-
ing groups. To specify further, 10.6% and 5.7 % of German and Japanese
respondents work in public service while 10.0% of Brazilian respondents
work in NGOs and 15.8% of American respondents work in business.
Question C7 lists ten pre-set categories in addition to the open-
ended category “other,” to ascertain respondent current work positions.
Respondents checked the category best describing their current work
positions—to wit: (1) student, (2) worker, (3) clerk, (4) educator,
(5) technician, (6) administrator, (7) manager, (8) executive, (9) volunteer,
and 10) not currently a student nor employed. Answers given to the
open-ended category “other,” which coincided with pre-set categories
were included in the frequency counts. Open-ended answers that fell
outside the pre-set range were grouped into two additional categories:
11) health professional and 12) law professional.
Figure 5.7 illustrates frequency distribution of the 12 categories in the
total sample. Based on results, three work positions stand out: student
at 53.7%, clerk at 12.6%, and worker at 9.2%. These results might be
expected given the young age range of respondents (M = 17.44) at the time
they participated in the sojourn, as reflected in Question B2. Additionally,
Question B3 has also shown that many respondents answered the ques-
tionnaire while their sojourn experience was still underway.
Figure 5.7 QC7. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of Work Positions

Within-country results show some variation among observations.
This is mostly the case of the second and third most frequent work posi-
tions, given that the category “students” emerges first in all subsamples
at 41.0% in Brazil, 71.9% in Germany, 50.4% in Japan, and 50.8%
in the US. The second most common work position coincides pairwise.
In Brazilian and German subsamples, “clerk” ranks second, assembling
23.8% and 9.1% of responses, respectively. In American and Japanese
subsamples, the category “worker” is in second place, registering 18.4%
and 19.7% of answers, respectively. Finally, the third most frequent work
position differs in all respondent groups—to wit: “worker” in Brazil
(6.9%), “manager” in Germany (2.2%), “clerk” in Japan (8.3%), and
“educator” in the US (10.6%).
Question C8 ascertains the potential bearing the sojourn experience
had on four categories of professional or career choices—viz.: (1) past
employment position, (2) current employment position, (3) participation
in a voluntary organization, and (4) international employment position.
Each category accounts for 100%, with percentage differences reflecting
the number of positive and negative responses. Figure 5.8 illustrates fre-
quency distribution of the four types of professional or career categories.
In all categories, negative responses outnumber positive ones at a) 77.6%
for past employment positions, b) 68.7% for current employment posi-
tions, c) 55.9% for participation in voluntary organization, and d)
53.8% for international employment positions. Interestingly, Question
C2 (i.e., the bearing of the sojourn on educational choices) yielded the
exact opposite data pattern.
A breakdown of data by country discloses some variation among
patterns of individual countries. Results show that not all catego-
ries behave similarly across subsamples. This is particularly evident
in two categories: “participation in a voluntary organization” and
“international employment experiences.” Although the category
“participation in voluntary organizations” gathers more negative
responses than positive in the cross-country analysis (Figure 5.8),
individual country analyses do not reproduce this tendency. In all but
one subsample, the majority of respondents deemed the sojourn to
have influenced their participation in voluntary organizations. Brazil
is the exception where 72.8% (n = 315) of respondents considered
that their sojourn experience did not affect their decision to partici-
pate in volunteer activities. This specific result may have biased the
joint analysis since Brazil represents the largest subsample. Stated
another way, the 315 Brazilian respondents who answered nega-
tively to Question C8 represent 25.4% of the total number of valid
responses (n = 1,238) in the category “participation in a voluntary
organization.”
Figure 5.8 QC8. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of Professional or

Career Choices
The category “international employment experiences” also regis-

tered a divide of viewpoints. Whereas in Brazilian and German subsam-
ples, the sojourn influenced the pursuit or access to international jobs
of most respondents, in American and Japanese groups, this was the
case for a minority of individuals. In terms of percentage share, posi-
tive responses account for 50.6% and 52.3% in Brazil and Germany,
while in Japan and in the US, they represent only 42.3% and 31.3%,
respectively.
Question C9 seeks to determine if respondents have worked in a pre-
vious intercultural situation where they provided education, training, or
service to others, based on “yes” or “no” responses. Figure 5.9 illustrates
frequency distribution of intercultural work for the total sample and
individual subsamples. According to results, 63.6% of respondents in the
total sample have not been engaged in previous intercultural work where
they provided education, training, or service. Those who had provided
such services represent a minority of 36.4%. This data pattern is clearly
reproduced within two subsamples: Brazil and Germany. In both cases,
the majority of respondents have not been engaged in intercultural work
at 73.3% and 74.1%, respectively. In Japan and the US, differences are
nuanced. In Japan the divide is of 11.4%, while in the US the difference
is as nuanced as 2.4%.
Figure 5.9 QC9. Cross and Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of Previous

Intercultural Work
Question C11 ascertains the duration of intercultural work for respon-

dents who were engaged in it. As in survey Questions A7 and B4, the
measurement level of the variable had to be changed from numerical to
ordinal. Three intervals were, therefore, defined to give some indication
of the typical duration of previous intercultural work—viz.: a) between 1
and 2 months, b) between 3 and 12 months, and c) more than 12 months.
Figure 5.10 illustrates frequency distribution of the three intervals in the
total sample. As results show, 45.2% of respondents were engaged in
intercultural work for less than 1 year, followed by those involved in
this type of work between 1 and 3 years (33.6%). Those who had been
involved in intercultural work for more than 3 years represent a minority
of 21.2%.
Figure 5.10 QC11. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of Duration of Previ-

ous Intercultural Work
In within-country results, the majority of respondents in all but one

sample were engaged in intercultural work for less than 1 year, as reported
in Table 5.8. This is the case of 50.9% of respondents in Brazil, 47.4% in
Germany, and 45.8% in the US. Japan is the only subsample where most
subjects (43.3%) worked in intercultural areas between 1 and 3 years.
Table 5.8 QC11. Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of Duration of Previ-

ous Intercultural Work
Duration of Respondent Brazil Germany Japan USA

First EIL Sojourn
N % N % N % N %
Less than 1 year 57 50.9 83 47.4 12 23.5 55 45.8

Between 1 and 3 years 37 33.0 55 31.4 22 43.1 40 33.3
More than 3 years 18 16.1 37 21.1 17 33.3 25 20.8
TOTAL 57 50.9 83 47.4 12 23.5 55 45.8
Questions C12 and C13 elicit the extent to which the sojourn and gained
foreign language abilities helped respondents to obtain employment. As in
previous questions, answers are based on a three-point frequency scale of
usefulness—viz.: (1) not helpful, (2) moderately helpful, and (3) very help-
ful. Results in Figure 5.11 indicate that 48.3% and 37.1% of respondents
deemed the sojourn to have been moderately or very helpful in obtain-
ing a job. Those who considered the sojourn not helpful in this regard
make up a 14.6% share. Of the four subsamples, Brazilian and Japanese
participants perceive the sojourn experience as very helpful in facilitating
access to job opportunities, with a percentage share of 44.7% and 51.6%,
respectively. For most American and German respondents, the experience
was moderately helpful at 53. 8% and 61.4%.
Figure 5.11 QC12. Cross and Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of Extent

to Which the Sojourn Helped Obtain Employment
Participant viewpoints appear more consensual regarding the role for-

eign language abilities gained during the sojourn play in enhancing job
opportunities, as illustrated by Figure 5.12. According to this chart, not
only does the majority of respondents (52.4%) in the total sample deem
the development of language abilities very helpful, but this data pattern
is also reproduced in all but one subsample. For Brazilian, German, and
Japanese subsamples, those who rated their language abilities very help-
ful comprise a percentage share of 59.1%, 55.8%, and 52.3%, respec-
tively. The US was the only country wherein the majority of respondents
rated foreign language ability as having a moderate impact at 44.7%.
Figure 5.12 QC13. Cross and Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of Extent

to Which the Development of Language Abilities Helped Obtain
Employment
Section D: Personal Characteristics

Section D of the survey questionnaire concerns respondent personal char-
acteristics and their role toward gaining acceptance by hosts. This section
contains only one question (D1), assessing the importance of personal-
ity characteristics toward intercultural success. To this end, 14 attributes
are listed as pre-set categories, plus the open-ended category “other.”
These include: (1) tolerance, (2) flexibility, (3) patience, (4) sense of
humor, (5) suspending judgment, (6) adaptability, (7) curiosity, (8) open-
mindedness, (9) motivation, (10) self-reliance, (11) empathy, (12) clear
sense of self, (13) perceptiveness, and (14) tolerance for ambiguity.
Measurement of personal characteristics occurs via participant self-
assessment ratings on a three-point frequency scale of importance—viz.,
(a) not important, (b) moderately important, and (c) very important. All
14 pre-set personal characteristics and the open-ended category “other”
required the attribution of ratings on the measurement scale. Yet, for analy-
sis purposes, frequencies were calculated only for pre-set categories. Similar
to survey Questions B8, B9, B10, and B11, translation and categorization
of the full range of open-ended answers indicated that these additional
responses coincided with pre-set categories. As such, these responses could
not be included in frequency counts to avoid duplicating ratings previously
attributed by respondents. Based on results, the three most important attri-
butes are: (1) open-mindedness at 84.4%, (2) adaptability at 81.7%, and
(3) tolerance at 79.4%. Respondents considered all three categories very
important toward intercultural success.
Overall, within-country results reproduce similar data patterns for the
three Western subsamples, but not the Eastern subsample; for example,
the same three personal characteristics were attributed great importance
(“Very important”) by American, Brazilian, and German respondents, dif-
fering, however, in frequency of observations. For American and Brazilian
sojourners, “adaptability” ranks first, assembling 89.7% and 88.2% of rat-
ings, respectively. In Germany, 90.7% of sojourners selected “tolerance.”
The second-most commonly chosen personal attribute is “open-
mindedness” for the three Western subsamples. In these three groups, the
majority of respondents considered “open-mindedness” to be very impor-
tant to intercultural success. In Brazil, this personal attribute gathered
83.1% of responses, in Germany 84.6%, and in the US 88.6%. The third-
most important personal attribute overlaps in Brazil and in the US wherein
74.9% and 82.8% of respondents attributed the rating “very important”
to the category “tolerance.” In Germany, this position is held by “adapt-
ability” at 74.5%. Japanese respondents differed in choices to those of
their counterparts, attributing nonetheless strong importance to “open-
mindedness.” Yet this personal characteristic comes in third place at 82.2%
in this subsample, closely followed by “motivation” at 81.1%. The two
most important attributes cited by Japanese respondents are “flexibility”
and “curiosity,” gathering 89.5% and 83.4% of responses, respectively.
Section E: Motivation
Section E of the survey poses two questions concerning respondent moti-
vation toward aspects of the sojourn experience. The first question elicits
participant level of motivation toward the host culture (QE1), while the
second question ascertains participant contact with hosts (QE2).
Question E1 determines sojourner level of motivation toward the host
culture, asking respondents to rate their motivation on a three-point
frequency scale across five phases of the sojourn experience. This scale
ranges from “not motivated” to “moderately motivated” and “very moti-
vated.” The experience was divided into the following phases: (1) before
arriving to the host country, (2) upon entering, (3) midway through the
experience, (4) at the end of the experience, and (5) after returning home.
Based on results obtained, motivational levels did not vary much during
and after the sojourn, remaining consistently very high and always above
64%. The highest level was reached at the end of the experience with
75.3% of respondents selecting “very high motivation.”
A breakdown of data by country reproduces the homogeneity of
motivational levels yielded previously. The majority of respondents in all
subsamples considered their motivation levels very high across all phases
of the experience. Stated another way, the category “very motivated”
was the most selected one in all cases by registering a percentage share
consistently above 53%. Nevertheless, this result may have been influ-
enced by the retrospective nature of the research project. This retrospec-
tive design may have interfered with respondents’ ability to discriminate
meaningfully their motivation along five phases of a past experience.
Question E2 seeks to understand with whom sojourners maintained
contact after returning home. To ascertain this, the categories listed were:
(1) host family, (2) other participants (that respondents traveled with),
and (3) other members (of respondents’ host country). Each category, or
type of social contact, accounts for 100%, with percentage differences
reflecting the number of positive and negative responses. Figure 5.13
illustrates distribution of these three categories for the total sample.
Based on the illustrated results, those with whom respondents keep most
contact upon returning home are other participants they traveled with,
a category that assembles 83.8% of responses. The second-most com-
monly chosen category is the host family, with 76.3% of respondents
selecting this response. Other members of the host country rank third,
assembling 75.3% positive responses. It should be noted that the percent-
age difference between the two latter categories is quite subtle (of 1%).
Figure 5.13 QE2. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of Sojourner Social

Contacts after Returning Home
Within-country results show some variation among individual coun-
tries. Thus, for 86.9% of Brazilian respondents, other host country mem-
bers are those with whom they kept most contact after returning home;
for German respondents, host families and host country members seem
to be equally important at 92.4% and 91.7%, respectively. For 92.4%
of Japanese respondents, host families represent the most commonly
retained social contact, while 94.4% of American respondents kept most
contact with their sojourner peers.
Section F: Language Proficiency

Section F of the AICC survey attends to the host language of the sojourn
experience. This section contains four questions, addressing different
aspects regarding the development of host language proficiency—viz.:
(1) host language abilities gained, (2) extent to which the sojourn helped
develop host language proficiency, (3) extent to which the homestay
helped develop host language proficiency. The fourth question is open-
ended and is not included in the statistical analysis given that the informa-
tion yielded was too diverse to be transformed into meaningful categories.
Question F1 ascertains respondent host language abilities gained during
the sojourn. To this end, this survey question offered ten statements rep-
resenting language development on an ascending scale from “no language
ability” to “ability equivalent to an educated native speaker.” Respondents
checked the statement which best described their host language abilities
from among the following options: (0) no language ability, (1) limited abil-
ity, (2) able to satisfy limited survival and courtesy needs, (3) able to satisfy
survival and courtesy needs, (4) able to communicate in some concrete top-
ics, (5) able to speak with accuracy in formal and informal situations,
(6) able to speak with accuracy in professional areas, (7) able to speak
fluently and accurately on all levels, (8) ability approximates an educated
native speaker, and (9) ability equivalent to an educated native speaker.
For data analysis purposes, these statements are treated as ranking
data—i.e., each statement was attributed a rank according to the language
proficiency purported and a measurement scale was created based on these
ranks. Thus if the first statement “no language ability” represents the low-
est point (0) on the measurement scale, then the last statement, “ability
equivalent to an educated native speaker,” represents the highest level (9).
Results show that participant host language development varies from
no ability to advanced command, as demonstrated by the minimum and
maximum values of 0 and 9, respectively. Overall, the average degree of
proficiency attained by the 1,346 respondents who answered Question
F1 is 4.67 (SD = 1.67). That is, most respondents are able to speak with
accuracy in formal and informal situations (Rank 5). This result is on par
with the mode given that the value that commonly appears in the dataset
of the total sample is five.
There is, however, variation among proficiency levels attained by indi-
vidual subgroups. Whereas Brazilian and German respondents attained
on average intermediate proficiency levels (Ranks 5 and 6), American
and Japanese respondents attained beginner levels (Ranks 3 and 4). These
results gain greater clarity if one examines the mode, since this univari-
ate measure is not so strongly affected by the distribution as the mean (a
hypothetical value that does not have to be actually observed in the data).
The most frequent values in data subsets (the mode) are 5 and 7 for
Brazil and Germany, 3 and 4 for Japan and the US, respectively. This
means that while Brazilian and German respondents attained levels that
allowed them to speak accurately or fluently in the host language dur-
ing the sojourn, American and Japanese respondents attained levels that
allowed them only to satisfy survival needs or communicate on some
concrete topics. It is important to note that we cannot accurately con-
clude which subgroup progressed the most because we lack information
about respondent host language abilities prior to the sojourn.
Questions F2 and F3 asked respondents to rate the extent to which
the sojourn and the homestay helped them develop communication
abilities in the host language, based on a three-point frequency scale
of usefulness: (1) not helpful, (2) moderately helpful, and (3) very help-
ful. Figure 5.14 illustrates frequency distribution of the extent to which
the sojourn contributed to participant development of the host lan-
guage across these three categories. Based on results, a clear majority of
respondents (77.2%) in the total sample deems the experience as very
Figure 5.14 QF2. Cross and Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of Extent

to Which the Sojourn Contributed to Respondent Host Communica-
tion Abilities
helpful in developing host communication abilities. This data pattern is
reproduced by all subsamples as well; in all four countries, most respon-
dents viewed the sojourn as very helpful in this matter at 80.1% for Bra-
zil, 96.3% for Germany, 65.6% for Japan, 46.7% in the US. It is worth
noting that in the US subsample the divide of opinions between those
who deemed the sojourn moderately and very helpful is nearly balanced
at 46.7% and 42.5%, respectively.
Results drawn from Question F3 are similar to those yielded by
Question F2, as Figure 5.15 demonstrates. Once again, the majority of
respondents (78.4%) in the total sample views the homestay as very help-
ful in developing host communication abilities. Within-country data is on
par with this pattern given that most respondents label the contribution
of host families toward enhancing TL communication abilities as very
helpful. This is the case for 73.4% of respondents in Brazil, 92.1% in
Germany, 80.2% in Japan, and 59.6% in the US. Similar to the previous
survey question, the US subsample reveals a divide of viewpoints that is
more nuanced. In effect, 59.6% of participants stated that the contribu-
tion of the homestay family to the development of host language abilities
is very helpful, while for 31.7% this support is cited as moderately helpful.
Figure 5.15 QF3. Cross and Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of Extent

to Which the Homestay Contributed to Respondent Host Language
Abilities
Section G: Communication Styles
Section G of the survey concerns respondent adaptation of their communica-
tion styles during the sojourn and their appropriateness to the sociolinguis-
tic and host cultural context. This section poses three questions addressing
several aspects of communication styles: (1) appropriateness of speech with
regard to paralinguistic aspects, (2) appropriateness of behavior with regard
to extralinguistic features, and (3) appropriateness of speech in accordance
with features of sociolinguistic variation. All three questions are based on
three-point frequency scales: (1) never, (2) sometimes, and (3) always.
Question G1 ascertains the frequency with which sojourners adjusted their
speech when communicating in the host language with regard to three para-
linguistic features: a) tone and pitch, b) volume and speed, c) affect and emo-
tion. Figure 5.16 illustrates the total sample distribution of the regularity with
which respondents adjusted their speech to these three paralinguistic features.
Based on results, respondents were able to adjust their speech to host speak-
ers’ tone and speech, volume and speed, affect and emotion on an occasional
basis (“sometimes”). In terms of percentage share, the second point on the
measurement scale gathers 47.7% of responses for tone and pitch, 50.3% for
volume and speech, and, finally, 49.9% for affect and emotion. The paralin-
guistic feature of speech where the divide of viewpoints between the second
and third points on the scale is more subtle is “tone and pitch” with a per-
centage difference of 6.2%. Stated another way, 47.7% of sojourners were
able to adjust their speech to host tone and pitch only on an occasional basis
(“sometimes”) and 41.5% claimed to have done so at all times (“always”).
Figure 5.16 QG1. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of Appropriateness of

Respondent Speech to Paralinguistic Aspects
The breakdown of data by country indicates that speech styles vary
across subsamples. With regard to tone and pitch, whereas the majority
of Brazilian and Japanese respondents were always able to adjust these
speech features appropriately, most German and American respondents
reported doing so only occasionally. The percentage of responses gath-
ered is 50.8% and 45.6% for Brazil and Japan, respectively and 44.6%
and 47.7% for Germany and the US, respectively.
The paralinguistic feature of volume and speed yielded less varia-
tion than the former (“tone and pitch”) given that most respondents
in all subsamples considered they were only able to adjust volume and
speed of their speech to those of their hosts on an occasional basis. It
should be noted that in Brazilian and Japanese subsamples the propor-
tion of respondents who selected the second (“sometimes”) and third
points (“always”) on the measurement scale is nearly equal—to wit:
a) 47.2% of responses for “sometimes” and 46.8% for “always” in Brazil;
b) 40.2% of responses for “sometimes,” and 39.7% for “always” in Japan.
Finally, emotive properties of speech (“affect and emotion”) yielded
similar data patterns in all but one subsample. Thus if the majority of
American (60.0%), Brazilian (51.4%), and German (48.8%) respon-
dents were only able to adjust the affective realm of speech occasionally,
most Japanese respondents (47.4%) stated they were always able to meet
those standards—a surprising turnabout.
Question G2 determines how frequently sojourners adapted their behav-
ior to six extralinguistic (i.e. non-verbal) aspects of communication—viz.:
a) space and distance between speakers (proxemics), b) touch and physical
contact (haptics), c) eye contact (oculesics), d) acceptable or offensive smells
or aromas (olfactics), e) movement and gestures (kinesics), and, finally, f)
pauses and overlaps between comments in discourse (chronemics).
According to results, in all but one extralinguistic feature, most respon-
dents considered that they adjusted their behaviors occasionally (“some-
times”) as appropriate with regard to space and distance, touch and
physical contact, offensive or acceptable smells/aromas, movement and
gestures, and, finally, pauses and overlaps. Patterns of eye contact consti-
tutes the only extralinguistic feature wherein sojourners were always able
to adapt their behavior appropriately, assembling 47.3% of responses.
Overall, within-country data reproduces the results yielded by the total
sample, summarized in Table 5.9. Two exceptions are the Brazilian sub-
sample with regard to patterns of touch and physical contact (haptics) and
eye contact (oculesics). Thus, whereas in the former extralinguistic feature,
the majority of respondents in the other three subsamples selected “some-
times,” in Brazil the proportion of respondents who chose “sometimes”
and “always” is essentially the same at 45.6% and 45.8%, respectively.
In other words, these two points on the measurement scale are separated
by only one respondent (0.2%). In the latter extralinguistic feature, the
Brazilian group was the only subsample where most respondents adjusted
Table 5.9 QG2. Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of Appropriateness of
Respondent Behavior to Extralinguistic Aspects
Extralinguistic Brazil Germany Japan USA

Features
N % N % N % N %
Space and distance

between speakers
Never 36 8.2 42 13.7 58 29.1 23 11.0
Sometimes 223 50.6 155 50.5 83 41.7 114 54.3
Always 182 41.3 110 35.8 58 29.1 73 34.8
TOTAL 441 100.0 307 100.0 199 100.0 210 100.0
Touch and physical
contact
Never 38 8.6 36 11.0 52 24.3 21 9.8
Sometimes 202 45.6 158 48.2 111 51.9 90 41.9
Always 203 45.8 134 40.9 51 23.8 104 48.4
TOTAL 443 100.0 328 100.0 214 100.0 215 100.0
Eye contact
Never 70 16.2 44 13.4 17 7.6 25 12.1
Sometimes 191 44.3 133 40.4 64 28.7 83 40.1
Always 170 39.4 152 46.2 142 63.7 99 47.8
TOTAL 431 100.0 329 100.0 223 100.0 207 100.0
Offensive or
acceptable smells
or aromas
Never 106 26.9 82 30.5 75 42.1 49 26.9
Sometimes 158 40.1 100 37.2 65 36.5 68 37.4
Always 130 33.0 87 32.3 38 21.3 65 35.7
TOTAL 394 100.0 269 100.0 178 100.0 182 100.0
Movement and
gestures
Never 46 10.6 35 10.2 14 6.4 22 10.6
Sometimes 235 54.3 198 57.9 80 36.5 96 46.2
Always 152 35.1 109 31.9 125 57.1 90 43.3
TOTAL 433 100.0 342 100.0 219 100.0 208 100.0
Pause and overlaps
between comments
Never 38 9.1 31 10.4 32 16.2 19 9.6
Sometimes 227 54.4 178 59.9 109 55.1 108 54.5
Always 152 36.5 88 29.6 57 28.8 71 35.9
TOTAL 417 100.0 297 100.0 198 100.0 198 100.0
their behavior with regard to eye contact patterns on an occasional basis
(“sometimes”) at 44.3%. In the three other subsamples, the majority of
respondents claimed to have done so at all times (“always”).
Question G3 determines how frequently sojourners adjusted their behavior
to aspects of sociolinguistic context, particularly with regard to: a) the situa-
tion, b) other speakers (e.g., their age, gender), c) social hierarchy (e.g., class,
position, roles), d) degree of familiarity between speakers, and, finally, e) topic
of the conversation. Based on results, most respondents were always able to
adjust their speech appropriately, with percentages that went above 47%.
Within-country results in Table 5.10 show some variation in four
categories—viz.: (1) situation, (2) other speakers, (3) social hierarchy, and
(4) the topic of conversation. In the first category, the opinion of 54.7%
of Japanese respondents contrasts with viewpoints of most other respon-
dents in the total sample since Japanese respondents believed they adjusted
their speech as appropriate to the situation on an occasional basis only. It
should also be noted that the divide between Brazilian respondents who
selected the second (“sometimes”) and third points (“always”) on the
measurement scale is nearly balanced at 46.6% and 49.9%, respectively.
In the categories “other speakers” and “social hierarchy,” the per-
ception of Japanese sojourners differs from their peers, with the former
reporting, once again, that they adjusted their speech on an occasional
basis at 45.5% and 42.0%, respectively.
Finally, it is in the category “topic of conversation” where a divide of opin-
ions is more pronounced. Brazilian and Japanese sojourners view the appro-
priateness of their speech to the topic of conversation at hand as irregular,
with 49.5% and 45.1% having selected the second point on the measurement
scale. American respondents oscillated between the second and third points
on the scale: 46.9% chose “sometimes” and 45.9% “always” (Table 5.10).
Table 5.10 QG3. Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of the Appropriate-

ness of Respondent Behaviors to Aspects of Sociolinguistic Variation
Sociolinguistic Variation Brazil Germany Japan USA

Features
N % N % N % N %
The situation
Never 15 3.5 5 1.3 19 9.4 9 4.1
Sometimes 199 46.6 120 31.3 111 54.7 96 43.4
Always 213 49.9 259 67.4 73 36.0 116 52.5
TOTAL 427 100.0 384 100.0 203 100.0 221 100.0
Other speakers
Never 50 12.3 5 1.3 37 17.5 13 6.0
Sometimes 167 40.9 127 32.7 96 45.5 86 39.4
Always 191 46.8 256 66.0 78 37.0 119 54.6
TOTAL 408 100.0 388 100.0 211 100.0 218 100.0
Sociolinguistic Variation Brazil Germany Japan USA

Features
N % N % N % N %
Social hierarchy
Never 84 20.0 17 4.5 43 21.5 23 11.3
Sometimes 157 37.4 141 37.0 84 42.0 86 42.2
Always 179 42.6 223 58.5 73 36.5 95 46.6
TOTAL 420 100.0 381 100.0 200 100.0 204 100.0
Degrees of familiarity
Never 24 5.6 5 1.3 23 11.1 6 2.8
Sometimes 183 42.7 87 22.4 85 40.9 100 46.5
Always 222 51.7 296 76.3 100 48.1 109 50.7
TOTAL 429 100.0 388 100.0 208 100.0 215 100.0
Topic of conversation
Never 21 4.9 10 2.6 32 15.7 15 7.2
Sometimes 212 49.5 140 36.7 92 45.1 98 46.9
Always 195 45.6 231 60.6 80 39.2 96 45.9
TOTAL 428 100.0 381 100.0 204 100.0 209 100.0
Section H: Intercultural Areas

Section H of the survey addresses intercultural areas related to the sojourn.
This section poses three questions to determine how sojourners experienced
three dimensions of their intercultural experience—viz.: (1) relationships
with host family and other host natives, (2) communication in the host lan-
guage, and (3) communication in the sojourner’s own language. The three
questions are based on three-point frequency scales of quality: (1) not well,
(2) moderately well, and (3) very well.
Question H1 ascertains how well sojourners established and main-
tained relationships with two types of social contacts: a) their family
and b) other host natives. Each of these categories accounts for 100%
within the range of three possible answers on the measurement scale
(“not well,” “moderately well,” and “very well”). Figure 5.17 illustrates
the total sample distribution of how well respondents established and/
or maintained relationships with host families and other natives. Based
on results, in both cases sojourners were able to develop and maintain
these social relationships “very well.” Responses spread mostly over
the second (“well”) and third (“very well”) points on the measurement
scale, with the latter gathering the majority of responses: 63.6% for host
families and 56.0% for other host natives. Respondents who considered
that they faced difficulties in developing and keeping this kind of rela-
tionships constitute a minority of 8.5% for host families and 5.8% for
other hosts.
Figure 5.17 QH1. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of Quality of Respon-

dent Social Contact with Host Families and Host Natives
Within-country data reproduces the pattern yielded by the total sam-

ple for the social category “host family” given that in all subsamples
most respondents selected the third point (“very well”) on the mea-
surement scale, as summarized in Table 5.11. In contrast to the cat-
egory “host family,” “other host natives” registered some oscillation of
viewpoints. Thus where most Brazilian and Japanese respondents were
able to develop and keep relationships with other host natives “very
well,” American and German respondents seem to have faced some
difficulties. In terms of percentage share, whereas 69.6% and 59.2%
of Brazilian and Japanese sojourners selected the third point (“very
well”) on the measurement scale, 52.6% of their American counter-
parts selected the second point (“moderately well”). German sojourners
oscillated between these two points, with 40.9% of respondents feeling
that they were only able to develop/maintain relationships with host
natives moderately well and 53.1% claiming to have done so very well
(Table 5.11).
Table 5.11 QH1. Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of the Quality of
Respondent Social Contact with Host Families and Host Natives
Social Contacts Brazil Germany Japan USA
N % N % N % N %
Host family
Not well 23 6.4 35 8.8 25 11.8 20 8.3
Moderately well 98 27.1 93 23.3 59 28.0 88 36.5
Very well 240 66.5 272 68.0 127 60.2 133 55.2
TOTAL 361 100.0 400 100.0 211 100.0 241 100.0
Other host natives
Not well 13 3.1 24 6.0 5 2.4 32 13.7
Moderately well 115 27.3 165 40.9 81 38.4 123 52.6
Very well 293 69.6 214 53.1 125 59.2 79 33.8
TOTAL 421 100.0 403 100.0 211 100.0 234 100.0
Question H2 seeks to determine how well respondents were able to

communicate in the host language with their host families and other
hosts. As in the previous question, answers range from “not well” to
“moderately” and “very well.” Figure 5.18 illustrates the total sample
distribution of how well respondents communicated in the host language
Figure 5.18 QH2. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of Quality of Respondent

Host Language Communication with Host Families and Host Natives
with host families and other natives. According to overall results, the
majority of respondents considered that they communicated with host
families and other host members very well. The former category assem-
bled 61.7% of responses and the latter 57.2%. Those respondents who
felt they were only able to communicate with the two aforementioned
social groups moderately constitute a minority of 30.3% in the case of
host families and of 35.1% for other hosts. Finally, those who did not
communicate well with these social contacts constitute a small minority
of 8.0% (“host families”) and 7.7% (“other host natives”), as evident in
Figure 5.18.
Within-country results show some dispersion among respondent
responses, as Table 5.12 illustrates. Results indicate a divide of view-
points across subsamples regarding how well sojourners communicated
with their host families and other host members. In the two social catego-
ries, the majority of respondents in American and Japanese subsamples
considered that they communicated in the host language only moder-
ately well (note that most respondents in the remaining two subsamples
reproduce the data pattern of the total sample). In terms of percentage
share, 52.2% and 50.7% of American and Japanese respondents com-
municated moderately well with their host families. The second social
category reproduces a similar pattern given that 56.3% of American and
55.9% of Japanese again selected “moderately well” when rating the
quality of host language communication with host members other than
host families (Table 5.12).
Table 5.12 QH2. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of Quality of Respon-

dent Host Language Communication with Host Families and Host
Natives
N % N % N % N %
Host family
Not well 11 3.0 5 1.2 30 14.0 51 22.8
Moderately well 104 28.0 39 9.6 109 50.7 117 52.2
Very well 257 69.1 361 89.1 76 35.3 56 25.0
TOTAL 372 100.0 405 100.0 215 100.0 224 100.0
Other host natives
Not well 8 1.8 1 0.2 36 16.4 54 24.3
Moderately well 143 32.3 62 15.3 123 55.9 125 56.3
Not well 292 65.9 343 84.5 61 27.7 43 19.4
TOTAL 443 100.0 406 100.0 220 100.0 222 100.0
Question H3, as in the previous question, asked respondents to rate
the quality of communication with host families and other hosts, but
in this case, the focus was on communication, when possible, in the
respondent’s own L1. Figure 5.19 illustrates the total sample distribu-
tion of how well respondents were able to communicate in their own
L1s with host families and other natives. The results yielded by this sur-
vey question contrast with those drawn from Question H2 (how well
sojourners communicated in the host language). Thus, if for the most
part sojourners communicated either moderately or very well in the
host language, they were not able to utilize their own languages with
hosts. To specify further, 44.3% and 38.6% of the total respondents
considered not to have been able to communicate in their own lan-
guages with either host families or other host natives, respectively. It is
worth noting, however, that the results spread over the three points on
the measurement scale, particularly in the social category “other host
natives.” In effect, in this category, there are almost as many respon-
dents who considered themselves to have been able to communicate
moderately well (35.4%) as those who regarded this communication
as poor/not well (38.6%).
Figure 5.19 QH3. Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of Quality of Respon-

dent Communication in Their Own Native Language with Host
Families and Host Natives
A breakdown of data by country indicates considerable variation
among respondents, as demonstrated by Table 5.13. In the category “host
family,” while the majority of Brazilian (48.6%) and German (78.3%)
respondents considered not to have been able to communicate well with
hosts in their own L1, most American and Japanese respondents did so
moderately well (at 36.4% and 48.2%, respectively). With regard to
the second social category (“other host natives), the difference is more
pronounced—to wit, most Brazilian sojourners (38.7%) selected “very
well,” a clear majority (80.4%) of their German counterparts chose “not
well,” while most American (43.4%) and Japanese (50.9%) sojourners
chose “Moderately well.”
Table 5.13 QH3. Within-Country: Frequency Distribution of the Quality of

Respondent Communication in Their Own Language with Host
Families and Host Natives
N % N % N % N %
Host family
Not well 72 48.6 94 78.3 29 26.4 72 32.0
Moderately well 44 29.7 15 12.5 53 48.2 82 36.4
Very well 32 21.6 11 9.2 28 25.5 71 31.6
TOTAL 148 100.0 120 100.0 110 100.0 225 100.0
Other host natives
Not well 70 26.3 135 80.4 30 26.8 63 27.9
Moderately well 93 35.0 25 14.9 57 50.9 98 43.4
Not well 103 38.7 8 4.8 25 22.3 65 28.8
TOTAL 266 100.0 168 100.0 112 100.0 226 100.0
Psychometric Analysis of the ICC Scale

Psychometric analysis of the ICC scale is organized in five sections cor-
responding to joint (“four countries”) and individual analyses of the
ICC scale (I. Intercultural Abilities) across the four subsamples: Brazil,
Germany, Japan, and the US. (Ireland is not included given the focus on
host families.) The ICC scale used in this FRP is based on the revised
theoretical construct of “ICC” developed by Fantini (1995) and revised
in 2006 and 2015 for purposes of this research (cf. Appendix B: AICC
Form). The latest version used in this study clustered 49 items, as follows:
• Knowledge dimension: ICC1 to ICC9 [9 items]

• Attitudes dimension: ICC10 to ICC22 [23 items]
• Skills dimension: ICC23 to ICC31 [8 items]
• Awareness dimension: ICC32 to ICC49 [17 items]
Dimensionality and reliability analyses of the ICC scale, as well as corre-
lations between the extracted components, were calculated for individual
subsamples and for the total multinational sample.
Composite: Four Countries

