SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.31 issue60Communicative Citizenship, Preliminary ApproachesMediations, Communication and Coloniality: Encounters and Disagreements of Cultural Studies and Communication in Latin América author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand

Journal

Article

Indicators

Related links

  • On index processCited by Google
  • Have no similar articlesSimilars in SciELO
  • On index processSimilars in Google

Share


Signo y Pensamiento

Print version ISSN 0120-4823

Signo pensam. vol.31 no.60 Bogotá Jan./June 2012

 

Language teaching materials as mediators for ICC development: a challenge for materials developers

Materiales de enseñanza de lengua para el desarrollo de la CCI: un desafío para los fabricantes

CARLOS RICO TRONCOSO

* Carlos Rico Troncoso. Colombiano. Doctor en ELT (Enseñanza y Aprendizaje de Lenguas) de la Universidad de Leeds-Met, Reino Unido. Magister en Desarrollo Educativo, Social y Humano del CINDE (Centro Internacional para el Desarrollo Social y Humano) y la UPN. Tiene estudios de Maestría en Lingüística Hispánica del Instituto Caro y Cuervo. Actualmente es profesor asociado del Departamento de Lenguas, de la Facultad de Comunicación y Lenguaje, en la Pontificia Universidad Javeriana Bogotá - Colombia. Correo electrónico: crico@javeriana.edu.co

Submission Date: April 29th, 2011. Acceptance Date: June 1st, 2011.

Recibido: Abril 29 de 2011. Aceptado: Junio 1 de 2011.


Los materiales de lengua y en particular los libros de texto son para los aprendices una fuente de exposición a la lengua y a la cultura. En los contextos multiculturales, estos se convierten en potentes herramientas que posibilitan los encuentros interculturales entre los individuos que poseen diferentes formaciones culturales. Sin embargo, la realidad muestra que en gran parte los libros de texto siguen siendo diseñados desde perspectivas tradicionales que no permiten a los aprendices desarrollar habilidades comunicativas para sortear encuentros interculturales. Por el contrario, refuerzan estereotipos y apoyan la idea de que una nacionalidad es superior a otras. Este artículo presenta algunos constructos teóricos y los resultados tomados de una etapa de una investigación cualitativa que buscó determinar cómo un conjunto de materiales basados en principios podían desarrollar la competencia comunicativa intercultural en estudiantes de lenguas (CCI).

Palabras clave: Competencia comunicativa intercultural, Encuentros interculturales, Enseñanza-aprendizaje de lenguas extranjeras y Desarrollo de materiales.

Descriptores: Comunicación intercultural — Relaciones culturales — Lenguajes y lenguas - Enseñanza.


Language materials, in particular coursebooks, are a source of exposure for learners to language and culture. In multicultural contexts, they become helpful tools that promote encounters between people of different cultural backgrounds. However, the reality shows that most language coursebooks are still designed from traditional perspectives that do not allow learners to develop their abilities to deal with intercultural encounters. On the contrary, they reinforce stereotypes and strengthen the belief that one nationality is superior to the others. This article presents some theoretical constructs and results taken from one stage of a qualitative research that sought to determine how a set of principled language materials could develop the students' Intercultural Communicative Competence (ICC).

Keywords: Intercultural communicative competence, Intercultural encounters, Language teaching and learning and Materials development.

Search Tags: Intercultural Communication — Cultural Relations — Language and Languages - Teaching.


Origen del artículo

El artículo hace parte de la investigación doctoral titulada 'Principled Language Materials for the Development of Intercultural Communicative Competence' desarrollada en el Reino Unido entre 2007-2011 y apoyada por la Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá-Colombia y el Programa ALBAN (Becas de Alto Nivel de la Comunidad Europea).


Once people... recognize that they are, truly, products of their own cultures, they are better prepared and more willing to look at the behaviour of persons from other cultures and accept them non-judgmentally (Valdes, 1986 VII)

The following report corresponds to a synthesis of my doctoral thesis carried out within a full time undergraduate programme (students of Spanish as a major language) in a university in the United Kingdom. The main interest consisted of searching out the ways in which language materials promote the development of students' intercultural communicative competence. The research reported here is action research that sought to change a situation within a classroom. In particular, it intended to adapt language materials and determined how they could develop students' intercultural communicative competence (ICC). Basically, the research questions aimed to identify some principles for the development of materials for ICC as well as a methodology that might be used in the adaptation of such materials. Furthermore, there was also a desire to find out a way to assess materials under ICC perspective. As there was not enough literature regarding language materials for ICC, this research constituted an attempt to propose a possible way of approaching the subject.

