Developing Intercultural Competencies :

An Educational Imperative for the２１st Century

Alvino E. Fantini

松 山 大 学
言語文化研究 第２８巻第２号（抜刷）
２
００９年３月
Matsuyama University
Studies in Language and Literature
Vol.２ ８ No.２ March ２ ００ ９
 Developing Intercultural Competencies :
An Educational Imperative for the２１st Century

Alvino E. Fantini

How shall I talk of the sea to the frog,

if it has never left its pond ?

Chung Tsu, ４th Century B. C.

In today’s world, the effects of globalization and new technologies have had
dramatic effects – both positive and negative – on people around the globe. More
people than ever before in the history of the world now have direct and indirect
contact with each other. Direct intercultural contact occurs through study abroad,
migration, and international travel, whereas indirect contact is facilitated through
technological advances such as the internet, email, text messaging, skype, and
more. This situation presents both new opportunities and new challenges. Today,
everyone needs to develop abilities that will ensure positive interactions when
dealing with people from other cultures – whether with members of ethnic minority
groups within the same country or across national borders – and the university must

Note : The author wishes to acknowledge receipt of special research funds ２ ００ ８ provided by
Matsuyama University in support of the preparation and development of this article.

© Alvino E. Fantini, Brattleboro, Vermont, ２００９

１９４ 言語文化研究 第２８巻 第２号

play a major role in this effort.

The development of proficiency in a second language forms an obvious and

important part of intercultural abilities, but language alone is not enough. Students
also need other competencies. Whereas English is by far the most commonly used
international tongue, other languages are also used in intercultural transactions. For
this reason, Japanese students – and students everywhere – increasingly confront the
need to develop both second language proficiency and intercultural competencies.
Universities that recognize this urgent imperative must consider how they can help
their students develop both.

But are foreign language courses in Japan, whether at the elementary, junior
and high school, and university levels, properly preparing learners ? And where
are matters of intercultural communication addressed in the curriculum of such
institutions ? In most areas of the world today, a grammar-translation approach to
language teaching has been replaced long ago by instructional approaches that
are characterized by three important aspects – communicative, interactive, and
participatory. Their focus is on developing the learner’s ability to communicate
with speakers of other languages, whether these other speakers are native or not,
and this is accomplished primarily by teaching students how to perform functions
such as greeting, inquiring, requesting, apologizing, and so forth. In this
approach, the performance of functions includes appropriate behaviors and
interactive strategies that must accompany speaking the target language. In this
way, the development of second cultural competencies are also assured.

For this to occur, however, the purpose and scope of foreign language
education need to be re-examined and reconceptualized. If the expanded goal is to
 Developing Intercultural Competencies :
An Educational Imperative for the２１st Century １９５

prepare students for positive intercultural participation through effective

communication, learners need not only to make themselves understood, but they
also need to gain the acceptance of speakers from other cultures. Acceptance,
however, often depends on appropriate behaviors and interactions even more than
correct grammar. Once again, the goal of foreign language instruction requires an
expanded focus that includes intercultural competencies, not just language as a
linguistic system, devoid of context.

This insight, in fact, led to the development of the field of intercultural

communication more than ４
０ years ago（Wight et al in Fantini & Blohm １
９９９, p.
１
１）. Curiously, intercultural educators while intensely interested in and actively
exploring perceptions, behaviors, and interactive strategies across cultures, mostly
ignore language itself. Language teachers, conversely, generally overlook
behavioral and interactive aspects ; after all, they call themselves “language”
teachers, not teachers of “intercultural competence.” Yet, all three areas – language,
behaviors, and interactive strategies – together form the components of speech acts
whether dealing within one’s own culture or across cultures. For this reason,
foreign language study needs to be expanded to include the development of
intercultural abilities.

Notions of Intercultural Competence

The field of intercultural communication is quite young and therefore still

evolving. For this reason, many important issues remain unresolved, including the
most fundamental issue of all : What abilities are needed, in addition to language,
for successful intercultural contact and interaction ? In other words, what exactly is
intercultural competence ?
１９６ 言語文化研究 第２８巻 第２号

Interculturalists have pondered and written about the abilities needed for
intercultural success for some time. Yet, despite a number of important attempts
（e. g., Martin １
９８９; Wiseman & Koester １
９９３; Byram １
９９４, １
９９７; Deardorff,
２
００４; and Humphrey２
００７）
, a search of the literature quickly reveals the dilemma :
The use of a wide array of terms that reflects a lack of consensus among
intercultural writers and researchers. For example, terms one commonly encounters
include : biculturalism, multiculturalism, bilingualism, multilingualism, plurilingualism,
communicative competence, cross-cultural adaptation, cross-cultural awareness, cross-
cultural communication, cultural competence, cultural or intercultural sensitivity,
effective inter-group communication, ethnorelativity, intercultural cooperation,
global competitive intelligence, global competence, international competence,
international communication, intercultural interaction, metaphoric competence,
transcultural communication, and so forth. All of these terms are found throughout
the literature.