A PCA was conducted of the 49 items that comprise the ICC scale for
each of the four participating countries, followed by merging the four
complete datasets2 of individual countries. The final sample for the ICC
scale analysis is based on responses from a total of 1,189 subjects. The
frequency distribution by country is presented in Table 5.14.
Table 5.14 ICC Scale: Distribution of Subjects

by Country in the Final Sample
Country N %
Brazil 222 18.7

Germany 406 34.1
Japan 359 30.2
USA 202 17.0
Total 1189 100.0
To start with, a PCA was computed for all 49 ICC items and results for the
initial solution were analyzed. The Catell’s Scree Test indicated four dimen-
sions, as formulated in the original ICC theoretical model (Fantini 1995,
2006). Subsequently, another PCA, forced to four factors, was conducted
using varimax rotation. To reach a final solution, however, five items had to
be excluded in sequential steps, with another PCA conducted in each step.
The underlying reason was twofold: (1) Two items (ICC25, ICC24) yielded
low loadings (inferior to the adopted cutoff) (cf. Tabachnick and Fidell
2007); both items pertained originally to the Skills dimension. (2) Three items
(ICC23, ICC18, and ICC27) presented cross loadings (a loading high in more
than one factor (cf. DeVellis 2012); two of these items pertained to the Skills
dimension and the remaining one belonged to the Attitudes dimension.
The final solution retained 44 of the original 49 items and presented
indicators that enabled further calculations—viz., the Kaiser-Meyer-
Olkin Test for Sampling Adequacy (KMO = 0.968) and Bartlett’s Test
of Sphericity (χ2(946) = 34,618.035; p < 0.001). The former measure
verifies the sampling adequacy of the analysis and accepts a 0.500 limit.
The latter indicates that correlations are sufficiently large for the PCA,
provided the results are statistically significant.
The four dimensions extracted explain 58.008% of the total variance. The
first dimension of the ICC scale (Awareness) explains 21.781% of variance
(Eigenvalue = 9.584) and consists of 18 items, with loadings between 0.523
and 0.749. The second dimension (Attitude), comprises 12 items (loadings
between 0.552 and 0.775) and explains 15.351% of variance (Eigenvalue =
6.754). The third dimension (Knowledge) includes 9 items (loadings between
0.609 and 0.698) and explains 12.555% of variance (Eigenvalue = 5.524).
The fourth dimension (Skills) encompasses five items (loadings between
0.481 and 0.620) and explains 8,320% of variance (Eigenvalue = 3.661).
Although two items (ICC31, ICC26) load above 0.35 in more than
one dimension, these items were not excluded from the database based
on two criteria: (1) the loadings are inferior to the chosen cutoff point
(0.45) (cf. Tabachnick and Fidell 2007) and (2) the difference between
the loadings in the factors is greater than 0.10. For this reason, it will not
be considered a cross loading (Table 5.15).
Table 5.15 Four Countries: Final Matrix for PCA of Factor Loadings, Common-
alities (h2), and Corrected Item-Total Correlation (R) for Each Item
(n = 1,189)
Items Component
N Content 1 2 3 4 h2 R
ICC_41 My values that affected 0.749 0.157 0.137 0.255 0.669 0.781
my approach to ethical
dilemmas and their
resolution.
ICC_37 Reactions by host culture 0.748 0.093 0.112 0.016 0.581 0.685
members to my identity
(e.g., race, class, gender,
age).
ICC_38 Diversity within the host 0.739 0.168 0.186 0.000 0.609 0.711
culture (e.g., differences in
class, gender, age, ability).
ICC_42 My hosts’ reactions to me 0.734 0.194 0.185 0.199 0.650 0.775
that reflected their cultural
values.
ICC_40 My choices and their 0.731 0.218 0.153 0.150 0.628 0.753
consequences (which
made me more, or less
acceptable, to my hosts).
ICC_43 How values and ethics 0.725 0.185 0.235 0.221 0.663 0.786
were reflected in specific
situations.
ICC_36 Myself as a “culturally 0.697 0.111 0.143 0.151 0.541 0.690
conditioned” person in
terms of my habits and
preferences.
ICC_47 Factors that helped or 0.685 0.133 0.220 0.320 0.637 0.761
hindered my intercultural
development and ways to
overcome them.
Items Component
ICC_44 Varying cultural styles and 0.680 0.209 0.279 0.218 0.632 0.762
language use, and their
effect in social situations.
ICC_33 Negative reactions to 0.676 0.007 0.054 0.089 0.468 0.601
these differences (e.g.,
fear, ridicule, disgust,
superiority).
ICC_35 How host culture members 0.675 0.217 0.155 0.150 0.550 0.698
viewed me and why.
ICC_46 The level of intercultural 0.665 0.117 0.173 0.252 0.550 0.704
development of others (e.g.
other participants, hosts,
colleagues).
ICC_34 How varied situations in 0.662 0.174 0.220 0.188 0.552 0.707
the host culture required
modifying my interaction
with others.
ICC_39 Dangers of generalizing 0.661 0.208 0.141 −0.088 0.508 0.609
individual behaviors to
represent the whole culture.
ICC_49 How others perceived 0.634 0.088 0.229 0.430 0.647 0.737
me as communicator,
facilitator, mediator, in an
intercultural situation.
ICC_45 My own level of 0.631 0.235 0.254 0.222 0.567 0.715
intercultural development.
ICC_48 How I perceived myself 0.602 0.131 0.262 0.405 0.612 0.719
as communicator,
facilitator, mediator in an
ICC_32 Differences and similarities 0.523 0.301 0.253 −0.047 0.431 0.556
between the host language
culture and my own.
ICC_11 To learn from my hosts, 0.115 0.775 0.202 −0.052 0.658 0.684
their language and culture.
ICC_15 To show interest in new 0.140 0.756 0.167 0.087 0.626 0.709
cultural aspects (e.g., to
understand the values,
history, traditions).
ICC_12 To communicate in the 0.106 0.740 0.200 −0.044 0.601 0.645
host language and behave
appropriately, as judged by
my hosts.
ICC_16 To try to understand 0.188 0.731 0.151 0.207 0.635 0.745
differences in behaviors,
values, attitudes, and styles
of host members.
(Continued)
Table 5.15 (Continued)
Items Component
ICC_10 To interact with host 0.089 0.707 0.172 −0.032 0.538 0.605
culture members (I didn’t
avoid them or primarily
seek out compatriots).
ICC_14 To take on various roles 0.169 0.671 0.186 0.243 0.573 0.703
appropriate to different
situations (e.g., in the
family, as a volunteer).
ICC_17 To try to communicate 0.193 0.664 0.150 0.255 0.565 0.698
appropriately in the
host culture (e.g., in
non-verbal and other
behavioral areas).
ICC_13 To deal with my emotions 0.188 0.652 0.146 0.233 0.536 0.684
and frustrations with the
host culture (in addition to
the pleasures offered).
ICC_19 To deal with different ways 0.279 0.635 0.168 0.391 0.662 0.762
interacting, and behaving.
ICC_22 To suspend judgment and 0.217 0.602 0.175 0.325 0.546 0.686
appreciate the complexities
of communicating and
interacting interculturally.
ICC_20 To interact in alternative 0.246 0.591 0.127 0.378 0.569 0.692
ways even when different
from those I was
accustomed.
ICC_21 To deal with ethical 0.288 0.552 0.121 0.420 0.578 0.680
implications of my choices
(in terms of decisions,
consequences, results, etc.).
ICC_5 I could contrast my 0.169 0.260 0.698 0.046 0.585 0.661
behavior with that of hosts
(e.g., greetings, routines,
time orientation).
ICC_7 I could describe stages of 0.246 0.112 0.692 0.266 0.623 0.722
cross-cultural adjustment.
ICC_8 I could cite strategies 0.252 0.133 0.688 0.310 0.650 0.741
for learning about and
adjusting to the host culture.
ICC_9 I could cite behaviors 0.231 0.253 0.683 0.173 0.613 0.713
common among host
culture members (e.g.,
family roles, team work,
problem solving).
Items Component
ICC_2 I knew basic norms and 0.125 0.272 0.677 0.022 0.548 0.617
taboos (e.g., greetings,
dress, behaviors).
ICC_6 I could contrast historical 0.206 0.163 0.673 −0.020 0.522 0.600
and socio-political aspects
of my culture and the host
culture.
ICC_1 I could define culture and 0.243 0.148 0.644 0.169 0.525 0.645
describe its components.
ICC_4 I knew techniques to aid 0.173 0.185 0.638 0.276 0.547 0.656
learning the host language
and culture.
ICC_3 I recognized signs of 0.242 0.120 0.609 0.232 0.498 0.635
culture stress and knew
strategies to overcome it.
ICC_28 I used strategies for 0.288 0.275 0.252 0.620 0.607 0.701
adapting to the host
culture and reducing
stress.
ICC_30 I used culture-specific 0.270 0.259 0.288 0.615 0.600 0.710
information to improve my
style and interaction with
hosts.
ICC_29 I monitored my behavior 0.313 0.297 0.262 0.613 0.631 0.727
and its impact on my
learning, my growth, and
my hosts.
ICC_31 I helped resolve cross- 0.255 0.241 0.369 0.483 0.492 0.610
cultural conflicts and
misunderstandings when
they arose.
learning the host
language and about the
host culture.
Insofar as the reliability analysis of the ICC scale is concerned, all

dimensions yielded Cronbach’s alpha values above 0.70. Cronbach’s
alphas for Awareness and Attitudes dimensions are very good (α = 0.953;
α = 0.928, respectively), and good for Knowledge (α = 0.899) and Skills
(α = 0.860), according to ranges recommended by Nunnally (1978). All
correlations among dimensions are positive and statistically significant
and express an association of large magnitude between component vari-
ables (≥ 0.50) (cf. Cohen et al. 2003) (Table 5.16).
Table 5.16 Four Countries: Intercorrelation Matrix among Dimensions Extracted
on PCA (n = 1,189)
Dimension 1 2 3 4
1 Knowledge 1
2 Attitudes 0.552** 1
3 Skills 0.654** 0.639** 1
4 Awareness 0.586** 0.540** 0.639** 1
Note:** p < 0.001
Brazil
To carry out the psychometric analysis by individual countries, it was nec-
essary to compute a missing value analysis prior to the PCA. According
to this analysis, all participants in the Brazil subsample showing more
than 10% of missing values (n = 7) were removed from the dataset (cf.
Hair et al. 2006). The remaining missing data were replaced by a regres-
sion imputation procedure upon attending to a non-significant Little’s
MCAR Test (χ2(2182) = 2,220.609, p = 0.533). This test statistic indi-
cates a complete at random pattern of missing values when yielding a
non-significant result (ibid. 2006; Tabachnick and Fidell 2007).
The first PCA was conducted for all 49 ICC items and an initial solu-
tion was examined. The Catell’s Scree Test gave an unclear indication of
the number of factors to retain (the graph did not show a clear inflexion
between three and four factors). However, after computing and analyz-
ing the two possible solutions, the solution with four dimensions stood
out as the more interpretable one—i.e., closer to the theoretical position
and with more retained items. A PCA was repeated, forcing the solution
to four components with varimax rotation. Item ICC23 was excluded
because it was the only one that did not load in the dimension in which
it was originally written (Skills).
The final solution, with 48 items, yielded suitable indicators of matrix and
sample suitability, which allowed further calculations (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin =
0.959 and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity, χ2(1,128) = 16,672.198; p < 0.001).
The PCA extracted four dimensions with 62.377% of variance explained.
The first dimension (Awareness) includes 18 items, loading between
0.576 and 0.773, and explains 23.160% of variance (Eigenvalue = 11.117).
The second dimension (Attitude) encompasses 13 items, with loadings
between 0.636 and 0.756. This component explains 16.799% of variance
(Eigenvalue = 8.064). The third dimension (Knowledge) comprises nine
items, with loadings between 0.652 and 0.738 and accounts for 12.855%
of variance (Eigenvalue = 6.171). Finally, the fourth dimension (Skills)
includes eight items loading between 0.510 and 0.718. The percentage of
variance explained is 9.562% (Eigenvalue = 4.590) (Table 5.17).
Table 5.17 Brazil: Final Matrix for PCA of Factor Loadings, Commonalities (h2),
and Corrected Item-Total Correlation (R) for Each Item (n = 406)
Items Component
ICC_42 My hosts’ reactions to me 0.773 0.241 0.232 0.185 0.486 0.840

values.
ICC_38 Diversity within the host 0.772 0.203 0.180 0.169 0.699 0.806
culture (e.g., differences in
class, gender, age, ability).
ICC_37 Reactions by host culture 0.762 0.195 0.131 0.134 0.654 0.773
age).
ICC_34 How varied situations in 0.752 0.107 0.185 0.240 0.669 0.780
with others.
ICC_43 How values and ethics 0.750 0.278 0.278 0.206 0.760 0.847
situations.
ICC_41 My values that affected 0.749 0.199 0.230 0.242 0.713 0.814
dilemmas and their
resolution.
ICC_46 The level of intercultural 0.748 0.140 0.214 0.163 0.651 0.776
development of others
(e.g., other participants,
hosts, colleagues).
ICC_44 Varying cultural styles 0.748 0.249 0.319 0.169 0.751 0.840
and use, and their effect
in social situations.
language
ICC_47 Factors that helped or 0.737 0.263 0.181 0.225 0.697 0.806
overcome them.
ICC_36 Myself as a “culturally 0.714 0.151 0.200 0.217 0.620 0.759
preferences.
ICC_45 My own level of 0.712 0.303 0.273 0.190 0.710 0.815
intercultural development.
ICC_40 My choices and their 0.708 0.308 0.208 0.174 0.670 0.787
consequences (which
(Continued)
Items Component
ICC_48 How I perceived myself 0.689 0.290 0.273 0.259 0.700 0.806
as communicator,
ICC_49 How others perceived 0.680 0.240 0.264 0.267 0.662 0.784
me as communicator,
ICC_35 How host culture members 0.676 0.216 0.197 0.180 0.575 0.731
viewed me and why.
ICC_39 Dangers of generalizing 0.676 0.252 0.223 0.063 0.575 0.714
individual behaviors
to represent the whole
culture.
ICC_33 Negative reactions to 0.641 0.048 0.054 0.163 0.443 0.595
these Differences (e.g.,
Superiority).
ICC_32 Differences and similarities 0.576 0.228 0.305 0.096 0.486 0.652
between the host language
culture and my own.
ICC_16 To try to understand 0.263 0.756 0.206 0.141 0.703 0.795
of host members.
ICC_15 To show interest in new 0.183 0.744 0.151 0.204 0.651 0.751
ICC_13 To deal with my emotions 0.170 0.719 0.115 0.119 0.573 0.701
ICC_11 To learn from my hosts, 0.178 0.707 0.190 0.099 0.578 0.691
ICC_17 To try to communicate 0.173 0.700 0.136 0.263 0.608 0.729
appropriately in the host
culture (e.g., in non-verbal
and other behavioral
areas).
ICC_12 To communicate in the 0.084 0.695 0.129 0.138 0.526 0.643
my hosts.
Items Component
ICC_19 To deal with different 0.325 0.694 0.201 0.231 0.680 0.796
ways of perceiving,
expressing, interacting,
and behaving.
ICC_14 To take on various roles 0.214 0.685 0.205 0.225 0.608 0.735
ICC_22 To suspend judgment 0.315 0.669 0.216 0.023 0.595 0.705
and appreciate the
complexities of
communicating and
ICC_10 To interact with host 0.077 0.669 0.103 0.127 0.480 0.613
ICC_20 To interact in alternative 0.307 0.655 0.193 0.250 0.624 0.751
ways even when different
from those I was
accustomed.
ICC_18 To reflect on the impact 0.257 0.649 0.141 0.289 0.591 0.726
and consequences of my
choices on hosts.
ICC_21 To deal with ethical 0.315 0.636 0.196 0.124 0.558 0.698
implications of my
choices (in terms of
decisions, consequences,
results, etc.)
ICC_7 I could describe stages of 0.222 0.209 0.738 0.192 0.674 0.764
cross- cultural adjustment.
ICC_1 I could define culture and 0.214 0.132 0.737 0.123 0.621 0.707
ICC_3 I recognized signs of 0.232 0.206 0.714 0.130 0.623 0.726
ICC_9 I could cite behaviors 0.249 0.316 0.709 0.044 0.667 0.739
common among host
problem solving).
ICC_8 I could cite strategies 0.289 0.214 0.706 0.202 0.668 0.758
adjusting to the host
culture.
(Continued)
Items Component
ICC_2 I knew basic norms and 0.234 0.161 0.699 0.156 0.594 0.703
taboos (e.g., greetings,
dress, behaviors).
ICC_6 I could contrast historical 0.252 0.156 0.667 0.096 0.668 0.663
and socio-political aspects
of my culture and the host
culture.
ICC_4 I knew techniques to aid 0.199 0.175 0.658 0.245 0.563 0.679
and culture.
ICC_5 I could contrast my 0.263 0.161 0.652 0.164 0.547 0.672
behavior with that of hosts
(e.g., greetings, routines,
time orientation).
learning the host
language and about the
host culture.
ICC_29 I monitored my behavior 0.308 0.293 0.214 0.699 0.715 0.762
and its impact on my
learning, my growth, and
my hosts.
adapting to the host
culture and reducing
stress.
ICC_30 I used culture-specific 0.252 0.209 0.273 0.670 0.631 0.710
information to improve
my style and interaction
with hosts.
ICC_24 I adapted my behavior, 0.221 0.173 −0.037 0.643 0.493 0.540
dress, etc., as appropriate,
to avoid offending hosts.
ICC_27 I demonstrated ability to 0.336 0.365 0.251 0.601 0.671 0.744
interact appropriately in
different situations in the
host culture.
ICC_31 I helped resolve cross- 0.314 0.173 0.314 0.532 0.510 0.619
cultural conflicts and
misunderstandings when
they arose.
ICC_25 I was able to contrast 0.258 0.301 0.205 0.510 0.460 0.618
the host culture with
my own.
With regard to reliability analysis, all Cronbach’s alphas are above
0.70. The Cronbach’s alphas of each dimension are considered very
good; to wit, Awareness (α = 0.967), Attitude (α = 0.941), Knowledge
(α = 0.919), and Skills (α = 0.903). Correlations among the four dimen-
sions present an association of large magnitude and have positive and
statistically significant coefficients (Table 5.18).
Table 5.18 Brazil: Intercorrelation Matrix among Dimensions Extracted on PCA

(n = 406)
Dimension 1 2 3 4
1 Knowledge 1 2
2 Attitudes 0.553** 1
3 Skills 0.598** 0.640** 1
4 Awareness 0.627** 0.610** 676** 1
Note:** p < 0.001
Germany
As in the previous subsample, a PCA was computed to extract underly-
ing ICC dimensions and explore the composition of the scale dimen-
sions (cf. Tabachnick and Fidell 2007; Stevens 1986). Prior to the PCA,
a missing value analysis was conducted. According to this analysis, all
participants in the German subsample who yielded more than 10%
of missing answers (n = 17) in the ICC scale were weeded out from
the database (cf. Hair et al. 2006). The remaining missing data were
replaced by a regression imputation procedure upon attending to a non-
significant Little’s MCAR Test (χ2(1,988) = 1,982.142; p = 0.533).
Following the missing value analysis, a first PCA was conducted for
all 49 ICC items and the results for initial solution analyzed. The Catell’s
Scree Test was slightly ambiguous and showed inflexions that would jus-
tify retaining three or four dimensions. Given that the theoretical model
purports four dimensions, a PCA was conducted, forcing the solution
to four factors with varimax rotation. This option did not lead to an
adequate solution due to the unbalanced number of items by factor and
the high number of cross loadings between items. For these reasons, the
procedure was repeated using varimax rotation for a three-dimension
solution. This new procedure led to a more accurate solution, even if it
implied excluding a considerable number of items. The final configura-
tion yielded three dimensions that were identified as: (1) Attitudes/Skills,
(2) Awareness, and (3) Knowledge.
In each sequential step, nine items were excluded due to low factor
loadings (< 0.45; (cf. Tabachnick and Fidell 2007), meaning that the
solution cannot explain an appropriate percentage of variance for the
following nine items: ICC6, ICC31, ICC25, ICC24, ICC26, ICC32,
ICC29, ICC2, ICC28. Of these nine items, six items pertained to the orig-
inal Skills dimension, two items to the Knowledge dimension, and one to
the Awareness dimension. In another four sequential steps, the following
items were excluded due to cross loadings: ICC46 (ICC–AW15), ICC45
(ICC–AW14), ICC5 (ICC–K5). These items were written in the original
theoretical model to address three dimensions: two for Awareness, one
for Knowledge, and one for Attitudes. In a final step, item ICC30 from
the original Skills dimension, was excluded in order to keep a structure
closer to the original theoretical model and similar to other countries.
The final solution retained 35 items and yielded indicators of matrix
and sample adequacy which allowed performing the last PCA (Kaiser-
Meyer-Olkin = 0.924; Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (χ2(595) = 6,081.537;
p < 0.001). The three extracted dimensions account for 47.329% of the
total variance. The first dimension was labeled Attitude/Skills and has
14 items with factor loadings between 0.542 and 0.757 and 19.023%
variance explained (Eigenvalue = 6.658). Awareness, the second dimen-
sion, explains 17.609% of variance (Eigenvalue = 6.163) and retains
15 items with loadings between 0.511 and 0.710. The third dimension,
Knowledge, has six items with loadings between 0.562 and 0.749 and
explains 10.696% of variance (Eigenvalue = 3.744) (Table 5.19).
Table 5.19 Germany: Final Matrix for PCA of Factor Loadings, Commonalities
(h2), and Corrected Item-Total Correlation (R) for Each Item (n = 359)
Items Component
N Content 1 2 3 h2 R
ICC_11 To learn from my hosts, 0.757 0.016 0.011 0.574 0.618

ICC_12 To communicate in the 0.696 0.054 0.113 0.500 0.603
my hosts.
ICC_22 To suspend judgment and 0.689 0.197 0.106 0.525 0.675
appreciate the complexities
of communicating and
ICC_15 To show interest in new 0.689 0.118 0.168 0.517 0.637
ICC_13 To deal with my emotions 0.681 0.149 0.212 0.532 0.676
Items Component
ICC_16 To try to understand 0.676 0.127 0.181 0.506 0.637

of host members.
ICC_10 To interact with host 0.672 0.080 0.001 0.458 0.551
ICC_19 To deal with different ways 0.660 0.296 0.281 0.603 0.736
ICC_14 To take on various roles 0.634 0.153 0.175 0.456 0.608
ICC_17 To try to communicate 0.627 0.224 0.219 0.491 0.654
appropriately in the host
culture (e.g., in non-verbal
and other behavioral
areas).
ICC_18 To reflect on the impact 0.582 0.235 0.225 0.445 0.624
and consequences of my
choices on hosts.
ICC_27 I demonstrated ability to 0.567 0.219 0.278 0.447 0.613
interact appropriately in
different situations in the
host culture.
ICC_21 To deal with ethical 0.558 0.267 0.196 0.421 0.599
consequences, results, etc.)
ICC_23 I demonstrated flexibility 0.542 0.215 0.176 0.371 0.555
when interacting with host
culture members.
ICC_37 Reactions by host culture 0.080 0.710 0.079 0.517 0.623
age).
ICC_41 I4. My values that affected 0.184 0.710 0.183 0.572 0.697
dilemmas and their
resolution.
ICC_38 I4. Diversity within 0.083 0.673 0.124 0.475 0.604
the host culture (e.g.,
differences in class, gender,
age, ability).
(Continued)
Items Component
ICC_42 My hosts’ reactions to me 0.213 0.669 0.207 0.536 0.668

values.
ICC_36 Myself as a “culturally 0.129 0.617 0.150 0.420 0.576
preferences.
ICC_40 My choices and their 0.220 0.615 0.188 0.462 0.611
consequences (which
ICC_43 How values and ethics 0.256 0.597 0.235 0.478 0.623
situations.
ICC_35 How host culture members 0.286 0.585 0.107 0.435 0.578
viewed me and why.
ICC_49 How others perceived 0.113 0.583 0.358 0.481 0.623
me as communicator,
ICC_39 Dangers of generalizing 0.132 0.562 −0.144 0.354 0.432
ICC_33 Negative reactions to 0.010 0.561 −0.010 0.315 0.448
these differences (e.g.,
superiority).
ICC_47 Factors that helped or 0.140 0.556 0.353 0.453 0.594
overcome them.
ICC_34 How varied situations in 0.221 0.544 0.221 0.394 0.561
with others.
ICC_48 How I perceived myself 0.109 0.538 0.374 0.442 0.580
as communicator,
ICC_44 Varying cultural styles and 0.278 0.511 0.290 0.423 0.576
language use, and their
effect in social situations.
ICC_8 I could cite strategies 0.229 0.181 0.749 0.645 0.709
adjusting to the host
culture.
Items Component
ICC_7 I could describe stages of 0.127 0.097 0.742 0.576 0.593

cross-cultural adjustment.
ICC_9 I could cite behaviors 0.297 0.243 0.623 0.536 0.566
common among host
problem solving).
ICC_4 I knew techniques to aid 0.256 0.171 0.587 0.439 0.561
and culture.
ICC_3 I recognized signs of 0.177 0.171 0.575 0.391 0.515
ICC_1 I could define culture and 0.182 0.161 0.562 0.375 0.450
All Cronbach’s alpha values are above 0.70 and are, therefore, con-
sidered good or very good indicators of the construct they purport to
measure; viz.: Attitude/Skills (α = 0.915), Awareness (α = 0.903), and
Knowledge (α = 0.806) (cf. Nunnally 1978). Correlations between ICC
dimensions are positive and with a large magnitude of association, as
well as statistically significant (≥ 0.50; cf. Cohen et al. 2003) (Table 5.20).
Table 5.20 Germany: Intercorrelation Matrix among Dimensions Extracted on

PCA (n = 359)
Dimension 1 2 3
1 Knowledge 1
2 Attitudes/Skills 0.557** 1
3 Awareness 0.533** 0.528** 1
Note:** p < 0.001
Japan
As with previous subsamples, a PCA was conducted to explore the facto-
rial structure of ICC dimensions in the Japan subsample. In order to con-
duct this data reduction technique, it was necessary to compute a missing
analysis that showed that ten participants yielded more than 10% of
missing values in their ICC answers. Consequently, these subjects were
removed from the dataset (cf. Hair et al. 2006). The remaining missing
data were replaced by Expected Maximization (EM) procedure upon
attending to a significant Little’s MCAR Test (χ2(1,571) = 1,848.313;
p < 0.001) which indicates a non-random pattern of missing values (ibid.
2006; Tabachnick and Fidell 2007).
As usual, the first PCA was conducted for all 49 ICC items and the
results for the initial solution were analyzed. The Scree plot pointed out
four dimensions. However, this solution was not interpretable as a large
number of items showed cross loadings. As a result, the procedure was
repeated, considering a three-dimension solution with varimax rotation.
Although this solution increased interpretability, several items had to be
excluded. On the one hand, items were excluded because they presented
cross loadings: six items from the original Skills dimension were deleted,
ICC29, ICC26, ICC30, ICC28, ICC23, and ICC27. On the other hand,
two items were also excluded as they loaded in a dimension different
from the original one. One of these items pertained to the Awareness
dimension and the other item to the Skills dimension (ICC32 and ICC31).
Before computing the final solution for the 41 items, it was necessary
to attend to the KMO and to Bartlett’s test indicators, both of which
yielded adequate results (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin = 0.913 and Bartlett’s Test
of Sphericity, χ2(820) = 6,455.997; p < 0.000).
The final PCA extracted three dimensions using a varimax rotation. The
three dimensions account for 57.978% of variance. The first dimension
(Attitude/Skills) explains 21.892% of variance (Eigenvalue = 8.976) and
consists of 15 items (loadings between 0.568 and 0.793). Awareness, the
second dimension, has 17 items with loadings between 0.554 and 0.797
(21.243% variance explained; Eigenvalue = 8.710). The last dimension
(Knowledge) accounts for 14.843% of variance (Eigenvalue = 6.086), and
it consists of nine items that load between 0.616 and 0.798 (Table 5.21).
Table 5.21 Japan: Final Matrix for PCA of Factor Loadings, Commonalities (h2),
Items Component
ICC_20 To interact in alternative ways 0.793 0.142 0.131 0.666 0.773

even when different from those
I was accustomed.
ICC_16 To try to understand differences 0.783 0.134 0.119 0.645 0.759
in behaviors, values, attitudes,
and styles of host members.
ICC_19 To deal with different ways 0.782 0.193 0.134 0.667 0.781
Items Component
ICC_12 To communicate in the 0.778 0.172 0.154 0.658 0.770

appropriately, as judged by my
hosts.
ICC_15 To show interest in new cultural 0.777 0.140 0.051 0.626 0.731
aspects (e.g., to understand the
values, history, traditions).
ICC_11 To learn from my hosts, their 0.762 0.114 0.101 0.605 0.718
language and culture.
appropriately in the host culture
(e.g., in non-verbal and other
behavioral areas).
ICC_14 To take on various roles 0.752 0.190 0.141 0.621 0.758
appropriate to different situations
(e.g., in the family, as a volunteer).
ICC_18 To reflect on the impact and 0.719 0.303 0.238 0.665 0.779
consequences of my choices on
hosts.
ICC_21 To deal with ethical 0.695 0.279 0.143 0.582 0.724
consequences, results, etc.)
ICC_13 To deal with my emotions 0.663 0.199 0.165 0.507 0.675
and frustrations with the host
culture (in addition to the
pleasures offered).
ICC_24 I adapted my behavior, dress, 0.643 0.154 0.285 0.519 0.665
etc., as appropriate, to avoid
offending hosts.
ICC_10 To interact with host culture 0.634 0.028 0.140 0.422 0.573
members (I didn’t avoid them or
primarily seek out compatriots).
appreciate the complexities of
communicating and interacting
interculturally.
ICC_25 I was able to contrast the host 0.568 0.159 0.390 0.500 0.614
culture with my own.
ICC_43 How values and ethics were 0.111 0.797 0.274 0.723 0.814
reflected in specific situations.
ICC_47 Factors that helped or hindered 0.178 0.752 0.319 0.699 0.805
my intercultural development
and ways to overcome them.
(Continued)
Items Component
ICC_40 My choices and their conse- 0.221 0.744 0.157 0.626 0.752
quences (which made me more,
or less acceptable, to my hosts).
ICC_33 Negative reactions to these −0.027 0.725 0.022 0.527 0.605
differences (e.g., fear, ridicule,
disgust, superiority).
ICC_41 My values that affected my 0.226 0.709 0.223 0.603 0.742
approach to ethical dilemmas
and their resolution.
language use, and their effect in
social situations.
ICC_46 The level of intercultural 0.291 0.683 0.130 0.568 0.704
development of others (e.g.,
other participants, hosts,
colleagues).
ICC_37 Reactions by host culture 0.111 0.682 0.046 0.479 0.610
members to my identity (e.g.,
race, class, gender, age).
ICC_49 How others perceived me as 0.162 0.677 0.321 0.588 0.729
communicator, facilitator,
mediator, in an intercultural
situation.
ICC_38 Diversity within the host 0.222 0.666 0.160 0.518 0.669
culture (e.g., differences in class,
gender, age, ability).
ICC_42 My hosts’ reactions to me that 0.262 0.665 0.288 0.594 0.736
reflected their cultural values.
ICC_35 How host culture members 0.281 0.665 0.184 0.555 0.693
viewed me and why.
conditioned” person in terms of
my habits and preferences.
ICC_39 Dangers of generalizing 0.038 0.612 0.129 0.393 0.550
ICC_48 How I perceived myself as 0.229 0.607 0.408 0.588 0.713
situation.
ICC_34 How varied situations in the 0.330 0.563 0.303 0.517 0.664
host culture required modifying
my interaction with others.
ICC_45 My own level of intercultural 0.377 0.554 0.260 0.516 0.653
development.
Items Component
ICC_8 I could cite strategies for 0.119 0.225 0.798 0.701 0.780
learning about and adjusting to
the host culture.
ICC_7 I could describe stages of cross- 0.109 0.250 0.770 0.667 0.752
cultural adjustment.
ICC_4 I knew techniques to aid learning 0.206 0.170 0.758 0.646 0.736
the host language and culture.
ICC_3 I recognized signs of culture 0.106 0.240 0.705 0.566 0.672
stress and knew strategies to
overcome it.
ICC_1 I could define culture and 0.196 0.197 0.692 0.556 0.678
ICC_5 I could contrast my behavior 0.150 0.167 0.691 0.528 0.660
with that of hosts (e.g., greetings,
routines, time orientation).
ICC_9 I could cite behaviors common 0.333 0.221 0.687 0.632 0.725
among host culture members
(e.g., family roles, team work,
problem solving).
ICC_6 I could contrast historical and 0.178 0.207 0.677 0.532 0.662
socio-political aspects of my
culture and the host culture.
ICC_2 I knew basic norms and taboos 0.325 0.173 0.616 0.515 0.630
(e.g., greetings, dress, behaviors).
Insofar as the reliability of this ICC scale is concerned, Cronbach’s

alphas are considered very good for all dimensions as all are above the
lower reliability boundary recommended by Nunnally (1978)—to wit:
Attitude/Skills (α = 0.947), Awareness (α = 0.947), and Knowledge
(α = 0.914). Correlations between dimensions are all positive and statis-
tically significant, and present large magnitude regarding the association
between dimensions (≥ 0.50) (cf. Cohen et al. 2003) (Table 5.22).
Table 5.22 Japan: Intercorrelation Matrix among Dimensions Extracted on PCA

(n = 202)
Dimension 1 2 3
1 Knowledge 1
3 Awareness 0.578** 535** 1
Note:** p < 0.001

United States
As with previous subsamples, the first procedure employed was a missing
value analysis of all participants who showed at least one valid answer in
the ICC scale. Those participants who yielded more than 10% of miss-
ing values in the ICC scale (n = 5) were removed from the dataset. The
remaining missing data were replaced by EM procedure upon attending
to a significant Little’s MCAR Test (χ2(997) = 1152.778; p < 0.001),
which indicates that the pattern of missing values cannot be considered
random (cf. Hair et al. 2006; Tabachnick and Fidell 2007).
As before, the first PCA was conducted with all ICC items and results for
the initial solution were analyzed. Although the theoretical model suggests
four dimensions (Knowledge, Attitudes, Skills, and Awareness), the results
did not match the original theoretical assumptions. The Catell’s Scree sup-
ports this finding by specifying three dimensions only. Another PCA was
conducted, extracting a three-dimension solution with varimax rotation.
This factorial structure allowed arriving at an accurate solution wherein
Attitudes and Skills dimensions overlap, thus resulting in a new catego-
rization: Attitude/Skills. To reach a final solution, three ICC items were
excluded on three successive procedures—all three items originally written
as separate Skills items. The reasons for excluding these items were as fol-
lows: (1) item ICC26 presented low loadings, (2) item ICC28 had cross
loadings, and (3) item ICC25 did not load in the Attitudes/Skills dimension.
The final solution, therefore, has 46 items and presents indicators
of matrix and sample suitability that are suitable to PCA calculations
(Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin = 0.937 and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity, χ2(1,035) =
8,537.494; p < 0.001). The PCA extracted three dimensions with vari-
max rotation. These three new variables explain 58.726% of the total
variance. The first dimension (Awareness) encompasses 18 items with
loadings between 0.577 and 0.835 and explains 24.330% of variance
(Eigenvalue = 11.192). The second dimension (Attitude/Skills) accounts
for 21.496% of variance (Eigenvalue = 9.888) and has 19 items loading
between 0.520 and 0.771. The final dimension (Knowledge) accounts for
12.90% of variance and has nine items which load between 0.654 and
0.769 and (Eigenvalue = 5.934) (Table 5.23).
Table 5.23 US: Final Matrix for PCA of Factor Loadings, Commonalities (h2),
Items Component
ICC_43 How values and ethics were 0.835 0.223 0.175 0.778 0.861
reflected in specific situations.
ICC_42 My hosts’ reactions to me that 0.833 0.206 0.075 0.741 0.821
reflected their cultural values.
Items Component
ICC_41 My values that affected my 0.820 0.245 0.058 0.735 0.813

approach to ethical dilemmas and
their resolution.
ICC_40 My choices and their consequences 0.818 0.242 0.063 0.731 0.810
(which made me more, or less
conditioned” person in terms of
my habits and preferences.
ICC_37 Reactions by host culture members 0.784 0.037 0.151 0.639 0.755
to my identity (e.g., race, class,
gender, age).
language use, and their effect in
social situations.
ICC_35 How host culture members viewed 0.767 0.215 0.118 0.649 0.773
me and why.
ICC_46 The level of intercultural 0.763 0.118 0.207 0.640 0.768
development of others (e.g., other
participants, hosts, colleagues).
ICC_38 Diversity within the host culture 0.761 0.191 0.082 0.622 0.750
(e.g., differences in class, gender,
age, Ability).
ICC_47 Factors that helped or hindered 0.756 0.149 0.305 0.687 0.793
my intercultural development and
ways to overcome them.
ICC_45 My own level of intercultural 0.751 0.202 0.251 0.669 0.790
development.
ICC_34 How varied situations in the host 0.698 0.222 0.299 0.625 0.757
culture required modifying my
interaction with others.
ICC_39 Dangers of generalizing individual 0.684 0.276 0.001 0.544 0.683
behaviors to represent the whole
culture.
ICC_33 Negative reactions to these 0.658 0.058 0.161 0.462 0.635
disgust, superiority).
ICC_49 How others perceived me as 0.653 0.125 0.386 0.591 0.704
communicator, facilitator, mediator,
in an intercultural situation.
ICC_48 How I perceived myself as 0.617 0.136 0.341 0.515 0.660
in an intercultural situation.
ICC_32 Differences and similarities 0.577 0.147 0.101 0.365 0.573
between the host language culture
and my own.
(Continued)
Items Component
ICC_16 To try to understand differences in 0.104 0.771 0.069 0.610 0.707

behaviors, values, attitudes, and
styles of host members.
appreciate the complexities of
communicating and interacting
interculturally.
ICC_10 To interact with host culture 0.129 0.741 0.060 0.569 0.684
members (I didn’t avoid them or
primarily seek out compatriots).
ICC_19 To deal with different ways of 0.240 0.730 0.302 0.681 0.792
perceiving, expressing, interacting,
and behaving.
ICC_15 To show interest in new cultural 0.017 0.726 0.087 0.535 0.640
values, history, traditions).
ICC_20 To interact in alternative ways even 0.263 0.725 0.175 0.627 0.764
when different from those I was
accustomed.
ICC_11 To learn from my hosts, their 0.044 0.724 0.098 0.536 0.656
language and culture.
ICC_14 To take on various roles appropriate 0.171 0.720 0.233 0.602 0.742
to different situations (e.g., in the
ICC_23 I demonstrated flexibility when 0.120 0.684 0.276 0.558 0.705
interacting with host culture
members.
ICC_21 To deal with ethical implications 0.350 0.683 0.176 0.620 0.748
of my choices (in terms of
decisions, consequences,
results, etc.)
ICC_13 To deal with my emotions and 0.137 0.682 0.245 0.545 0.694
(in addition to the pleasures
offered).
ICC_12 To communicate in the host 0.098 0.676 0.098 0.476 0.625
language and behave appropriately,
as judged by my hosts.
ICC_18 To reflect on the impact and 0.279 0.664 0.151 0.541 0.708
consequences of my choices
on hosts.
behavioral areas).
Items Component
ICC_27 I demonstrated ability to interact 0.274 0.649 0.258 0.563 0.721
appropriately in different situations
in the host culture.
ICC_29 I monitored my behavior and its 0.325 0.596 0.290 0.545 0.697
impact on my learning, my growth,
and my hosts.
ICC_30 I used culture-specific information 0.280 0.590 0.360 0.556 0.698
to improve my style and interaction
with hosts.
ICC_24 I adapted my behavior, dress, etc., 0.213 0.561 0.223 0.410 0.608
as appropriate, to avoid offending
hosts.
ICC_25 I was able to contrast the host 0.258 0.520 0.184 0.371 0.575
culture with my own.
ICC_9 I could cite behaviors common 0.198 0.205 0.769 0.672 0.746
among host culture members (e.g.,
family roles, team work, problem
solving).
ICC_8 I could cite strategies for learning 0.253 0.255 0.752 0.694 0.775
about and adjusting to the host
culture.
ICC_7 I could describe stages of cross- 0.297 0.263 0.704 0.652 0.743
cultural adjustment.
ICC_3 I recognized signs of culture 0.233 0.195 0.675 0.548 0.680
stress and knew strategies to
overcome it.
ICC_6 I could contrast historical and 0.224 0.108 0.675 0.517 0.638
socio-political aspects of my
culture and the host culture.
ICC_2 I knew basic norms and taboos 0.097 0.221 0.672 0.510 0.623
(e.g., greetings, dress, behaviors).
ICC_4 I knew techniques to aid learning 0.135 0.304 0.667 0.556 0.693
the host language and culture.
ICC_5 I could contrast my behavior 0.149 0.255 0.667 0.532 0.673
with that of hosts (e.g., greetings,
routines, time orientation).
ICC_1 I could define culture and describe 0.221 0.284 0.641 0.540 0.652
its components.
Reliability coefficients, Cronbach’s alphas, are above 0.70, the cutoff

point suggested by Nunnally (1978) as the minimum acceptable value for
psychological constructs. The alphas for all components are considered
very good—viz., Awareness (α = 0.963), Attitude/Skills (α = 0.951), and
Knowledge (α = 0.910). Correlations between the three aforementioned
dimensions have a positive and large magnitude of association and are
statistically significant (Table 5.24).
Table 5.24 US: Intercorrelation Matrix among Dimensions Extracted on PCA