Fundamentally, this action research comprised three cycles: Reconnaissance, Intervention and Evaluation. The first cycle consisted of the reconnaissance of the problem. In this part of the research it was important to get to know the context and the participants involved in the study. In this cycle three actions were followed: the application of a student's questionnaire, the execution of a 'culture bump activity1 and the evaluation of the existing materials (the coursebook). The second cycle was characterized by the development of the intervention strategy. Here, the materials used were developed and the way they were evaluated was defined. In this cycle the teacher-researcher selected the didactic units to be adapted, defined the techniques for the adaptation and made the corresponding adaptation. In doing so, it was necessary to define not only the principles but also the methodology for the materials adaptation. Finally, the third cycle consisted of the evaluation of the materials in use. Mainly, students were observed on how they used the materials adapted. In this cycle three techniques for data gathering were considered: students' observation, teacher's checklist and students' portfolio. With the data gathered it was easy determined whether the materials helped students develop their intercultural communicative competence (ICC). Fundamentally, the results presented in this article came out of the this cycle.

The main findings showed that the materials adapted helped students to develop the dimensions of ICC, the savoirs: Savoir (knowledge), savoir-s'engager (awareness), savoir-faire (skills), savoir-être (attitudes); and savoir-communiquer (proficiency). However, this research showed that the savoirs were not developed in the same way. The subjects of this research were more inclined to develop the dimensions of 'knowledge' and 'awareness'. With regard to knowledge, the evidence showed that students were more interested in those activities where they got information about cultures (artefacts), knowledge of the 'self' and knowledge of how social groups function. In respect of 'awareness', students were inclined to develop activities for language and culture awareness. When implementing the activities, students revealed positive attitudes towards the language(s), the language learning and the culture(s). They started to evaluate critically perspectives, practices and products in one's own and other culture(s). These behaviours are directly connected to the development of ICC.

Finally, the main contribution of this action research consisted of the identification of some principles for developing ICC materials, the recognition of some methodologies that can be used in materials development (TDA and TBL)2 and the presentation of some indicators which facilitate the observation and description of ICC in materials development.

Intercultural communicative competence: A general overview

Nowadays the world experiences significant changes. Global economy has influenced the way countries establish and maintain relationships. Advances in technology have enabled people to be in touch and communicate in real time despite the geographical distances. Furthermore, in the last two decades people have been able to mobilize more easily around the world. All these changes have encouraged socio-cultural encounters between individuals of different cultural backgrounds. This is the picture of societies today. There are no boundaries for intercultural encounters. Today, societies are multicultural entities where individuals display and share multiple identities. Byram& Fleming (1998) assert that these identities bind them to particular social groups and their cultural practices. It is clear that in multicultural societies language becomes not only the means of reference but also the instrument that carries cultural meanings that help to maintain a speaker's sense of belonging to particular social groups.

The central question of the debate is to what extent communities are prepared to deal with these new ways of intercultural exchanges, and more specifically, how to deal with divergence and diversity in a context where interlocutors portray different social identities? In theory, one way of being able to deal effectively and appropriately with diversity, whether ethnic, racial, religious or cultural is by means of Intercultural Communicative Competence (ICC). Fantini has defined ICC as the 'ability to deal with differences in a positive manner' (2000: 25), and it entails 'an individual's ability to communicate and interact across cultural boundaries' (Byram, 1997:7)

ICC has been defined in multiple ways, but in this research this was understood not as an ability but as the overall social and psychological capacity of an individual to manage appropriately encounters with people from other cultural backgrounds (Byram et al, 2001; Corbett, 2003; Bennett, 2004; Holliday, 2004; Sercu et al, 2005; Ildiko et al, 2007; Savicki 2008; Deardorff, 2008). When people interact in a language that is foreign to at least one of them, the shared meanings and values they convey by language cannot be taken for granted. Byram and Fleming state that 'learning a language as it is spoken by a particular group is learning the shared meanings, values and practices of that group as they are embodied in the language' (1998:2). To understand the shared meanings, individuals have to decentre the self and take up the role of the other. In doing so, they need to develop some capacities associated with the dimensions of ICC: the savoirs (Knowledge). Byram (1997) has listed them as follows:

  • Knowledge of self and other; of how interaction occurs; of the relationship of the individual to society. Savoir (knowledge)
  • Knowing how to interpret and relate information. Savoir-faire/savoir comprendre (skills)
  • Knowing how to engage with the political consequences of education; being critically aware of cultural behaviours. savoir-s'engager (awareness)
  • Knowing how to discover cultural information. savoir-faire/savoir apprendre(skills)
  • Knowing how to be: how to relativise oneself and value the attitudes and beliefs of the other. savoir-être (attitudes-traits)

To understand clearly what ICC means, it is necessary to think of a communicative situation in which people -from different cultures or backgrounds- interact and bring to the situation their knowledge, their awareness of similarities and differences, their beliefs, their attitudes, their behaviours, their skills and their language(s) to negotiate meanings and establish effective interpersonal relationship. It is clear that in this process none of the interlocutors are tabula rasas. They bring to the situations all their experiences and knowledge (savoirs) and negotiate them in interactions.

In this process the intercultural speakers have to show their abilities to 'interact with others, to accept others perspectives and perceptions of the world, to mediate between different perspectives, to be conscious of their evaluations of difference' (Byram et al., 2001: 5). In the same vein, Byram claims that a 'successful communication might not be viewed as efficiency of information exchange' (1997: 3). On the contrary, we should value the ability of the individuals to establish and maintain relationships.

Traditionally, Foreign Language Teaching (FLT) viewed communication as the process of exchange of information or sending and receiving messages. In that sense, most language teaching materials produced in the last decades spread this concept of communication. This process is characterized because one knows and possesses the information and the other requests and overlooks part of such information. In my view, this has been one of the weaknesses of the Communicative Approach in language teaching. Communication is not seen as an intercultural encounter where individuals continuously negotiate cultural meanings. Byram states that 'even the exchange of information is dependent upon understanding how what one says or writes will be perceived and interpreted in another cultural context; it depends on the ability to decentre and take up the perspective of the listener or reader' (1997: 3).

It is true that developing Intercultural Communicative Competence or intercultural dialogue is not a concern just for interculturalists. Nowadays, more and more people are interested in the study of ICC. For example people in business, sports, tourism, international relations, education and in many other fields have seen in ICC a way to qualify the interactions between people of different backgrounds. This phenomenon has become a crucial point for the agenda of the European Commission, which has been promoting campaigns against racism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia and intolerance. The main thrust message of those campaigns is All Different—All Equal'. The Third Summit of the Heads of State and Government identified the 'intercultural dialogue as a means of promoting awareness, understanding, reconciliation and tolerance, as well as preventing conflicts and ensuring integration and the cohesion of the society' (Council of Europe, June 2008: 8). Every effort done in this regard is a contribution for creating a better place to live.

In particular, communicators and language teachers have a high degree of commitment for developing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Every day classrooms become potential fields to undertake research about intercultural communication. For example, in my role as a language teacher I have to deal continually with heterogeneous groups where difference is the constant of every lesson. It is in this process that I have realised that the language materials we use in our classrooms are not designed to teach the difference but to homogenize behaviours. Sadly, most language materials used reinforce stereotypes and strengthen boundaries between cultures. As examples, there are some language materials that associate Spanish culture with paella and flamenco or Irish with beer or either English with fish and chips. It is incredible how language materials (particularly coursebooks) can contribute to shape misunderstandings and stereotypes.

With regard to the cultural information, coursebooks are restricted to talking about an event, a place or a character. Generally, this information is accompanied with some images that do not provide enough information about the culture (i.e flags, maps, statues). In short, culture is seen as the visible and tangible products of a society (big 'C' culture, Kramsch, 1998; Bennett, 1998 & Lazar, 2007). The big 'C' refers to the institutionalized social products of any society (e.g., art, music, literature) and it includes the recognition of the social, economical, political and linguistic systems of any social group.

Absolutely, Language materials used in teaching should not create false images about cultures. On the contrary, they might bridge gaps between language and culture (Rico 2010). In this regard they should be pedagogical devices that enable learners to understand more effectively differences among languages and cultures. Publishers and materials designers should be aware of this fact and take advantage of it. Teaching a language should not be restricted to the language itself. Language is a social phenomenon and it should be understood as such.