Of these, “intercultural（communicative）competence,” however, appears to be

the most common nomenclature and one that is gaining increasing ground as well.
Fortunately, this term also builds nicely on a related concept that has already been
widely used by language educators over many years – “communicative competence”
（CC）
（cf. Byram １
９９７, p.３）
. In this view, all individuals possess a native
communicative competence（termed CC１）; therefore, during intercultural contact,
（s）
one encounters that of one’s interlocutor （i. e., CC２）
. Individuals who choose
to develop a second communicative competence, i. e. that of their interlocutors or
the CC２, develop “intercultural communicative competence,” or ICC, in the process
of developing the CC２. This new competence – intercultural communicative
competence （or intercultural competence, for short） – then, acknowledges the
individual’s abilities in his or her CC１ and the development of CC２ and, in addition,
 Developing Intercultural Competencies :
An Educational Imperative for the２１st Century １９７

it also acknowledges the novel insights that are only possible when being in a
position to compare and contrast both. The possession of both CCs, indeed,
creates a unique vantage point, an important aspect of ICC. This vantage point is
one that a monolingual, monocultural native of either system cannot possibly access.
It is unique to a bilingual-bicultural person.

Figure１. Intercultural Communicative Competence

Communicative Competence１ + Communicative Competence２（+ CC３, ４, etc.）=>

Intercultural Communicative Competence

To take this discussion a step further, ICC may also be defined as : a complex
of abilities that are needed to perform effectively and appropriately when interacting
with other speakers who are from a language and cultural background that is
different from one’s own. Whereas effective suggests one’s view of one’s own
performance in the second language-culture（i. e., a cultural outsider’s or etic view）
,
appropriate suggests how one’s performance is viewed by natives of the target
culture （i. e., a cultural insider’s or etic view）
. The task as foreign language
learners, then, is to recognize（and clarify）one’s own view, or perspective, while
attempting to learn about the views of others. In the end, although we may not
necessarily develop native-like proficiency, we may aspire to some degree of ability
to communicate, behave, and interact in the style of the target culture members.

Components of ICC

The model of ICC described above is based on two recent studies（Fantini,

Arias-Galicia & Guay ２
０００; Fantini ２
００６）
. Both studies speak of a “complex of
abilities ; ” i. e., they acknowledge that there are multiple and interrelated
１９８ 言語文化研究 第２８巻 第２号

components of intercultural competence. These include : a cluster of characteristics,

three areas, four dimensions, target language proficiency, and developmental levels.
Not all of these components can be developed easily, however, through classroom
work alone. Direct LC２ experience greatly facilitates their development. For this
reason, study abroad programs and other forms of international contact and travel
are extremely helpful by providing students with direct intercultural experiences,
especially for those with no prior intercultural contact or exposure.

A brief explanation of each component follows : First of all, the characteristics

most commonly cited in the literature （and substantiated by research） are :
flexibility, humor, patience, openness, interest, curiosity, empathy, tolerance for
ambiguity, and suspending judgments. The three areas are : １） the ability to
establish and maintain relationships, ２）the ability to communicate with minimal
loss or distortion, and ３）the ability to cooperate in order to accomplish tasks of
mutual interest or need. Each area is related to the other two and one area alone is
not adequate for ICC.

In addition, there are four dimensions. These are : knowledge,（positive）

attitudes（or affect）
, skills, and awareness. All four dimensions apply to the target
culture（LC２）in the same way that they apply to one’s native culture（LC１）
. Of
these, awareness is central and especially critical to cross-cultural development.
Awareness is developed and enhanced through reflection and introspection that
occurs when one compares and contrasts the LC１ with the LC２. Awareness is
different from knowledge in that it focuses on the self in relation to everything else
in the world – things, people, thoughts – and ultimately it helps to clarify what is
most important regarding one’s own values and identity. Another difference is that
whereas knowledge can be forgotten, awareness cannot ; once one becomes aware,
 Developing Intercultural Competencies :
An Educational Imperative for the２１st Century １９９

it is impossible to reverse and become unaware.