(n = 222)
Dimension 1 2 3
1 Knowledge 1
3 Awareness 0.530** 522** 1
Note:** p < 0.001
Comparative Analysis
Comparative analysis is divided into three sections: (1) demographic
variables, (2) sociocultural background variables, and (3) sojourn experi-
ence. The overall goal of this analysis is to understand in further depth
the relation between ICC dimensions and participant profiles, as well
as their intercultural experiences. Given these purposes, our focus cen-
tered on the results of the ICC scale stemming from the psychometric
analysis of the total sample. It should be noted that the solution of the
psychometric analysis for the “four countries” in combination is closer
to the theoretical model and, as such, the total sample results can help
in gaining new insights about those variables that have a bearing on the
development of the four dimensions of the ICC scale.
Statistical tests were chosen according to the nature of the variables of
interest with a twofold purpose: (1) to ascertain group differences between
categorical variables and the summated scores of the ICC scale and (2) to
understand the level of association of selected numerical variables with ICC
scores. These summated scores were calculated based on the PCA depicted
in the psychometric analysis. Before carrying out the comparative analysis
and to understand further which variables and/or groups are related to or
represent differences in attainment levels of ICC dimensions, it is important
to examine descriptive results across and within-countries. Given the results
obtained in the descriptive analysis, a test statistic was computed.
The joint descriptive analysis of the four countries is reported in
Table 5.25. Based on results obtained, the mean values in each can be
ordered as follows: Attitudes (M = 5.38; SD = 0.74), Skills (M = 4.88;
SD= 0.92), Awareness (M = 4.86; SD = 0.87), and Knowledge (M = 4.72;
SD = 0.86). Overall, respondents rated themselves positively in all ICC
dimensions.
Table 5.25 Four Countries: Frequency Distribution of ICC Dimensions (n = 1,189)
ICC dimensions M SD
Knowledge 4.72 0.86

Attitudes 5.38 0.64
Skills 4.88 0.92
Awareness 4.86 0.87
Table 5.26 lists descriptive and inferential results across individual

countries. Accordingly, the ICC dimension yielding the highest mean
value is Attitudes with mean values above Point 5 in all subsamples. If
one bears in mind that the ICC summated scale kept the original range
of measurement for individual items, from no competence 1 to very high
competence 6, it becomes clear that participants in the four respondent
groups assessed their level of competence as very high (Point 6 on the
ICC scale—very high competence). Knowledge, in turn, is the variable
component wherein participants report lower mean values of competency.
More specifically, mean values that range from 4.36 (SD = 0.90) in Japan
to 4.80 (SD = 0.83) in Brazil. An interesting side note to recall once again
is the thesis of the founder’s book, Intelligence Is Not Enough, in which
he stresses the importance of the other three components believing that
“knowledge” of a country is of lesser importance than how one feels
about its people (cf. Watt 1967).
Among the four countries, American and Brazilian respondents rate
themselves higher than German and Japanese participants do. These
results can be interpreted either as higher levels of attainment in ICC
dimensions or as a reflection of individual response patterns in instru-
ments using Likert scales responses (Table 5.26). All four ICC dimen-
sions yield significant differences when comparing variable groupings
across subsamples. To determine which groups differ, the Games-Howell
test was calculated. Employment of this test statistic attends to a sig-
nificant result in Levene’s test that indicates that one cannot assume
homogeneity of variances (Table 5.26). Based on the Games-Howell test
results, the mean scores of Knowledge and Attitudes in Japan are sig-
nificantly lower when compared with those yielded by the other three
countries. Additionally, mean values in Germany, Brazil, and the US do
not differ from one another (Table 5.26).
In the Skills dimension, Brazil and the US registered the highest aver-
ages, without differentiating one from the other. Both Brazil and the US
presented significant statistical differences compared to Germany and
Japan. Germany presents a mean score significantly higher than Japan
(Table 5.26). In the last dimension, Awareness, German and Japanese
subsamples did not present significant statistical differences from each
other but registered lower mean values compared to Brazil and the
US. Brazil shows a significant mean score in comparison with the US
(Table 5.26).
Table 5.26 Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD), and One-Way ANOVA (F) in
ICC Dimensions by Country (n = 1,189)
ICC Country N M SD F p Post Hoc

Dimensions
Knowledge USA (USA) 222 4.84 0.83 14.828 < 0.001 J < G, B, USA
Brazil (B) 406 4.80 0.90
Germany (G) 359 4.74 0.74
Japan (J) 202 4.36 0.90
Attitudes USA (USA) 222 5.45 0.59 9.363 < 0.001 J < B, G, USA
Brazil (B) 406 5.43 0.69
Germany (G) 359 5.40 0.53
Japan (J) 202 5.17 0.74
Skills USA (USA) 222 5.06 0.77 23.668 < 0.001 J < G < B, USA
Brazil (B) 406 5.05 0.94
Germany (G) 359 4.81 0.86
Japan (J) 202 4.46 1.00
Awareness USA (USA) 222 4.93 0.89 45.789 < 0.001 J, G < USA < B
Brazil (B) 406 5.20 0.81
Germany (G) 359 4.63 0.75
Japan (J) 202 4.50 0.90
Demographic Variables
When dividing the research sample by gender and computing an inde-
pendent samples t-test, significant differences appear in three ICC
dimensions; viz.: Attitudes, Skills, and Awareness. In all three cases,
female respondents perceive their levels of attainment higher than male
participants (Table 5.27).
Table 5.27 Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD), and Independent Sample
T-Test in ICC Dimensions by Gender (n = 1,178)
ICC Dimensions Gender N M SD t p
Knowledge Female 882 4.73 0.86 1.261 0.208

Male 297 4.66 0.83
Attitudes Female 882 5.42 0.61 3.446 0.001
Male 297 5.26 0.72
ICC Dimensions Gender N M SD t p

Skills Female 882 4.92 0.91 2.737 0.006
Male 297 4.75 0.94
Awareness Female 882 4.89 0.86 2.107 0.035
Male 297 4.77 0.89
To explore the level of association between participant age and ICC

scores, Pearson’s correlation coefficient was computed. This statistical
procedure yielded non-significant results and even the correlations pre-
sented an effect of small magnitude (Knowledge: r = −0.033, p = 0.252;
Attitudes: r = −0.033, p = 0.262; Skills: r = 0.002, p = 0.953; Awareness:
r = −0.025, p = 0.384). These results suggest that development of ICC
dimensions is independent of age and maturity of participants. The anal-
ysis of mean differences in ICC dimensions by highest level of education
also yields non-significant values, reported in Table 5.28.
ICC Dimensions by Educational Level (n = 1,153)
ICC Dimensions Educational Level N M SD F P
Knowledge Primary education 90 4.65 0.86 1.003 0.367

Secondary education 331 4.76 0.89
Higher education 732 4.69 0.85
Attitudes Primary education 90 5.39 0.60 0.345 0.708

Skills Primary education 90 4.86 0.87 0.120 0.887

Awareness Primary education 90 4.79 0.86 2.346 0.096

Sociocultural Background
Insofar as sociocultural background variables are concerned, no
significant differences are evident between participants who had a
cultural immersion experience prior to the educational exchange
experience with those who did not have this experience beforehand
(Table 5.29).
Table 5.29 Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD), and Independent Sample T-Test
in ICC Dimensions by Previous Intercultural Experience (n = 1,189)
ICC Previous N M SD t P
Dimensions Immersion
Experience
Knowledge Yes 414 4.71 0.84 −0.049 0.961

No 775 4.71 0.86
Attitudes Yes 414 5.38 0.63 −0.261 0.794
No 775 5.39 0.65
Skills Yes 414 4.87 0.91 −0.337 0.736
No 775 4.89 0.93
Awareness Yes 414 4.80 0.84 −1.605 0.109
No 775 4.89 0.88
Participants who had relationships with people from other cultures

prior to their exchange experience had greater scores on average in ICC
dimensions when compared with participants who did not have such
relationships. These mean differences are significant for Knowledge
[t(551.850) = 3.868; p < 0.001], Attitudes [t(534.496) = 2.621; p =
0.009], and Skills [t(1177) = 3.868; p = 0.023] (Table 5.30).
Table 5.30 Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD), and Independent Sample T-Test
in ICC Dimensions by Previous Intercultural Relationships (n = 1,179)
ICC Previous N M SD t P
Dimensions Intercultural
Relationships
Knowledge Yes 849 4.78 0.82 3.868 < 0.001

No 330 4.56 0.91
Attitudes Yes 849 5.41 0.61 2.621 0.009
No 330 5.30 0.70
Skills Yes 849 4.92 0.90 2.279 0.023
No 330 4.79 0.96
Awareness Yes 849 4.88 0.81 0.805 0.421
No 330 4.83 0.98
Sojourn Experience
With regard to duration of the first educational exchange experience, as
might be expected, participants with longer stays attained higher means
in ICC dimensions. The four one-way ANOVAs computed for the ICC
dimensions present significant results, meaning that there are differences
in ICC development when length of program is considered.
To ascertain differences between groups, post hoc comparisons using
the Games-Howell test were carried out. Comparison of the Knowledge
means across the three groups of “sojourn duration” shows that the par-
ticipant group whose immersion experience lasted less than 1 month had
lower scores on average than the other two groups. This difference is sta-
tistically significant (Table 5.31). In the Attitudes dimension, the partici-
pant group immersed for more than 12 months, reported significant higher
mean values than those whose immersion lasted less than 1 month, as well
as those with a stay between 2 and 12 months duration (Table 5.31). Skills
and Awareness dimensions show similar results in the post hoc procedure
given that the group with longer stays scored higher than did participants
with stays of less than 1 month or between 2 and 12 months. However, it
is interesting to observe that the participant group whose immersion lasted
between 1 and 2 months attained mean values similar to the means attained
by the group of participants with an immersion of more than 1 year in
duration. Moreover, the former participant group presents significant dif-
ferences that are greater than the latter (Table 5.31).
ICC Dimensions by Duration of Sojourn (n = 1,163)
ICC EIL Sojourn Duration N M SD F p Post Hoc

Dimensions
Knowledge Less than 1 month (1) 52 4.28 0.98 6.539 < 0.001 (1) < (2),
(3), (4)
Between 1 and 2 379 4.78 0.88
months (2)
Between 2 and 12 682 4.70 0.82
months (3)
More 12 months (4) 50 4.93 0.95
Attitudes Less than 1 month (1) 52 5.20 0.90 0.845 0.009 (1), (3) < (4)
Between 1 and 2 379 5.43 0.64
months (2)
Between 2 and 12 682 5.36 0.63
months (3)
More 12 months (4) 50 5.58 0.47
Skills Less than 1 month (1) 52 4.63 1.21 0.282 < 0.001 (1), (3) < (4)
Between 1 and 2 379 5.00 0.88 (3) < (2)
months (2)
Between 2 and 12 682 4.81 0.91
months (3)
More 12 months (4) 50 5.23 0.92
Awareness Less than 1 month (1) 52 4.59 0.99 0.072 < 0.001 (1), (3) < (4)
Between 1 and 2 379 4.97 0.94 (3) < (2)
months (2)
Between 2 and 12 682 4.80 0.82
months (3)
More 12 months (4) 50 5.17 0.72
Given these unexpected results, a two-way ANOVA was computed to
explore if these differences could be explained by the interaction effect
of the sojourn duration and respondent country upon ICC dimensions.
However, the results obtained were non-significant for the interaction effect
of these two categorical variables on Skills and Awareness dimensions.
With regard to mean differences in ICC dimensions when comparing
the group of people who had a homestay during their program and those
who did not, no statistical differences were found (Table 5.32).
T-Test in ICC Dimensions by Homestay (n = 1,188)
ICC Dimensions Homestay N M SD t p
Knowledge Yes 1,098 4.72 0.84 1.121 0.265

No 90 4.60 1.05
Attitudes Yes 1,098 5.40 0.60 1.660 0.100
No 90 5.22 0.97
Skills Yes 1,098 4.88 0.91 0.004 0.997
No 90 4.88 1.08
Awareness Yes 1,098 4.85 0.85 −1.831 0.067
No 90 5.02 1.02
The correlation between participant age (at time of participation in

their first sojourn) and ICC dimensions presents a non-significant rela-
tion with regard to Attitudes and Knowledge. This means that scores in
Attitudes and Knowledge dimensions are independent of participant age
at the time of participation in the sojourn. A positive and significant asso-
ciation can be observed, however, for Skills and Awareness dimensions.
The correlation between Skills and age, although statistically significant,
should not be taken into account due to the low value of Pearson’s coeffi-
cient (r = 0.056). The correlation between participant age (at time of par-
ticipation) and Awareness has a small magnitude, suggesting that older
participants at the time of participation scored higher in the Awareness
dimension (Table 5.33).
Table 5.33 Pearson Product-Moment Correlation among ICC Dimensions and

Age at Time of Sojourn Participation (n = 1,180)
ICC Dimensions Age
Knowledge −0.016
Attitudes 0.010
Skills 0.056**
Awareness 0.119**
Note:** p < 0.001

To assess host language abilities developed by participants during
their sojourn, respondents rated themselves on a numerical scale (ranging
from 0 to 9—i.e., “no language ability” to “ability equivalent to an edu-
cated native speaker”), as explained earlier in this report (cf. Section B.
Descriptive analysis, Question F1; note that the original level of measure-
ment was ordinal). In the current comparative analysis, this variable was
correlated with the perceived ICC competence of respondents in the four
dimensions. Results show a positive and statistically significant associa-
tion between language ability and ICC dimensions. All variable dimen-
sions had a small magnitude of association of less than 0.30 (cf. Cohen
et al. 2003) with host language ability. The highest correlation (r = 0.239)
is between language ability and Knowledge, meaning that people who
rate their host language ability levels higher, report greater levels in the
Knowledge dimension as well (Table 5.34).
Table 5.34 Pearson Product-Moment Correlation between Host Language Abil-

ity and ICC Dimensions (n = 1,185)
ICC Dimensions Language Ability
Knowledge 0.239**
Attitudes 0.174**
Skills 0.168**
Awareness 0.114**
Note:** p < 0.001
Comparison of respondents who have worked in intercultural situ-

ations (where respondents provided education, training, or service to
others) with participants who did not perform this kind of work yields
significant differences in Skills, Knowledge, and Awareness dimensions
of the ICC construct. Participants in the first group reported higher mean
values on average than the latter group (Table 5.35).
T-Test in ICC Dimensions by Intercultural Work (n = 1,180)
ICC Dimensions Intercultural Work N M SD t P
Knowledge Yes 436 4.86 0.81 4.284 < 0.001

No 744 4.64 0.87
Attitudes Yes 436 5.43 0.57 1.942 0.052
No 744 5.35 0.68
Skills Yes 436 4.99 0.84 3.216 0.001
No 744 4.82 0.96
Awareness Yes 436 4.93 0.81 2.082 0.038
No 744 4.82 0.90
5.4 Qualitative Analysis and Discussion
Overview
Whereas quantitative analysis is concerned with numerical size, fre-
quency of responses, and statistical patterns, qualitative analysis uti-
lizes open-ended data obtained from telephone conversations conducted
with alumni (or host families in the case of Ireland). These conversa-
tions (recorded in most cases) are documented narratives about the
participants’ personal experiences and introspective accounts, as they
remember and recount them in their own words. Interviews often yielded
unexpected and interesting responses, producing rich data which contrib-
ute significantly to our understanding of both etic and emic perspectives
regarding the sojourn experience. To keep these two perspectives distinct,
the qualitative analysis is presented in two parts: (1) alumni and (2) host
families.
In each case, qualitative analysis is conducted by individual countries—
based first on interviews with alumni in Brazil, Germany, Japan, and the
US, followed by interviews with host families in Ireland. This approach
provides summaries of alumni responses by country of origin to obtain
a view of characteristics specific to each nationality group. In Chapter 6,
subsets are then compiled and examined jointly to provide a compos-
ite summary. Both analyses centered on five questions that guided the
interviews:
Q1. What impact did the educational exchange experience have on

your life and work?
Q2. What abilities were important to gaining acceptance in the host
culture?
Q3. What role did a homestay have in your experience?
Q4. How important was learning the host language?
Q5. Anything else you wish to add?
In the composite analysis in Chapter 6, responses were also analyzed

again regarding the ten original a priori assertions cited in the IRP to deter-
mine whether those assertions still hold true given additional findings from
participants in five more countries, providing a multinational perspective
representing potentially universal aspects that may apply to all.
Alumni Data: Brazil

Findings—To complement quantitative data generated by the alumni
survey in Brazil, telephone interviews were conducted with 20 ran-
domly selected individuals from among respondents to the AICC sur-
vey who indicated willingness to be interviewed (of the total 712 who
completed the form). This total represents 121 respondents above and
beyond the targeted number required to be able to generalize find-
ings to represent the total alumni population of 35,517 participants.
Countries where Brazilian alumni had sojourns were as follows (num-
ber of respondents indicated in parentheses): Australia (2), Canada (7),
Italy (1), US (9), not stated (1).
Alumni responses to the five questions are provided next. Figures
in the parentheses that follow indicate the number of alumni provid-
ing similar responses (of a total of 20). Responses are listed in order of
frequency beginning with the most frequently cited item. Selected quotes
taken from telephone conversations also follow, as relevant to each of the
five questions:
Q1. Impact on life and work—[it had a great impact on personal

and professional life (11)/changed direction of life/work and
job opportunities (5)/overcame shyness/gained confidence/devel-
oped and matured (3)/made many new friends (3)/acquired
sense of responsibility/independence (2)/changed way of seeing
things /world view (2)].
1) The experience had a huge impact especially on my profes-
sional life and how I carry out my day-to-day work.
2) My life experience there was so rich. I even had the oppor-
tunity to gain some work experience on the most important
Brazilian TV station in New York.
3) The experience in the US changed my personal and profes-
sional life dramatically; as I like to say: it went from 0 to
1,000.
4) It was the best time of my life. The experience completely
changed my personal and professional life.
5) I learned to be self-sufficient and independent, cleaning the
house, and cooking, the basic things; now I appreciate my own
mother a lot more for all that she has done and still does for me.
6) It was life changing. My first experience abroad and I grew a
lot not only in English but in everything else. Now I can see
the world is different. I got to know another culture, another
country, another world; so different.
7) Best experience, I made friends for life. I am not afraid of
trying to speak English. I had the opportunity to work in a
field that I would never have thought I would do.
8) The experience had a great impact on my life. It was such
a great experience for me to be in touch with people from
other cultures and countries.
Q2. Abilities needed for acceptance: [open-mindedness (6)/ability to
adjust (3)/understand different points of view (3)/be proactive/
adapt (3)/resilience/motivation (2)/respectfulness (2)/able to
communicate/language (2)/interpersonal skills/building rela-
tionships/make friends (2)/engage with hosts/stay away from
group (2)/observe before acting (1)/not being invasive (1)/learn
host qualities: punctuality, respect rules, do things by the book,
fulfill obligations (1)/tolerance (1)/predeparture preparation
(1)/accept advice/correction (1)/flexibility (1)/willingness to try
new things (1)].
1) You need to be open; you can’t be closed off in your own

little world thinking you are going to live under the same
conditions you lived in your own country.
2) You need to forget your home country; don’t compare it
with the host community; this way you will make the most
of your program.
Q3. Role of the homestay: [had no homestay (8)/very positive/impor-

tant (7)/helped enter culture and learn language (6)/family sup-
port and guidance important (6)/made to feel part of family and
culture (2)].
1) Living with a host family helped me out a lot with learn-

ing the language and overcoming shyness. They were always
encouraging and recommending that I go out with people
and get to know and explore new places.
2) The family support was very important. The first few days
I felt completely lost and their support and guidance were
really important for my success.
3) My host family was very receptive and communicative; they
made me feel part of the family. They gave me the key to the
house . . . They literally took me in as one of their own.
4) I lived with my host parents and four brothers. They were
very important to my adaptation process, always trying to
make me feel welcome, guiding and helping me with every-
thing I needed and that of which I was not accustomed to in
Brazil.
5) My host family was very important to the success of the
program. When I got there, they were so thoughtful and
helped me with all my needs. I was a little shy at first and
didn’t know how to approach them, but they made it really
easy and comfortable.
6) My English improved far better living with the host family
than living in a student house like the majority of partici-
pants abroad. On the personal side, my host family became
my family. A wonderful experience and I am still in contact
with my family there.
Q4. Importance of learning the language: [very important (16)/essen-
tial (3)/great opportunity (2)].
1) I felt that as my English got better I started to feel more con-
fident and my interaction with people also improved.
2) Learning English was really important. Going and living
abroad, not just for the English but for a whole new person
that I became.
Q5. Anything else? [a rich experience (6)/recommend to everyone
(6)/want to continue to travel (4)/learned about host culture and
other ethnicities (2)/became a whole new person/learned and
grew (2)/made friends for life (2)/learned more language by being
in-country (1)/inspired to learn another language (1)/prepare
before your trip (1)/no longer afraid to speak English (1)/don’t
compare with your own country (1)/expand your horizons (1)].
1) Everybody should have the opportunity to experience an
exchange program.
2) Go on an exchange program! This is so necessary for us. It
was there that I took my first steps in life, as if I were a child
starting to crawl.
3) Before you travel, study up a little about the language and
about the place where you are going; don’t just fall into it
without any knowledge.
4) It was one of the best experiences of my life. I had a remark-
able experience and recommend it to everyone.
5) The only bad thing about it was that I got addicted to it.
After this experience, I traveled a few more times. I returned
to the States to participate in another program. The follow-
ing year I went to Scotland and England and a year after. I
traveled around Europe and the Caribbean, and then I went
to New Zealand.
Discussion—This cohort of 20 Brazilian respondents provides an

overwhelmingly positive reaction to their educational exchange experi-
ence. Of 20 respondents, 12 had homestays and eight had other types of
living arrangements. All saw their experience as impactful, life changing,
and, in most cases, affecting the direction of their life and their work.
They were able to articulate an array of qualities one must display to gain
acceptance in another culture and their experiences took place in at least
four countries plus several others not specified.
The homestay stands out as a most significant aspect of the program
experience (for those who had one). Its value is described in strong terms:
“very positive and important, it provided an entrée into the culture and
language, it provided support and guidance, and made sojourners feel
part of a family and its culture.” Learning and using the host language
also plays a role that 19 individuals described as “very important” and
“essential.” All interviewees endorsed the experience in strong terms and
recommended it for everyone while also recommending that individuals
prepare in advance for this life-changing experience.
Alumni Data: Germany

Findings—The RA in Germany conducted the required 20 telephone
interviews to complement the quantitative data generated by the survey,
interviewing randomly selected alumni from among the 554 respon-
dents to the AICC survey. This figure represents 28 respondents beyond
the targeted number required to allow generalization of results to the
total alumni population of 7,127 participants. Countries where German
alumni had sojourns (number of participants in parentheses) were China
(2), France (1), England (1), Ireland (1), Italy (2), Japan (2), Spanish-
speaking country (not specified) (1), US (10).
Responses to the five questions are provided next. Figures in paren-
theses indicate the number of alumni who provided similar responses (of
a total of 20). Items are listed in order of frequency beginning with the
most frequently cited item first. Selected quotes taken from telephone
conversations follow, as relevant to each of the five questions:
Q1. What impact did the Experiment experience have on your life and
work? On life: [more open-minded (11)/became more indepen-
dent/more self-confident (8)/motivated to travel more (7)/learned
language/improved language skills (4)/know/see a completely
different world/broadened horizons (4)/learned to accept people/
situations the way they are (2)/made friends (2)/more flexible (2)/
learned about other people/more interested in people (2)/learned
to handle difficult situations (1)/learned about self (1) /more com-
municative (1)/more active (1)/big part of life (1)]. On school and
work: [had impact on my work and study (11)/want to work in
intercultural/international area (5)/school grades improved (2)/
on cultural and linguistic interests (1)/did volunteer work (1)].
1) The experience had a significant impact on my life, and I
would be glad if everybody had the chance to go abroad.
2) I learned a lot about other people and got to know a com-
plete different world.
3) An experience like a school exchange program relates always
to yourself. The experience changed me, and I got a new
view of life.
4) This experience was a big part of my life, and it is still very
important for me.
Q2. What abilities were important to gaining acceptance in the host cul-
ture? [openness/open-minded (14)/adaptability/acceptance/integrate
(8)/language/communication (7)/tolerance (7)/courage/willing to
try new things (6)/curiosity/interest/motivation/initiative (5)/self-
confidence (4)/sensitivity (3) /flexibility (2)/staying power/resilience
(2)/self-reflection (2)/sense of responsibility (1)/observant (1)/proactive
(but not too much) (1)/ability to be alone (1)/respect (1)/understanding
(1)/cooperativeness (1)/diplomatic skills (1)/positive attitude (1)/will-
ingness to work out problems/misunderstandings (1)/thankfulness
(1)/reliability (1)].
1) It is important to be proactive, but not too much, then it
could be arrogant.
Q3. What role did a homestay have in your experience? [very/most
important (20)/became a second family/felt integrated (6)/family
provided help/support (6)/best entrée/helped learn about the lan-
guage and culture (5)/still in contact with host family (4)/made
contact with more people/made friends (2)/provided security (2)/
important reference point (1)/learned about self (1)].
1) The homestay was very important, maybe the most impor-
tant part of the program. I spent the most time with my host
family—more than with friends. I learned a lot from them. I
also learned a lot about myself and my own family.
2) The homestay was very important. They supported me a lot.
Furthermore, my host mother was my person of trust like
my own mother. This good relationship gave me a sense of
security.
3) I cannot imagine my stay abroad without a homestay. It was
a good experience.
4) The homestay was the main part of the program for me. I
felt safe in the family and if something went wrong, the fam-
ily was my support.
5) My host family taught me a lot about politics and the Ameri-
can way of life and a lot of wisdom. It was like an “addi-
tion” to my family in Germany.
6) In my opinion, the homestay is the most important part of
the program.
Q4. How important was learning the host language? [important/very
important (20)/language is culture/needed to understand culture
(3)/helped me when I returned to school (2)/helped me feel con-
nected (1)].
1) It was important for me to learn the language to commu-
nicate with other people. The language is a big part of the
culture and only if you understand the language you can
understand the culture more.
2) When you learn the language, you understand the culture
more and more.
3) Language is culture—therefore, it was important to learn the
language.
Q5. Anything else? [changed/significant impact on my life/got a new
view of life/world (5)/helped me learn about myself and my own
family (4)/recommend to all (3)/predeparture orientation impor-
tant (3)/got to know other exchange students (2)/language helps
to find a job (1)/motivated to become a volunteer (1)/want to
travel more (1)].
1) It was a great experience, and I wish everybody had the
chance to stay abroad!
Discussion—Among this cohort of 20 respondents, one again sees an

overwhelmingly positive reaction to the intercultural sojourn experience.
All 20 German respondents had homestays and in a wide variety of coun-
tries. In addition, all respondents saw educational exchange as impactful,
life changing, and as an important experience that affected the direction
of their lives and their work. They expressed an array of qualities needed
to gain acceptance in another culture, adding many not cited in the inter-
cultural literature. Again, the homestay component stands out as very
important or the most significant aspect of the program for all respon-
dents without exception. The value of the homestay provided an entrée
into the culture and language, it provided support and guidance, and it
made sojourners feel part of a family and a part of the culture. Ability
with the host language also played a significant role, again for all 20 indi-
viduals who described it as “important” or “very important.” Moreover,
many interviewees recommended the experience for everyone while high-
lighting how the experience helped to learn about oneself, one’s own
family, provide a new view of life and of the world.
Alumni Data: Japan

Findings—The RA in Japan also conducted the required 20 telephone
interviews, complementing the qualitative data generated by the alumni
survey, with individuals randomly selected from among 338 respondents
to the AICC survey. This number represented 125 respondents below the
targeted number of 463 required in order to be able to generalize results
to the total alumni population of 2,005 participants. This was due in
large part to faulty or out of date email addresses. Countries to which
Japanese alumni had sojourns were: Australia (1)/England (1)/France (1)/
Germany (2)/Portugal (1)/US (6)/Others not identified (8).
Responses to the five questions are provided next. The figure in paren-
theses indicates the number of alumni who provided similar responses
(of a total of 20). Items are listed in order of frequency beginning with
the most frequently cited item. Selected quotes taken from the telephone
conversations follow, as relevant to each of the five questions:
Q1. Impact on life and work—[gained confidence /matured (10)/

affected direction of education and/or career (9)/opened up
new options (8)/expanded worldview/turned my world around/
eyes were opened (6)/life changed dramatically (5)/got to know
another life/interest in another culture (3)/provided second fam-
ily for life (1)/married a host (1)].
1) I married an Australian. My life changed drastically due to
the program.
2) I decided my direction for university and graduate school
due to the program.
3) The experience turned my world around.
4) I learned that nothing would be impossible, and I found
my life’s work and my career.
5) By living abroad, I saw Japan (my own country) with the eyes
of the third person. By living abroad for a year, I developed a
greater appreciation for my own parents (and culture).
6) I felt my eyes were opened.
7) After living in a foreign country, my personality became
hard to adapt to typical Japanese behavior when I returned
home.
8) My experience with study abroad at the age of 16 was a
great merit for my career, more than I expected. After my
experience abroad, I believe I can now survive anywhere in
the world.
9) My experience abroad not only helped me to choose my job,
but I had more interest in the outside world. I developed an
appreciation for people around me more than ever before.
10) I felt that I have matured. By the end of the program I felt
that I had found my identity and gained self-confidence
which allowed me to enter the university and later study in
Vietnam.
Q2. Abilities needed for acceptance—[be positive/open/confident/
expressive/engage (9)/smile/friendliness (5)/flexibility (4)/try
to enjoy cultural differences (3)/show acceptance/appreciation/
interest (3)/learn host language/ability to communicate (3)/new
perspectives/see from new vantage points (3)/willingness to lis-
ten and try to understand (3)/motivation (2)/generosity (1)/
humor (1)/be honest (1)].
Q3. Role of homestay—[(best) way/important to understand host cul-
ture and learn language (16)/gave confidence/provided security/
support (4)/appreciate own family more (2)/made feel part of
the family/culture (2)/felt acceptance (2)/center of my life abroad
(1)/made me think what “family” means (1)].
1) I believe the homestay is the best way to understand the cul-
ture of the host country. And I also appreciated my own
natural family for the first time of my life while being apart
from them.
2) I have a second family in my life by keeping in touch with
host families and friends over the years.
3) The homestay is the best way to learn about another culture
and its language.
4) The homestay experience gave me the opportunity to
learn about a new culture, to learn new customs, to learn
the language, and to communicate with people in a safe
environment.
5) I learned everything during my homestay like how to dis-
cuss, table manners, language. It was just like a baby absorb-
ing anything from the parents without thinking. I believe it
was the best way for me to enter the new culture.
6) My host family treated me as a member of the family.
Q4. Importance of language—[(very/most) important aspect of living
abroad (15)/aids adjustment (2)/learned importance of apprecia-
tion as well as love by expressing into the words and actions of
host language (1)/certain things (+ feelings) can only be under-
stood in host language (1)].
1) I learned the importance of appreciation as well as love by
being able to express these concepts into the words and
actions (of the host culture).
2) Speaking language(s) is the quickest and the most effective
way to communicate with other people. The more languages
you can speak, the more choices you can obtain for your life.
3) Language is very important. The better I spoke, the better I
could adjust to the host country.
4) My ability to communicate in German brought me deeper
relationship with the people in the host country.
Q5. Anything else? [would like my children to have similar experi-
ence (3)/research caused to think of value of study abroad again
(1)/difficult to readjust back home (1)].
1) This research project has made me think of my own study
abroad experience once again. After the program, I believed
it valuable to see things from multiple perspectives. I now
want this same experience for my own children.
2) I would like to share my experience (studying abroad) with
future students.
3) I cannot express in words how much study abroad during
my high school age influenced my life.
4) I would like to have my children participate in the same
experience.
Discussion—This cohort of 20 Japanese respondents echoes the over-

whelmingly positive responses to educational exchange given by previous
groups. All 20 respondents had homestays in a variety of countries. All
respondents described how the experience impacted their lives in impor-
tant ways: dramatic changes in life and lifestyle, intercultural marriage,
learning about oneself and one’s own culture, and as expressed by one
individual, “It turned my world around.” Sojourners also commented
that they not only learned about other cultures and other worldviews and
in the process gained self-awareness and learned more about themselves
and their own culture—a recurrent theme. Again, they identified an array
of attributes one must display in order to gain acceptance in another
culture.
The homestay continues to stand out as “the best way to learn about
another culture and its language.” Moreover, it provided sojourners with
a sense of belonging, a feeling of security, and many cited the continu-
ing relationship they maintain with host families long after the sojourn
has ended. Host language ability was cited for its significance toward
learning and adjusting to the host culture, toward enhancing a deeper
understanding, and fomenting stronger relationships. All 20 interview-
ees described language as “important” or “very important.” In addition,
many interviewees recommended the experience for everyone, highlight-
ing how the experience helped to learn about oneself, one’s own family,
provide a new view of life and of the world. In the end, many added
comments regarding their hope that others (including their own children)
might also benefit from similar experiences. One respondent alluded to
the “difficulty of readjusting” upon return home and the re-entry issue,
often overlooked.
Alumni Data: United States

Findings—The RA in the US also conducted 20 telephone interviews to
complement qualitative data produced by the alumni survey with ran-
domly selected individuals from among the 384 respondents to the AICC
survey. This number represented 200 respondents below the targeted of
584 responses required to be able to generalize results to the total alumni
population of 18,464 participants (unfortunately, concurrent surveys
and fundraising efforts with alumni possibly interfered with this research
effort).
Countries where US alumni had sojourns were quite varied: Australia
(1)/Belize (1)/Botswana (1)/Ecuador (4)/England (1)/France (2)/Japan (2)/
Mexico (1)/Mongolia (1)/Poland (1)/Scotland (1)/Spain (2)/Thailand (1)/
Turkey (1).
Responses to the five questions are provided next. The figure in paren-
theses indicates the number of alumni providing similar responses (of
a total of 20). Items are listed in order of frequency beginning with the
most frequently cited item. Selected quotes taken from telephone conver-
sations follow, as relevant to each of the five questions:
Q1. Impact on life and work—[influenced life and work choices