This issue is likely a matter of concern for materials developers. As Tomlinson (1998) states, language teachers are also in the position of dealing with social issues when bringing to classrooms topics like sex, drugs, alcohol, crime, violence, war, religion, politics, history and wife beating. But these topics are considered by publishers as taboos and that is why they are not presented in most of language course books. Basically, the issue is not whether to deal with these topics. The point is how to deal with them and how to present them in course books.

Despite the previous situation, language teachers know that, in learning situations, materials become key tools that help learners develop the language competences required for the acquisition of any language or culture. In short, these issues encouraged me to undertake a research focused on intercultural competence and materials development.

The perspective of the researcher

For the last decade, few studies in the field of language teaching have been made regarding the effects of language materials on the development of Intercultural Communicative Competence-ICC (Bryram, 1989, Byram, M. et al 2001; Sercu, L. et al 2005, and Lazar, I. 2007). Most language materials, as it was said before, and particularly coursebooks used inclassrooms, send out erratic messages about language, communication and culture. For instance, they believe that learning a language is linked to learning sets of grammatical structures or lists of words, or the memorizing of useful expressions for day-to-day communication. Sometimes it is associated with the idea of developing the four communicative skills. With regard to communication, they also assume that being a good communicator means being good at exchanging of information. Regarding culture, some coursebooks correlate that with the ability to acquire information about facts and events or the ability to recognize cultural products (artefacts). In the worst scenarios, cultures are neglected altogether or reduced to tourist brochure images.

In terms of culture, some language coursebooks focus solely on one culture, the foreign. They overlook the culture of learners and impose implicitly the one which is represented by the language learnt. As said before, this situation becomes a problem in multicultural classrooms, where students have to develop some skills that should allow them to negotiate meaning with the others of different cultural backgrounds. Students need to develop skills that enable them to mediate between their own and the other's culture. Nevertheless, these abilities are not developed by the language course books used in classrooms. In that case, what can we do? Do we have to develop our own materials? These were the questions that stimulated the inquiry process of this research.

Having said that, it is not an easy task to start a language course if one of the purposes of that course is to develop intercultural competence (IC). Definitely, it is a challenge and a titanic work with huge social responsibility to embark in such a task. The problem starts when the institution defines some guidelines and strategies for cross-cultural communication and most staff is not informed of it. This was the situation I observed in some of the part time and hourly-paid teachers at the University where this research took place. The University defined the 'Guidelines for Curriculum Review' in which some strategies for the cross-cultural capability were listed. Fundamentally, the University was making efforts to connect the cross-cultural capability and global perspectives to strengthen its processes of internationalization, diversity, widening participation and sustainabil-ity. But not all teachers were aware of that.

On the other hand, the problem continued within the curriculum programme where professionals had to design courses in accordance with that guideline. Sometimes these professionals wanted to do it, but they did not know how. In the end, the easiest way to respond to the situation was by adopting anything already done. This was the case that I experienced as a teacher. I had to teach a language course (Spanish as a major language) for a 'Full Time Undergraduate Programme' (FTUGP). In this course, teaching language, communication and culture was part of the day-to-day content. Thus, teachers were always looking for the best ways of doing it. One way was by using materials in classrooms. We know that materials are the special concern of language teachers. Materials allow us to connect students with cultures, learn a language and develop some skills. The problem arises when we do not select the appropriate coursebook for students, teachers and the programme but we have to use it in the classrooms.

In particular, I had to use a book which was developed from the most up-to-date perspective of language teaching -Action-oriented Approach-. The name of coursebook was 'En Acción. Curso de español con enfoque orientado a la acción. Published by EnClave ELE, Spain 2008. This book is organized in such an attractive way that teachers can very easily identify the content related to communication, language, culture and interculture.

The big issue with this book is that it is mainly centred on the target language and it did not encourage the intercultural dialogue. In other words, it did not allow students to reflect upon their own language and culture and establish similarities and differences with the host. In this vein, Corbett (2003) claims that 'learning materials have to incorporate aspects of the home culture' (4). He asserts that the intercultural component in second language education 'requires teachers and learners to pay attention to and respect the home culture and the home language' (Corbett, 2003: 4).