The four dimensions are configured below in Figure ２ in a sort of pinwheel

（Fantini １
９９９, p １
８４）
. This figure illustrates that awareness is central to ICC
development and that the first three dimensions promote and enhance awareness –
fostered through introspection and reflection – while enhanced awareness, in turn,
stimulates development of the other three.

Figure２. Dimensions of Intercultural Competence

Target language proficiency, as previously stated, is fundamental to this

concept of ICC. Ironically, however, language proficiency is generally ignored in
most other models of intercultural competence. In the construct presented here,
however, proficiency is considered fundamental to the development of intercultural
competence, although clearly not equal to it. Target language proficiency at any
level enhances all of the other ICC aspects in quantitative and qualitative ways and it
does even more : For example, proficiency in a second language causes us to
confront how we perceive, conceptualize, express, behave, and interact in our first
２００ 言語文化研究 第２８巻 第２号

tongue, while also providing alternative communication strategies appropriate to the

second tongue. The process of learning a foreign language helps us to transcend
and transform our habitual view of the world. On the other hand, lack of a second
language, even minimally, constrains us to think about the world and act within it
in only a single system, our native system. Failure to learn a second language,
then, precludes us from experiencing a valuable aspect of intercultural contact as
well as all the insights that come with it.

Finally, ICC is a process – one that normally evolves over a lengthy and
continuing period of time, albeit with occasional moments of stagnation and even
regression. Continuing development depends in part on the degree of contact as
well as the strength of one’s individual motivation – whether instrumental or
integrative – with respect to the target culture. To help measure and monitor ICC
development, then, it is useful to establish varying levels by devising benchmarks.
These can be accomplished, for example, by using numbers or descriptors, as in the
０
examples given below（cf. Fantini２００, ２
００６）:
• Level I : Educational Traveler – e. g., participants in short-term exchange
programs（１−２months）
• Level II : Sojourner – participants engaged in extended cultural immersion,
e. g., internships of longer duration, including civic service programs（３−９
months）
• Level III : Professional – appropriate for individuals working in intercultural
or multicultural contexts ; e. g., staff employed in international institutions
or educational exchange organizations
• Level IV : Intercultural / Multicultural Specialist – appropriate for trainers
and educators engaged in training, educating, consulting, or advising multi-
national students
 Developing Intercultural Competencies :
An Educational Imperative for the２１st Century ２０１

Another possibility is to devise terms for progressive and sequential levels, such as :
basic, intermediate, advanced, and native-like, akin to those used by the American
Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages（cf. ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines
１
９８５）
. In the end, no matter how accomplished, it is important to design and
implement courses that address all of the components of intercultural competence –
from characteristics to developmental levels – accompanied by a comprehensive and
quality assessment process. Both are discussed below in the sections that follow.

Designing and Implementing Courses in Intercultural Communication

Given this understanding of the nature of intercultural competence and its

components, we are ready to consider their practical implications and applications –
how to design and implement effective courses in intercultural communication.
When doing so, we must keep in mind that the principal goal of such courses（as
well as study abroad programs）is to develop intercultural competencies in our
students in addition to multiple secondary objectives. To this end, Mager’s Sea
Horse story comes to mind and may be worth repeating here（１
９９７, pp. v-vi）:
Once upon a time, a Sea Horse gathered up his seven pieces of eight and
cantered out to find his fortune. Before he had traveled very far he met an
Eel, who said :
“Psst, hey bud. Where ’ya goin’ ? ”
“I’m going out to find my fortune,” replied the Sea Hose, proudly.
“You’re in luck,” said the Eel. “For four pieces of eight you can have
this speedy flipper, and then you’ll be able to get there a lot faster.”
“Gee, that’s swell,” said the Sea Horse, and paid the money and put on
the flipper and slithered off at twice the speed. Soon he came upon a Sponge,
who said :
２０２ 言語文化研究 第２８巻 第２号

“Psst. Hey, bud. Where ’ya goin’ ?”