(13)/significant/deep impact/tremendous/dramatic (10)/influenced
educational plans (8)/opened my eyes to other values and customs/
broadened perspectives (6)/changed view of self and worldview
(5)/boosted confidence, independence (4)/enjoyed the program/
amazing (3)/motivated me to study/travel abroad (3)/experience
was foundational, increased cultural awareness (2)/completely
different person (2)/contributed to interest in Spanish and Latin
America (1)/improved language ability (1)/developed many life skills
(1)/wanted to make difference in someone else’s life (1)/met my
wife (1)].
1) Studying abroad, particularly during high school/adoles-
cence, is quite important and can contribute greatly to our
understanding of the world and other cultures.
2) I met my wife due to my Spanish language skills, as we
met when she only spoke Spanish. We now raise our chil-
dren bilingually. This experience motivated me to study
abroad in college and graduate school in Spain, Mexico,
and Argentina.
3) My positive experience contributed to my continued study
of Spanish and interest in Latin America. It somewhat
influenced my career trajectory in foreign service and as an
immigration attorney with the state department.
4) The experience deeply impacted my life. I have returned to
Turkey many times since my Experiment experience and I
am still in touch with my rural homestay village and con-
tinue to visit frequently.
5) This experience had a significant impact on my life and
work. It was the beginning of developing lifelong goals of
travel and learning new languages.
6) After returning from my experience, my parents said that I
was a completely different person and had grown into my
own. Getting to know other students and my homestay
families influenced my life, broadening my perspective and
boosting my confidence. This experience changed both
how I viewed myself and how I viewed the world.
7) My experience was life changing, one of the most spec-
tacular experiences of my life.
8) My experience was very foundational. It gave me more of
a perspective on other cultures and also helped me learn
how to appreciate being where you are in the moment. I
am now a physician and continue to work with disenfran-
chised people, people of diverse cultural backgrounds, and
I work in a diverse, urban hospital.
9) My sojourn in Poland had a large impact on my life and
prompted a lot of personal growth. The experience also
opened up the post-Soviet bloc of Eastern Europe to me
as a region to be explored and to learn more about. I later
studied German in college and studied abroad in eastern
Germany. I majored in international relations, a decision
partially attributed to my exchange experience. I now work
for a non-profit focused on international gender and lit-
eracy issues.
10) My experience in Thailand had a dramatic impact on my
life and was truly a turning point . . . a transformative
experience. The experience totally opened up my eyes to
my own privilege (which I hadn’t considered privilege
before. Before this experience, I hadn’t really considered
how most people in the world live without running water,
electricity, etc. My experience sparked interest in Inter-
national Relations and international development (and I
became) very interested in global women’s health.
11) The experience absolutely had an impact. It is a major part
of my memory, part of the stories that I tell other people. It
was probably the highlight of my life so far. I learned not just
about the culture and people of Scotland and of those in my
group, but also about myself. It absolutely changed my life.
12) I learned a lot about myself. I started to understand that
I’m a strong person. I still plan on traveling and I work in
a job that I had never imagined. I gained confidence, free-
dom, and independence.
13) The experience had a pretty large impact. It inspired me
to be a lifelong learner, even outside of an educational
environment. I now work in education and I did a lot of
traveling since my first experience. The skills I learned
have informed my life now and my path through college. I
learned so many life skills.
14) I really learned a lot from the other group members. They
all came from different parts of the US, and I learned a lot
about their cultures in those parts of the nation. I learned
a lot about acceptance for everyone and accepting differ-
ences, listening to other’s opinions and ideas.
Q2. Abilities needed for acceptance—[openness/open mind (10)/
willingness to try new things/learn (8)/adaptable/flexible/accepting
(7)/language ability (3)/observation (3)/respect (3)/willingness
to spend time with hosts/engage/outgoing (3)/trust (2)/non-
judgmental (2)/curious, inquisitive (2)/tolerance (1)/patience (1)/
liberal (1)/introspective (1)/sense of humor (1)/recalibrate per-
spective (1)/move beyond comfort zone (1)/humility (1)/grate-
fulness (1)/non-verbal skills (1)].
1) Tolerance, patience, learning to observe what’s going on
without passing judgment or jumping to conclusions, learn-
ing to be aware of other possible points of view on situa-
tions/topics, learning the host language, trying new things,
and being open, are all abilities important to gaining accep-
tance in the host culture.
2) To gain acceptance in a host culture, you need to be open-
minded and brave enough to put yourself out there and to
speak a new language. Being respectful and an open mind
are the two most important traits to have when entering a
new/host culture.
3) My group developed the motto “embrace the awkward.”
Q3. Role of homestay—[very/positive, important, amazing, reward-
ing, wonderful, powerful, transformative (19)/helped learn lan-
guage and culture (6)/still in touch with family/visits (5)/not the
best, not welcoming, disappointing, challenging (had other good
homestays) (3)/very welcoming (2 / supportive, patient (2)].
1) The homestay was a positive part of my experience. It helped
me get a better understanding of family life and what “real
French citizens” are like in their home communities.
2) My homestay experience as an Experiment leader in Spain
was an extremely positive experience. I could not say enough
positive things about that homestay family; they were truly
amazing.
3) My homestay was wonderful. I wish it could have been lon-
ger. I enjoyed experiencing on a daily basis what it is like to
live with a Japanese family and be “Japanese.”
Q4. Importance of language—[very/important (10)/improved lan-
guage skills (3)/difficult language to learn (3)/important in
engaging/integrating with the host community (2)/helped to
understand new culture (2)/learning language favorite part (2)/
learned how to communicate in alternative ways (2)/reinforced
passion for language learning (1)/fun (1)/attempts appreciated (1)/
difference between learning in the classroom and using it in daily
life (1)/had far reaching effects on education, life and work (1)].
1) Studying in another country/culture during high school was
very significant as it opened my eyes to other values and
customs. Learning the host language was very important.
There’s a big difference between learning a language in the
classroom and using it in daily life and in a new culture.
It was an eye-opening experience and important for engag-
ing with the host community. The development of language
skills has had some of the furthest reaching effects into my
later education, life, and work.
2) Learning the host language was very important. I had an
easier time integrating into the host community and under-
standing the new culture because I developed strong host
language skills.
3) A willingness to try the new language, to try new things,
showing host community members that you’re willing to
make the effort to learn/try, being open, and learning to trust
that things would go well, were all important for gaining
acceptance.
4) We received basic language training during orientation.
Learning the language was one of my favorite parts . . . and
a huge part of being better able to understand the culture.
5) I found that Polish people greatly appreciated any attempt
at speaking Polish, no matter how little of the language you
knew.
Q5. Anything else?—[positive/best experience of her life, amaz-

ing, spectacular, thankful. grateful (7)/impact/life changing (4)/
recommend to others (3)/gained confidence, independence/now
feels capable of traveling (2)/leader was supportive and friendly
(1)/upset by new “sexy” program direction, looks more like
vacation (1)/learned from other group members (1)/contributes
greatly to our understanding of the world and other cultures
(1)/a perfect program format (1)].
1) [At this point in the interview, the interviewee started cry-

ing and became quite emotional], stating that her exchange
experience changed her life. The opportunity to study
abroad was amazing and life changing. She was thankful for
the opportunity and the experience.
2) Participating in the educational exchange helped me
come out of my shell. I learned that I wanted to share my
experience with others. I want other people to do what I did.
I want other people to see what I saw. I want other people to
be able to make a difference in someone’s life.
3) I would like to help other people get the opportunity to expe-
rience life abroad on similar programs as I did. The experi-
ence changed my life for the better! The experience was eye
opening. My host family’s home was very small. The house
was pieces of plywood put together. Members of the greater
family were always there. They were very loving. The family
made me feel like I was part of the community, not just on
vacation.
Discussion—The cohort of 20 American respondents again supports

the very positive responses expressed by previous groups regarding the
educational exchange experience. All 20 American respondents had
homestays and in a great variety of countries. All respondents commented
on how the experience abroad impacted their lives in “significant, deep,
tremendous, dramatic” ways—it influenced their lives, educational plans,
and work choices; it “opened their eyes, broadened perspectives, boosted
confidence, and changed their view of themselves and of the world.”
They identified many of the same attributes voiced by others as neces-
sary to gain acceptance in another culture. At the top of their list was
“openness, a willingness to try new things, adaptability, flexibility, accep-
tance, and language ability,” among others. Nineteen of the 20 spoke of
their homestay as “very positive, important, amazing, rewarding, won-
derful, powerful, and transformative,” in addition to describing how and
why the homestay is at the core of intercultural entry and learning “on
someone else’s terms.”
Host language proficiency was again cited as “very important” and
necessary for “engaging, integrating into the host community” and
“helping to understand a new culture.” Even in cases where the language
was difficult to learn, such as Polish and Japanese, alumni spoke of the
importance of being “willing to try the new language, to show host mem-
bers that you’re willing to make the effort.” The result described was
that it allowed for an “easier time integrating into the host community
and understanding the new culture,” “a huge part of being better able to
understand the culture,” and that efforts were “greatly appreciated . . .
no matter how little of the language you knew.”
In conclusion, alumni described the sojourn as “positive, spectacular,
the best experience of my life,” and they were thankful and were grateful
for the experience, recommending it to others, and described how the
experiences “contributed greatly to our understanding of other cultures
and the world;” in short, it was a “perfect program format.”
Many interviewees recommended the experience for everyone while
highlighting how the experience helped to learn about oneself, one’s own
family, providing a new view of life and of the world. In the end, many
added comments regarding their hope that others (including their own
children) might also benefit from similar experiences. One respondent
alluded to the “difficulty of readjusting” upon return home, and the
re-entry challenge. One respondent was so overwhelmed by the expe-
rience, although years later, that the RA reported, “She started crying
and became emotional, describing how her sojourn changed her life.”
She was thankful for the opportunity and the experience. Another added
that she wanted “other people to do what I did. I want other people to
see what I saw. I want other people to be able to make a difference in
someone’s life.”
Host Family Data: Ireland

Findings—Ireland represents a different case from the four countries dis-
cussed earlier given that the focus of research was on the impact and
outcomes of intercultural contact upon host families. Host natives are of
special interest since in most educational exchange programs, there are
normally at least two parties involved: the sojourner who visits and the
hosts who provide the homestay. Whereas sojourners cross a border and
often an ocean to have an intercultural experience, host families remain
at home and receive a visitor from another culture. Both experience inter-
cultural contact, and although the onus is normally upon the sojourner to
adjust, it often occurs that host family members also make adjustments to
their visitor. In other words, it is often an intercultural experiment for all
parties in contact. In the case of host families, of course, it often involves
not only a host parent or two but also children. Yet most research fails
to investigate the impact of this experience on host members who are
also likely to develop aspects of ICC, albeit to differing degrees and in
different ways. This section investigates the response of hosts to their
intercultural contact.
Ireland presents an excellent case study for this purpose given that it is a
country that receives large numbers of sojourners. Often, families receive
several sojourners over time, and so their intercultural experience may be
varied in terms of their exposure to individuals, often students, from a
variety of countries. Aside from a focus on hosts (rather than sojourners),
the research procedure in Ireland differed in that survey questionnaire
forms were distributed through mailings rather than in electronic format.
The respondent, often a host mother, was also in a few cases, another
parent, a son, or a daughter. The RA compiled results manually and then
uploaded them onto SM. The qualitative part was conducted, as with the
other countries involved, through telephone conversations with a host
member (and in person in a few cases). The Irish RA conducted 11 inter-
views to complement quantitative data produced by the survey, access-
ing randomly selected individuals from among the 111 respondents. This
number represented 89 respondents below the targeted number of 200
required in order to be able to generalize findings to the total host family
population of 1,660 participants.
Countries of origin of sojourners having homestays in Ireland were
varied and are as follows: Australia (1)/Belgium (1)/Brazil (2)/France (1)/
Germany (8)/Italy (6)/Japan (1).
Naturally, the questions asked of host families were modified, differ-
ing slightly from those used with sojourners. The revised questions were
as follows:
1. What impact did the sojourner have on your family?

2. What abilities did hosting the international student require of your
family?
3. What did you learn about communicating with a student whose lan-
guage is not English?
4. Did you maintain contact with him/her after s/he returned home?
5. Anything else?
Responses to these questions are given next. Figures in parentheses

indicate the number of host members who provided similar responses (of
a total of 11). Responses are listed in order of frequency beginning with
the most frequently cited item. Selected quotes taken from conversations
with hosts follow, as relevant to each of the five questions:
Q1. What impact did the sojourner have on your family?—[it was
good for the kids (8)/it was positive social interaction for the
children (7)/it opened my child’s mind about new cultures (4)/
my family and friends are accepting of the students (3)/it had a
negative impact on my child (1)].
1) Host mother: Any students I have had have interacted well in
the family. It’s been an enjoyable experience. As for myself,
it’s interesting to hear about the different cultures and differ-
ent ways of life—the differences and similarities, really. I’ve
been lucky that we’ve had nice people to stay, we’ve never
had any problems.
2) Host mother: I suppose understanding another culture,
that’s the main one. Also, how to get along with others from
the kids’ point of view, because it is somebody different in
your house.
3) Host mother: Well I have just one daughter, a teenager, so
I thought it would be good for her to have someone else to
talk with and be social. I have really noticed the difference
in her, most definitely. It has given her more confidence and
it’s brought her out of herself and getting her to share.
4) Host mother: I thought it was very, very important for my
children not to have tunnel vision where they thought there
was only one race, one color, one language, one religion.
Purely from an educational purpose I thought that it was
very important to experience different cultures.
5) Host mother: I love the students coming. I love their differ-
ent cultures. I have been taking students for years, and I love
to have them in the house. My children would have great
respect for the students. One of my sons actually married
one of the students, a Spanish girl.
Discussion—Responses to this first question were all provided by

host mothers who provided one perspective of the sojourner experience.
Clearly, responses provided by other family members, especially host sib-
lings, may be quite different. In this case, all host moms responded entirely
in terms of the benefits of hosting upon their children with one exception
where a mom claimed “a negative effect” (unfortunately, details behind
this particular incident were not given). Although we acknowledge the
possibility that this may occur, happily the incidence was very low; none-
theless, it serves as a reminder of the importance of selection, orientation,
and monitoring the sojourn experience by the local MO, the group leader,
and the local representative. Incidences where sojourners are moved to
other families or returned home are rare but may occur.
Q2. What abilities did hosting the international student require of

your family?—[it was good for us to understand a new culture
(7)/I learned that I am very patient 5)/child’s languages improved
with help from a student (4)/my child is more confident and
independent (3)/my child wants to go traveling (3)/we learned
how to cook some new foods (3)/we learned about the student’s
city (3)/we had to get used to having someone else in the house
(3)/I learned about teenagers and young people (2)/we showed
the student how to cook Irish food (2)/we talk a lot more now
as a family (1)/my child took up one of the hobbies of the stu-
dent (1)/we brought the student around Ireland and showed her
cultural sights (1)].
1) Host mother: My son, it has opened his mind about the dif-
ferent culture. He said he likes Italians. He likes it; it’s com-
pany for him socially, and it’s something different.
2) Host sibling: I had a student once from Germany who taught
me some of the language, and I am doing German now in
school and I find it easy . . . She used to tell me about Ger-
many . . . I know a bit of the language that’s why I picked
German in school.
3) Host mother: My daughter is only 14. She’s a social butter-
fly, and I don’t know whether that’s a consequence of always
having students here (since she was 3), she’s never really had
just her own family in the home. She is doing German in
school now and that is 100% influenced by the German stu-
dent we had.
4) Host mother: I know they come here for learning, our cul-
ture, our language and adapt to our way of life, but I think
it’s so important for host families to learn to adapt as well.
5) Host mother: I learned something, like I learned that there
is a difference between the nationalities. Like the Germans
would be fairly hard. Their parenting is very different to
ours. They are given more freedom from their parents. I
wouldn’t allow a lot of things. I treat them exactly how I
treat my own.
6) Host mother: So it makes you very compassionate. It makes
you more aware of other people and their feelings, and how
to deal with their problems. It’s all about education.
7) Host mother: I think communication is one. I find we talk
a lot more about what goes on. When we had students at
dinnertime we would all talk about our days. We would
interact a lot more. I find if you keep talking to them; they
feel at home. They would be more comfortable and more
open to you.
Discussion—With one exception, where a host sibling was interviewed,

the remaining ten respondents were all host mothers. Whereas most
focused on the impact upon host siblings, several respondents framed the
discussion in terms of “we”—that is, the entire family. Let us consider
first the impact described upon children in the family. This included: the
child became more confident and independent, improved language abil-
ity, took up new hobbies, and desired to travel. Effects framed in terms of
“we” included: learning about new places and new cultures, learning to
cook new foods, learning about teenagers, and developing patience. All
comments suggested positive outcomes; no comments reflected negative
effects of hosting an international sojourner.
Q3. What did you learn about communicating with a student whose
language is not English?—[the student’s English was very good
(8)/I encouraged the student to use their English more (4)/could
see improvement in their language over time (4)/be open and
patient (3)/I am able to teach English (3)/the students are very
quick to learn (3)/a lot of communication is done through ges-
ture and body language (3)/sometimes it’s necessary to be more
direct (2)/don’t be too sensitive (don’t take the literal meaning)
(1)/the student sometimes tries to get away with things so you
have to confront them about it].
1) Host mother: Their English was always good enough for
us to get by and when there was confusion I would change
the phrasing or use a different word to explain what I was
saying.
2) Host mother: They spoke to my 5-year-old in Italian and she
kept talking away to them in English and they would end
up laughing at each other. Somehow, they seem to get by.
Instead of dictating this is the word for Fridge, I would ask
them what is the word for Fridge in Italian; then I would say
the English word. You learn how to teach them rather than
just dictating to them.
Discussion—Surprisingly, no response indicated that hosts developed

a greater interest in learning another language. All comments focused
on the communicative abilities of their sojourners and actions that hosts
took to help them develop TL skills. For instance, eight respondents com-
mented that the sojourner’s language level was very good and several
commented on improvements they observed as the sojourner’s fluency
improved over time and how quickly they were able to learn. Comments
that reflected insights or strategies developed by hosts during this experi-
ence were learning to be open and patient, encouraging sojourners to use
the host tongue, using non-verbal means to enhance communication, and
learning how to teach. Despite not learning anything about their sojourn-
er’s language, hosts clearly did learn something about how to communi-
cate more effectively when dealing with individuals whose native tongue
was not their own. All of these are good strategies and good skills for use
during intercultural encounters.
Q4. Do you maintain contact with the sojourner after s/he returned
home?—[yes via Skype, Snapchat, Facebook or email (14)/yes
with cards and gifts (5)/yes via message (4)/yes we’ve met up
(3)/I would like to (1)/I don’t think so, we have nothing in com-
mon (1)/girls tend to keep in touch more than boys (1)].
1) Host mother: I’d hate if they didn’t come back. Ciara is going
home now, and it’s like “oh God” you know what food they
like, get used to what television programs she likes. It’s like
part of your family is missing. We are always on Facebook.
2) Host mother: I stay in touch with a lot of the students and
they keep coming back to me. Maybe once or twice a year
they come and visit. We have a very good relationship. We
stay in touch using emails mostly on Facebook. And they
would phone. They want to keep in touch as much as we do.
Discussion—With the exception of one respondent, all others indi-
cated a desire to maintain contact with their sojourners after their depar-
ture. They accomplished this in a variety of ways: through cards, gifts,
messages, email, Skype, Snapchat, and Facebook, and, in one instance,
through an actual visit. Whatever the means, however, what is significant
is that one clear outcome of a homestay sojourn is the development of a
relationship between sojourners and hosts, one that may last a lifetime
and, indeed, that is exactly what happened in many cases. Said another
way, the family really provides the entrée into an experience that far out-
lasts the program duration itself. Intercultural exchanges that do not fos-
ter lasting relationships miss a promising and important potential.
Q5. Anything else?—[glad I hosted, it was a positive experience

(11)/I will host again (8)/it was nice to have the extra money
in the family (3)/it was nice to have company in the house (2)/I
think the students are brilliant (2)/it was our first hosting experi-
ence (2)/this time round was a learning curve (1)/we would not
volunteer to host (1)].
1) Host mother: It’s good in a way but you have to look at it

from a financial perspective as well. We have to put down
some ground rules to keep the costs down. It has been a
learning experience the whole way. We wouldn’t volunteer
to do it just because of the learning the family gets from it.
2) Host mother: It’s nice and interesting to have a new person
in the family and obviously the extra money.
3) It’s good in the family; it affords us to do nice things.
4) Host sibling: I love having students. It’s nice to have some-
one here, to be able to show them around and teach them
things. I think when I am older I will definitely take on stu-
dents when I have my own house.
5) Host mother: Just that I love it. Everyone should do it. If you
have the right frame of mind. It’s very rewarding if you do it
for the right reasons. You get long-term friends, new family
members; you’re educated in their way of life. Brilliant!
6) Host mother: I think opening your home and living in such
close quarters to someone else be they Irish or from another
country, can only be an education. I really do. Even the ups
and downs are an education in themselves.
7) Host mother: I think they are very brave, those kids that
come to a strange family, strange country, strange school,
different cultures, different students that came wanted
photographs, and they sent photos to me, and I have them
framed all around. Lots of good memories. I love the stu-
dents. I think they’re great.
Discussion—Here again, all respondents were host mothers with the
exception of one host sibling. What is very telling is that all 11 respon-
dents stated that they were glad they hosted: “It was a positive expe-
rience.” Eight respondents stated that they want to host again; one
expressed that this time around, it was a learning curve; and one said
she would not volunteer to host again (no details given). A few added
some explanations such as it was nice to have company in the house,
the students are brilliant, and three were candid with the fact that “it
was nice to have the extra money in the family” (in some MOs, stipends
are given to assist families while hosting). In such cases, of course, one
must take care that financial assists do not become a principal motive for
hosting and thereby overshadow the primary purpose of the experience
for both sojourners and hosts—intercultural contact through which they
learn about each other, develop intercultural competencies, and develop
lasting relationships.
To summarize, the analysis of research data presented thus far repre-
sents findings that characterize and contrast the profiles of alumni from
four countries, assessing the impact of their educational exchange experi-
ence, and assessing the impact on host families in a fifth country. These
findings are “particularist,” representing views of individual nationalities
or cultural groups of sojourners. To further our inquiry, it is instructive
to learn also what aspects were common to all groups, collectively, and
what experiences people might share as the result of intercultural contact
regardless of nationality and background. This attempt at a multinational
perspective is taken up in the chapter that follows, which investigates the
commonalities that emerged.
Notes
1. In the original survey questionnaire, the Likert scale used in questions B7, B8,
B9, and B10, considered 0 as the lowest point on the measurement scale and
5 the highest. However, as the online survey software used in this research
project assumed 1 as the lowest point and 6 the highest, it was necessary to
maintain this codification during statistical analysis.
2. A complete dataset is a database without missing values upon computing a
missing values imputation.
References
Baiutti, M. (2017) Competenza interculturale e mobilità studentesca: Riflessioni
pedagogiche per la valutazione, Pisa, Italy: Edizioni ETS.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S., and Aiken, L. (2003) Applied Multiple Regression/
Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd edn., Hillsdale, NJ: Law-
rence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
in Higher Education: International Approaches, Assessment, and Application,
New York, NY: Routledge.
DeVellis, R. (2012) Scale Development: Theory and Applications, 3rd edn.,
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Fantini, A.E. (1995) “Language, culture, and worldview: Exploring the nexus,”
in A.E. Fantini (Guest ed.) International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
19(2):143–53.
——— (2006) “About intercultural communicative competence: A construct,”
in Exploring and Assessing Intercultural Competence, Appendix E, pp. 243–6.
Online. Available: World Learning, SIT Digital Collections website: http://
digitalcollections.sit.edu/wordlearning_publications/1/ (accessed 20 January
2018).
——— (2015) Exploring Intercultural Communicative Competence: A Multina-
tional Perspective, Brattleboro, VT: Federation of the Experiment in Interna-
tional Living, pp. 85–6.
Field, A.P. (2009) Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 3rd edn., London: Sage
Publications.
Hair, J., Black, B., Anderson, R., and Tatham, R. (2006) Multivariate Data Anal-
ysis, 6th edn., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall International.
Howell, D. (2006) Statistical Methods for Psychology, 6th edn., Belmont, CA:
Thomson Wadsworth.
Kealey, D.J. (1990) Cross-Cultural Effectiveness, Hull, Quebec, Canada: Cana-
dian International Development Agency.
Muñiz, J. (2001) Teoría de los Tests, 7th edn., Madrid: Ediciones Pirámide.
Nunnally, J. (1978) Psychometric Theory, 2nd edn., Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill.
Stevens, J. (1986) Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences, Hills-
dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Tabachnick, B. and Fidell, L. (2007) Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th edn., Lon-
don, England: Pearson Education.
Taguchi, N., Xiao, F., and Li, S. (2017) “Assessment of study abroad outcomes
in Chinese as a second language: Gains in cross-cultural adaptability, language
contact, and proficiency,” in International Education, Oxford, England: Tay-
lor and Francis.
Watt, D.B. (1967) Intelligence Is Not Enough, Putney, VT: The Experiment Press.
6 Toward a Multinational
Perspective
6.1 Overview
Chapter 6 begins with a review of aspects of the exchange experience that
were common to the four alumni groups participating in the Follow-on
Research Project (FRP), collectively. Their combined views represent a
multinational perspective—one that moves a step closer toward under-
standing the potentially “universal” aspects that all people might share as
the result of intercultural contact. This is followed by an updated review
of the ten original a priori assumptions underlying both research proj-
ects, based on additional responses from the multinational population
involved in the second research project. What emerges clearly through-
out is the indisputable importance of the host family homestay as the
salient core of the experience plus the importance and value of devel-
oping host language proficiency as a fundamental component of ICC.
Discussion of the assumptions is followed by a review of the implications
and applications of the composite findings for multiple aspects of edu-
cational exchange programs to ensure that the research data are turned
into practice. Areas discussed are participant selection, program design,
cross-cultural orientation, interventions, assessment, and post-program
follow-up. A final section looks ahead, shifting the focus from theory to
practice, and suggesting select models and techniques to enrich the imple-
mentation of future exchange programs. Lessons learned are discussed,
new questions posed, and areas for further research are suggested. The
work is summarized in the hope that the research findings will serve not
only other researchers but also educators and trainers interested in ensur-
ing quality educational exchange efforts. Most importantly, it is hoped
that this work will be of benefit for their students, future program par-
ticipants, and their hosts.
6.2 Universal Aspects

The quantitative and qualitative analyses of research data presented
in the previous chapter represent findings that summarize profiles of
alumni involved in this study—assessing the impact on sojourners from
222 Toward a Multinational Perspective
four countries and assessing the impact on host families in one country.
Findings based on individual countries are characterized as “particular-
ist” aspects, representing views of a given nationality or cultural group
of sojourners—Brazilians, Germans, Japanese, Americans, and Irish in
the case of host families. To further our inquiry, it is instructive to learn
also what aspects were common to all groups, collectively. Their com-
bined views represent a multinational perspective—one that moves a
step closer toward understanding potentially “universal” aspects that all
people might share as the result of intercultural contact. Following is a
discussion of the commonalities that emerged.
Combined qualitative alumni data obtained from interviews revealed
that aside from the four countries which participants represent, alumni
experienced intercultural sojourns in over 22 host countries. Host coun-
tries included the following (figures in parentheses after each country indi-
cate the number of sojourners to each): Australia (4)/Belize (1)/Botswana
(1)/Canada (7)/China (2)/Ecuador (4)/England (3)/France (4)/Germany
(2)/Ireland (1)/Italy (3)/Japan (4)/Mexico (1)/Mongolia (1)/Poland (1)/
Portugal (1)/Scotland (1)/Spain (2)/Spanish-speaking country (not specified)
(1)/Thailand (1)/Turkey (1)/US (25)/not stated (9). The combination of
sojourner origins and countries visited is of interest in that it provides even
more diverse multinational perspectives on which their experiences are based.
Following is a composite of comments made by alumni in response to
five questions posed to all:
Q1. What impact did the sojourn experience have on your life and work?
Q2. What abilities were important to gain acceptance in the host culture?
Q3. What role did a homestay have in the experience?
Q5. Anything else the respondents wished to add?
Letters and numbers following each comment that follows indicate the
country of origin and number of respondents making similar comments
from the four groups—for example, B11 = Brazil/11 respondents, G3 =
Germany/3 respondents. Figures at the end of each statement represent
the combined number—i.e., the total number of persons who made simi-
lar comments, or the multinational perspective. Where possible, state-
ments are grouped around common themes:
Q1. What impact did the sojourn experience have on your life and
work?
• it changed the direction of life, study, and work opportuni-
ties (B5)(G13)(J14)(US21) = 53
• gained confidence/overcame shyness/developed and matured/
more independent (B3)(G8)(J10)(US4) = 25
Toward a Multinational Perspective 223
• changed way of seeing things/broadened horizons/expanded
worldview (B2)(G5)(J6)(US11) = 24
• more open-minded/more accepting/flexible (G15)(US2) = 17
• made many new friends/learned about other people/interest
in other cultures (B3)(G4)(J3)(US3) = 13
• a great impact on personal and professional life (B11)(G1) = 12
• learned about self/significant/deep impact/dramatic (G1)
(US10) = 11
• motivated to travel more (G7)(US3) = 10
• opened up new options/developed many life skills (J8)(US1) = 9
• want to work in intercultural/international area/volunteer
work (G6)(US1) = 7
• learned language/improved language skills/more communi-
cative (G5)(US1) = 6
• learned to handle difficult situations/more engaged (G2)
(US3) = 5
• acquired sense of responsibility (B2) = 2
• married a host (J1)(US1) = 2
Discussion—This combined summary of responses to the question

“impact which the sojourn experience had on life and work” reveals a
totally positive and enthusiastic response from alumni in all four coun-
tries. In their words, an intercultural sojourn brings many benefits and no
negative outcomes. Moreover, the experience exerted a powerful impact
in many areas of their personal and professional life, affecting the direc-
tion of their studies, of job choices, and opportunities. On a personal
level, they speak of gaining confidence, developing and maturing, becom-
ing more independent. They also cite qualities they developed such as
becoming more open-minded, more accepting, more flexible. In the pro-
cess, they made many new friends, learned about other people, developed
interest in other cultures. At the same time, they also changed their way
of seeing things, broadened their horizons, and expanded their worldview.
Having learned about others and the cultures of others, they state that they
also learned about themselves (self-awareness). They developed language
skills, learned to handle difficult situations, acquired a sense of responsi-
bility, and, in two cases, married a member of the host culture, continuing
their intercultural experience on an intimate and lifelong journey.
Q2. What abilities were important to gaining acceptance in the host

culture?
Attitudes/Affect
• open-mindedness (B6)(G14)(J9)(US10)
• willingness to understand new points of view/to try new
things (B3)(G6)(J6)(US9)
• resilience/motivation/curiosity/interest (B2)(G7)(J2)(US2)
• respectful/sensitivity/humility (B2)(G4)(US4)
• willingness to engage with hosts/stay away from group
(B2)(G1)(US3)
• tolerance (B1)(G7)(US1)
• flexibility/adaptable/accepting (B1)(G2)(J4)(US7)
• positive attitude (B1)(G1)(J3)
• sense of responsibility/reliability (G2)
• cooperativeness (G1)
• thankfulness/gratefulness (G1)(US1)
• show acceptance/appreciation/interest (J3)
• smile/humor/honesty/friendliness (J7)(US1)
• generosity (J1)
• trust (US2)
• non-judgmental (US2)
• patience (US1)
• liberal (US1)
• willingness to accept advice/correction/willing to work
out problems (B1)(G1)
Skills
• ability to adjust/acceptance (B6)(G8)
• ability to communicate/learn host language (B2)(G7)(J3)
(US4)
• interpersonal skills/building relationships/make friends (B2)
• observational skills/not being invasive (B2)(G1)(US3)
• ability to be alone (G1)
• diplomatic skills (G1)
Knowledge
• learn host qualities: punctuality, respect rules, do things
by the book, fulfill obligations (B1)
• predeparture preparation/orientation (B1)
• understanding (G1)
Awareness
• self-reflection/introspective (G2)(US2)
• self-confidence (G4)
Discussion—Responses in this section are grouped in accordance

with the four areas of the ASK+A framework (Attitudes/Affect, Skills,
Knowledge, and Awareness), although it is clear that the preponderant
amount of responses fell within the category of Attitudes/Affect. This
might suggest that Attitudes/Affect are a key starting point to allow
whatever else might happen to occur. Stated another way, one might have
Skills, Knowledge, and Awareness, but their development might not be
prompted if one’s initial attitude is negative. Positive attitude may be the
single most important initial quality that contributes to one’s develop-
ment in other areas. This may explain why so many respondents provided
an extensive list of attitudinal characteristics that echo and expand upon
those commonly cited in the intercultural literature: open-mindedness,
flexibility, tolerance, adaptability, and so forth.
Given these attributes, knowledge of the host language and culture
is not a pre-condition of a successful sojourn experience, but rather a
consequence. In other words, knowledge can develop given appropri-
ate attitudes. This again supports the thesis expressed in the founder’s
publication Intelligence Is Not Enough (Watt 1967), where he describes
why intelligence and knowledge alone are not good predictors of a
successful intercultural experience. Skills, as well as knowledge, can
develop during a sojourn given a positive disposition and attitudes.
In addition, respondents from all four countries identify specific skills
they developed—the ability to adjust and accept, to communicate in the
host language, interpersonal skills, observational skills, and diplomatic
skills.
Finally, during and after the experience, the most powerful and per-
vasive development, perhaps, is self-awareness, purported (in our model)
to be at the core of the intercultural experience. Although not specifically
cited in responses given, four individuals allude to the process that leads
to awareness—i.e., self-reflection and introspection. Moreover, numer-
ous comments provided earlier following Questions 1 and 2 also point to
awareness development where alumni speak of changes in the direction
of their life (53 persons), changed ways of seeing things, broadened hori-
zons, and an expanded worldview (24 persons). These comments reflect
the development of awareness of self and others through comparisons,
contrasts, reflection, and introspection.
Q3. What role did a homestay have in your experience?

• no homestay (B8)
• very/most important/positive/transformative/powerful (B7)
(G20)(J1)(US19)
• best entrée/helped enter culture and learn language (B6)
(G5)(J16)(US6)
• family support/guidance/security (B6)(G8)(J4)(US2)
• made to feel part of family and culture (B2)(J2)(US2)
• still in contact with host family (G4)(US5)
• became a second family/felt integrated (G6)(J2)(US1)
• made contact with more people/made friends (G2)
• important reference point (G1)
• learned about self/appreciate own family more (G1)(J3)
• initial family not welcoming, challenging (but had other
good homestays) (3)
Discussion—A clear result of the sojourn that consistently stands out
is that a stay with a host family is a “very or most important” element,
one that is “positive, powerful, and transformative” (47 persons). An
additional 33 alumni describe the homestay as the “best entrée into a
new culture; it helped entrance into the culture and learning the lan-
guage.” Others point to the homestay as helping to make them feel not
only “part of the family but also of the culture.” Moreover, a most posi-
tive result is the fact that many remain in contact with their hosts for
many years after the program is officially over. In this sense, the experi-
ence often lasts a lifetime.
While a homestay constitutes the most powerful component of the
program, there is also some indication, however, that not all family expe-
riences were of the same quality. Three individuals from among the 80
indicated disappointment with their host families and eight individu-
als had no homestay. Clearly, families must be carefully selected, prop-
erly oriented to the goals of the program, monitored to assure a quality
experience for all, and interventions must be made with families as with
the sojourners. Where “quality control” measures are maintained and
ensured, a homestay experience is central to a rich and powerful intercul-
tural sojourn.

• very/most important (B16)(G20)(J15)(US10)
• essential/aids adjustment (B3)(J2)
• great opportunity/improved language skills (B2)(US3)
• language is culture/needed to understand culture (G3)(US2)
• helped me when I returned to school (B2)
• helped to feel connected/helps integration into host commu-
nity (B1)(US2)
• learned new concepts in the words and actions of host lan-
guage (J1)
• certain things (+ feelings) can only be understood in host
language (J1)
• difficult language to learn (US3)
• fun/learning language favorite part/reinforced passion for
language learning (US4)
• learned how to communicate in alternative ways (US2)
• attempts to learn were appreciated (US1)
• great difference between classroom learning and using it in
daily life (US1)
• far reaching effects on education, life, and work (US1)
Discussion—Developing proficiency in the host language and the abil-
ity to communicate with hosts “in their own tongue” (even in cases where
hosts may have known the sojourner’s language, especially where English is
concerned) is identified as an important aspect of the sojourner experience.
Most alumni from all four countries described ability in the host language
as “very or most important,” as “essential, an aid to adjustment,” and
“needed to understand culture.” In addition, it “helped to feel connected, to
integrate into the host community,” while a few (in particular, the Japanese)
pointed to the fact that they “learned new concepts in the words of the host
language” and acknowledged that “certain things can only be understood
in the host language.” This last statement is indeed a powerful insight.
The role of host language aside, a few pointed to the challenges and
difficulty in learning certain languages (Polish, Japanese), adding that
their attempts were nonetheless appreciated. In the end, learning another
tongue provided benefits in education, life, and work.
Acknowledgment by sojourners regarding the importance of learning
to communicate in the host language is particularly significant, especially
since it contrasts dramatically with the fact that interculturalists seldom
cite language when discussing intercultural competencies. It is clear that
language is a fundamental ICC component and a direct pathway to gain-
ing access to another worldview. It also adds further evidence for main-
taining the word “communicative” explicitly within the concept of ICC.
Q5. Additional Comments?