Furthermore, the activities devoted to the development of the cultural component were presented in the coursebook at the end of the unit. They were not integrated as part of the other topics. This finding is related to what Davcheva&Sercu, (2005) found in their research about teachers use of textbooks and other teaching materials in seven countries (Belgium, Bulgaria, Greece, Mexico, Poland, Spain and Sweden and). They found that culture was not integrated with the contents of language teaching and this was not reflected in the textbooks. To sum up, these characteristics of coursebooks do not contribute to the development of the students' intercultural communicative competence.

It is clear that if materials do not fulfil the purpose of the course and students show some dissatisfaction with them, teachers should change or adapt them. As there is not a perfect material to suit all the interests and expectations of people involved, teachers have to decide how to adapt them. What happened in this research was that I had to adapt some units from the coursebook. As long as the coursebook was as defined previously and the syllabus was designed based on it, the right decision to be taken was that of adaptation. Basically, this was one of the purposes of this research, to adapt some units for the development of students' Intercultural Communicative Competence (ICC). In turn, the main purpose was to determine whether the materials adapted contributed to the development of the students' ICC.

For the adaptation process, it was necessary to answer two important questions. The first enquired about the sort of principles that might be considered in the adaptation of language materials for the development of ICC. The second sought to identify the type of methodology that could be suggested for the adaptation of the materials. Once they were adapted, it was important to assess them in use. In doing so, a matrix for the evaluation was proposed. This matrix identified the components of ICC and some descriptors that allowed the researcher to understand what type of evidence could be registered in each component(see appendix I).

The framework which supported the materials adaptation was the "Text Driven Approach - TDA (Tomlinson, 2003). This approach is intended to humanize materials (i.e., coursebooks) which are mostly developed from language-centred perspectives. Fundamentally, this approach aims to give the students the chance to experience texts emotionally. In turn, texts are perceived as cultural artefacts that enable the student to think, reflect and communicate which are important abilities for the development of ICC.

TDA is characterized by two stages, the planning and the development stage. The first one consists of the collection, selection and experience of texts. The second one has to do with the development of the activities: readiness, experiential, intake response, development and input response (see appendix 2). These activities are linked to the savoirs (Knowledge)

Once materials were developed following the principles of TDA, it was important to evaluate them in use. The evaluation process was carried out taking into account two important aspects. The first was to establish whether the materials contributed or not to the development of ICC (Appendix 3). The second was to determine whether or not students developed ICC (Appendix 3).

Regarding the first case, the researcher checked whether the materials allowed students to develop some of the components of ICC -awareness, attitudes, knowledge, skills and proficiency-. For the second case, the researcher used the Developmental Model for Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) created by Bennett (1998) to determine whether students develop their ICC. This model is used to observe how students experience the process of adaptation to a new culture. Basically, the model shows all the stages individuals go through to become adapted to new group or culture —denial, defence, minimization, acceptance, adaptation and integration-. These stages go from ethnocentric behaviours to ethnore-lative positions where individuals relativise the self and value the other. Developing an intercultural sensitivity allows us to interact with others, to accept other perspectives and perceptions of the world, to mediate between different perspectives and to be conscious of their evaluations of difference.

The Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS)

This Model was developed by Milton Bennett as a result of multiple observations of students experiences in adapting to a new culture (cross-cultural experiences). Based on Cognitive Psychology and Constructivism he organized his observations into a continuum of stages of increasing sensitivity to cultural difference. His model was divided into six stages (See figure 1) where people move from ethnocentric behaviour to more ethnorelative positions. In other words, from behaviours where the person uses his/her own set of standards and customs to judge all people -Ethnocentric-, to behaviours where the person is comfortable with many standards and customs and demonstrates the ability to adapt behaviour and judgements to a variety of interpersonal settings -ethnorelative-.

Bennett (2004) has used the term ethnocen-trism to refer to the experience of one's own culture as "central to reality.' By this he means that the beliefs and behaviours that people receive in their primary socialization are unquestioned; they are experienced as "just the way things are.' Additionally, he coined the term ethnorelativism to mean the opposite of ethnocentrism, the experience of one's own beliefs and behaviours as just one organization of reality among many viable possibilities.