“I’m going out to find my fortune,” replied the Sea Horse.
“You’re in luck,” said the Sponge. “For a small fee I will let you have
this jet-propelled scooter so that you will be able to travel a lot faster.”
So the Sea Horse bought the scooter with his remaining money and went
zooming through the sea five times as fast. Soon he came upon a Shark, who
said :
“Psst, Hey, bud. Where ’ya goin’ ?”
“I’m going out to find my fortune,” replied the Sea Horse.
“You’re in luck. If you’ll take this short cut,” said the Shark, pointing to
his open mouth, “you’ll save yourself a lot of time.”
“Gee, thanks,” said the Sea Horse, and zoomed off into the interior of the
Shark and was never heard from again.

The moral of this fable, as Mager points out, is that if you’re not sure where
you’re going, like the Sea Horse, you’re liable to end up someplace else and not
even know it. For this reason, this story serves as a perfect metaphor for the
conundrum that exists within educational processes in which instructional objectives,
course design and implementation, and assessment, are not aligned. Although such
alignment is absolutely basic, educators with inadequate preparation in assessment
often face just such a situation. This became obvious in a survey conducted
regarding intercultural communication course designs used at ５
０ universities in the
United States that revealed varying degrees of congruence among these three aspects
（Fantini １
９９７, pp.１
２５−１
４８）
. Stated another way, instructional objectives, course
design and implementation, and assessment must be inextricably linked, otherwise
the educational process is compromised. This notion is reinforced graphically in the
model depicted below in Figure３. （Fantini２
０００−２
００１, p.１
０１）
.
 Developing Intercultural Competencies :
An Educational Imperative for the２１st Century ２０３

Figure３. The Gemstone Model

In this model all of the components listed around the circle are connected –
from needs assessment all the way around to evaluative assessment（including long
term assessment sometimes conducted after the formal course experience is over）
.
The intersecting lines show that each component is linked with all of the others.
The model reinforces how assessment is related directly to explicitly articulated goals
and objectives and that assessment measures their attainment by the learner. What
is to be learned and what is to be measured are related ; they are, in fact, the same.
And, since the goals and objectives are about developing components of intercultural
competence, clear understanding of ICC and these components again emerge as
critical to the educational process. To be sure, educators and trainers working in
this area must be competent in conducting all of the areas cited around the circle –
competent to establish instructional goals objectives and competent to assess these
same goals and objectives.
２０４ 言語文化研究 第２８巻 第２号

Assessing the Development of Intercultural Competence

Earlier, it was pointed out that intercultural abilities are known by various terms
and with varying meanings. It is obvious, therefore, that clarity about the nature of
intercultural competence is a prerequisite not only for the design and implementation
of courses, but also in order to properly monitor and assess their results. Let us
turn now to an examination of assessment quality. To review, assessment quality
can be enhanced by considering several factors（adapted from Deardorff ２
００４, p
３
２４）:
• first of all, the purpose ; i. e., why assess ?
• the target audience ; i. e., who is to be tested ?
• clarity about successful outcomes ; i. e., what outcomes are being assessed ?
• the use of proper assessment tools and strategies that are aligned with the
learning objectives
• the assessment procedure ; i. e., how the test is administered, evaluated,
and scored
• aspects of the tests used ; i. e., their scope, efficiency, and length as well as
their validity and reliability
• representative and varied samples of student achievement ; i. e., ongoing
and not just end-testing）
, and
• avoiding bias ; i. e., extraneous interference that may affect obtaining
adequate and appropriate samples.

Fortunately, quality assessment can be facilitated and ensured today owing to

the development of a variety of new evaluative approaches – outcomes assessment,
mastery learning, and performance assessment, among others. Their purpose,
however, remains the same : to find out how well students attain established
 Developing Intercultural Competencies :
An Educational Imperative for the２１st Century ２０５

objectives. Newer test formats and strategies help to obtain this information in
better and more varied ways, permitting a shift away from traditional paper and
pencil tests which, taken alone, are never effective measures of intercultural
competence. Approaches that incorporate portfolios, logs, observation, interviews,
performative tasks, and the like, are generally more valuable for assessing
intercultural competence. All of these options permit a multi-dimensional
assessment approach that is essential for monitoring and measuring a complex
phenomenon like intercultural competence.