On program format
• a rich experience/perfect program format (B6)(US1)
• upset by EIL’s new “sexy” program direction, looks more
like vacation (US1)
On program components
• predeparture orientation important (G3)
• leader supportive and friendly (US1)
On program impact
• learned about host culture and other ethnicities (B2)
• became a whole new person/learned and grew (B2)
• life-changing/significant impact on my life/got a new view
of life/world (B1)(G5)(US4)
• helped me learn about myself and my own family (G4)
• positive/best experience of her life, amazing, spectacular,
thankful, grateful (US7)
• gained confidence, independence/now feel capable of
traveling (US2)
On language
• learned more language by being in-country (B1)
• inspired to learn another language (B1)
• no longer afraid to speak English (B1)
• language helps to find a job (G1)
On outcomes and recommendations
• prepare before your trip (B1)
• recommend to other students/my children/everyone (B6)
(G3)(J3)(US3)
• want to continue to travel (B4)(G1)
• motivated to become a volunteer (G1)
• difficult to readjust back home (J1)
• got to know other exchange students (G2)
• learned from other group members (US1)
• made friends for life (B2)
• don’t compare with your own country (B1)
• research caused to think of value of study abroad
again (J1)
Discussion—In most cases, respondents from the four countries were

keen to talk about their experience in great detail, often offering addi-
tional comments regarding their experience regardless of whether it was
5, 10, or 20 years ago. Several commented on the richness of the program
format while one respondent (US) recommended that the program main-
tain the high quality, which she experienced some time ago. Some pointed
to the importance of the orientation process as well as to the role of the
group leader as “educator” in making their experience a success.
Many reiterated in this section once again the impact that the experi-
ence had on their lives: they became a new person, learned and grew,
described the sojourn as life changing, resulting in a new view of the world.
Others pointed to the dual aspect of the experience—learning about other
cultures and learning about themselves and their own culture. Still others
described the benefits as amazing, positive, and spectacular, and pointed
to increased confidence, independence, and an interest in further travel.
A few felt compelled to add comments regarding their language learn-
ing experience, citing how much more language they learned in-country
than in a classroom setting, how this experience inspired them to go on to
learn still another language, and how their language ability was helpful
later when seeking employment.
Many proffered suggestions for future participants: first of all, rec-
ommending the experience to other students and to their own children,
the need to prepare before the trip, the desire to continue traveling, the
difficulty of adjusting upon returning home, the friendships they made,
and how the experience motivated them to work in service or to become
a volunteer. Finally, one individual also pointed out that this research
inquiry caused him to reflect on the value of educational exchange all
over again.
6.3 Assertions Revisited
To add to the combined responses noted earlier and to provide fur-
ther attempts at a multinational perspective, the ten a priori assertions
explored in the IRP regarding intercultural exchange and its impact and
outcomes were re-examined. Assertions were slightly modified, as fol-
lows, and they are followed by a discussion of each, based on the addi-
tional data generated in this FRP:
• Assertion No. 1: ICC is a complex of abilities.

• Assertion No. 2: Intercultural experiences are life altering.
• Assertion No. 3: A family homestay is a compelling core component
of the intercultural experience.
• Assertion No. 4: Learning the host language affects ICC development.
• Assertion No. 5: All parties in intercultural contact are affected to
some degree and in various ways.
• Assertion No. 6: People are changed (presumably in positive ways) as
a result of this experience.
• Assertion No. 7: Some returnees lean toward specific life choices, life
partners, lifestyles, values, and jobs as a result of this experience.
• Assertion No. 8: Alumni often engage in activities that impact on
others.
• Assertion No. 9: There are often surprising and unexpected other
benefits.
• Assertion No. 10: These activities further the organizational mission.
Assertion No. 1: ICC is a complex of abilities—Attributes listed in

the IRP were based on commonly recurring attributes identified in the
review of 238 publications about ICC. These attributes were repeated
on the revised AICC Form, followed by an open-ended option allowing
participants to provide additional attributes, if they wished, based on
their own experiences (cf. Appendix B: AICC, Part II). Section (a.) lists
attributes derived from the literature search, Section (b.) indicates how
alumni responded to attributes identified by researchers, and Section (c.)
lists additional attributes not cited in the literature that alumni added
based on their own experience.
Section (a.)—Attributes based on the literature and cited on the AICC
Form (in no particular order) were: tolerance, flexibility, patience, sense
of humor, appreciation of differences, suspending judgment, adaptabil-
ity, curiosity, open-mindedness, motivation, self-reliance, empathy, clear
sense of self, perceptiveness, and tolerance of ambiguity
Section (b.)—Alumni reactions to these attributes (in order of fre-
quency of citations): [open-minded (B6)(G14)(J9)(US10) = 39 / flexibility/
adaptability (B7)(G10)(J7)(US7) = 31 / appreciate differences (B3)(G6)
(J6)(US9) = 24 / curiosity, motivated (B2)(G7)(J2)(US2) = 13 / tolerance
(B1)(G7)(US1) = 9 / sense of humor (J7)(US1) = 8 / perceptive (observa-
tional skills) (B2)(G1)(US3) = 6 / self-reliant (self-confidence) (G4) = 4 /
clear sense of self (self-reflection/introspective) (G2)(US2) = 4 / suspend
judgment (non-judgmental) (US2) = 2 / patience (US1) = 1 / empathy = 0 /
tolerance of ambiguity = 0].
The number following each attribute cited earlier indicates how many
alumni confirmed that same attribute based on their own experiences.
Note that in some cases words interpreted as related or synonymous,
were combined—e.g., flexibility/adaptability, curiosity/motivation. In the
end, alumni confirmed most literary attributes as relevant to their own
experiences with two exceptions: empathy and tolerance of ambiguity.
The former, empathy, however, might be interpolated from other com-
ments such as “respectful/sensitivity/humility” (B2)(G4)(US4) and toler-
ance of ambiguity might likewise be inferred from comments such as:
“learn host qualities: punctuality, respect rules, do things by the book,
fulfill obligations” (B1), “willingness to engage with hosts” (B2)(G1)
(US3), “understanding” (G1), and “positive attitude” (B1)(G1)(J3).
Section (c.)—Additional attributes suggested by respondents (under
the “other” category): [ability to communicate/learn host language (B2)
(G7)(J3)(US4) = 16 / sense of responsibility/reliability (G2) = 2 / thankful-
ness/gratefulness (G1)(US1) = 2 / willingness to accept advice/correction/
willing to work out problems (B1)(G1) = 2 / interpersonal skills/building
relationships/make friends (B2) = 2 / trust (US2) = 2 / generosity (J1) = 1 /
liberal (US1) = 1 /cooperativeness (G1) = 1 / ability to be alone (G1) = 1 /
diplomatic skills (G1) = 1].
Alumni considered these additional attributes relevant to successful
intercultural experiences. Most items, however, were cited by only one or
two individuals except the “ability to communicate/learn host language,”
which 16 alumni from four countries added to their list. The obvious
conclusion is that they considered language an important factor for inter-
cultural success (more on this under Assertion No. 4).
Guided by response frequency given for each item, the attributes (or
personal characteristics) were rearranged hierarchically to reflect their
relative importance, suggesting that some factors may be perceived to
contribute more than others to intercultural success. In general, however,
the intercultural literature does not suggest a hierarchy among relevant
attributes. Moreover, it may also be that the relative importance of attri-
butes could vary depending on the host culture in question. Cultural dif-
ferences between Germany and Japan, for example, might well alter the
hierarchy of attributes, giving a different order of importance to each.
Whereas alumni identified certain attributes they considered rel-
evant to their experience, it is difficult to know the degree to which
their development was caused or heightened because of their experience.
Psychologists distinguish between attributes such as traits (innate quali-
ties) and characteristics (qualities developed in specific cultural contexts
and experiences). Combining the identification of traits and characteris-
tics with attributes ordered hierarchically in terms of intercultural success
might produce an interesting tool for selection, monitoring, and assessing
candidates’ preparedness and development in intercultural situations (in
other words provides a normative, formative, and summative assessment
approach). In the end, however, what is quite clear is that ICC is com-
plex and not easily reduced to a single factor (such as “sensitivity,” high-
lighted, for example, in one well-known ICC model) (cf. Bennett 1993).
In the end, these findings support and reinforce findings also reported in
the IRP.
Assertion No. 2: Intercultural experiences are life altering—The data
leave no doubt regarding the profound and provocative nature of an
intercultural experience. A total of 119 individuals from all four coun-
tries address this point in powerful and eloquent terms: [the experience
“changed the direction of my life, study, work opportunities/I gained
confidence, overcame shyness, become more independent, developed and
matured/the experience changed my way of seeing things, it broadened
my horizons, expanded my worldview/I am now more open-minded,
more accepting, flexible]. Developments occur in all areas of ICC, affect-
ing attitude and affect, developing skills, producing knowledge, and
enhancing (self) awareness. Few educational experiences can claim to
produce such holistic and dramatic results.
These developments carried over into other areas of the sojourners’
lives and lifestyles as well, long after their experience abroad ended. They
“made many new friends, learned about other people, became interested
in other cultures.” In short, it had a “great impact on their personal and
professional life, they learned more about themselves, are motivated to
travel more, developed many life skills, and want to work in intercultural,
international areas” (more on this next). In summary, responses from
all respondents in all countries were positive and enthusiastic. In other
words, we may conclude that an intercultural sojourn brought many ben-
efits and produced no negative outcome (i.e., none were expressed). Once
again, the findings in this FRP reinforce and support similar findings in
the IRP.
Assertion No. 3: A family homestay is a compelling core component
of the intercultural experience—Fully 72 respondents had homestays as
part of their intercultural sojourn; 8 did not. The homestay, in fact, has
remained the core component of Federation EIL programs since the sec-
ond year of its founding in 1932 and it continues to be under examina-
tion. Given the increase of exchange and study abroad program options
now offered by other institutions, programs with a homestay component
are increasingly difficult to promote. Young people are often reluctant
to commit to living with a family; a homestay obviously signals commit-
ments and obligations that do not exist if living in a pensión or dormi-
tory. Yet to enter a new culture “on its own terms,” does indeed raise
questions of commitment, obligations, and motivation. Hence selection
and orientation of candidates for this type of sojourn must keep this clear
purpose in mind, especially given its significance as revealed by alumni
from eight countries who experienced homestays in even more countries.
In the end, for all alumni who had a homestay, the results were con-
clusive. Findings indicate that they described the experience as “very or
most important, positive, powerful, transformative.” They added that a
family homestay was the “best entrée into another culture and as a way
to learn the language.” They were appreciative of the “family support,
guidance, and sense of security.” Most importantly, when they returned
home, they had more to take with them than a suitcase full of souvenirs.
They left with a relationship with people in another culture, a relation-
ship with a family, often lasting a lifetime. The program ended, but rela-
tionships endure.
It is surprising how infrequently intercultural literature mentions com-
munication in terms of specific host language ability as a criterion for
intercultural success. Yet at a recent conference on IC, a speaker describ-
ing her students during a study abroad program started by saying, “The
main problem was communication.” Clearly, the importance of host lan-
guage development did not go unnoticed by alumni in these exchange
programs either. Indeed, developing host language proficiency and the
ability to communicate with hosts “in their own tongue” (despite the
fact that some hosts may also have spoken the sojourner’s language) was
cited as an important aspect of the experience. Fully 61 respondents from
all 4 countries described development of host language ability as “very
or most important,” “essential,” an “aid to adjustment,” and “needed
to understand culture.” Some added that it “helped to feel connected,
to integrate into the host community,” while a few (in particular, the
Japanese) pointed to the fact that they “learned new concepts in the words
of the host language,” and acknowledged that “certain things can only be
understood in the host language.” In addition, beyond the sojourn itself,
learning another tongue provided benefits in education, life, and work.
Their grasp of the relevance and importance of speaking the host lan-
guage was eloquent, insightful, and these opinions came from many who
were initially unsophisticated with foreign languages. Their thoughts
derived not from linguistic study but from their own direct field experi-
ences. They stated not only why knowledge of the host language was
important to success but spoke also of limitations without the ability to
speak. This acknowledgment by sojourners regarding the importance of
learning the host language is particularly significant. Clearly, language is
a fundamental component of ICC and needed to gain access to another
worldview.
This clarification has important implications in preparing future inter-
cultural sojourners in terms of requirements for selection, preparation,
and program development. It also raises many important questions: Can
the sojourner transcend his/her native worldview without also grappling
with the process of entering another tongue? Alternatively, is it adequate
for interculturalists to “know about” other worldviews only intellectu-
ally and vicariously, but not also experientially? Indeed, is it sufficient to
be monolingual and monocultural in today’s world?
What is clear is that lack of proficiency in the host tongue most cer-
tainly constrains one’s entry, adaptation, and understanding of the
host culture on various levels and in many ways (unless, of course, one
assumes interactions through English, albeit not qualitatively the same).
While increased proficiency enhances entry possibilities, it alone is also
not the sole guarantee of success since other factors come into play. These
findings support and reinforce those reported in the IRP.
Assertion No. 5: All parties in intercultural contact are affected to
some degree and in various ways—The previous assertions contribute
to our understanding of how sojourners were affected by their experi-
ence and enriched and enhanced through homestays, and by developing
proficiency in the host tongue. What is not often addressed is the impact
that their own presence may exert upon host natives with whom they
have contact. Indeed, intercultural contact has the potential to affect all
parties in the interaction. This research obviously did not survey all of the
individuals interacting with the alumni under study, but it did attempt to
learn how the experience affected host family members. For evidence in
this regard, we draw from data obtained from host family respondents in
Ireland, an aspect that deserves more attention in future studies.
The impact and effect upon host families have already been described
earlier; nonetheless, we repeat the main points here: Many benefits
accrued for the children who “became more confident and independent,
improved language ability, took up new hobbies, and desired to travel.”
Other general effects upon host families included learning about new
places and new cultures, learning to cook new foods, learning about teen-
agers, and developing patience. In other areas, family members developed
insights or strategies such as learning to be open and patient, encouraging
sojourners to use the host language, learning to use non-verbal means to
enhance communication, learning how to teach, learning how to com-
municate more effectively with individuals whose native tongue was
not their own. Most respondents indicated their desire to continue their
relationship with sojourners after their departure, suggesting continuing
contact between sojourners and hosts. In the end, all host respondents
described their experience as positive.
Assertion No. 6: People are changed (presumably in positive ways) as
a result of this experience—Even when alumni and hosts acknowledge
challenges and difficulties (both are intrinsic aspects of the intercultural
experience and often constitute the most significant learning opportuni-
ties), they gave few negative comments about the experience. Comments
concerned growth, development, expansion, opening, learning, and
changing. Moreover, despite occasional comments regarding what indi-
viduals learned about their host cultures, most comments were really
about themselves and their own societies—not unusual for intercultural
sojourners who, while learning about others, are surprised by what they
also learn about themselves.
In the end, of the four ICC dimensions (Attitude/Affect, Skills,
Knowledge, and Awareness), Awareness is perhaps the most powerful
development that takes place and one that continues to serve partici-
pants for the rest of their lives. Indeed, self-awareness may well be the
most important aspect of human development and the reason it is cited
by the world’s great religions—“know thyself”—as well as figures at
the core of Paulo Freire’s approach to education: “conscientização” (cf.
Freire 1970).
Assertion No. 7: Some returnees lean toward specific life choices,
life partners, lifestyles, values, and jobs as a result of this experience—
Although this question was not asked explicitly, there is, nonetheless,
some evidence in support of this assertion. Numerous indicators sug-
gested that alumni were (re)oriented because of their experience. Much
of these data were inferred from the five basic questions concerning
impact, attributes, language development, and the request for additional
information. A review, then, of evidence embedded in these other areas
provided examples for this claim in comments such as the following:
• It changed the direction of my life, study, and work opportunities

(53).
• It had a great impact on my personal and professional life (12).
• I am motivated to travel more (10).
• It opened up new options and I developed many life skills (9).
• I want to work in an international, intercultural area, do volunteer
work (7).
• I married a host (2).
These 93 comments provided evidence for the impact the experience

had upon life choices and jobs. Two individuals married host members.
Lifestyles and values of course were more difficult to substantiate but
were revealed by the fact that many alumni spoke of changes in per-
sonal behaviors, social abilities, and attitudes. Developments that influ-
enced other areas of sojourners’ lives and lifestyles are inferred from
responses where they stated that they “made many new friends, learned
about other people, became interested in other cultures.” In short, they
learned more about themselves, were motivated to travel more, devel-
oped many life skills, and wanted to work in intercultural, international
areas (more on this next). Clearly, their interests in learning other lan-
guages, foreign travel and work abroad, meeting foreigners, getting to
know other cultures, marrying someone from abroad, and wanting to
make new friends from other cultures, were all consistent with individu-
als who have undergone intercultural experiences and were affected in
positive and transformative ways. No comments suggested retreat or
withdrawal from intercultural contact; all comments pointed in the direc-
tion of wanting to expand further upon what was already experienced.
Assertion No. 8: Alumni often engage in activities that impact on
others—Although the number of persons that alumni may have affected
or influenced upon their return home is difficult to ascertain, it was clear
that most alumni had some impact on others. This was inferred based on
their experiences in another culture, the impact on their own lives and
lifestyles, their intercultural friendships and spouses, and their newfound
competencies, not to mention their enthusiasm when talking about their
educational exchange experiences. This aside, alumni engaged in areas
such as teaching, counseling, health, social work, development, and ser-
vice, will indeed have further impact on others.
Assertion No. 9: There are often surprising and unexpected other
benefits—It is obvious that most sojourners did not foresee nor anticipate
the changes and other benefits that occurred as a result of their inter-
cultural experience. This was probably the reason they often responded
with a sense of surprise and excitement while recounting their experi-
ences. Who could anticipate that a sojourn abroad would become “a
life-changing event, alter the direction of one’s study and work, produce
a transformative experience, develop an expanded worldview, open up
new work opportunities” and more?
It would seem bold to publish such statements in brochures that pro-
mote educational exchange programs, yet these were precisely the results
that alumni reported. These and many other benefits cited earlier in other
sections together constitute a long list of “surprising and unexpected”
benefits. On the other hand, organizations providing such programs,
ones with commitment, experience, quality, and purpose, do so precisely
because this has been the pattern exhibited (and expected), based on
years of experience. Anecdotal comments made by alumni over the years
confirm that this is the case and both research projects substantiate and
document the same, quantitatively and qualitatively.
Assertion No. 10: These activities further the organizational mission—
The organization’s vision is one of world peace; its mission is to help
build it. As a prominent organization in international, intercultural
education, service, and development, Federation EIL maintains aca-
demic and project capabilities dedicated to promoting intercultural
understanding, social justice, and world peace. Since its founding, these
values have become ever more relevant in today’s world, and their com-
bined programs have grown in scope, diversity, and intensity. Through
distinctive methods based on experiential approaches to education and
training and the integration of theory and practice (praxis), Federation
EIL’s diverse programs are designed to provide life-changing experi-
ences that develop ICCs, create leaders, contribute to global develop-
ment, and effect positive change. These research findings show that this
is indeed the case.
The approach to developing world peace, one person at a time, echoes
Gandhi’s challenge when he said, “Change yourself. You must be the
change that you wish to see in the world.” In other words, change occurs
from the inside out, one person at a time. Educational exchange experi-
ences promote this in the context of quality intercultural programs. These
experiences involve selection, orientation, language study, a homestay,
and often an additional thematic or service component. Most impor-
tantly, each individual intercultural sojourn is conducted in-country “on
that culture’s own terms.” This means that participants learn in the way
of the culture of the host society, working toward the development of an
emic perspective—one that ultimately results in providing new options
and in transforming the view of the world one has always held.
Finally, to findings supporting these assertions, we add results from
a similar project, conducted by other researchers for the Institute of
International Education (IIE) between 1999–2000 and 2016–17. Their
project was a national study conducted within the US involving over
4,500 alumni of U.S. higher education institutions who participated in
study abroad programs. Their key findings reinforce many similar ideas
(Farrugia and Sanger 2017:5–6):
• Study abroad has an overall positive impact on the development of a

wide range of twenty-first century job skills.
• Study abroad expands career possibilities.
• The skills gained through study abroad have a long-term impact on
career progression and promotion.
• Longer periods of study abroad have a high impact on subsequent
job offers and the development of most skills.
• STEM majors (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics)
highly value the gains made in skills outside of their majors during
study abroad.
• Choosing a less familiar destination was positively associated with
skill development and sense of career impact.
• Student intentionality and highly structured programs contribute to
skill development.
It is clear that educational exchange constitutes a most profound edu-

cational experience. Moreover, changed participants return to live their
lives differently, affecting others in the process. In addition, it also brings
many benefits to participants in terms of job skills and employability.
This is what one sees consistently throughout all of the reports provided
in this study and bolstered by the IIE study.
6.4 Implications and Applications
While research findings are both exciting and promising, they are prom-
ising only insofar as they are used to promote, design, and conduct
quality educational exchange programs. The findings suggest numerous
implications that need to be turned into applications of value to prac-
titioners, both trainers and educators. Following are areas where the
findings can help:
1. Marketing and promotion—To promote educational exchange pro-

grams, providers can refer to and utilize the quantitative data and
statistics. They may also cite quotes from alumni that are contained
in the qualitative data to communicate the value of the experience
and its benefits to future participants.
2. Selection of participants and host families—This experience may
not be for everyone; moreover, living with a host family requires a
serious commitment to adjust to life on someone else’s terms. For
those who choose to participate, however, it is clearly a life changer.
Selection and orientation are critical for both sojourners and hosts
to ensure a quality intercultural experience. Where host families may
need fee assistance in some cases to accept a sojourner, care must be
taken not to turn the homestay into a pensión-like stay and families
should not be overused.
3. Orientation and ongoing interventions—Orientation must be viewed
as an ongoing educational process (for both sojourners and hosts)—
predeparture, during, and for re-entry. Consider also the important
and central “educational” role of leaders and local representatives
(in addition to their other responsibilities). Recognize the importance
of “interventions” during the sojourn (both direct and virtual) to
address intercultural issues and to maximize intercultural learning.
4. Program design—Review and assess the relative importance of each
program component. Consider the role of a family homestay as the
core of the experience, enhanced by intercultural orientation, the
educational role of the leader, learning the host language, relevant
themes, service projects, interventions, group travel, and group dis-
cussion and reflection.
5. Assessment—Consider assessment as an ongoing process, utilizing
multiple strategies for formative assessment followed by individual
and group discussions as an ongoing method of self- and peer assess-
ment. View assessment as integral to the learning process by involv-
ing and engaging those being assessed, followed by brainstorming
strategies to further their learning and growth.
6. Post-program follow-up—Prepare participants for re-entry to their
home cultures. Stress the importance of maintaining contact with
hosts after the program is over and maintain continued contact with
and engagement of alumni. Discuss the relevance of their intercul-
tural sojourn abroad and their newly developed ICCs, with issues
and diverse neighbors at home. Consider developing a support sys-
tem of alumni to aid in promotion, selection, orientation, and more.
6.5 Looking Ahead

Intercultural programs commonly attract individuals who already have
an interest or inclination to explore the world. Where, when, and how
they developed this interest would be difficult to track but clearly not
everyone is equally inclined to travel across an ocean to experience the
cultures of Bolivia, Germany, Japan, or Nepal. And, certainly, not in a
structured international, intercultural educational exchange program
that involves a family homestay and emphasizes learning about other
cultures on their terms. These conditions already suggest pre-selection
criteria for applicants.
Those who do choose such an experience undergo an application
process, selection, often pay a sum of money (unless scholarship recipi-
ents), undergo orientation, language study, travel halfway around the
world, and brave the challenges of an intercultural experience. Indeed,
their motivation must lean heavily toward the integrative rather than the
instrumental motivational type in which sojourners desire to go beyond
mere acceptance. As a result, they seek to emulate their hosts and work
toward higher degrees of bilingualism and biculturalism than might oth-
erwise be possible by others within the same timeframe and circumstance.
Integrative motivation does more than sustain them through difficult
and challenging moments. They find pleasure in “becoming” like their
hosts and “becoming” part of their host society and culture—certainly
not a disposition shared by all who are in contact with other cultures.
They undergo voluntary acculturation and welcome efforts by their hosts
to “assimilate” them. The result, at whatever their level of attainment,
is normally a satisfying, rewarding, and enriching experience in which
positive aspects far outweigh the negative, as they perceive them. They
seek to move beyond the etic and into an emic posture insofar as pos-
sible. They transcend and transform their native paradigm as they seek to
comprehend and enter another. This is a key point commonly expressed
by individuals returning from an intercultural journey: They learn a lot
about their hosts and the host culture, and they learn about themselves
and their own culture.
These are all reasons successful intercultural sojourners seek to perpet-
uate and extend this significant, provocative, and life-altering experience
long after the program is over and long after they return home (and not
all return; many go on to still other experiences). They reflect these senti-
ments through their own words and actions. After re-entry, many wish
to speak of their experience (but finding others willing to listen is often a
challenge). Many continue to study the host language (or go on to study
still other tongues), most have developed new intercultural friendships,
some now work in related fields, most continue to use their intercultural
abilities to advantage (since intercultural abilities are not dissimilar from
interpersonal abilities), and many maintain ongoing contact with hosts
and friends abroad in various ways.
Lessons Learned and Questions Posed

These research efforts presented many challenges, yet they yielded (and
confirmed) many insights regarding both the process and content of
intercultural issues. Both are shared next for those engaged in design-
ing, implementing, and assessing intercultural research and experiences.
In addition to lessons learned, new questions also arose. Comments are
offered regarding both:
1. Process
• Despite challenges involved in conducting collaborative interna-
tional research efforts on several levels—administratively, inter-
culturally, and linguistically—the promises and possibilities are
quite attractive.
• Contracting and supervising RAs emerged as an important fac-
tor (as opposed to contracting employees within local MOs).
• Guiding untrained RAs presents certain challenges to ensure that
their efforts will result in producing reliable results.
• Participating MOs need to prepare and update alumni files with
current contact information (especially email addresses, where
possible).
• There are challenges and benefits to working through diverse
languages (and the native tongues of the subjects involved as
required in intercultural survey methods) and to ensuring that
surveys and documents are properly translated.
• There is a special challenge in designing questionnaires for
respondents from a variety of cultural backgrounds who may be
inexperienced with surveys or who may hold differing attitudes
about participation.
• It is a challenge to produce a comprehensive assessment tool that
covers all relevant areas, yet one that is balanced and brief to
assure an appropriate response rate.
• Item analysis may help to reduce an admittedly lengthy question-
naire (albeit important initially) into the briefest possible instru-
ment, yet one that yields the desired results.
• It is desirable to administer the AICC Form repeatedly to obtain
several samples in order to understand whether its component
variables behave in the same way over time (i.e., if a similar fac-
torial structure can be devised).
• Follow-on interviews (in person, by telephone, or Skype) are
important toward producing rich qualitative data.
• Combining quantitative and qualitative data is of extreme value
to assure results that are as complete and accurate as possible and
that show not only patterns but convey the voice of respondents.
• It is important to help providers to consider the implications and
applications derived from research findings for program pro-
motion, selection, design and implementation, orientation, and
assessment of outcomes.
• Research must be used to support and enhance quality interna-
tional, intercultural exchange programs.
2. Content
Some objectives proposed for those participating in an intercultural
experience may be unrealistic and deserve further examination.
Unrealistic and questionable expectations must be avoided—to wit:
• Global competence? Developing “global competence” (i.e., abil-
ity in all cultures around the globe) is quite impossible. One can
learn to participate appropriately and effectively in another cul-
ture (or two or three) but not in all the cultures of the world.
Whereas ICC and multiple ICCs enhance one’s ability to par-
ticipate in still others, one starts anew with each linguaculture
(although perhaps with better insights and strategies to acceler-
ate that process anew).
• Non-judgmental? An appropriate attribute? Human beings
are judgment-making machines, making judgments at all times
and in all places (whether to engage or not, where to sit in a
classroom, what to wear for an occasion, and so forth). When
entering new cultures, we continue to make judgments, based on
previous experience in our own contexts. Knowing that judg-
ments made in unfamiliar contexts may not be well founded,
we must be willing to reconsider them and, therefore, we must
be willing to “suspend” and “revisit” our judgments, especially
from an emic point of view, one that we are still seeking to grasp.
It is impossible to be non-judgmental.
• Ethnorelativity? Whereas we can grasp the notion that perspec-
tives based on other worldviews differ (and therefore the concept
of ethnorelativity), we cannot be “ethno-relative” by the very
fact that we already hold a particular view of the world, a native
paradigm. We may expand that view, and possibly transcend and
transform that paradigm, but we cannot grasp all worldviews
or even multiple worldviews. Ultimately, given a broader and
changed view of the world, we may come to settle upon new
circumstances, but we are incapable of accepting everything, all
worldviews, all the time.
• Stereotypes and generalizations: Most people reject “stereo-
types,” which indeed are generalizations about some diverse
phenomena. Yet humans everywhere stereotype (i.e., general-
ize) all the time. It is a human way of behaving. In fact, nouns
in language (except proper nouns signaling one individual),
for example, are generalizations (or stereotypes)—i.e., they are
abstractions of phenomena. When we say “dog” or “chair,” for
example, we generalize about numerous animals or objects that
share certain characteristics but are not alike. There are many
types of “dogs”—from Chihuahuas to St. Bernards—very dif-
ferent, yet they share certain attributes that allow us to classify
them together. The same holds for chair. What offends, perhaps,
is when one’s generalizations or stereotypes do not yield or
change when important distinctions exist or are revealed (espe-
cially when one’s prejudice/prejudgment prohibits the shift). It is
the prejudice (and unwillingness to reconsider) that is often the
problem, less so the generalization that can be reconfigured.
• Language as a component of ICC: Language, culture, and world-
view are inextricably intertwined and support and reinforce each
other. For this reason, entering another culture with the hope
of coming to see the world from their perspective requires also
entering the host language, which names and labels the things of
their universe in their particular way. A new language also pres-
ents variations as well in paralinguistic, extralinguistic, and soci-
olinguistic aspects, in addition to differing discourse styles. All
of this is inaccessible and eludes one who is ignorant of another
communication system.
• Monolingualism versus bilingualism or multilingualism within
the individual (or plurilingualism as designated by Europeans): A
monolingual person can learn about other cultures and “know”
about them only in certain aspects. Unless one also has some
degree of proficiency in the language of that culture, one can-
not directly “experience” how the semantic component reflects
and affects the culture. Moreover, a monolingual can only com-
prehend the world through one linguistic system and can never
grasp the possibility of reconfiguring thought and concepts in
another way.
• Intercultural on a continuum with diversity: Intercultural
competencies are not dissimilar from interpersonal competen-
cies (although the amount of variables that mediate relation-
ships obviously increases significantly across cultures). In other
words, many ICC attributes are just as applicable within one’s
own culture. This being so, ethnic minorities who live their lives
developing dual sets of abilities to operate within a mainstream
culture may be well prepared to apply these same abilities when
crossing an ocean. Conversely, the abilities developed through
intercultural experience elsewhere often apply when returning
home to deal with others in a diverse society.
• Conceptual versus experiential: Since the intercultural field has
become a well-developed academic discipline (with MA and PhD
degrees now offered at many universities), study alone of this
subject matter would be inadequate. One must also have direct
intercultural experience through living, study, or travel abroad
and the development of proficiency in another language. With-
out both, one can only intellectualize, know vicariously and
hypothetically, about many aspects of intercultural contact, but
not experientially.
• Multicultural “man” (i.e., person): This notion, promulgated
through Adler’s well-known article (1976) published more
than 50 years ago, suggests a person who is at home in the
world (i.e., in all cultures). Whereas one can become comfort-
able entering and living in many cultures, and one can also
become interculturally competent in several, one cannot have
the same ability with all. One starts anew each time although
subsequent experiences may be aided and accelerated by earlier
experiences.
Areas for Further Work

While research furthers our understanding of our field, it also raises new
questions. Following are several areas to consider for future research:
1) General relationships across and within subgroups: The IRP and the
FRP provided important insights regarding this question by analyz-
ing data by individual countries and then combining data. The com-
pilation of data based on sojourners in multiple countries provided
initial insights into commonalities shared by eight cultural groups;
hence, a multinational perspective. Future studies may expand fur-
ther on this approach by incorporating questions already researched
and adding others:
• How do different subgroups compare in a number of areas?
What do they share?
• What comparisons can be made by gender? By age?
• What comparisons can be made based on type and length of
sojourn?
• Based on previous intercultural experiences?
• Based on monolingual versus bilinguals or multilinguals?
• Development in areas of ASK+A?
• What other etic-emic comparisons can be made?
• What specific changes occur in worldview?
Other questions and areas of interest to explore further are as follows:
2) Assertions
• Which assertions might coalesce?
• How should assertions be reframed or restated?
• What new assertions might be added?
3) ICC attributes
• Which attributes might cluster or coalesce?
• Is there a hierarchy or order of importance?
• Are attributes viewed the same from etic and emic points of
view?
• Are attributes (and possible hierarchies) variable according to
cultural contexts?
4) Language and communication
• How does language and communication affect other ICC
components?
• What is the role of language to ICC development in general?
• How to use and relate communicative and discourse styles to
this area?
5) Etic-emic viewpoints
• How do sojourner and host assessments differ? How do they
compare?
• How do sojourners perceive host natives? How do host natives
perceive sojourners?
6) The AIC and AICC instruments
• Perform an item analysis to determine which items to retain,
eliminate, or combine
• Revise and shorten the instruments accordingly
• Revise the survey questionnaire based on insights gained from
this study
7) Comparisons with a control group
• How do findings based on intercultural sojourns compare with
developments among peers who have not gone abroad?
• What attributes do sojourners demonstrate that may make them
a select group favorably inclined to intercultural experiences?
8) Finally, several more charts and graphs may help to illustrate further
some of the information noted earlier—for example, charts of
• correlations of host language proficiency levels with other aspects
of ICC development
• correlations of type and length of stay with the development of
ICC abilities
• comparisons and contrasts among additional cultural groups
• impact on alumni life choices
• impact of alumni on others (the multiplier effect)
From Research to Practice

Research has the ability to inform practice and practice has the ability
to raise new questions for researchers to investigate; hence, the impor-
tant relationship that exists between researchers, trainers, and educators.
Multiple perspectives will help develop a more comprehensive and uni-
versal grasp of ICC, its components, and approaches to its development
and assessment.
This work will not have served its purpose if the findings are not uti-
lized by other researchers as well as by trainers and educators (both inter-
culturalists and language educators), especially colleagues from diverse
language and cultural backgrounds. Happily, works by scholars and
practitioners suggesting techniques and activities to foster ICC develop-
ment are on the increase. Following are examples of scholars and educa-
tors who have published a variety of well-known works over the years
that may help: Hall (1977), (Kohls 1979), Bennett (1986), Paige (1993),
Kohls and Knight (1994), Banks (1997), Fantini (1997b), Fowler and
Mumford (1999), Almeida (2017), and many others.
We conclude this work by suggesting some selected studies, models, and
activities that will help practitioners promote ICC development through
implementation in education and training activities and programs:
1. A survey of IC courses (cf. Fantini and Smith 1997:125–48)—This

survey was conducted to learn about the evolving nature of IC
courses through a review of 50 courses in 11 countries (38 universi-
ties in the US and 12 in other countries). The survey identifies course
goals and objectives, curriculum design, content areas, approaches
to implementation, materials and resources, and assessment proce-
dures. The questionnaire instrument used in this survey also serves
as a self-study guide for examining one’s own approach to the task
by reviewing the 70 questions contained in the survey questionnaire.
2. Intercultural orientation model—Many approaches exist to intercul-
tural orientation. This model, based on a survey of over 100 ori-
entation models, identifies 10 orientation components commonly
included in a 3-day predeparture orientation plan (15–30 hours),
followed by suggested activities related to each component (Fan-
tini et al. 1984a). The model is described in an orientation guide,
complemented by a supplement of language-culture lessons that sup-
port the activities (Fantini and Hawkinson 1984) and a student field
guide (Fantini et al. 1984b). In this model, orientation is viewed as
an ongoing process that continues in-country through interventions,
prepares participants for re-entry, and extends beyond their return
home. The ten areas are as follows:
• Introduction and an overview to orientation (presentation fol-
lowed by an exercise)
• About field learning (activity followed by discussion)
• Fears and expectations (re the forthcoming experience) (activity
followed by discussion)
• Program and trip information (presentation and question/answer
period)
• Host country information and language (role play and presentation)
• Intercultural simulation (simulation activity followed by discussion)
• Cultural awareness and skills (presentation, activity, and discussion)
• Exploring the community (presentation, a field exploration
activity, and discussion)
• Cultural entry and adjustment (presentation and activity)
• Evaluation and plan for field exploration
3. A curriculum design model—The gemstone model introduced earlier
(Chapter 3) is designed to help in curriculum and program design (cf.
Fantini 2001). It depicts eight components to consider—from initial
needs assessment to educational precepts, goals and objectives, cur-
riculum/syllabus design, implementation, resources, assessment and
long-term assessment aspects. This model configures components
around a circle with intersecting lines to show that all components
must be connected. As one conducts the initial needs assessment and
clarifies educational precepts on which a course or program is based
(e.g., inductive/deductive, teacher-centered/student-centered, tradi-
tional/experiential), one also establishes clear goals and objectives.
Clear goals and objectives in turn determine the curriculum design
and syllabus, its implementation (the content and process of each
lesson unit or activity), the resources required, and the assessment
content and process. Long-term assessment is included in this model
to suggest post-course or post-program assessment be conducted
by departments or institutions to ascertain the impact of a program
upon participants over time. Educational quality arises from the
degree to which all curriculum components cohere. Quality is further
enhanced when all components are appropriate for the context for
which they are designed.
4. The Lewinian experiential learning model—Approaches to intercul-
tural education are often quite innovative, relying heavily on activities
that engage participants. The experiential learning model, developed
by Lewin (cf. Kolb 1984:21), does just that by proposing that learn-
ers have direct and concrete experiences as the basis upon which they
observe, reflect, and discuss. Based on this model, they then discuss
and make generalizations about their experience, which, in turn, they
attempt to apply to the next situation. Although the process is com-
monly inductive (from experience to articulation), one can also pro-
ceed deductively as well (from articulation by the teacher to direct
experiences). What is most important, in the end, is the combination of
articulation and experience, or experience and articulation (the latter
sequence less common in more traditional educational approaches).
5. Contrastive educational approaches—Educational exchange programs
provide excellent opportunities for an experiential approach to edu-
cation—that is, to learn from direct experience rather than primarily
from reading books or listening to lectures. Figure 6.1 (cf. Fantini et al.
1984a:72) summarizes main differences between experiential activi-
ties, such as occur in a field situation, and those in more traditional
classrooms.
Figure 6.1 Contrastive Educational Approaches
6. Aspects of educational approaches and strategies—In addition to con-

trastive educational approaches cited earlier, it is useful to consider
ways to enrich the implementation of intercultural orientation and
interventions. These include contrastive approaches such as inductive/
deductive, theoretical (conceptual)/applied, whole person, humanis-
tic/congruent, structured/unstructured, directed/non-directed, saying
versus doing, ASK+A (Attitudes, Skills, Knowledge + Awareness),
sequenced versus organic curriculum, teacher-centered versus stu-
dent-centered, small/large group work (individuals, pairs, triads,
etc.), and monitoring/assessment (self, peer, teacher) strategies.
Depending on the approach, there are also a variety of techniques that can
be utilized; many of which are favored in accordance with the educational
approach utilized. These include activities such as lecture/debate/panel/
reporting/fishbowl/skits/dramatizations/20 questions/imagery/readings/
discussion/case study/roleplay/simulation/pantomime/make an audio or
video recording/non-verbal activity/oral presentations/written presenta-
tions/reports/brainstorming/round robin/paraphrasing/give understand-
ing responses/demonstration/operation/visual presentations (drawings/
sketch/graph/etc./investigation/research/observation/group work (entire
class/sub-groups/pairs/individuals)/sequence/organize/structure/
synthesis/outline/test (direct/indirect/synchronic/diachronic)/audio-visual/
ethnographic research/interview/question/answer/individual/group mem-
ory reconstruction/read and discuss.
Depending on the activities chosen, specific and varied mental opera-
tions will be activated. These include operations such as enumerate/
evaluate/compare/contrast/explain/describe/define/discuss/summarize/
synthesize/critique/justify/trace/interpret/prove/illustrate/sequence.
7. A Process Approach (PA) Framework for language teachers (Fantini