Bennett distinguishes the sequence of six distinct kinds of experience spread across the continuum from ethnocentrism to ethnorelativ-ism. The most ethnocentric experience was named the Denial of cultural difference, followed by the Defense against cultural difference. In the middle of the continuum, the Minimization of cultural difference seemed to be a transition "from the more virulent forms of ethnocentrism to a more benign form' (Bennett, 2004: 63), leading to the ethnorelativeAcceptance of cultural difference. At the heart of ethnorelativism is Adaptation to cultural difference, followed in some cases by the Integration of cultural difference into identity. In figure 2 we can observe the main characteristics of these stages.

Towards a conceptual framework for ICC: My perspective

Within my research I defined what ICC was, then Icharacterised it in terms of explaining its dimensions and components, and finally I introduced a provisional model for its understanding. ICC was defined as the overall social and psychological capacities of an individual to manage appropriately encounters with people from other cultural backgrounds. As we mentioned before, ICC is more than a skill. It is a differenced-based approach that allows individuals to deal appropriately with cultural differences whether ethnic, racial, gender, class, religious or cultural. Consequently, the intercultural speaker is an individual who "is able to establish a relationship between his or her own and the other cultures, to mediate and explain difference -an ultimately to accept that difference and see the common humanity beneath it' (Byram and Zarate, quoted by Byram and Fleming, 1998: 8).

The aforementioned definition of ICC implies that individuals need to develop all their capacities, knowledge, abilities and their epistemological and ethical postures. In this regard, if the ultimate goal is to become effective in intercultural encounters, then individuals have to reflect upon the dimensions and components involved in such a process. By dimensions I mean general categories where "big issues' are explained. For example, the savoirs mentioned by Byram might be considered as intercultural dimensions, (savoir, savoir-être, savoir apprendre/faire, savoir comprendreand savoir-s'engager). On the other hand, by components I mean, the observable behaviours we perceive in the individual's performance. They are more specific. For example, the factors of ICC mentioned by Byram (knowledge, attitudes, awareness and skills) are equivalent to the components of ICC. Figure 3, shows the relationships between dimensions and components of ICC.

In this figure we can observe how dimensions and components are intertwined. The big contribution from this scheme is the adoption of a new savoir -savoir communiquer- which is very important in those situations where interactions are mediated by different languages. This savoir is different from the savoir-faire in the sense that this is more focused on determining how the individual functions linguistically (verbally and non-verbally) in intercultural encounters. To understand these dimensions and components in more detail, we provide a brief characterization of them

1. Savoir / knowledge (K) - knowing:

This constitutes the knowledge dimension of the conceptual framework. It is defined as knowledge about the social groups and their cultures not only in one's own culture but also in the interlocutor's culture. These savoirs constitute the frame of reference of the people living (in) a particular culture. Apart from culture-specific knowledge (everyday life behaviour), the intercultural speaker needs to acquire a certain amount of culture-general knowledge (topic-related knowledge) (Sercu et al, 2005).

2. Savoir-sengager / awareness (A) - reflecting:

This is the ability to evaluate, critically, and on the basis of explicit criteria, perspectives, practices and products in one's own and other cultures and countries (Byram, Nichols, & Stevens, 2001: 198). When acquiring a foreign/second language we face two types of awareness: language and cultural awareness. The first consists of having a general understanding of the nature of language and positive and realistic attitudes towards language learning. The language awareness component would draw conscious attention to the similarities with and differences from the learner's first language or another language (Buttjes&Byram, 1991: 22-23).

In turn, the cultural awareness involves both viewpoints, making learners both ethnographer and informant allowing them to gain a perspective through comparison which is neither entirely one nor the other. Cultural awareness involves the ability of standing back from ourselves and becoming aware of our cultural values, beliefs and perceptions that are different from the others. Cultural awareness manifests when we interact with people from other cultures. We realize that people interpret and evaluate things in different ways. We start developing awareness when we answer the question: why do we do things in that way? How do we see the world ? Why do we react in that particular way? (Quappe&Cantatore, 2007).

3. Savoir-être / attitudes and traits (A) - Being

This is the capacity and willingness to abandon ethnocentric attitudes and perceptions and the ability to establish and maintain a relationship between one's own and the foreign culture (Sercu, et al., 2005: 5). It is characterised by the attitudes, motivations, values, beliefs, cognitive styles and personality linked to personal identity. It is likely that individuals here reshape their own values and integrate new perspectives so that they eventually become intercultural mediators when facing conflict-ridden situations. This savoir implies "the willingness to seek out or take up opportunities to engage with otherness in a relationship of equality, distinct from seeking out the exotic or to profit from others' (Byram et al 2001: 195).