In addition, a comprehensive pilot assessment tool has been developed in

response to the ICC concept described in this paper. This tool, known as the
Assessment of Intercultural Competence（AIC）
, is presented in a “YOGA” format,
an acronym that stands for “Your Objectives, Guidelines, and Assessment.” The
AIC form is intended to be used as a guide before, during, and after an intercultural
course or experience to help monitor the multiple aspects of an individual’s evolving
intercultural competence. Hence, the AIC helps in three ways : １） first, to
establish and then critically examine intercultural objectives, ２）to serve as a guide
during the intercultural sojourn, and ３）to provide an assessment tool for use at
various stages of the process as well as at the end. Hence, the assessment approach
is normative, formative, as well as summative （Fantini ２
００６, pps.９
５−１
１６）
.
Moreover, the AIC’s YOGA format shifts the focus of the process from teaching to
learning, from input to outcome, and from evaluation to development. This is
accomplished by engaging the learner as a partner in the teaching-learning process,
an approach that is consistent with co-constructive educational approaches in general.

Although the form is about assessing developmental levels of ICC, its

completion is based on both observations and performance. It is not about what a
２０６ 言語文化研究 第２８巻 第２号

participant thinks he or she might do in a given situation, but what is actually done
and observed – by the participants him / herself, and by others. This responds to
differences between professed intentions（what one thinks or says one might do in a
given situation） and expressed behaviors （what one actually does）
. Abstract
notions about competence are substantiated by observed behaviors.

Of course, few individuals ever attain “native-like” behaviors, nor might they
desire to do so. （This is especially true of adults ; less so of younger individuals）
.
Most intercultural experiences allow but do not demand native-like behavior,
recognizing that individual choices are both complex and personal. Nonetheless, it
helps for each person to clarify how far he or she is willing to go and why, and the
consequences of their decisions. Often, the result is a clarification of the values
that are most central to each person and their identity. Yet, a minimal expectation
for all who embark on an intercultural sojourn, it would seem, must be an
understanding and tolerance of the host culture（that will, at the very least, allow
the participant to be able to stay within the target group）
, even if not everyone also
develops similar levels of appreciation.

An important aspect of the monitoring process is the two-way assessment,

involving the learner plus one or more external evaluators. In addition to the
instructor, other evaluators may include a peer, a native of the host language-
culture, or others. Of these, the host native’s perspective is especially instructive
because it provides the “emic” in addition to an “etic” viewpoint, which invariably
differ. When using a host native evaluator, however, it is often necessary to
translate the form into the host language. For best results, each person using the
form will complete it ideally in his or her own native tongue.
 Developing Intercultural Competencies :
An Educational Imperative for the２１st Century ２０７

It is not unusual that the learner’s competence may be perceived differently by

each person who completes the form. This is not important. What is important,
however, is that the differing perspectives are used to stimulate dialog, reflection,
and learning, and that strategies are identified that will maximize further
development. This is also the reason for developing together the action plan for the
participant’s future work at the end of each assessment session.

Finally, it should be kept in mind that completion of a lengthy form such as the
AIC will not fully ensure the development of intercultural competence. A checklist,
no matter how comprehensive it may be, serves only as a guide. Other means of
monitoring the intercultural process should be used in combination with the AIC –
journals, portfolios, and other assessment strategies are all helpful. These diverse
strategies used in varying combinations provide multiple indicators of ICC
development. These indicators are obtained from both discrete and global and
direct and indirect assessment formats（see Figure ４ below）
. This is especially
important when assessing areas of awareness and attitudes, which are often more
challenging to evaluate than more traditional areas of knowledge and skills.

Figure４. Multiple Assessment Formats

Global Discrete

Direct Indirect

Direct assessment is conducted at specified moments in time, usually

announced, and directly documents actual learning. Traditional tests and quizzes
measuring acquired knowledge are good examples of direct assessment formats.
Other direct strategies include portfolios, capstone projects, and other variations of
２０８ 言語文化研究 第２８巻 第２号

embedded course assessments.

Indirect assessment formats are normally ongoing and sporadic, and not often
obvious to the learner when they are being conducted. A teacher observes students
during a class session, for example, and later makes notes about their performance
based on criteria she has established. She might focus on how students interact or
participate, whether they are experiencing problems, are asking questions, appear
motivated, are on target, or are unengaged. Periodic notes about student
performance help the teacher to follow up on specific issues, as needed, in
subsequent sessions. Other indirect formats include self-report surveys, interviews,
and focus groups in which students report impressions of their own learning.