1977:47–54)—This framework suggests a plan to ensure the integra-
tion of culture into the language curriculum. While language educa-
tors are accustomed to integrating “big C” culture in their teaching
(i.e., art, history, literature, etc.), inadequate attention is often given
to “small c” cultural aspects (i.e., interactions and behavioral pat-
terns appropriate to the TL). Yet the latter aspects that include
paralinguistic, extralinguistic, and sociolinguistic dimensions are
precisely those that make an individual acceptable when dealing
with host culture speakers. It is common experience that when deal-
ing with speakers of another culture, greater tolerance is allowed
for grammatical mistakes, much less for inappropriate or impolite
interactions and behaviors. The PA Framework ensures that these
cultural dimensions are included—the ability to interact and behave
effectively and appropriately when dealing with those from another
culture.
The PA model outlines a sequence of stages for inclusion in every

lesson unit. Following a warm-up and review, four common stages
conducted by teachers are: (1) presentation, (2) practice, (3) grammar
exploration, and (4) transposition. These stages, however, only address
linguistic aspects. The inclusion of three additional stages is needed:
(5) sociolinguistic exploration, (6) culture exploration, and (7) intercul-
tural exploration. Whereas most language educators are familiar with the
first four stages and know techniques for addressing them, the last three
are often omitted and specific techniques are generally lacking. Each unit
of material includes all seven stages with appropriate activities for each
before proceeding to the next unit of material and through the entire
cycle once again. In the process, all dimensions of communication are
addressed, from linguistic to interaction and behaviors as appropriate to
the TL culture.
8. Aba-Zak, a worldview exercise—Aba-Zak is an experiential activ-

ity designed to explore the notion of worldview and potential varia-
tions (cf. Fantini 1995:297–302). In the first phase, participants (in
small groups of about five to six) explore the relationship of language
and culture to worldview by creating their own “worldview” with
various shaped objects provided and then naming and labeling the
configurations they created within their world. In the second phase,
one member of each group “visits” another (cultural) group, simulat-
ing an intercultural sojourn experience. Upon arrival, the sojourner
attempts to learn as much as possible about the new cultural group
and their worldview. This is done initially with no common language
between visitors and hosts, simulating what a sojourn might be like
under these circumstances. Later, the visitor and the host group are
permitted to use a common language and the visitor continues to
explore the host culture and its language (the host group answers
questions but does not explain). Finally, after returning to their
“native” cultures, sojourners reflect on their experience and recount
it to their home group. The sojourner discusses his/her experience
first with and then without a common language, followed by discus-
sion of the strategies attempted, the reactions of hosts, and the results
obtained. In the final phase, all groups convene to discuss, compare,
and contrast their reactions of each other’s “cultures” and to com-
pare and contrast etic and emic views presented of the two cultures
and their worldviews.
9. Culture exploration—NAPI-KEPRA (Fantini 1997a:53–6; Figure 6.2)
is a framework that serves as a map of culture to provide a way of
tracking various aspects of culture to ensure a more holistic view of
the target culture at the present moment (synchrony) and through time
(diachrony)—from the present to the historical past and the future. The
activity requires participants to explore their local community (domes-
tically and again while abroad) and thereby engage in interactions with
native speakers outside of a classroom context. For the exploration
abroad, participants with low host language proficiency may assume
more passive roles (through observation) while more advanced stu-
dents may take more active roles (inquiring and interacting with locals).
Figure 6.2 A NAPI-KEPRA Framework
The acronym “NAPI” refers to givens in any physical context (e.g., Natural
environment, Artifacts, People, and Information/communication); “KEPRA”
refers to cultural systems such as Kinship relations, Economic and Political
systems, Religious systems, and Associations. Boxes in the framework are
checked off during the group discussion that follows cultural exploration to
indicate which areas have been explored or ignored. A follow-on activity can
redirect the exploration to ensure that all areas are investigated. This activity
can occur at home as a practice run before departure abroad and also con-
ducted at various times during the sojourn in-country in order to learn about
multiple aspects of culture—both the givens and its system, at the present
moment and through time (past and future).
10. Culture activities for the language classroom—ACTFL (2003) makes

available a video library for K–12 foreign language teachers. The
collection includes a series of videos, a library guide, and website.
Videos are filmed in exemplary language classrooms across the US,
depicting culture activities displayed by teachers in a variety of for-
eign languages, from elementary to high school, and at various pro-
ficiency levels (cf. www.learner.org/resources/series185.html).
11. NCSSFL-ACTFL Can-Do Statements—These “Statements for Lan-
guage” were produced through collaboration between the National
Council of State Supervisors for Foreign Languages (NCSSFL) and
ACTFL. They guide (1) language learners to identify and set learn-
ing goals and chart their progress toward language and intercultural
proficiency; (2) educators to write communication learning targets for
curriculum, unit, and lesson plans; and (3) stakeholders to clarify how
well learners at different stages can communicate. In essence, they
provide a set of sample tasks for learners to demonstrate what they
can do with language and broaden that spectrum to show how lan-
guage can be used to express interculturality. These statements are a
tool intended to support the World-Readiness Cultures Standards and
assist learners toward developing ICC (cf. URL in Reference List).
12. The Assessment of Language Teacher Development (ALTD) Form—
A self-assessment form designed to aid teachers in tracking their
own professional development, providing explicit objectives, guide-
lines, and assessment criteria on which to assess their competen-
cies in several professional areas: interpersonal relations, language/
linguistic knowledge, language acquisition and learning, language
teaching, professionalism, and cultural and intercultural knowledge
(cf. Appendix C: ALTD Form; also Fantini in Freeman 1993:43–8.)
In addition to these studies, models, and activities, it is important to

recognize the many innovative developments in intercultural practices and
field interventions during educational exchange that make increasing use
of technology. The brochure of a recent conference on the “Development
and Assessment of Intercultural Competence,” organized by CERCLL,
University of Arizona, in Tucson, Arizona, in January 2018, read:
As the opportunity and need to move between physical and virtual

spaces has increased, more people experience the world as mobile
and interconnected. On the one hand, this has enabled participation
in dispersed communities and markets; on the other hand, as com-
munication, meaning making, and culture have become deterritori-
alized, interculturality has revealed itself as more complex than the
ability to mediate across cultural differences. At the same time, pat-
terns of mass migration and economic globalization have meant local
contexts are also shaped by transnational flows of capital, knowl-
edge, practices, and modes of communication. As a result, people in
today’s world must develop the capacity to negotiate and navigate
dynamic demands . . . [this conference] focuses on these themes, fea-
turing presentations and workshops that consider intercultural com-
petence in connection with global trends of migration, travel, and
digitally-enabled mobility.
The large number of session presentations and workshops at the con-

ference which addressed these areas exemplified the wide use of technol-
ogy with titles such as:
• Designing Telecollaborative Projects to Foster Interculturality

• Toward ICC: Virtual Mobility and Decentering Strategies
• Developing ICC through Video and Film: Guidelines for Telecollabo-
ration Projects
• Moving from Intercultural Contact to Intercultural Learning in Vir-
tual Exchange
• Intercultural Digital Storytelling: Collaborate, Create, Curate, and Reflect
• Significant and Transformative Learning through Telecollaboration
• Development of Intercultural Awareness through Virtual Exchange
• A Facebook-Mediated Learning Design for Learners’ Developing ICC
• Using Virtual Interactions to Support Intercultural Development
during Study Abroad
In summary, new approaches and resources are available for language

and intercultural educators and trainers, not least of all is the support pro-
vided by the major professional societies. ACTFL and TESOL represent
and support teachers of foreign languages and English as a second language,
respectively, whereas SIETAR represents and supports the work of inter-
culturalists. Numerous publications also continue to expand our knowl-
edge of both theory and practice in these fields as well, such as The Sage
Handbook of Intercultural Competence (Deardorff 2009), The Routledge
Handbook of Language and Intercultural Communication (Jackson 2012),
Intercultural Language Teaching and Learning (Liddicoat and Scarino
2013), Intercultural Competence in Higher Education (Deardorff and
Arasaratnam-Smith 2017), Intercultural Interventions in Study Abroad
(Jackson and Oguro 2017), Teaching Intercultural Competence across the
Age Range (Wagner et al. 2018), Interculturality in International Education
(Jackson 2018), and Study Abroad and Interculturality: Perspectives and
Discourses (Borghetti and Beaven 2018), among others.
Conclusion
The need to develop ICC, including multiple language abilities, in today’s
world is quite clear. Indeed, policies that value and support the devel-
opment of multilingual, multicultural individuals and societies, were
adopted at the 2017 Salzburg Global Seminar session in support of the
Sustainable Development Goals, adopted by 193 countries in 2015 to
“end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for all” (salzburg-
global.org/go/586).
Happily, educational exchange is on the rise and contributes greatly
to this end. The last half century has seen continual growth in such pro-
grams in various parts of the world and predictions indicate that the
number of students who choose to study abroad will only increase (cf.
British Council Report 2017). In its June 2017 report, the British Council
cited various trends in global higher education that will impact the future
of international higher education. These trends include shifting global
demographics, national strategies for higher education, and labor market
demands for specific skills as just a few of the issues. The future of inter-
national higher education presents opportunities and challenges; how we
approach both will depend to a large extend on our understanding of
the value of educational exchange in helping to prepare interculturally
minded citizens through educational exchange experiences.
Educational exchange programs, however, must be of high quality. To
ensure quality, agencies such as the Forum on Education Abroad (cf. URL
in Reference List), focus on developing and implementing standards of
good practice, encouraging and supporting research initiatives, and offer-
ing educational programs and resources to its members. The Forum’s
institutional members include colleges and universities in the US and
abroad, consortia, agencies, provider organizations, and foundations.
The Forum’s mission is to help to improve education abroad programs in
order to benefit the students who participate in them. It achieves this goal
by establishing good practice and quality assurance standards, improving
education abroad curricula, and promoting data collection and outcomes
assessment, all to ensure high quality educational exchange programs.
The present study is also designed to contribute data relevant to good
practice, quality programs, data collection, and outcomes assessment.
The findings—based on the search of the literature in several languages,
spanning many years, and two multinational research projects—strongly
reinforce anecdotal and statistical reports accumulated over more than
three-quarters of a century within Federation EIL regarding the value
of intercultural educational exchange. Because the nature of intercul-
tural encounters is so provocative, it promotes deep introspection and
reflection within participants. In addition, one normally develops deep
attachments to the place where the sojourn occurred. This is captured
in the words of one well-known participant in EIL’s exchange programs,
Sargent Shriver, who participated in 1934 to Germany and Austria and
later led student groups to both countries in 1936 and to France in 1939.
At an event years later, in October 2000, Shriver joined hundreds of
alumni in Brattleboro, Vermont, as honorary chair of a reunion to engage
in substantive discussions on international developments and participate
in a dialog about future directions of educational exchange. He spoke of
his experience with these words (Fantini 2000:1):
The Experiment was among the great learning experiences . . . It

changed us and taught us some very important truths about people,
about peace, and about change in the world. The Experiment taught
us that the way to find out about your own world is to discover
somebody else’s world. I developed attitudes and convictions that I
put to a worldwide test years later.”
Learning about others indeed provides new vantage points for learn-
ing about oneself. As the research findings attest, the sojourner typically
remarks, “I learned so much about my host country, but I learned even
more about myself.” The maxim commonly heard among intercultural-
ists acquires a deeper meaning in light of the research findings: “Looking
out is looking in.” As well as the verse by the fourth century BC Chinese
philosopher, Chung Tsu:
How shall I talk of the sea to the frog if it has never left its pond? How
shall I talk of the frost to the bird of the summerland, if it has never
left the land of its birth? How shall I talk of life with the sage, if he
is prisoner of his doctrine?
Understanding and changes of perspective occur for most partici-

pants in educational exchange experiences and, as a result, they return
home deeply changed. These sentiments are clearly echoed as well in
a document published by UNESCO titled Intercultural Competences:
Conceptual and Operational Framework (2013:5–6) which states:
Intercultural competences aim at freeing people from their own logic

and cultural idioms in order to engage with others and listen to their
ideas, which may involve belonging to one or more cultural sys-
tems . . . . Acquiring intercultural competences is a thrilling challenge
since no one is, naturally, called upon to understand the values of oth-
ers. This challenge is a unique opportunity in the history of human-
kind. It invites everybody to avoid all phenomena of confinement
or ghettoization by offering new opportunities of multiple interpre-
tations and unexpected discoveries. These opportunities sometimes
lead to rediscovering one’s own identity under the deciphered forms
of the “other.” Therefore, intercultural competences empower the
participating groups and individuals and enable them to interact
with cultural “others” with a view to bridging differences, defusing
conflicts and setting the foundations of peaceful coexistence.
In the end, it is hoped that these research findings will be of interest and
value and use to all those engaged in the fields of language education and
IC as well as those involved in student exchange, study abroad, education,
business, and government. Our collective hope, indeed, is for increased toler-
ance, respect, and understanding across cultures. Our hope is for increased
social justice. Our hope is for a better world. Our hope is for peace.
References
Adler, P.S. (1976) “Beyond cultural identity,” in L.A. Samovar and R.E. Porter
(eds.) Intercultural Communication, 2nd edn., Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub-
lishing Co.
Almeida, J. (2017) “Intercultural seminars: An educational intervention
with sojourners at a Portuguese University,” in D.K. Deardorff and
L. Arasaratnam-smith (eds.) Intercultural Competence in Higher Education:
International Approaches, Assessment, and Applications, London: Routledge,
pp. 144–50.
ACTFL. (2003). ACTFL Teaching Foreign Languages K-12 Series: A Library of
Classroom Practices. Online. Available: www.learner.org/resources/series185.
html (accessed 20 January 2018).
Banks, J.A. (1997) “Multicultural education: Characteristics and goals,” in J.A.
Banks and C.A. McGee Banks (eds.) Multicultural Education: Issues and Per-
spectives, 3rd edn., Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, pp. 3–31.
Bennett, J.M. (1986) “A developmental approach to training for intercultural
sensitivity,” in International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10(2):179–96.
Bennett, M.J. (1993) “Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental approach to
training for intercultural sensitivity,” in R.M. Paige (ed.) Education for the
Intercultural Experience, Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press, pp. 21–71.
——— (2017) The British Council Report. Online. Available: www.eaie.org/
blog/10-trends-changing-global-higher-education/ (accessed 4 January 2018).
Borghetti, C. and Beaven, A. (2018) Study Abroad and Interculturality: Perspec-
tives and Discourses, New York, NY: Routledge.
Deardorff, D.K. (2009) The Sage Handbook of Intercultural Competence, Los
Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
in Higher Education, London: Routledge.
Fantini, A.E. (1977) “Focus on process: An examination of the learning and
teaching of communicative competence,” in D. Batchelder and E.G. Warner
(eds.) Beyond Experience: The Experiential Approach to Cross-Cultural Edu-
cation, Brattleboro, VT: The Experiment Press, pp. 47–54.
Fantini, A.E. and Hawkinson, A.K. (1984) Cross-Cultural Orientation Supple-
ment: Language-Culture Lessons, Brattleboro, VT: The Experiment in Inter-
national Living.
Fantini, A.E., McCoy, M.V., Soquet, J., Tannenbaum, E., and Wright, L. (1984a)
Cross-Cultural Orientation: A Guide for Leaders and Educators, Brattleboro,
VT: The Experiment in International Living.
——— (1984b) Getting the Whole Picture: A Student’s Field Guide to Language
Acquisition and Culture Exploration, Brattleboro, VT: The Experiment in
International Living.
Fantini, A.E. (1993) “Teacher assessment,” in D. Freeman (ed.) New Ways in
Teacher Education, Alexandria, VA: TESOL, pp. 43–8.
——— (1995) “Aba-Zak: A world view exercise,” in International Journal of
Intercultural Relations:297–302, Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
——— (1997a) “Culture exploration: A NAPI-KEPRA framework,” in New
Ways in Teaching Culture, Alexandria, VA: TESOL, pp. 53–6.
——— (1997b) New Ways in Teaching Culture, Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
courses,” in D. Landis (ed.) International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 21(1).
Fantini, A.E. (ed.) (2000) About Our Institution: Inaugural Issue on the Occasion
of SIT’s 35th Anniversary, Brattleboro, VT: School for International Training.
——— (2001) “Designing quality intercultural programs: A model and a pro-
cess,” in Interspectives: A Journal on Transcultural Education, 18:100–5.
Farrugia, C. and Sanger, J. (2017) Gaining an Employment Edge; The Impact
of Study Abroad on 21st Century Skills Career Prospects in the United States,
New York, NY: Institute of International Education.
——— Forum on Education Abroad. Online. Available: https://forumea.org/
resources/standards-of-good-practice/standards-guidelines/ (accessed 10 Janu-
ary 2018).
Fowler, S.M. and Mumford, M.G. (1999) Intercultural Sourcebook: Cross-
Cultural Training Methods, Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed, New York, NY: Bloomsbury.
Hall, E.T. (1977) Beyond Culture, New York, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday
and Co.
Jackson, J. (ed.) (2012) The Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural
Communication, London: Routledge.
Jackson, J. and Oguro, S. (2017) Intercultural Interventions in Study Abroad,
London: Routledge.
Jackson, J. (2018) Interculturality in International Education, London: Routledge.
Kohls, L.R. (1979) Survival Kit for Overseas Living, Chicago, IL: Intercultural
Network, SYSTRAN Publications.
Kohls, L.R. and Knight, J.M. (1994) Developing Intercultural Awareness, Yar-
mouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Liddicoat, A.J. and Scarino, A. (2013) Intercultural Language Teaching and
Learning, Wiley Online Library. Online. Available: onlinelibrary.wiley.com.
——— NCSSFL-ACTFL Can-Do Statements: National Council of State Supervi-
sors for Foreign Languages (NCSSFL) and the American Council on the Teach-
ing of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). Online. Available: www.actfl.org/sites/
default/files/CanDos/Novice%20Can-Do_Statements.pdf (accessed 20 Janu-
ary 2018).
Paige, M.R. (ed.) (1993) Education for the Intercultural Experience, Yarmouth,
ME: Intercultural Press.
——— (2013) Intercultural Competences: Conceptual and Operational Frame-
work, Paris, France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization.
Wagner, M., Perugini, D.C., and Byram, M. (2018) Teaching Intercultural Com-
petence across the Age Range, Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
Watt, D.B. (1967) Intelligence Is Not Enough, Putney, VT: The Experiment Press.
Appendix A
AIC Form
Assessing Intercultural Competence

A Research Project of the Federation EIL
AIC Survey Questionnaire Form
About This Survey

This questionnaire form is part of a research project conducted by
the Federation of The Experiment in International Living (Federation
EIL), with funding provided by the Center for Social Development at
Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri. This initial phase research
project focuses on volunteers participating in intercultural service pro-
grams in Ecuador.
This survey seeks to learn about the nature of intercultural communi-

cative competence and various outcomes of intercultural experiences—
the level of intercultural competence developed by volunteers, effects on
their lifestyle choices, and their impact, in turn, on communities and on
other individuals after returning home. This information will help us bet-
ter understand how participants contribute to EIL’s vision and mission.
Hopefully, this initial survey will eventually be followed by an expanded
survey to include EIL participants worldwide.
Survey Components
There are seven parts to this form that take about 30 minutes to complete:
Part I. About the Respondent [37 questions]

Part II. Personal Characteristics [28 questions]
Part III. Motivation and Options (18 questions)
Part IV. Language Proficiency (15 questions)
Part V. Communication Styles (47 questions)
Part VI. Intercultural Areas [12 questions]
Part VII. Intercultural Abilities [54 questions]
© Alvino E. Fantini, Brattleboro, Vermont, USA, 1995; Revised 2001, 2002, 2005
258 Appendix A
Completing and Returning This Form
Complete all Parts of this form to the best of your ability. You may fill
out these Parts in any order and at different moments, but please com-
plete all seven Parts, following directions given for each. Return the form
promptly when completed, preferably by email; otherwise, fax or mail to
the designated research assistant in your country.
Finally, your permission is required to use the information you provide.

Please read the “Informed Consent” Form that follows. This must be
signed and returned with the completed questionnaire to allow us to
include your data in our study.
Thank you for your help in this important effort.

Appendix A 259
INFORMED CONSENT FORM FOR

PARTICIPANTS IN THE AIC RESEARCH PROJECT
Instructions: Before filling out the survey questionnaire, first read care-
fully and sign this “Informed Consent” Form. This form must be returned
with the completed questionnaire to allow us to include your comments
in our study. All information will be kept confidential and names will not
be used. Also print this form and keep a copy for yourself.
Title of Research Project:

Assessing Intercultural Competence (AIC)
1. You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by the

Federation EIL. Your participation is voluntary. Before agreeing to
participate, you should know enough about the project to make an
informed decision. If you have any questions, please ask, and be sure
you are satisfied with the answers before participating.
2. The purpose of this study is to learn how international educational

exchange programs impact the intercultural development of partici-
pants and others. We are contacting you to learn about your experi-
ence as part of your program in another culture.
3. Participation in this study involves the following:

• Alumni complete a confidential questionnaire form after program
completion. Current participants and host mentors will complete
a questionnaire form at the beginning and at the end of your pro-
gram. Your completion of the form(s) will contribute data to this
study and be of eventual use by future participants worldwide.
• The AIC questionnaire form is a self-evaluation that asks about

the development of your intercultural competence and communi-
cation abilities. It takes approximately 30 minutes to complete.
• Interview—A percentage of those who return the questionnaire

form will be invited, if they consent, to participate in a personal or
telephone interview. During the interview you will be asked ques-
tions based on the AIC Form related to your experiences in the
host culture.
• Host country mentors/supervisors will also be asked to complete

this form, both on themselves and on current participants. This
260 Appendix A
will provide an external perspective on participant development.
Copies will be coded to preserve individual privacy.
4. No known risks are associated with this research project other than
possible discomfort with the following:
• You will be asked to be completely honest about yourself when

completing the form.
• You will be asked questions about personal experiences as a par-

ticipant or mentor in the host country.
5. Possible benefits from participation in this project are:
• You will have an opportunity to reflect on your experiences.
• You will contribute to knowledge about the impact of intercultural

programs.
• You will help to improve the program for future participants.
6. Remember, participation is voluntary. You may choose not to par-

ticipate, and you may withdraw at any time during the project. In
addition, you may choose not to answer any question with which you
are not comfortable. There is no penalty should you choose not to
participate or to withdraw.
7. Your privacy will be protected. Your identity will not be revealed in

any publications resulting from this study. Individual information
will be kept completely confidential. Individual data will be stored
securely and will be available only to persons conducting the study.
No reference will be made in oral or written reports that could link
you to the study.
8. If you have questions or concerns about the study or the procedures,

you may contact the researcher in your country, the Federation EIL
office, or email: alvino.fantini@sit.edu
==========================================================================
Appendix A 261
A. I have read and understand this consent form. I hereby grant permis-
sion to use the information I provide as data in this research project,
knowing that it will be kept confidential and without use of my name.
I may also retain a signed copy of this consent form for my own per-
sonal records.
B. Participant’s Signature _______________________ Date __________
C. I am willing to be contacted for a telephone or personal interview to

discuss my experience further:
Yes No
D. I am interested in learning about the research report when available:

Yes No
262 Appendix A
AIC PART I
ABOUT THE RESPONDENT
[37 Questions]
Please complete all of the following questions:
1. First name, last name ________________________________________

2. Email address ______________________________________________
3. Address (street, number, city, zip code, country) _________________
4. Telephone _________________________________________________
5. My nationality is ___________________________________________
6. My native language is _______________________________________
7. I also speak ________________________________________________
8. I participated in an intercultural program during (list dates and
year) ______________________________________________________
9. The program I participated in was (please name or describe) _________
___________________________________________________________
10. Gender Male Female
11. What is your current age in years? ____________________________
12. Education level (check highest level that applies)
No formal education Elementary School
Secondary School 2-year college
College/University (4 years) Master’s
Doctorate
13. Occupation or field(s) (check any that apply)
Student Worker Clerk
Social worker Technician Educator
Executive Health Practitioner Administrator
Other (specify) ___________________________________________
14. My current company or organization (check any that apply)
Business Government Development
International Organization Health Public Service
Education NGO Other (Specify)
___________________________________________________________
15. The number of years I have been in this field/these fields is _________
Appendix A 263
16. Prior to your intercultural experience, did you have any other signifi-
cant intercultural experiences outside of your country?
Yes No
17. If yes, where and for how long? (please specify) _________________
___________________________________________________________
18. Prior to this intercultural experience in your host country, did you
develop any significant intercultural relationships?
Yes No
19. If yes, what type of intercultural relationships did you have?
Friends Work colleagues Spouse
Other (specify) __________________________________________
20. Were these relationships developed through contact at home or
abroad? ___________________________________________________
21. On the whole, would you say this was a positive experience?
Yes No
22. Did these intercultural relationships influence in any way your deci-
sion to participate in a program in your host country?
Yes No
23. If you had prior intercultural experience before going to your host
country, had you developed any intercultural abilities that were use-
ful in your service experience abroad?
Yes No
24. If yes, list which specific intercultural abilities ___________________
___________________________________________________________
25. As a result of your intercultural experience in your host country, did
you go on to study/learn any languages?
Yes No
26. If yes, list which languages. ___________________________________
___________________________________________________________
27. As a result of your intercultural experience, did you go on to pursue
any related field(s) of study?
Yes No
28. If yes, state which. __________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
264 Appendix A
you develop any new intercultural relationships?
Yes No
30. If yes, list which type:
Friends Work colleagues Spouse Other (specify)
___________________________________________________________
you choose to work in any related field(s)?
Yes No
32. If yes, state which ___________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
33. Do you currently work in an intercultural or multicultural situation
where you provide education, services, or training to others?
Yes No
34. If yes, answer the following:
• Type of work or project __________________________________
• For approximately how many people? ______________________
• For how many years? ____________________________________
35. Do you currently use any of the intercultural abilities in your life
or work that were developed as a result of your service experience
abroad?
Yes No
36. If yes, list which specific intercultural abilities. __________________
___________________________________________________________
37. Any other relevant information you wish to add? ________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
(Please go on to AIC Part II.)

Appendix A 265
AIC PART II
PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS
[32 Questions]
Please answer all of the following questions. Using a scale of 0 to 5

(highest), rate yourself on each characteristic listed below by checking
the number that best represents how you perceive yourself in your own
culture. Then also rate yourself, as you believe your hosts perceived you
during your stay in your host country.
Perception of Self in Your Own Culture

1. Intolerant 0 1 2 3 4 5
2. Flexible 0 1 2 3 4 5
3. Patient 0 1 2 3 4 5
4. Lacks sense of humor 0 1 2 3 4 5
5. Tolerates differences 0 1 2 3 4 5
6. Suspends judgment 0 1 2 3 4 5
7. Adaptable 0 1 2 3 4 5
8. Curious 0 1 2 3 4 5
9. Open-minded 0 1 2 3 4 5
10. Motivated 0 1 2 3 4 5
11. Self-reliant 0 1 2 3 4 5
12. Empathetic 0 1 2 3 4 5
13. Clear sense of self 0 1 2 3 4 5
14. Perceptive 0 1 2 3 4 5
15. Tolerates ambiguity 0 1 2 3 4 5
16. Other qualities you possess that are relevant to your performance in
your own culture? (List and then rate with a number from 0 to 5.)
__________________________ 0 1 2 3 4 5
__________________________ 0 1 2 3 4 5
266 Appendix A
How You Were Perceived in Your Host Country?
17. Intolerant 0 1 2 3 4 5
18. Flexible 0 1 2 3 4 5
19. Patient 0 1 2 3 4 5
20. Lacks sense of humor 0 1 2 3 4 5
23. Adaptable 0 1 2 3 4 5
24. Curious 0 1 2 3 4 5
25. Open-minded 0 1 2 3 4 5
26. Motivated 0 1 2 3 4 5
27. Self-reliant 0 1 2 3 4 5
28. Empathetic 0 1 2 3 4 5
30. Perceptive 0 1 2 3 4 5
32. Other qualities you possess that were relevant to your performance
in your host country? (List and then rate with a number from 0 to 5.)
__________________________ 0 1 2 3 4 5
__________________________ 0 1 2 3 4 5
(Please go on to AIC Part III)

Appendix A 267
AIC PART III

MOTIVATION AND OPTIONS
[18 Questions]
What was your level of interest and motivation toward the host culture?
None <———> Extremely High

1. Before arriving in your host
country 0 1 2 3 4 5
2. Upon first entering the host
culture 0 1 2 3 4 5
3. Midway through the experience 0 1 2 3 4 5
4. At the end of the experience 0 1 2 3 4 5
5. After returning home 0 1 2 3 4 5
6. Today 0 1 2 3 4 5
How would you characterize your motivation toward the host culture
while there?
7. Sometimes wanted to return home 0 1 2 3 4 5
8. Felt not learning very much 0 1 2 3 4 5
9. Felt forced or obliged to adjust 0 1 2 3 4 5
10. To survive as best you could 0 1 2 3 4 5
11. Desired to get along well 0 1 2 3 4 5
12. Desired to adjust as best you could 0 1 2 3 4 5
13. Admired hosts so much that you
worked to become as bicultural
as possible 0 1 2 3 4 5
worked to become as bilingual
as possible 0 1 2 3 4 5
15. After returning home, did you maintain contact with people from the
host culture
Yes No
16. If yes, for how many years? (state number) _____________________
268 Appendix A
17. What type of contact do you now have? (check as many apply):
Correspond by letter or email
Speak occasionally on the telephone
Exchange gifts
I visit them
They visit me
18. As a result of your experience, how do you feel you changed? (please
comment): _________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
(Please go on to AIC Part IV)

Appendix A 269
AIC PART IV
LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY
[15 Questions]
Mark with an (X) the one item that best describes your host language
ability at the BEGINNING and at the END of your intercultural sojourn.
BEGINNING END
1. No ability at all
2. Unable to function in the spoken language
3. Able to communicate only in a very limited capacity
4. Able to satisfy immediate needs with memorized
phrases
5. Able to satisfy basic survival needs and minimum
courtesy requirements
6. Able to satisfy some survival needs and some limited
social demands
7. Able to satisfy most survival needs and limited social
demands
8. Able to satisfy routine social demands and limited
work requirements
9. Able to communicate on some concrete topics and
to satisfy most work needs
10. Able to speak with sufficient structural accuracy
and vocabulary to participate effectively in most
formal and informal situations
11. Able to speak with sufficient structural accuracy
and vocabulary to discuss relevant professional areas
12. Able to speak the host language fluently and
accurately on all levels
13. Speaking proficiency sometimes equivalent to
that of an educated native speaker, but not
always able to sustain performance
14. Proficiency equivalent to that of an educated
native speaker
15. Anything else you want to add? _______________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
(Please go on to AIC Part V)

270 Appendix A
AIC PART V
COMMUNICATION STYLES
(47 Questions)
What have you learned about styles of communicating in your own

culture as contrasted with those in your host country? Check off your
responses to the following questions in terms of how you would most
likely respond in the situations cited:
1. In my own culture, I consider courtesy conventions and protocols

a. unimportant
b. important
2. In the host culture, I believe they consider courtesy conventions and
protocols
a. unimportant
b. important
c. not sure
3. When meeting people in my own culture, I think it is important to
a. get to know each other well before getting down to business
b. get down to business as soon as possible
4. When meeting people in the host culture, I think they consider it
important to
c. not sure
5. When in a conflict situation in my own culture, I prefer exchanges
that are
a. dispassionate
b. reveal people’s true feelings and emotions
6. When in a conflict situation in the host culture, I believe they prefer
exchanges that are
a. dispassionate
c. not sure
7. In work situations in my own culture, I prefer that information be
a. presented by first clearly stating a purpose followed by logical
and sequenced points
b. presenting a lot of information that allows me to draw my
own conclusions
Appendix A 271
8. In work situations in the host culture, I believe they prefer that infor-
mation be
a. presented first by clearly stating a purpose followed by logical
b. presenting a lot of information that allows one to draw one’s
own conclusions
c. not sure
9. When involved in a group task in my culture, I consider it impor-
tant to
a. first get to know all those involved
b. first clarify the task and get to work as soon as possible
10. When involved in a group task in the host culture, I believe they con-
sider it important to
c. not sure
11. When faced with a task in my own culture, I prefer
a. first to understand the big picture before working on my part
b. to work on my part of the task without needing to know its
relation to the whole
12. When faced with a task in the host culture, I believe they prefer
a. first to understand the big picture before working on indi-
vidual parts
b. to work on parts of the task without needing to know its rela-
tion to the whole
c. not sure
13. In my culture, I generally prefer
a. a quiet working environment
b. one in which there is a lot of verbal and other interaction
14. In the host culture, I believe they generally prefer
c. not sure
15. When disagreeing in my culture, I prefer
a. to be told directly and openly about the problem no matter the
consequences
b. not to speak openly so as not to offend anyone
272 Appendix A
16. When disagreeing in the host culture, I believe they prefer
consequences
c. not sure
17. In a difficult or embarrassing situation in my culture, I prefer to
a. avoid saying anything that will embarrass either party
b. discuss the issue in hopes of resolving it
18. In a difficult or embarrassing situation in the host culture, I believe
they prefer to
c. not sure
19. When speaking to superiors about a concern in my culture, I prefer to
a. speak directly on my own behalf
b. express my concern through an intermediary
20. When speaking to superiors about a concern in the host culture, I
believe they prefer to
a. speak directly on one’s own behalf
b. express one’s concern through an intermediary
c. not sure
21. When negating someone’s comment or request in my culture, I usually
a. say so directly and unambiguously
b. try to convey this without saying so directly
22. When negating someone’s comment or request in the host culture, I
believe they usually
c. not sure
23. When things are not right in my culture, I generally
a. refrain from giving feedback or criticism
b. speak my mind openly
24. When things are not right in the host culture, I believe they generally
b. speak their mind openly
c. not sure
Appendix A 273
25. When discussing an issue with others in my culture, I like to
a. be sure they understand the background and general context
b. feel they only need to know the part that concerns them directly
26. When discussing an issue with others in the host culture, I believe
they like to
c. not sure
27. When working with those in my charge in my culture, I prefer to
a. be direct and tell them exactly what they need to do
b. present things in a way to gain their support for the task at hand
28. When working with those in someone’s charge in the host culture, I
c. not sure
29. When engaged in conversation in my culture, I like to
a. make it interesting by using nuance or innuendo
b. tell it straight and plain
30. When engaged in conversation in the host culture, I believe they
like to
c. not sure
31. When speaking with others with a “foreign” accent in my culture, I
a. sometimes treat them differently
b. generally treat them the same
32. When speaking with others with a “foreign” accent in the host cul-
ture, I believe they
c. not sure
33. When foreigners speak my language, I
b. generally treat them the same as other native speakers
274 Appendix A
34. When foreigners speak the host language, I believe they are
a. sometimes treated differently
b. generally treated the same as other native speakers
c. not sure
35. When speaking with people of other cultural backgrounds, I generally
a. adjust the distance between us accordingly
b. stand at the same distance from them as I do with people of
my own culture
36. When people in the host culture speak with others of different cul-
tural backgrounds, I believe they generally
a. adjust the distance between them accordingly
b. stand at the same distance from them as they do with others of
their culture
c. not sure
a. adjust the type of physical contact I have with them accordingly
b. make the same type of physical contact I do with people of my
own culture
38. When people in the host culture speak with people of other cultural
backgrounds, I believe they generally
a. adjust the type of physical contact they have with them
accordingly
b. make the same type of physical contact they do with people of
their own culture
c. not sure
a. adjust the type of eye contact I make with them accordingly
b. make the same type of eye contact I do with people of my own
culture
a. adjust the type of eye contact they make with them accordingly
b. make the same type of eye contact they do with others of their
own culture
c. not sure
41. When speaking with people of other cultural backgrounds, I am
generally
a. concerned about smells or aromas they may consider offensive
b. don’t consider smells or aromas a sensitive issue
Appendix A 275
backgrounds, I believe they are generally
a. concerned about smells or aromas others may consider offensive
c. not sure
a. adjust the type of gestures I use with them accordingly
b. use the same gestures I do with people of my own culture
a. adjust the type of gestures they use with them accordingly
b. use the same gestures they do with others of their own culture
c. not sure
a. adjust the pauses and overlap between our comments accordingly
b. use the same conversational patterns I use with people of my
own culture
a. adjust the pauses and overlap between their comments accordingly
b. use the same conversational patterns they use with others of
their own culture
c. not sure
47. Please add other comments here, if you wish. ___________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
(Please go on to AIC Part VI)