Discrete assessment focuses on very specific aspects of learning ; for example :

Did the student grasp the point at hand, demonstrate a particular skill, or reveal a
particular insight ? Its focus is narrow and specific and contrasts with global
assessment, which considers abilities that require synthesis and applications in other
contexts. Normally, however, several or all of these formats are used. For
example, true or false questions on a test are at once both direct and discrete, while
a case study utilizes both indirect and global formats. In general, ongoing use of
varied formats in combination produces the best indicators of learning over time.

To help with the assessment process, other external instruments are also
available. A few select examples are cited below in Figure５:
 Developing Intercultural Competencies :
An Educational Imperative for the２１st Century ２０９

Figure５. Chart of Intercultural Competence Assessment Instruments

［Note : URLs were confirmed at the time of this writing ; however, URLs and Websites are
subject to change over time. For an expanded list of over９０instruments, see also Fantini２
００６.］

ACTFL Proficiency Scale & Guidelines

Measures : Foreign Language proficiency

Description : This instrument provides detailed descriptions of levels of language proficiency

based on five levels originally established by the U. S. Foreign Service Institute. The scale
lists various levels of communication functions, range of vocabulary, degree of accuracy, and
flexibility, that language learners are able to control in four skill areas（listening, speaking,
reading, and writing）
. These descriptions help in setting learning goals, in planning
learning activities, and in evaluating proficiency.
Source : Online from the American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Languages
（ACTFL）, １９８２, revised１９８
５.

Assessment of Intercultural Competence（AIC）

Measures : Intercultural Competence, including language proficiency

Description : This questionnaire, designed in a YOGA Format （“Your Objectives,

Guidelines, and Assessment”）, is utilized for self-assessment and assessment by peers and
teachers. The tool monitors the development of the intercultural competence of sojourners
（and hosts）over time, providing valid and reliable indicators that are normative, formative,
and summative. Shorter and longer versions exist, as well as versions in English, British
English, Swiss German, and Spanish. For the underlying research and the tool, go to :
http://www.experiment.org/resources.html（click on Final Report, then Appendix G.）; for a
shorter version, see :〈http://www.sit.edu/graduate/７８
０３.htm〉
, then scroll down to SIT
Occasional Papers Series, Inaugural Issue No.１, and then locate the article on pps.２５−４３.

Source : For permission to use, contact :〈alvino.fantini@sit.edu〉.

Assessment of Language Development（ALD）

Measures : Foreign language development.

２１０ 言語文化研究 第２８巻 第２号

Description : This questionnaire, designed in a YOGA Format （“Your Objectives,

Guidelines, and Assessment”）, is utilized for self-assessment and assessment by peers and
teachers. This tool charts the development of language proficiency over time, providing
normative, formative, and summative indicators.

Source : For permission to use, contact :〈alvino.fantini@sit.edu〉.

Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory（CCAI）

Measures : Individual potential for cross-cultural adaptability

Description : A culture-general instrument 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 that occur regardless of their own cultural
background or target culture characteristics. The inventory contains ５０ items, resulting in
individual profile scores along four dimensions.

Source : C. Kelley & J. Meyers. Intercultural Press. Tel : １−８００３７０２６６

５.

New Directions at Matsuyama University : A Pilot Program

In ２
００７, Matsuyama University undertook to develop a new M. A. Program in
Language Communication. This is an important step toward drawing attention to
the need to develop intercultural competence in its students. Among the areas that
make up this program （e. g., language, linguistics, pragmatics, and so forth）
,
Intercultural Communication is a required course for all participants. The original
course design was based on the aforementioned “Survey of Intercultural
Communication Courses” （Fantini １
９９７）
. As a result, aside from the goal of
developing intercultural competence, this new course is designed to explore a broad
range of fundamental intercultural communication concepts and their implications
towards more fully understanding the differences and similarities among people of
 Developing Intercultural Competencies :
An Educational Imperative for the２１st Century ２１１

diverse language-cultures, as well as the effects upon both when individuals of

different cultures come into contact.

The course objectives include exploring : １） the impact of one’s native

language-culture in influencing how one sees the world, ２）the components of world
view and their interconnections, ３） varying cultural taxonomies, ４） intercultural
contact and its positive and negative consequences, ５）potential areas of cultural
conflict, especially between Japanese and English-speakers, ６） strategies for
effective and appropriate cultural entry and adjustment, and ７） intercultural
communicative competencies that facilitate positive intercultural relations. This
highly participatory and interactive two-semester graduate course is also designed to
help students develop a personal and professional understanding of the field of
intercultural communication and its implications within the field of Language
Communication. Finally, this course requirement is based on the conviction that an
understanding of ICC is critical not only for students but also for educators, trainers,
policymakers, and others who are in a position to promote the development of
intercultural competence – both for international sojourners and those who remain at
home.