276 Appendix A
AIC PART VI
INTERCULTURAL AREAS
[12 Questions]
Check the number from 0 (= Not at all) to 5 (= Extremely well) that best
describes your situation:
During my stay in the host country, I established and maintained good

relationships with
1. my host family 0 1 2 3 4 5
2. my host colleagues 0 1 2 3 4 5
3. other host natives 0 1 2 3 4 5
I was able to communicate in the host language with
I was also able to communicate in my own language with
I cooperated with others, as needed, to accomplish tasks of mutual inter-
est with
(Please go on to AIC Part VII)

Appendix A 277
AIC PART VII

INTERCULTURAL ABILITIES
[54 Questions]
Please respond to questions in each of the four categories, using the scale
from 0 (= Not at all) to 5 (= Extremely High). Mark each item TWICE:
First, mark with a (B) to indicate your ability at the BEGINNING of your
stay in the host culture. Then, mark the same item with an (E) to indicate
your ability at the END of your stay. This will provide a basis for com-
parison BEFORE and AFTER.
Knowledge
1. I could cite a definition of culture

complexities 0 1 2 3 4 5
2. I knew the essential norms and
taboos of the host culture
(e.g., greetings, dress, behaviors) 0 1 2 3 4 5
3. I could contrast important aspects
of the host language and culture
with my own 0 1 2 3 4 5
4. I recognized signs of culture
stress and some strategies for
overcoming it 0 1 2 3 4 5
5. I knew some techniques to aid
my learning of the host language
and culture 0 1 2 3 4 5
6. I could contrast my own behaviors
with those of my hosts in important
areas (e.g., social interactions, basic
routines, time orientation) 0 1 2 3 4 5
7. I could cite important historical and
socio-political factors that shape my
own culture and the host culture 0 1 2 3 4 5
8. I could describe a model of cross-
cultural adjustment stages 0 1 2 3 4 5
278 Appendix A
9. I could cite various learning
processes and strategies for
the host culture 0 1 2 3 4 5
10. I could describe interactional
behaviors common among people
in the host culture in social and
professional areas (e.g., family roles,
team work, problem solving) 0 1 2 3 4 5
11. I could discuss and contrast various
behavioral patterns in my own
culture with those in the host
culture 0 1 2 3 4 5
Attitude
While in the host country, I demonstrated willingness to

12. interact with host culture members
(I didn’t avoid them or primarily
seek out my compatriots) 0 1 2 3 4 5
13. learn from my hosts, their
language, and their culture 0 1 2 3 4 5
14. try to communicate in the host
language and behave in appropriate
ways, as judged by my hosts 0 1 2 3 4 5
15. deal with my emotions and
it offered) 0 1 2 3 4 5
16. take on various roles appropriate
family, as a volunteer) 0 1 2 3 4 5
17. show interest in new cultural
values, history, traditions) 0 1 2 3 4 5
18. try to understand differences in
the behaviors, values, attitudes,
and styles of host members 0 1 2 3 4 5
Appendix A 279
19. adapt my behavior to communicate
behavioral areas, as needed for
different situations) 0 1 2 3 4 5
20. reflect on the impact and
consequences of my decisions
and choices on my hosts 0 1 2 3 4 5
21. deal with different ways of
perceiving, expressing,
interacting, and behaving 0 1 2 3 4 5
22. interact in alternative ways, even
when quite different from those
to which I was accustomed and
preferred 0 1 2 3 4 5
23. deal with the ethical implications
of my choices (in terms of decisions,
consequences, results, etc.) 0 1 2 3 4 5
24. suspend judgment and appreciate
the complexities of communicating
and interacting interculturally 0 1 2 3 4 5
Skills
25. I demonstrated flexibility when

interacting with persons from
26. I adjusted my behavior, dress,
etc., as appropriate, to avoid
offending my hosts 0 1 2 3 4 5
27. I was able to contrast the host
culture with my own 0 1 2 3 4 5
28. I used strategies for learning the
host language and about the
host culture 0 1 2 3 4 5
29. I demonstrated the ability to
interact appropriately in a
variety of different social
situations in the host culture 0 1 2 3 4 5
280 Appendix A
30. I used appropriate strategies for
adapting to the host culture and
reducing stress 0 1 2 3 4 5
31. I used models, strategies, and
techniques that aided my learning
of the host language and culture 0 1 2 3 4 5
32. I monitored my behavior and its
and especially on my hosts 0 1 2 3 4 5
33. I used culture-specific information
to improve my style and
professional interaction with
my hosts 0 1 2 3 4 5
34. I helped to resolve cross-cultural
conflicts and misunderstandings
when they arose 0 1 2 3 4 5
35. I employed appropriate strategies
for adapting to my own culture
after returning home 0 1 2 3 4 5
Awareness
While in the host culture, I realized the importance of

36. differences and similarities
across my own and the host
language and culture 0 1 2 3 4 5
37. my negative reactions to these
disgust, superiority) 0 1 2 3 4 5
38. how varied situations in the
my interactions with others 0 1 2 3 4 5
39. how host culture members
viewed me and why 0 1 2 3 4 5
40. myself as a “culturally
conditioned” person with
personal habits and preferences 0 1 2 3 4 5
Appendix A 281
41. responses by host culture members
to my own social identity (e.g., race,
class, gender, age) 0 1 2 3 4 5
42. diversity in the host culture
(such as differences in race,
class, gender, age, ability) 0 1 2 3 4 5
43. dangers of generalizing
individual behaviors as
representative of the whole
culture 0 1 2 3 4 5
44. my choices and their
consequences (which made
me either more, or
less, acceptable to my hosts) 0 1 2 3 4 5
45. my personal values that
affected my approach to ethical
dilemmas and their resolution 0 1 2 3 4 5
46. my hosts’ reactions to me that
reflected their cultural values 0 1 2 3 4 5
47. how my values and ethics were
reflected in specific situations 0 1 2 3 4 5
48. varying cultural styles and
language use, and their effect
in social and working situations 0 1 2 3 4 5
49. my own level of intercultural
development 0 1 2 3 4 5
50. the level of intercultural
development of those I associated
with (other program participants,
hosts, co-workers, etc.) 0 1 2 3 4 5
51. factors that helped or hindered
and ways to overcome them 0 1 2 3 4 5
52. how I perceived myself as
situation 0 1 2 3 4 5
282 Appendix A
53. how others perceived me as
54. is there anything else you would like to add? ___________________

___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
(End of survey questionnaire. If working by email, be sure to copy this

document and save before closing. Then return it as an attachment.
Otherwise, you may wish to make a photocopy for yourself and fax or
mail the original to the research assistant in your country. Thank you.)
Appendix B
AICC Form
Assessing
Intercultural Communicative Competence
(AICC Form)
A Research Project of Federation EIL and the Center for
Educational Resources in Culture, Language, and Literacy
(CERCLL)
About This Survey

This questionnaire is part of a research project conducted by the
Federation of the Experiment in International Living (EIL), with funding
provided by the Center for Educational Resources in Culture, Language,
and Literacy (CERCLL) at the University of Arizona in Tucson, Arizona,
USA, one of 15 National Resource Centers supported by the U.S.
Department of Education. This research project focuses on individuals
who have participated in an intercultural educational exchange program.
This survey seeks to learn about the outcomes of educational exchange

experiences on participants—the nature of intercultural communicative
competence (ICC), the level of ICC developed, effects on their sojourner
lifestyle choices, and their impact, in turn, on other individuals and on com-
munities after returning home. This information will help us better under-
stand how participants contribute to Federation EIL’s vision and mission.
This project involving Brazil, Germany, Ireland, Japan, and the US, expands
on an earlier survey conducted in 2005–2006 with three other Federation
EIL member countries—Ecuador, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.
Survey Components
This form contains seven parts that take approximately 35 minutes to
complete:
Part I. About the Respondent [38 questions]

Part II. Personal Characteristics [28 questions]
© Alvino E. Fantini, Brattleboro, Vermont, USA, 1995; Revised 2001, 2005, 2015
284 Appendix B
Part III. Motivation and Options [18 questions)]
Part IV. Language Proficiency [3 questions)]
Part V. Communication Styles [47 questions]
Part VI. Intercultural Areas [12 questions]
Part VII. Intercultural Abilities [54 questions]
Completing and Returning This Form

Complete this form to the best of your ability, but please complete all
seven Parts, following directions given for each. Return the form promptly
when completed, preferably by email; otherwise, mail to the designated
research assistant in your country.
Finally, your permission is required to use information you provide.

Please read the “Informed Consent” Form that follows. This form must
be signed and returned together with the completed questionnaire to
allow us to include your data in our study. Thank you for your help in
this important effort.
Appendix B 285
INFORMED CONSENT FORM

FOR PARTICIPANTS IN THE AICC RESEARCH PROJECT
Instructions: Before completing the survey questionnaire, read and sign

this “Informed Consent” form. This form must be returned with the
completed questionnaire to allow us to include your comments in our
study. All information is confidential, and your name will not be used.
You may print this form and keep a copy for yourself.
Title of Research Project:

Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence (AICC)
1. You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by the

Federation EIL. Participation is voluntary, but before participating,
you should be clear about the nature and scope of the project.
2. The purpose of this study is to learn how international sojourns

impact the lives of participants and their intercultural development.
For this reason, we wish to learn about your experience while on an
intercultural sojourn in another culture.
3. Participation in this study involves the following:
• Completion of a confidential questionnaire form. This informa-

tion will contribute to this study and be of eventual benefit to
future participants worldwide.
• The Form is a self-evaluation that asks about the impact of your

intercultural sojourn and the development of your IC.
• When returning the Form, you will be invited, if you consent, to

participate in a subsequent telephone or personal interview. Dur-
ing this interview, you will be asked further questions about your
experiences in the host culture.
• Host family members may also be asked to complete this Form to

help us also ascertain effects upon those who host international
visitors.
4. No known risks are associated with this research other than possible
discomfort with the following:
• You will be asked to be candid about yourself when completing

the form.
286 Appendix B
• You will be asked questions about your personal experiences as a
participant or host.
5. Possible benefits from participation in this project are
• You will have an opportunity to reflect on your experiences.
• You will contribute to knowledge about the impact of intercul-

tural sojourns.
• You will help to improve program offerings for future participants.
6. Remember, your participation is voluntary. Your identity will not be

revealed in publications resulting from this study. Data will be avail-
able only to persons conducting the study and will be kept confidential.
7. If you have questions or concerns about the study or procedures,

please contact the researcher in your country, the Federation EIL
office, or email the project director directly: alvino.fantini@sit.edu.
==========================================================================
A. I have read and understand this consent form. I hereby grant permis-
sion to use the information I provide as data in this research project,
knowing that it will be kept confidential and without use of my name.
I may also retain a signed copy of this consent form for my own per-
sonal records.
B. Participant’s signature _______________________ Date __________
C. I am willing to be contacted at a later time for a telephone or Skype

interview to discuss my experience further:
Yes No
Appendix B 287
AICC PART I
ABOUT THE RESPONDENT
[38 Questions]
Please complete all of the following questions:
About Yourself
1. First name, last name ________________________________________
2. Email address ______________________________________________
3. Home address (street, number, city, zip code, country) ___________
___________________________________________________________
4. Home telephone _______________ Cell telephone ____________
5. Gender: Male Female
6. My age is __________________________________________________
7. My nationality is ___________________________________________
8. My native language is _______________________________________
9. Growing up, I also spoke ____________________________________
10. Prior to your intercultural sojourn, did you have any significant
intercultural experiences abroad?
Yes No
11. If yes, where and for how long (please specify)? _________________
12. Prior to your intercultural sojourn, did you have any significant
intercultural relationships?
Yes No
13. If yes, what type of intercultural relationships did you have?
Friends Classmates Other (specify) ___________________
14. Were these relationships a positive experience? Yes No
15. Did these relationships influence your decision to participate in an
intercultural program abroad?
Yes No
288 Appendix B
16. If you had prior intercultural experience, had you developed any
intercultural abilities that you found useful during your intercultural
sojourn?
Yes No
About Your Intercultural Sojourn
18. Give the following information regarding the program you partici-
pated in
Country _____________________ Year ________________________
Duration of sojourn in months _______________________________
19. The name of the program I participated in was __________________
20. The type of program I participated was
Summer homestay and travel Academic Semester Abroad
Other (specify) _____________________________________________
21. At the time I participated, my age was _________________________
22. Check all program components that applied and rate the value of
each to you on a scale of 0 to 5:
Orientation 0 1 2 3 4 5
Language Study 0 1 2 3 4 5
Group or Academic Leader 0 1 2 3 4 5
Homestay 0 1 2 3 4 5
Program Theme 0 1 2 3 4 5
Service Component 0 1 2 3 4 5
Educational Component 0 1 2 3 4 5
Post-program follow-up 0 1 2 3 4 5
Other (specify) 0 1 2 3 4 5
And Beyond
23. Your highest education level achieved

2-year college College/University (4 years) Master’s
Doctorate Other _________________________________
Appendix B 289
24. As a result of your intercultural experience, did you pursue any
related field(s) of study?
Yes No
26. As a result of your intercultural experience, did you choose work in
any relevant intercultural/international field(s)?
Yes No
28. Do you currently work in an intercultural or multicultural situation
where you provide education, service, or training to others?
Yes No
29. If yes, answer the following:
• Type of work or project __________________________________
• For approximately how many people? ______________________
• For how many years? ____________________________________
30. My present field of work is (check any that apply)
Business Government Development
International Organization Health Public Service
Education NGO Other (Specify)
___________________________________________________________
31. My present work position is (check any that apply)
Student Worker Clerk
Educator Social worker Technician
Administrator Executive Health Practitioner
Other (specify) ___________________________________________
32. As a result of your intercultural experience, did you study/learn any
additional languages?
Yes No
33. If yes, list which language(s). _________________________________
34. As a result of your intercultural experience, did you develop any new
intercultural relationships?
Yes No
290 Appendix B
35. If yes, list which type:
Friends Work colleagues
Spouse Other (specify) ______________________
___________________________________________________________
36. Do you currently use any of the intercultural abilities in your life or
work that were developed as a result of your experience abroad?
Yes No
___________________________________________________________
38. Please include any additional information you wish to add about
how your intercultural sojourn may have affected your life and/or
career choices ______________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
(Please go on to AICC Part II)

Appendix B 291
AICC PART II
PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS
[32 Questions]
Please answer all of the following questions. Use a scale of 0 to 5 (highest)

to rate yourself on each characteristic listed next by checking the number
that best represents how you perceive yourself in your own culture. Then
also rate yourself, as you believe your hosts perceived you during your
stay in your host country.
Perception of Self in Your Own Culture

1. Tolerant 0 1 2 3 4 5
2. Flexible 0 1 2 3 4 5
3. Patient 0 1 2 3 4 5
4. Good sense of humor 0 1 2 3 4 5
7. Adaptable 0 1 2 3 4 5
8. Curious 0 1 2 3 4 5
9. Open-minded 0 1 2 3 4 5
10. Motivated 0 1 2 3 4 5
11. Self-reliant 0 1 2 3 4 5
12. Empathetic 0 1 2 3 4 5
14. Perceptive 0 1 2 3 4 5
16. Other qualities you possess that are relevant to your performance in
your own culture? (List and then rate with a number from 0 to 5.)
__________________________ 0 1 2 3 4 5
__________________________ 0 1 2 3 4 5
292 Appendix B
How You Believe You Were Perceived in Your Host Country?
17. Tolerant 0 1 2 3 4 5
18. Flexible 0 1 2 3 4 5
19. Patient 0 1 2 3 4 5
20. Good sense of humor 0 1 2 3 4 5
23. Adaptable 0 1 2 3 4 5
24. Curious 0 1 2 3 4 5
25. Open-minded 0 1 2 3 4 5
26. Motivated 0 1 2 3 4 5
27. Self-reliant 0 1 2 3 4 5
28. Empathetic 0 1 2 3 4 5
30. Perceptive 0 1 2 3 4 5
32. Other qualities you possess that were relevant to your performance
in your host country? (List and then rate with a number from 0 to 5.)
__________________________ 0 1 2 3 4 5
__________________________ 0 1 2 3 4 5
(Please go on to AICC Part III)

Appendix B 293
AICC PART III

MOTIVATION AND OPTIONS
[18 Questions]
What was your level of interest and motivation toward the host culture?
None <———> Extremely High

1. Before arriving in your host country 0 1 2 3 4 5
2. Upon entering the host culture 0 1 2 3 4 5
3. Midway through the experience 0 1 2 3 4 5
4. At the end of the experience 0 1 2 3 4 5
5. After returning home 0 1 2 3 4 5
6. Today 0 1 2 3 4 5
How would you characterize your motivation toward the host culture
while there?
7. Sometimes wanted to return home 0 1 2 3 4 5
8. Felt not learning very much 0 1 2 3 4 5
9. Felt forced or obliged to adjust 0 1 2 3 4 5
10. To survive as best you could 0 1 2 3 4 5
11. Desired to get along well 0 1 2 3 4 5
12. Desired to adjust as best you could 0 1 2 3 4 5
strived to become as native-like
as possible. 0 1 2 3 4 5
strived to become as bilingual as
possible. 0 1 2 3 4 5
15. After returning home, did you maintain contact with people from the
host culture?
Yes No
16. If yes, for how many years? __________________________________
294 Appendix B
17. What type of contact do you now have? (check as many apply):
Occasional communication by letter, greeting cards
Communicate occasionally by telephone, email, or social media
Exchange gifts
I visit them
They visit me
18. As a result of your experience, how do you feel you changed? (please
comment): _________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
(Please go on to AICC Part IV

Appendix B 295
AICC PART IV
LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY
[3 Questions]
1. and 2. Mark with an (X) the one statement that best describes your
host language ability at the BEGINNING and again at the
END of your intercultural sojourn.
BEGINNING END
• No language ability at all

• Unable to function in the spoken language
• Able to communicate in a very limited capacity
• Able to satisfy needs with memorized phrases
• Able to satisfy basic survival needs and minimum
courtesy requirements
• Able to satisfy some survival needs and some
limited social demands
• Able to satisfy most survival needs and limited
social demands
• Able to satisfy routine social demands
• Able to communicate on some concrete topics
• Able to speak with sufficient accuracy and
vocabulary to participate effectively in most
formal and informal situations
• Able to speak with sufficient accuracy and
vocabulary to discuss relevant professional areas
• Able to speak the host language fluently and
accurately on all levels
• Speaking proficiency sometimes equivalent to
that of an educated native speaker, but not
always able to sustain performance
• Proficiency equivalent to that of an educated
native speaker
3. Anything else you want to add? ________________________________

_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
(Please go on to AICC Part V)

296 Appendix B
AICC PART V
COMMUNICATION STYLES
[47 Questions]
What have you learned about styles of communicating in your own

culture as contrasted with those in your host country? Check off your
responses to the following questions in terms of how you would most
likely respond in each situation cited:
1. In my own culture, I consider courtesy conventions and protocols

a. unimportant
b. important
2. In the host culture, I believe they consider courtesy conventions and
protocols
a. unimportant
b. important
c. not sure
3. When meeting people in my own culture, I think it is important to
4. When meeting people in the host culture, I think they consider it
important to
c. not sure
5. In a conflict situation in my own culture, I prefer exchanges that are
a. dispassionate
6. In a conflict situation in the host culture, I believe they prefer
exchanges that are
a. dispassionate
c. not sure
7. In work situations in my own culture, I prefer that information be
a. presented by first clearly stating a purpose followed by logical
b. presenting a lot of information that allows me to draw my
own conclusions
Appendix B 297
8. In work situations in the host culture, I believe they prefer that infor-
mation be
a. presented first by clearly stating a purpose followed by logical
b. presenting a lot of information that allows one to draw one’s
own conclusions
c. not sure
9. When involved in a group task in my culture, I consider it impor-
tant to
10. When involved in a group task in the host culture, I believe they con-
sider it important to
c. not sure
11. When faced with a task in my own culture, I prefer
a. first to understand the big picture before working on my part
b. to work on my part of the task without needing to know its
relation to the whole
12. When faced with a task in the host culture, I believe they prefer
a. first to understand the big picture before working on individual
parts
b. to work on parts of the task without needing to know its rela-
tion to the whole
c. not sure
13. In my culture, I generally prefer
14. In the host culture, I believe they generally prefer
c. not sure
15. When disagreeing in my culture, I prefer
consequences
298 Appendix B
16. When disagreeing in the host culture, I believe they prefer
consequences
c. not sure
17. In a difficult or embarrassing situation in my culture, I prefer to
18. In a difficult or embarrassing situation in the host culture, I believe
they prefer to
c. not sure
19. When speaking to superiors about a concern in my culture, I prefer to
a. speak directly on my own behalf
b. express my concern through an intermediary
20. When speaking to superiors about a concern in the host culture, I
a. speak directly on one’s own behalf
b. express one’s concern through an intermediary
c. not sure
21. When negating someone’s comment or request in my culture, I usually
22. When negating someone’s comment or request in the host culture, I
believe they usually
c. not sure
23. When things are not right in my culture, I generally
b. speak my mind openly
24. When things are not right in the host culture, I believe they generally
b. speak their mind openly
c. not sure
Appendix B 299
25. When discussing an issue with others in my culture, I like to
26. When discussing an issue with others in the host culture, I believe
they like to
b. feel they only need to know the part that concerns them
directly
c. not sure
27. When working with those in my charge in my culture, I prefer to
28. When working with those in someone’s charge in the host culture, I
c. not sure
29. When engaged in conversation in my culture, I like to
30. When engaged in conversation in the host culture, I believe they
like to
c. not sure
31. When speaking with others with a “foreign” accent in my culture, I
32. When speaking with others with a “foreign” accent in the host cul-
ture, I believe they
c. not sure
33. When foreigners speak my language, I
b. generally treat them the same as other native speakers
300 Appendix B
34. When foreigners speak the host language, I believe they are
a. sometimes treated differently
b. generally treated the same as other native speakers
c. not sure
a. adjust the distance between us accordingly
b. stand at the same distance from them as I do with people of
my own culture
36. When host culture members speak with others of different cultural
a. adjust the distance between them accordingly
b. stand at the same distance from them as they do with others of
their culture
c. not sure
a. adjust the type of physical contact I have with them accordingly
b. make the same type of physical contact I do with people of my
own culture
38. When host culture members speak with people of other cultural
a. adjust the type of physical contact they have with them accordingly
b. make the same type of physical contact they do with people of
their own culture
c. not sure
a. adjust the type of eye contact I make with them accordingly
b. make the same type of eye contact I do with people of my own
culture
a. adjust the type of eye contact they make with them accordingly
b. make the same type of eye contact they do with others of their
own culture
c. not sure
41. When speaking with people of other cultural backgrounds, I am
generally
a. concerned about smells or aromas they may consider offensive
Appendix B 301
backgrounds, I believe they are generally
a. concerned about smells or aromas others may consider offensive
c. not sure
a. adjust the type of gestures I use with them accordingly
b. use the same gestures I do with people of my own culture
a. adjust the type of gestures they use with them accordingly
b. use the same gestures they do with others of their own culture
c. not sure
a. adjust the pauses and overlap between our comments accordingly
b. use the same conversational patterns I use with people of my
own culture
a. adjust the pauses and overlap between their comments accordingly
b. use the same conversational patterns they use with others of
their own culture
c. not sure
47. Please add other comments here, if you wish ____________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
(Please go on to AICC Part VI)

302 Appendix B
AICC PART VI
INTERCULTURAL AREAS
[12 Questions]
Check the number from 0 (= Not at all) to 5 (= Extremely well) that best
describes your situation:
During my stay in the host country, I established and maintained good

relationships with
I was able to communicate in the host language with
I was also able to communicate in my own language with
I cooperated with others, as needed, to accomplish tasks of mutual inter-
est with
(Please go on to AICC Part VII)

Appendix B 303
AICC PART VII

INTERCULTURAL ABILITIES
[54 Questions]
Please respond to questions in each of the four categories, using the scale
from 0 (= Not at all) to 5 (= Extremely High). Mark each item TWICE:
First, mark with a (B) to indicate your ability at the BEGINNING of your
stay in the host culture. Then, mark the same item with an (E) to indicate
your ability at the END of your sojourn. This will provide a basis for
comparison BEFORE and AFTER.
Knowledge
1. I could cite a definition of culture

complexities 0 1 2 3 4 5
2. I knew the basic norms and
taboos of the host culture
(e.g., greetings, dress, behaviors) 0 1 2 3 4 5
3. I could contrast important
aspects of the host language
and culture with my own 0 1 2 3 4 5
4. I recognized signs of culture
stress and some strategies for
overcoming it 0 1 2 3 4 5
5. I knew some techniques to aid
my learning of the host
6. I could contrast my own
behaviors with those of my
hosts in important areas
(e.g., social interactions,
basic routines, time orientation) 0 1 2 3 4 5
7. I could cite important historical
and socio-political factors that
shape my own culture and
8. I could describe the stages of
cross-cultural adjustment 0 1 2 3 4 5
304 Appendix B
9. I could cite various strategies for
10. I could describe interactional
behaviors common among host
culture members in social and
formal areas (e.g., family roles,
team work, problem solving) 0 1 2 3 4 5
11. I could discuss and contrast
various behavioral patterns in
my own culture with those in
Attitude
While in the host country, I was willing to

12. interact with host culture members
(I didn’t avoid them or primarily
seek out my compatriots) 0 1 2 3 4 5
13. learn from my hosts, their
language, and their culture 0 1 2 3 4 5
14. try to communicate in the host
language and behave in appropriate
ways, as judged by my hosts 0 1 2 3 4 5
15. deal with my emotions and
it offered) 0 1 2 3 4 5
16. take on various roles appropriate
family, as a volunteer) 0 1 2 3 4 5
17. show interest in new cultural
values, history, traditions) 0 1 2 3 4 5
18. try to understand differences
in the behaviors, values, attitudes,
and styles of host members 0 1 2 3 4 5
19. try to communicate appropriately
in the host culture (e.g., in non-
verbal and other behavioral areas,
as needed for different situations) 0 1 2 3 4 5
Appendix B 305
20. reflect on the impact and
consequences of my choices
on my hosts 0 1 2 3 4 5
21. deal with different ways of
perceiving, expressing,
interacting, and behaving 0 1 2 3 4 5
22. interact in alternative ways, even
when quite different from those
to which I was accustomed and
preferred 0 1 2 3 4 5
23. deal with the ethical
consequences, results, etc.) 0 1 2 3 4 5
24. suspend judgment and appreciate
the complexities of communicating
and interacting interculturally 0 1 2 3 4 5
Skills
25. I demonstrated flexibility when

interacting with persons from
26. I adjusted my behavior, dress, etc.,
as appropriate, to avoid offending
my hosts 0 1 2 3 4 5
27. I was able to contrast the host
culture with my own 0 1 2 3 4 5
28. I used strategies for learning the
host language and about the
host culture 0 1 2 3 4 5
29. I demonstrated ability to interact
appropriately in different social
situations in the host culture 0 1 2 3 4 5
30. I used appropriate strategies for
adapting to the host culture and
reducing stress 0 1 2 3 4 5
31. I used strategies and techniques
that aided my learning of the host
306 Appendix B
32. I monitored my behavior and its
and especially on my hosts 0 1 2 3 4 5
33. I used culture-specific information
to improve my style and interaction
with my hosts 0 1 2 3 4 5
34. I helped to resolve cross-cultural
conflicts and misunderstandings
when they arose 0 1 2 3 4 5
35. I employed appropriate strategies
for adapting to my own culture
after returning home 0 1 2 3 4 5
Awareness
While in the host culture, I realized the importance of

36. differences and similarities
between my own and the host
37. my negative reactions to these
disgust, superiority) 0 1 2 3 4 5
38. how varied situations in the
my interactions with others 0 1 2 3 4 5
39. how host culture members
viewed me and why 0 1 2 3 4 5
40. myself as a “culturally
conditioned” person with
personal habits and preferences 0 1 2 3 4 5
41. responses by host culture
members to my own social
identity (e.g., race, class,
gender, age) 0 1 2 3 4 5
42. diversity in the host culture
(such as differences in race,
class, gender, age, ability) 0 1 2 3 4 5
43. dangers of generalizing individual
behaviors as representative
of the whole culture 0 1 2 3 4 5
Appendix B 307
44. my choices and their consequences
(which made me either more,
or less, acceptable to my hosts) 0 1 2 3 4 5
45. my personal values that affected
my approach to ethical dilemmas
and their resolution 0 1 2 3 4 5
46. my hosts’ reactions to me that
reflected their cultural values 0 1 2 3 4 5
47. how my values and ethics were
reflected in specific situations 0 1 2 3 4 5
48. varying cultural styles and
language use, and their effect
in social situations 0 1 2 3 4 5
49. my own level of intercultural
development 0 1 2 3 4 5
50. the level of intercultural
development of those I associated
with (other program participants,
hosts, colleagues, etc.) 0 1 2 3 4 5
51. factors that helped or hindered
and ways to overcome them 0 1 2 3 4 5
52. how I perceived myself as
53. how others perceived me as
in an intercultural situation 0 1 2 3 4 5
54. is there anything else you would like to add? ___________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
(End of questionnaire. If working by email, copy this document and save

before closing. Return it as an attachment. Otherwise, you may wish
to make a copy for yourself and fax or mail the original to the research
assistant in your country. Thank you.)
Appendix C
ALTD Form
Assessment of
Language Teacher Development
(ALTD Form)
Developed by Alvino E. Fantini, Ph.D.

SIT Graduate Institute, Brattleboro, Vermont, USA
This form is designed to help you become a more effective language

teacher, committed to a process of continual learning. It does this by spec-
ifying competencies in six distinct areas: (1) Interpersonal Relations, (2)
Culture/Intercultural, (3) Language/Linguistics, (4) Language Acquisition
and Learning, (5) Language Teaching, and (6) Professionalism. Although
these areas do not automatically translate into a competent teacher, they
can help to produce a more effective educator when combined with an
artful blend of other qualities.
The form can serve in three ways: (1) by identifying objectives for your
teaching experience, (2) by providing guidelines for periodic reference
and evaluation, and (3) by serving as a formative assessment tool for
use by both the teacher and an external observer. It is suggested that
you evaluate yourself periodically over time (using a different mark-
ing system on each occasion) and compare your assessments with
those of your observer(s) as an aid to the conferencing which follows.
Additional spaces are provided in each area to add other factors you
and/or your observer identify that may not already be accounted for
in the form.
The rating system is designed to help chart your development over time.
There should be evidence of a) minimal acceptable performance, b)
© Alvino E. Fantini, 1986, 1993, Brattleboro, VT, USA; revised 2010

Appendix C 309
movement or progress, and c) improvement in specific directions/areas,
agreed upon by you and your assessor. The last page is designed to encour-
age synthesis and to produce an action plan for further development.
Finally, either numbers or descriptors may be used as a rating system, in

accordance with the user’s own preference. Although numbers are used
in the current form, those who prefer word descriptors may wish to use
the equivalents provided in the key that follows. Pluses (+) and minuses
(−) can also be inserted should finer gradations be desired, providing a
total of ten steps on the continuum.
Key
0 = NA (Not applicable), NO (Not observed), or see written comment(s)

(which users may insert, as needed)
1 = Minimal acceptable performance
2 = Good
3 = Excellent
(Student) Teacher ______________________ Academic Year 20___–20___

Language(s) Taught ____________________ Term: ___________________
(Internship) Location ____________________________________________
Level: Pre-school _________ Elementary _________ Secondary _________
College _________ Adult _________
Dates Observed _______________ Total Hours of Teaching _____________
Certification/ + level(s) __________________________________________
Other Information
I. Interpersonal Relations
Dynamic, enthusiastic, confident about his/her teaching,
the students, the subject matter 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Creates a positive, secure, comfortable classroom ambiance
(where students can take risks) 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Effective classroom management (e.g., deals with discipline,
personality conflicts, student expectations) 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
310 Appendix C
Rapport with students:
• knows students and their names 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
• listens and understands what students are
saying (on affective and cognitive levels) 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
• attentive and responsive to all students
versus particular types (e.g., most vocal,
brightest) 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
• clarifies boundaries for appropriate
behaviors and responds to transgressions 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Promotes good student relationships (e.g., encourages
pair and group work, collaboration, sharing) 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Encourages student responsibility for own learning
and for contributing to class experience 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Works well with other teachers, supervisor,
administrators 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
______________________________________________ 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
______________________________________________ 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
II. Culture/Intercultural Aspects

Inclusion of cultural dimension in the lessons:
• aware and attentive to sociolinguistic variables 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
• uses appropriate target language (TL) social
interactional activities 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
• addresses TL culture in content areas: readings,
discussions, topics, etc. 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Presence of cultural dimension in classroom dynamics:

• sensitive/respects student cultural differences 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
• uses the cultural diversity of students to
advantage 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
• fosters students’ interest in and understanding
of the target culture 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
• creates opportunities for students to experience
the TL culture (not just the “methodological”
culture) 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
• fosters students’ respect for cultural diversity 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Appendix C 311
Inclusion of intercultural dimension
• compares and contrasts target and native
culture(s) 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
• explores intercultural processes (stages,
options, consequences) 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
• responds to intercultural conflicts if
they arise 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Aware/sensitive/responsive to intercultural challenges of

the teaching situation:
• in the institution 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
• in the community 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
• and in the homestay (if applicable) 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
___________________________________________ 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
___________________________________________ 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
III. Language/Linguistics
TL mastery (for non-native speakers): fluency,
pronunciation, and accuracy of grammar 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Knowledge of TL phonology and grammar 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Uses natural and comprehensible language, varying
appropriately for different contexts/needs 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Able to
• present rules clearly and appropriately 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
• present appropriate amounts of structured
material 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
• draw effectively on students’ knowledge of
and intuition about the language 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
• respond effectively to students’ questions on
linguistic points 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
• research linguistic problems/conduct linguistic
analysis 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
• recycle grammar periodically to reinforce
students’ mastery 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
312 Appendix C
Uses students’ native tongue(s) effectively and
judiciously 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
___________________________________________ 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
___________________________________________ 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
IV. Language Acquisition and Learning

Identifies and responds to individual student factors
(social, psychological, personality) affecting learning 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Devises lessons that reflect what is known about
successful language learning strategies 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Adapts teaching to varied learning styles (individual
and cultural) 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Helps students understand purpose of lesson or activity
and relates to student interests/needs 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Helps students increase awareness of their own
acquisition process and what facilitates/hinders their
learning 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Uses varied, timely and appropriate error detection
and diagnosis strategies, including self-
monitoring 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Promotes self-learning skills for independent field
learning 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
______________________________________________ 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
______________________________________________ 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
V. Language Teaching
Re Course Design
Needs assessment
• addresses the institution or program’s pedagogical
requirements (as applicable) 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
• adds own needs/requirements (based on
the field) 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
• considers students’ needs, interests, prior
knowledge 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Appendix C 313
Clearly identifies course goals and objectives 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
• includes objectives in areas of attitude, skills,
knowledge, and awareness (ASKA) 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
• addresses skill areas (listening, speaking,
reading and/or writing), as appropriate 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Develops an appropriate syllabus 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
• course design and sequence reflect the goals
and objectives 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
• considers both course process and content 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Designs lesson plans appropriate to course design/

objectives 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
_____________________________________________ 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Re Classroom Environment
Attentive to appearance/physical condition of room 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Organizes room in varied ways as appropriate to

activities 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
_____________________________________________ 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Re Lesson Plans and Implementation
Develops lessons with clear objectives which students

understand 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Provides appropriate content, level and amount of
work (e.g., varied, challenging, engaging) 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Initiates lesson with warm-up and review activities 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Implements lessons effectively, utilizing inductive/
deductive approaches as appropriate 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Works effectively with class size (from tutorial to small/
large groups) and levels (homogeneous to multi-levels) 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Uses appropriate and varied teaching techniques/activities,
passive and active (with clear purposes) 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Displays good timing, pacing, flow, transitions,
progression 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
314 Appendix C
Engages all sensory modes, as appropriate, to aid
cognitive, affective, and psychomotor development 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Addresses skill areas as appropriate (comprehension,
speaking, reading, and writing) 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Addresses varied aspects of communicative competence
(linguistic, paralinguistic, and non-verbal) 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Includes 7 phases of “Process Approach” (e.g.,
presentation, practice, grammar, transposition/use,
sociolinguistic, and cultural/intercultural exploration),
as appropriate 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Provides clear instructions (with students paraphrasing,
as appropriate) 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Adjusts plan appropriately based on how things are
going 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Moves around room/uses gestures, as appropriate 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Maximizes student involvement/participation 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Varies groupings as appropriate to activities (individual/
pair/small to large group work) 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Effectively uses resources (blackboard, texts, audio-
visuals, realia, etc.) 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Establishes good balance between teacher control and
student initiation 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Uses appropriate correction techniques (amount, type,
timing, students, and peers) 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Designs appropriate homework tasks (related to
course plan, lesson, amount, quality, timing, etc.) 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
______________________________________________ 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
______________________________________________ 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Re Assessment and Feedback
Conducts appropriate placement/diagnostic/entry and

exit evaluations 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Assessment is congruent with course objectives, content,
and process 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Insures students understand the evaluation process 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Appendix C 315
Uses effective approaches to student assessment (direct
and indirect measures/discrete and global, ongoing) 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Fosters student self (and peer) evaluation 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Develops reliable/valid measures, properly weighted and
expressed in terms students understand 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Uses effective ways of providing feedback to students 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Establishes appropriate mechanisms to elicit student
feedback on teacher’s performance and course 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Evaluation measures students’ attainment of course
objectives 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
______________________________________________ 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
______________________________________________ 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
VI. Professionalism
Expresses self clearly in oral and written communication 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Complies with policies, procedures, requirements, etc. 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Exhibits professional conduct (punctuality, reliability,
appearance, behavior, etc.) 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Able/willing/interested in assessing own performance 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Can identify internal/external factors that help/hinder
development 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Seeks/accepts feedback from colleagues, supervisor/
observer 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Develops and pursues action plan for future development 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Maintains appropriate relations with students, colleagues,
department, institution, supervisor, host culture 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Aware and responsive to the style, philosophy, needs
of the institution, the community, the culture in which
working 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Open/shares with others, contributes to the field 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Promotes general welfare of the teaching profession 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Participates in relevant professional societies at the
local, state, national, and/or international levels 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
316 Appendix C
Contributes to the relevant professional societies at the
local, state, national, and/or international levels through
presentations, workshops, and/or volunteer work 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
______________________________________________ 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
______________________________________________ 0/−1+/−2+/−3+
Appendix C 317
Synthesis and Recommendations
Strong points:
Areas for further exploration/development:
Additional comments/observations:
Teacher’s signature
Observer’s signature Date _____________

Appendix D
ALD Form
Assessment of Language Development

(ALD Form) in a YOGA Format
(Your Objectives, Guidelines, and Assessment)
Student Term ________________________
Teacher/Mentor Academic Year 20_____–20_____
Language Level ________________________
Background and Purpose

Foreign language instruction begins a process of language and inter-
cultural development which may continue well beyond the scope of
the course and on into a field situation, especially abroad. The goals
of instruction, therefore, are to help learners to learn to communicate
effectively and appropriately in another language and culture, to insure
their continued learning beyond the end of the course, and to become
independent learners. This form is designed to aid in monitoring and
measuring your language development on a continuing basis. It seeks to
help in three ways:
1. By identifying Objectives for language learning

2. By serving as Guidelines throughout the learning process
3. By providing an Assessment tool for periodic evaluation by the
learner and a mentor
Hence the acronym YOGA stands for Your Objectives, Guidelines, and
Assessment, and the form itself provides a framework that encompasses
© Alvino E. Fantini, Brattleboro, VT, USA, 1976, Revised 1986, 1996, 2004, 2012
Appendix D 319
important areas related to your competence and performance on the road
to bilingualism and biculturalism.
Components
There are several parts to this form:
Part I. Functions—citing tasks or situations and stressing what you

can do with what you have learned.
Part II. Language Proficiency—listing specific linguistic features such as
grammatical structures, vocabulary, and pronunciation.
Part III. Attitudes (toward the Host Language and Culture)—explor-
ing your feelings toward the host language culture, which may
affect your motivation to learn.
Part IV. Next Steps—to help you synthesize and document your learn-
ing as well as to identify future actions to be taken to further
your learning.
Using the Form

Use this form to assess yourself periodically, monitoring your devel-
opment at various stages (especially before, during and at the end
of a course or program, or more often, if desirable). Also, continue
to use it subsequently in a field situation and/or in the host culture.
A progressive scale (from 0 to 5) will help chart your progress as
your language ability develops. Use various markings, or different
color pencils each time you evaluate yourself to note progress. For
example,
• at the beginning of the language

course, use a check mark[ √ ] 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /− 4 + /−5
• at the end of the language
program, use an [ X ] 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /− 4 + /−5
• at the end of a stay abroad,
use a circle [ O ] 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /− 4 + /−5
At each stage, consider a) acceptable performance (given the time

lapsed), b) movement or progress, and c) areas to work on next. It is
helpful to have another person—a teacher, mentor, peer, and/or hosts—
also assess your language progress using a separate form. Then com-
pare results. Differences of opinion provide an opportunity to discuss
your language development and what you may need to do to enhance
future learning.
320 Appendix D
Key
The scale ranges from 0 to 5 and corresponds to FSI and ACTFL Oral
Proficiency Scales (Liskin-Gasparro, ETS Oral Proficiency Testing Manual,
Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, 1982), as shown next:
Government Academic Definition

(FSI) Scale (ACTFL/ETS) Scale
0 Novice-Low No ability whatsoever in the language

Unable to function in the spoken language
0 Novice-Mid Able to operate in only a very limited
capacity
0+ Novice-High Able to satisfy immediate needs with learned
utterances
1− Intermediate-Low Able to satisfy basic survival needs and

minimum courtesy requirements
1 Intermediate-Mid Able to satisfy some survival needs and
some limited social demands
1+ Intermediate-High Able to satisfy most survival needs and
some limited social demands
2 Advanced Able to satisfy routine social demands and

limited work requirements
2+ Advanced Plus Able to satisfy most work requirements and
show some ability to communicate on
concrete topics
3 Able to speak the language with sufficient

structural accuracy and vocabulary to
Superior
participate effectively in most formal and
3+ informal conversations
4 Able to speak with a great deal of fluency,

Distinguished grammatical accuracy, precision of
4+ vocabulary and idiomatically
5 Native Able to speak like an educated native

speaker
Appendix D 321
Assessment of Language Development

in a YOGA Format
(Your Objectives, Guidelines, and Assessment)
Part I. Functions
When completing the following items, think of your ability to perform
each of the tasks cited. Your markings should reflect whether you have
had experience with the situation and your relative ability to accomplish
the task as compared with that of a native.
I can
• use appropriate greetings, leave-taking
expressions and gestures 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /− 4 + /−5
• handle myself in social interactions
(introductions, etc.) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /− 4 + /−5
• ask for or give directions 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• ask and tell the time of day/day of
week/date 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• order a simple meal 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• talk about the weather 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• make purchases (food, clothing,
souvenirs, train tickets) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• respond to biographical questions
(nationality, marital status,
occupations, date and place of
birth, etc.) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• give a brief autobiography 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• ask for, obtain, and understand
biographical information from
others 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• get around by myself by bus/train/
taxi, etc. 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• take and give simple messages over
the telephone 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
322 Appendix D
• assist someone else who does not
know the language in coping with
the situations or problems described
earlier 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• describe my present or most recent
job or activity in some detail 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• provide detailed information about
my family, home, hometown, and
country 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• tell of my immediate plans and hopes 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• speak of my experiences in my host
family/community/ country/culture 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
I can
• use measurement systems of the
TL (distance/time/weight, etc.) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• describe the purpose or function of
my visit and/or organization 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• follow and contribute to an everyday
conversation among native speakers 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• handle myself with a group of educated
native speakers 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• participate in social situations with
my hosts, without offending them
linguistically or culturally 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• take notes and summarize an
informal discussion 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• take notes and summarize a formal
lecture 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
I can talk about my experience with and

impressions of various aspects of life in
my native country. For example,
• social relationships (family, friendship/
courtship, hierarchies, taboos, etc.) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• business relationships (procedures,
hierarchies, etc.) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
Appendix D 323
• the natural environment (climate,
geography, resources, flora and
fauna, etc.) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• the human-made environment
(architecture, transportation
systems, etc.) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• population (numbers, location,
ethnic makeup, etc.) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• religious beliefs and practices 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• education 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• political organization 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• the economy 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• art forms/public entertainment 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• history 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
(Add other topics of interest and/or

relevance to you).
• 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /− 4 + /−5
• 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /− 4 + /−5
• 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /− 4 + /−5
I can obtain information about and discuss

various aspects of life in my host country.
(Refer to the list of examples noted earlier.)
• 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /− 4 + /−5

• 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /− 4 + /−5
• 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /− 4 + /−5
I can discuss in detail topics of special

interest to me:
• 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /− 4 + /−5

• 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /− 4 + /−5
• 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /− 4 + /−5
I can serve as an informal interpreter on

any of the aforementioned topics 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /− 4 + /−5
324 Appendix D
Part II. Language Proficiency
Complete the following items, considering your relative ability to con-
trol the language content of communication. As you progress toward the
higher levels, you will find that it takes considerably more time to move
from one point to another.
Listening
I can understand the TL spoken to me

at conversational speed by a native
speaker 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
I can understand native speakers talking
among themselves 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
At this point in my language development,

I can understand
• greetings and courtesy expressions 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• social talk directed at me 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• commands directed at me 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• directions given to me 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• instructions given to me 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• a dialog, discussion, or argument
that includes me 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• a dialog, discussion, or argument
that excludes me 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• “small talk” 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• taboo words and euphemisms 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• some slang and colloquial
expressions 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• songs, jokes in the TL 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• a TV program in the TL 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• a movie in the TL 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• a radio program in the TL 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• a telephone conversation 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• emergency situations 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
Appendix D 325
At this point in my language development, I can maintain
• a brief exchange on subjects
familiar to me 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• a short conversation on selected
topics 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• conversation on most topics 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• a prolonged conversation on
any subject 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
Speaking
I can participate in a conversation in

the TL spoken at the speed of native
speakers 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
I can use a range of vocabulary and

expressions in the following areas:
• social expressions 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• interrogatives 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• expressions of time/place 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• cardinal numbers (one, two,
three, etc.) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• ordinal numbers (first,
second, third, etc.) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• geographical directions 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• days, months, seasons 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• family relationships 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• parts of the body 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• parts of the house 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• articles of clothing 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
I can use the following sentence types:

• simple affirmative statements
(Yes, I can do it.) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• simple negative statements
(No, I don’t remember.) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
326 Appendix D
• command statements (Come
back again.) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• complex sentences (John, a friend
of mine, left today.) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
Other aspects of oral expression:

• pronunciation 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• intonation 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• correct word order 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• fluency 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
Grammatical Features
I can use the following features of the host language (check only those
applicable to the language in question):
• personal pronouns (I/you/she/us) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• verbs—simple present
(We speak English.) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• present progressive (We are
speaking English.) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• definite articles (the) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• indefinite articles (a, an) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• gender and number of nouns
(e.g., las casas/el libro in Spanish) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• verbs—simple past (I spoke English.) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• possessive adjectives (my/your/her) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• possessive pronouns (mine/hers, ours) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• noun/adjective case endings
(e.g., Der gute Mensch/zu dem guten
Menschen in German) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• prepositions (with/for/at) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• verbs—simple future
(She will write a letter.) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• “going to” future (She is
going to write a letter.) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
Appendix D 327
• expressions of time (I’m late.
It’s now or never.) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• noun-verb agreement
(Time flies.) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• contractions (It is not—It isn’t.) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• reflexive verbs (levantarse in
Spanish; se souvenir de in French 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• direct object pronouns (I learned
the lesson—I learned it.) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• indirect object pronouns
(to him, to us) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• verbs—conditional (We would travel
if . . .) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• adjectives—comparative, superlative
forms (big, bigger, biggest) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• verbs—imperfect (J’avais l7 ans in
French; Estudiaba siempre in Spanish) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• relative pronouns (who, which, whose) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• verbs—present perfect (She has written
a letter every day this week.) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• demonstrative pronouns (Those
are mine.) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• demonstrative adjectives (That table) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• verbs—subjunctive (Il faut que
je parte in French; Espero que
te diviertas in Spanish) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• indirect speech (“I’m going,”
said Nancy. Nancy said that
she was going.) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• passive voice (We all did it. >
It was done by all of us.) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
Reading/Writing
• reading 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
• writing 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
328 Appendix D
Part III. Attitudes toward the Host Language and Culture
There are no specific goals in this section; rather, the questions that fol-
low may help you to reflect on your feelings and attitudes toward the host
culture, how they may be changing, and how they affect your learning.
l. I feel I am adjusting to the

host culture 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
2. My feelings toward my hosts
are favorable 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
3. I get along with my host
family/friends 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
4. I attempt to be with host
nationals 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
5. I really want to use the
host language 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
6. I use the host language as much
as possible 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
7. I think I am accepted by the
host nationals 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
8. I like being with host nationals
(even without my compatriots) 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
9. I feel relaxed and comfortable in
my new environment 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
10. I would like to return to the
host country 0 + /−1 + /−2 + /−3 + /−4 + /−5
Some things I appreciate about my host culture are

_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Some things I find difficult to understand/accept about my host culture are

_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Some contrasts I see between my host culture and my home culture are
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Appendix D 329
Part IV: Next Steps
Follow-Up to Language Assessment

You are encouraged to review the ALD Form periodically as a way of
bringing continuing awareness and structure to your everyday learning
opportunities. You may also want to use a notebook or keep a journal
to track your language development process. Here are some examples of
things to note:
1. List your strengths and areas to be improved at this point

Strengths Areas for Improvement
___________________________ _____________________________
___________________________ _____________________________
___________________________ _____________________________
2. Cite factors that help or hinder your language development

___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
3. List specific strategies for moving beyond this point and developing
further
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
4. List new vocabulary and phrases needed/learned

Needed Learned
___________________________ _____________________________
___________________________ _____________________________
___________________________ _____________________________
5. List tasks
You want to be able to do You can do
___________________________ _____________________________
___________________________ _____________________________
___________________________ _____________________________
6. List people and other resources that can help you.

___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
330 Appendix D
7. Finally, make a recording of your speech on a periodic basis. Note
the date of the recording and use this form to guide you in topics to
discuss. Keep a cumulative speech diary of your language develop-
ment so that you can go back and listen to earlier recordings. You
will be surprised to note the progress you have made!
8. Additional comments/observations.
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
Index
Aba-Zak: worldview exercise 247; choices 99–100; service programs

see also studies, models, and unique 97; see also Initial Research
activities Project (IRP)
about ICC assessment 54–5; Learning assertions/host perspectives of self
about Language Assessment 55; (IRP) 105–10; and activities further
Teaching and Testing Intercultural mission 110; all parties affected
Competence 54; and Testing the 107; alumni/mentors impact others
Untestable 54 110; host language affects ICC
academic study abroad programs see development 106–7; ICC is complex
educational exchange programs 105–6; intercultural consequences
Adler, P.S. 241 107; life-altering 107; people are
Agresti, A. and Finlay, B. 71 changed 108; returnees lean toward
Akande, Y. and Slawson, C. 58 specific choices 108–9; service
Alizadeh, S. and Chavan, M. 31 programs unique 107–8; see also
Almeida, J. 6, 23, 51, 243 Initial Research Project (IRP)
Almeida, J. et al. 58 assertions/host perspectives of
Alpetkin, C. 31 volunteers (IRP) 102–5; and
American Council on the Teaching of activities further mission 101–2; all
Foreign Languages (ACTFL) 22, 32, parties affected 104; host language
39–41, 250; and ACTFL Foreign affects ICC development 103–4;
Language Video Series 40; ACTFL ICC is complex 102–3; intercultural
Proficiency Scale 19, 20, 53; see also consequences 104; life-altering 104;
World-Readiness Standards for people are changed 104; returnees
Learning Languages lean toward specific choices 104;
American Field Service (AFS) 6 service programs unique 104;
Andrade, H.G. 47 volunteers impact others 100–1;
Anglin, J. 16 see also Initial Research Project (IRP)
artifacts, sociofacts, and mentifacts assertions revisited (FRP) 228; and
see Three P’s activities further mission 234–5; all
assertions/alumni and volunteer parties affected 232; alumni impact
perspectives (IRP) 82–102; and others 234; homestay compelling
activities further mission 101–2; 230–1; host language 231–2; ICC
all parties affected 97; alumni is complex 228–30; intercultural
impact others 100–1; host language consequences 234; life-altering 230;
affects ICC development 87–92; people are changed 232–3; returnees
ICC is complex 82–7; intercultural lean toward specific life choices
consequences 95–7; life-altering 233–4; unexpected benefits 234
92–5; people are changed 97–9; assessment: challenges 57–9; and
returnees lean toward specific evaluation 46; formative vs.
332 Index
summative 46–8, 49, 51–3; goals/ Bolen, M. 58
objectives 47, 48; modes and Borghetti, C. and Beaven, A. 250
strategies 46, 50, 49–51; process/ British Council 6
content 47–9; quality assessment British Council Report 250
60; quantitative/qualitative Brown, H.D. 23
indicators 50; rubrics/benchmarks Byram, M. 31
38, 46, 47; self-assessment 51 Byram, M. et al. 23, 34, 40
assessment instruments/tools 32, 47,
51, 114; and digital storytelling 52; C1 8, 21; see also culture
external instruments 51; portfolios C2 21; see also culture
52; reflective journals 51–2; survey Camerer, R. 54
51, 66, 114; triangulation 52; Carroll, J.B. 42
see also AIC Forms; AICC Forms Case, R.S. 3, 5
Assessment of Intercultural Castaneda, C. 43
Communicative Competence Catell’s Scree test 167, 172, 177
(AICC) 33, 46, 52, 55–6, 59, 114, CC 18, 21, 28–31; see also
118–19, 121, 123, 238, 242; about communicative competence
yourself 123–6; about your sojourn CC1 29–30; see also communicative
126–39; and AICC Form 276–97; competence
Beyond your sojourn 139–51; CC2 24, 29–31; see also
communication styles 157–61; communicative competence
intercultural areas 161–6; language Center for Educational Resources in
proficiency 154–6; motivation 152–4; Culture, Language, and Literacy
personal characteristics 151–2; (CERCLL) Conference 51, 68–9,
translations 66; see also Follow-on 249
Research Project (FRP), research Children’s International Summer
instrument Villages (CISV) 6–7
Assessment of Intercultural Chung Tsu 41, 252
Competence (AIC) 33, 46, 52, Clapp, E.B. 3, 5
55–6, 59, 112, 242; and AIC Form Cohen, A.D. et al. 61
255–75; design and pilot 66, 71; Cohen, J. et al. 122, 171, 185, 197
translations 66; validity 71 communicative competence (CC)
Assessment of Language Development 28–30; see also CC; CC1; CC2
(ALD Form) 307–16 Comp, D. 58
Assessment of Language Teacher cooperative overseas programs
Development (ALTD) 249; and (COPs) see The Experiment in
ALTD Form 298–306 International Living (EIL)
Council of Europe 54
Baetens-Beardsmore, H. 20 culture: “big C/little c” culture 23;
Bai, R. 23 can-do statements 248–9; culture
Bailey, K.M. 54 activities 248; culture exploration
Baiutti, M. 120 (see NAPI-KEPRA Framework)
Banks, J.A. 243 curriculum 40, 48–9, 243, 244, 246,
Barber, E.G. 58 249; see also gemstone model
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity 167, 172, Curtiss, S. 14
178, 182, 186
Bennett, J.M. 31, 243 Damen, L. 23
Bennett, M.J. 22, 34, 42 Deardorff, D.K. 8, 31, 34, 53, 55,
bilingual-bicultural 1, 8, 13, 18, 20–1, 120, 250
25, 30, 42; and proficiency levels/ Deardorff, D.K. and Arasaratham-
degrees 20–1; profiles 21–9; types Smith, L.A. 5, 53, 56, 58, 120, 250
20–1 DeVellis, R. 122, 167
bilingualism-biculturalism see diversity 7, 24, 25, 240
bilingual-bicultural Drewelow, I. 23
Index 333
Edelstein, R. 31 Organizations (MOs) 2, 3,
education 37, 40, 243; and aspects 4, 14, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69,
of educational approaches 245–6; 101, 110, 115, 118, 219, 238;
contrastive educational approaches see also Follow-on Research
48, 99, 245; educational quality Project (FRP), participating
49; experiential education 245; Member Organizations
program components 48; see also (MOs); Initial Research Project
curriculum; gemstone model; (IRP), participating Member
Lewinian experiential model; Organizations (MOs)
Process Approach framework; feral children 14, 21; and Amala and
studies, models, and activities Kamala 14; Genie 14; Kaspar Hauser
educational exchange programs 1–2, 14; Victor, the wild child 14
3, 4, 6, 7, 13, 14, 18, 24, 25, 29, Field, A.P. 122
41, 42, 43, 47, 60, 78, 102, 115, field interventions 249–50
236, 250, 251, 252; and service Follow-on Research Project (FRP)
programs 25, 63–5, 97 113–220; and advantages and
educational impact studies 3–4, 57–8, limitations 119–20; comparative
67, 115 analysis 190–7; data compilation
educators 19, 24, 25; see also and organization 120–1; description
intercultural educators/trainers; 115–16; descriptive analysis 123;
language educators design and plan 113–15; findings
English 3, 6, 11, 12, 13, 15, 20, 23, 166–96; objectives 114–15;
24, 31, 34, 40, 41, 69, 232; and overview 113; participating
English-speakers 20, 23, 24; lingua Member Organizations (MOs)
franca 23 116–18; psychometric analysis
ERASMUS 6 of ICC scale 166–90; research
Esperantic studies foundation 41 instrument 118–19; statistical
Esperanto 41 procedures 121=3; see also
ethnic minorities 24 AICC; qualitative analysis (FRP);
etic/emic 34, 52, 59, 79, 96, 102, quantitative analysis (FRP);
104, 111, 120, 198, 235, 237, 239, research; SurveyMonkey
242, 247 Foreign Service Institute see U.S.
European Commission 6 Foreign Service Institute
evaluation see assessment Forum on Education Abroad 251
The Experiment in International Fowler, S.M. and Mumford, M.G. 243
Living (EIL) 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 235; and Freire, P. 37
cooperative overseas programs
(COPs) 7 Garrett-Rucks, P. 23
gemstone model 48, 48–9, 244; and
Fantini, A.E. 7, 13, 17, 20, 24, 33, 34, curriculum components 48–9
40, 47, 48, 51, 59, 166, 167, 243, global competence 31, 32, 239
244, 246, 247, 251 globalization 5, 18, 249
Fantini, A.E. and Fantini, B. 40 Graddol, D. 41
Fantini, A.E. and Hawkinson, A.K. 244
Fantini, A.E. and Smith, E.M. 22, 31, Hair, J. et al. 172, 177, 181, 186
41, 243 Hall, E.T. 18, 243
Fantini, A.E. and Tirmizi, A. 34 Hammer, M.R. 57
Fantini, A.E. et al. 1, 13, 14, 20, 32, Hannouchi, S. 69
33, 47, 51, 244, 245 Heifetz, R.A. 34
Fantini, A.E. in Freeman, D. 249 Hett, E.J. 57
Fantini, A.E. in Jackson, J. 25n1 hierarchy/hetararchy 16, 23; see also
Farrugia, C. and Sanger, J. 235 semantic component
Federation EIL 1, 2, 3, 4, 63–4, homestay 2, 3, 7, 25, 63, 64, 102,
67, 115, 251; and Member 113, 114, 130, 131, 132
334 Index
host family see homestay 41, 47; and areas or domains 36;
Howell, D. 122 characteristics 35–6; components
Humphrey, D. 31 28, 34, 35, 35–8; definition 34;
Hurd, R. 58 dimensions 36, 36–7; host language
proficiency 14, 37–8, 42; levels of
ICC assessment: comprehensive attainment 38; models 34
approach 59; instrument search 66; intercultural competence 24–5,
selection criteria 55; see also ICC 31, 32, 33, 42, 249, 252; and
assessment instruments constructs 18, 28–9; varied terms
ICC assessment instruments 55; 28, 32
and Assessment of Intercultural intercultural education 2, 40, 41, 101,
Communicative Competence 234, 245
(AIC and AICC) 55–6, 59; intercultural educators/trainers 20, 22,
Behavioral Assessment Scale for 23, 250
Intercultural Communication interculturalists 1, 22, 23, 25, 28, 33,
(BASIC) 56; Beliefs, Events, and 41, 91, 103, 104, 226, 232, 243,
Values Inventory (BEVI) 56; Cross- 250, 252
Cultural Adaptability Inventory intercultural literature 28, 29, 31, 32,
(CCAI) 56; Cross-Cultural Assessor 35, 66, 113–14
(CCA) 56; Cultural Orientations intercultural sojourns see educational
Indicator® (COI) 56; Development exchange programs
Communication Index 56; internationalization 6
Global Mindedness Scale (GMS)
57; Intercultural Competence Jackson, J. 25n1, 250
Questionnaire 57; Intercultural Jackson, J. and Oguro, S. 250
Development Inventory (IDI) 57;
Peterson Cultural Awareness Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Test 167
(PCAT) and Peterson Cultural Style Kealey, D.J. 58, 120
Indicator (PCSI) 57; Schwartz Value Kelley, C. and Meyers, J. 56
Survey (SVS) 57 Kelly, L.G. 22
ICC construct see intercultural Kennesaw State University 6
communicative competence (ICC) Kim, J.O. and Muller, C.W. 71
Initial Research Project (IRP) 63–112; Kimmelman, M. 41
and advantages and limitations 68–9; Kohls, L.R. 243
areas for further work 111–12; Kohls, L.R. and Knight, J.M. 243
data compilation and organization Kolb, D.A. 245
69–70; description/stages 65–7; Kramsch, C. 23
findings/host perspectives 102–9; Krashen, S.D. 18
lessons learned 110; objectives Krueger, J. and Dunning, D. 51
67; overview 70–1; participating
Member Organizations 67–9; L1 8, 21; see also language
research design and plan 63–5; L2 21, 22, 30, 37, 40, 42, 43; see also
see also assertions (IRP); qualitative second language
analysis (IRP); quantitative analysis Lane, H. 14
(IRP); Volunteers for International language 14, 15, 16, 20, 28; and
Partnership (VIP)/VIP Programs acquiring vs. learning 18, 39; dual
intercultural abilities see intercultural nature 16–17, 21; extra-linguistic/
competence non-verbal component 8–9, 20,
intercultural communication (IC) 6, 28; linguistic component 8, 20,
8, 14, 18, 21–2, 33, 38, 41; and 28; para-linguistic component 8,
IC courses 22, 51, 243; orientation 20, 28; proficiency levels 19–20;
model 23, 243–4 projection chart 19, 20; relation
intercultural communicative competence of language to ICC 17; roles of
(ICC) 1, 14, 28–9, 30, 31, 33, 34, language 17–18, 21; see also
Index 335
language proficiency assessment; Martin, J.N. and Nakayama, T.K. 31
sociolinguistic component Masgoret, A.M. et al. 58
language education/approaches 12, 14, Mason 20
20, 21–2, 38; and Audio-lingual 38; Masson, J. and Feuerbach, P.J. 14
communicative approach 20, 40; McGury, S. et al. 47
Community language learning (CLL) meaning see semantic component
38; competency-based 39; creative Member Organizations (MOs) see
technology 40, 249–50; Direct Federation EIL
method 38; four skill areas 20; monochronic/polychromic 9
Grammar-translation 38; Notional- monolingual 18, 21, 23, 43; see also
functional syllabus 38; Silent Way monolingualism/monoculturalism
38; Situational Reinforcement 38; monolingualism/monoculturalism 12,
Suggestopedia 38; Total Physical 20, 21, 42
Response (TPR) 38 motivation 13, 21, 38, 50, 86, 89, 95,
language educators 1, 13, 20, 22, 23, 96, 123, 137, 139, 151, 152, 200,
24, 29, 32, 39, 104, 243, 246, 247 203, 205, 224, 228, 229, 231, 237;
language proficiency assessment and integrative vs. instrumental 13,
53–4; and ACTFL Proficiency 38, 96, 237
Scale and Guidelines 19, multilingualism-multiculturalism
53; Assessment of Language 8, 20, 30, 41, 58, 90, 111, 240,
Development (ALD Form) 53; 242, 250
Common European Framework of multilingual-multicultural see
Reference for Languages (CEFR) multilingualism-multiculturalism
19, 54; criteria and strategies 53; multinational perspective 4, 34, 38,
European Language Portfolio 54; 67, 115, 121, 198, 219, 221, 222,
International Second Language 228, 241
Proficiency Ratings (ISLPR) 54; Muñiz, J. 122
MAXSA (Maximizing Study
Abroad) 54; U.S. Foreign Service Nadeem, M.U. et al. 31
Institute system 19, 53 NAPI-KEPRA Framework see culture,
language technology see field culture exploration
interventions; language education/ National Council of State Supervisors
approaches for Foreign Languages (NCSSFL) 248
LC1 21, 30, 36 National Foreign Language Standards
LC2 7, 21, 30, 31, 36 see World-Readiness Standards
Levin, I.P. 71, 77 Nunnally, J. 122, 171, 181, 185, 189
Lewinian experiential model 245
Lewis, R. 56 Olebe, M. and Koester, J. 56
Liddicoat, A.J. and Scarino, A. 250 one-way ANOVA 71, 122, 192, 193,
Lima, R.R. and Guimarães, J.E. 23 194, 195
linguaculture 10, 12, 13, 18, 21, 24, 34, operational standards 3; see also
41, 42, 96, 239; see also LC1; LC2 educational exchange programs
linguaculture teachers see language
educators Paige, M.R. 243
lingua franca 6, 40, 43 paradigm 7, 8, 12, 13, 18, 21, 23,
Liskin-Gasparro, J.E. 19 28, 40, 41, 42, 96, 237, 239; and
Littlemore, J. and Low, G. 23 paradigm shift 8, 42; see also
Little’s MCAR Test 172, 177, 182, 186 worldview
Lusting, M.W. and Koester, J. 31 particulars/universals 13, 58, 69; and
universal aspects 221–8
Maathai 4 Peace Corps see U.S. Peace Corps
MacNeil, R. and Cran, W. 11 Pearce, J.C. 43
Mader, J. 54 Perseus Express 70
Martin, J.N. 31 Peterson, B. 57
336 Index
Phillips, J.K. 23 School for International Training see
Pinker, S. 8 SIT Graduate Institute
Plato 34 Schwartz, S.H. 57
plurilingualism see multilingualism- second language 7, 21, 54; see also L2
multiculturalism semantic component 9, 10, 30, 240;
Process Approach Framework 40, and associative/referential meaning
246–7 10; see also worldview
psycholinguists 30 Serban, A.M. and Friedlander, J. 58
Sercu, L. 40
qualitative analysis (FRP) 198–219; Sercu, L. et al. 40
and alumni data Brazil 171–7, Shealy 62
198–202; alumni data Germany Shealy, C.N. 56
176–81, 202–4; alumni data Japan Sheth, A. et al. 23
181–5, 204–7; alumni data US Shriver, S. 4, 251
186–90, 207–13; combined alumni SIETAR (Society for Intercultural
data 22; host family data Ireland Education, Training, and Research)
213–19; see also assertions (FRP); 22, 31, 41, 250
Follow-on Research Project (FRP) Singh, J.A.L. and Zingg, R.M. 14
qualitative analysis (IRP) 79–82; and SIT Graduate Institute 3, 4
British alumni and volunteers 80–2; Smith, S.H. and Paracka, D.J. 6
data compilation 80–2; etic/emic sociolinguistic component 15, 16, 20,
perspectives 79; Swiss alumni and 28; see also language; worldview
volunteers 80–2; see also assertions sociolinguistic context 10; and
(IRP); Initial Research Project (IRP) appropriateness 9, 11, 34,
quantitative analysis (FRP) 121–3; 157, 157, 158, 159, 160–1;
and A. About yourself 123–6; B. determinants/variants 11;
About your sojourn 126-39; C. sociolinguistic research 11
Beyond your intercultural sojourn Spanish language development
139–51; D. Personal characteristics 78, 79
151–2; E. Motivation 152–4; F. Spinthourakis, J.A. et al. 23
Language proficiency 154–6; G. Stevens, J. 122
Communication styles 157–61; H. Stevens, J.O. 37, 177
Intercultural areas 161–6; see also Stronkhorst, R. 58
Follow-on Research Project (FRP) studies, models, and activities to
quantitative analysis (IRP) 70–1; promote ICC development 243–9;
reliability testing of assessment and Aba-Zak, worldview exercise
tool 71–5; reliability testing of 247; Assessment of Language
ICC construct 76–9; and Spanish Teacher Development Form (ALTD)
language development 78–9; see 249; contrastive educational
also Initial Research Project (IRP) approaches 245; culture activities
for the language classroom 248;
research: areas for further work 241–3; culture exploration-NAPI-KEPRA
challenges 58–9; implications and 247–8; curriculum design model
applications 236–7; 236–7; lessons 244; educational approaches and
learned 238–41; looking ahead strategies 245–6; intercultural
237–8 orientation model 243; NCSSFL-
research to practice 243; see also ACTFL Can-Do Statements 248;
studies, models, and activities to Process Approach framework 246–7;
promote ICC development survey of ICC courses 243–4;
see also Lewinian experiential
Salzburg Global Seminar 250 model
Samovar, L.A. and Porter, R.E. 31 study abroad see educational
Saporta, S. and Bastian, J.R. 30 exchange programs
Index 337
SurveyMonkey 113, 114 values, beliefs, and attitudes 8, 9–10,
symbol systems 8, 9, 12, 15–16, 18, 13, 29; see also worldview
29; see also language; worldview Van de Vijver, F.J.R. and Leung, K. 58
Volunteers for International
Tabachnick, B. and Fidell, L. 122, Partnership (VIP)/VIP Programs
167, 168, 172, 177, 182, 186 63–5, 67; and VIP Projects 64–5
Taguchi, N. et al. 120
target language/culture see C2; L2; LC2 Wagner, M. et al. 250
Taylor, C. 8, 15 Wallace, D.H. 58
technology 40; 249–50 Wallace, J.A. 58
TESOL (Teachers of English to Wangari, M. 5
Speakers of Other Languages) 22, Watt, D.B. 2, 5, 225
41, 250 Whorf, B.L. 8, 42
Three P’s (products, practices, and Wight, A.J. et al. 22, 25, 31
perspectives) 40 Williams, J. 4
Todeva, E. and Cenoz, J. 20 Wiseman, R.I. and Koester, J. 31
trilingualism 40, 42; see also wolf children see feral children
bilingualism-biculturalism; World Learning 2
multilingualism World-Readiness Standards for
Trivedi, A. 4 Learning Languages 23, 39; and five
t-test 71, 77, 122, 192, 192–3, 194, goal areas 23, 39
196, 197 worldview 1, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13–14,
two-way ANOVA see one-way 18; and components 8–10, 12,
ANOVA 13; configurations 12, 13, 247;
contrasting worldviews 12, 21, 31;
UNESCO 252 worldview exercise 247; see also Aba-
Ungar, S. 5 Zak; semantic component; symbol
universal/particular aspects see systems; values, beliefs, and attitudes
particulars/universals Wylie E. and Ingram, D.E. 62
U.S. Experiment 2
U.S. Foreign Service Institute 19, 53 Youth for Understanding (YFU) 6
Usó-Juan, E. and Martínez-Flor, A. 40
U.S. Peace Corps 3, 4, 22, 25, 34 Zamenhof, L.L. 41

(Routledge Research in Teacher Education) Alvino E. Fantini - Intercultural Communicative Competence in Educational Exchange - A Multinational Perspective-Routledge (2018)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

(Routledge Research in Teacher Education) Alvino E. Fantini - Intercultural Communicative Competence in Educational Exchange - A Multinational Perspective-Routledge (2018)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Routledge Research in Teacher Education) Alvino E. Fantini - Intercultural Communicative Competence in Educational Exchange - A Multinational Perspective-Routledge (2018)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intercultural Communicative

Competence in Educational Exchange

This book explores the nature of intercultural communicative competence

Alvino E. Fantini serves as education consultant to the Federation of The

The Routledge Research in Teacher Education series presents the latest

Learning to Teach in England and the United States

Learning from Latino English Language Learners

Teaching Towards Freedom

Teacher Education Policy and Practice in Europe

Clinical Experiences in Teacher Education

Intercultural Communicative Competence in Educational Exchange

For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.com/

List of Figures and Tables viii

1 Introduction and Overview 1

2 Reconceptualizing Intercultural Communicative

3 Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence 46

4 The Initial Research Project 63

5 The Follow-on Research Project 113

6 Toward a Multinational Perspective 221

Appendix A: AIC Form 257

ACTFL American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages

Intercultural Communicative Competence in Educational Exchange: A

I am indebted to several institutions and many individuals for their sup-

Initial Research Project Staff (2005–6)

Follow-on Research Project Staff (2015–16)

1.2 About Educational Exchange

Federation EIL’s Research Interests

As new global challenges have arisen . . ., American discourse on

Although approaches to internationalization vary greatly, one excel-

1.4 Seeing the World Anew

Figure 1.1 Components of Worldview

Figure 1.2 Overlapping Configurations of Three Worldviews

1.5 Some Fundamental Concepts1

Figure 1.3 A Pasta Hierarchy

Indeed, all languages organize words into verbal hierarchies, as dis-

1.6 Beyond Monolingualism and Monoculturalism

Table 1.1 Time Requirements for Learning Various Languages

Time Average Level Attained

Group I: Dutch, French, Italian, Spanish, etc.

1.7 Exploring Common Goals

Language Education and Intercultural Communication

2.2 About Communicative Competence

Communicative competence1 Communicative competence2

Figure 2.1 Interaction of CC1 and CC2

Note that the addition of CC2 to CC1 is interactive (indicated by the

2.3 Toward a Concept of Intercultural Communicative Competence

Figure 2.2 Components and Aspects of ICC

Following is an elaboration of each component:

1) Characteristics—Common ICC characteristics cited in the literature

Figure 2.3 The Four Dimensions of ICC

Awareness is increased through reflection and introspection in which

2.5 Trends in Language Education and Intercultural Communication

Figure 2.4 World-Readiness Standards: Five Goal Areas

2.6 Summary and Conclusions

To summarize, language is fundamental to participation in any society.

3.2 Aspects of Assessment

Figure 3.1 The Gemstone Model

In this design, the assessment approach is formative; assessment is