Conclusion

As language and intercultural educators, helping our students develop foreign

language proficiency and other intercultural competencies, we need to be clear and
explicit about what we do and how we do it. This is especially true in a field still
in the process of defining the fundamental notion so central to our work –
intercultural competence. How we conceptualize our subject matter affects how we
define goals and objectives, design and implement courses, and monitor and assess
２
１２ 言語文化研究 第２８巻 第２号

outcomes. Today, increasingly varied assessment options are available that help in
conducting effective and reliable evaluation.

Clearly, it is a challenge to develop ICC and it also takes time and effort, but
its attainment promises exciting new possibilities. The development of intercultural
competence offers a chance to move beyond the limitations of our own ethnocentric
worldview. “If you want to know about water,” it has been said, “don’t ask a
goldfish.” The goldfish and the frog remind us of ourselves. Yet, intercultural
learning and contact provide provocative educational experiences precisely because
they permit us to learn about others while also learning more about ourselves.

On the other hand, the lack of any intercultural competencies seems also
impossible to imagine in this day and age. In the past, the lack of intercultural
competencies have often resulted in negative actions such as the misunderstandings,
conflict, ethnic strife, and genocide that have often resulted from failed interactions
across cultures. In today’s world, everyone needs intercultural competence, and
learning a second language and developing the complex of abilities that lead to
intercultural competence are essential in today’s world. They are, in fact, an
educational imperative in our times.

References

――――. １９８５. ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines. Hastings-on-Hudson, NY : ACTFL Materials

Center.
Byram, Michael. １９９７. Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence.
Clevedon, England : Multilingual Matters.
Byram, Michael, Carol Morgan et al. １９９
４. Teaching and Learning Language and Culture.
Clevedon, England : Multilingual Matters.
Deardorff, Darla K. ２００４. The Identification and Assessment of Intercultural Competence as a
 Developing Intercultural Competencies :
An Educational Imperative for the２１st Century ２１３

Student Outcome of Internationalization at Universities of Higher Education in the United

States. Unpublished Dissertation, Raleigh, NC : North Carolina State University.
Fantini, Alvino E. ２
００６. Exploring and Assessing Intercultural Competence, Federation of The
Experiment in International Living, Brattleboro, Vermont.
Fantini, Alvino E. ２０００−２０
０１. “Designing Quality Intercultural Programs : A Model and A
Process,” in Interspectives : A Journal on Transcultural Education. Vol １８, pps.１００−１０５.
［http://resources.cisv.org/docs/main?action=document.view&id＝２７
０］
０
Fantini, Alvino E., F. Arias-Galicia, & D. Guay.２００. Globalization and ２
１st Century Competencies,
Paper No.１１. CONAHEC（Consortium for North American Higher Education Collaboration）
〈http://conahdec.org〉and〈http://elnet.org〉
Fantini, Alvino E.１９
９９. Foreign Language Standards : Linking Research, Theories, and Practices ,
edited by June K. Phillips. Lincolnwood, Illinois : National Textbook Co.
Fantini, Alvino E. February １９９７. “A Survey of Intercultural Communication Courses,” in the
International Journal of Intercultural Relations. Vol２１, No１. Exeter, England : Elsevier.
Kelley, Colleen & Judith Meyers. ２００７. Cross-Cultural Adapability Inventory. Chicago, Illinois :
Vengent.
Humphrey, Donna. ２０
０７. Intercultural Communication Competence : The State of Knowledge,
Reported to CILT, The National Centre for Languages, London, England.
９
Martin, Judith N., ed.１８９. Special Issue on Intercultural Communication Competence, International
Journal of Intercultural Relations. Vol１３, No３. New York : Pergamon Press.
Wight, Al et al. Spring１９９
９. “SIETAR’s Past, Present, and Future,” in The SIETAR International
Journal , Edited by Alvino E. Fantini & Judee Blohm, Inaugural Issue, Vol １, No １, SIETAR
International, Putney, VT.
Wiseman, Richard L. & Jolene Koester, eds. １９９３. Intercultural Communication Competence.
Newbury Park, CA : Sage Publications.