4. Savoir-faire / skills (S) - knowing how

This savoir covers savoir-comprendre and savoir-apprendre. They constitute the skill component of the conceptual framework. Savoir comprendre is the ability to interpret a text or an event from another culture, to explain it and relate it to texts or events from one's own. In contrast, Savoir apprendreis the ability to acquire new knowledge of a culture and cultural practices and the ability to operate knowledge, attitudes and skills under the limitations of the interaction.

5. Savoir-communiquer / proficiency (P) - communicating

This is the ability to function linguistically in a second or foreign language. We know that Foreign Language Teaching (FLT) has "the experience of otherness at the centre of its concern, as it requires learners to engage with both familiar and unfamiliar experiences through the medium of another language' (Byram, 1997: 3). FLT has as a central aim to enable learners to use that language to interact with people for whom that language is their "natural medium' of experience, as well as in lingua franca situations where people communicate for "specific purposes'.

Grappling with another language challenges how one perceives, conceptualizes, and expresses oneself; and in the process, it opens the possibility of developing alternative communication strategies on someone else's terms. This humbling process often results in transcending and transforming how one understands the world. Lack of a second language — even at a minimal level — constrains one to continue to think about the world and act within it, only in one's native system, and deprives the individual of one of the most valuable aspects of the intercultural experience (Fantini, 2006: 2). No doubt most of us, in diverse degrees, have experienced the limitation to communicate an idea in a foreign/second language due to the lack of knowledge in that language.

Mainly, the savoir communiquer allows individuals to understand spoken and written language and express themselves orally and in written way. This savoir is linked to what knowing a language means. In other words, it is associated with proficiency, which is understood as the ability to use language appropriately in different contexts and the ability to organize one's thoughts through language (Cummins, Harley, Swain, & Allen, 1990).

Of key importance in this research is that both dimensions and components are interrelated and are manifested explicitly in every intercultural encounter. In the following scheme (Fig. 4), I propose a model of ICC, where interlocutors from different cultures or different backgrounds (Ci and C2) encounter in a specific socio-cultural context to interchange messages. In this process, interlocutors bring to the situation their knowledge, their awareness of similarities and differences, their attitudes (behaviours), and their skills to negotiate meaning and establish effective interpersonal relationships. Of course, I have to mention that a successful communication might not be viewed as efficiency of information exchange. It is focused on establishing and maintaining relationships. In this sense, 'the efficacy of communication depends upon using language to demonstrate one's willingness to relate' (Byram, 1997: 3).

In this scheme we see how ICC puts into relationship what interlocutors bring to the situation, their knowledge of the world, their skills to communicate effectively, their knowledge of the verbal and non-verbal patterns of communication, their awareness of the differences and similarities, and their attitudes towards people who are perceived as different in respect of the cultural meanings, beliefs and behaviours they exhibit. Undoubtedly, these components are not easily observed separately.

According to Fennes and Hapgood (1997) there is no magic formula to develop intercultural learning in either classroom situations or anywhere else. The evaluation of a social or intercultural learning process is quite difficult due to a change in perception, awareness and attitudes that is hardly measurable. Nonetheless, we as teachers can influence indirectly the development of ICC by bringing to our classrooms situations where students may reflect upon their intercultural behaviour: how to communicate with people from different cultures, both verbally and non-verbally, how to relate to and function effectively in a foreign environment. Fennes and Hapgood (1997: 63-64) state that we can help students develop ICC if we take into consideration the following learning goals:

  • To communicate with others using their ways of expression, both verbally and non-verbally
  • To think critically
  • To analyse own culture, including data gathering, in order to contrast it with other cultures
  • To empathize, to have sensitivity to others
  • To tolerate ambiguity in self and others
  • To adapt to changing social/environmental factors
  • To listen actively to those from a different culture
  • To be able to give -and receive- feedback interculturally
  • To adapt behaviour in another cultural setting
  • To negotiate tension and conflict that is culturally based

In the light of these learning goals, the question that arises is of how we can develop them in FLT scenery. The next part it is an attempt to show how, by means of materials, we might develop the students' ICC.

The role of language materials in the development of ICC

I have mentioned that the majority of teachers who use course books in their language classrooms supplement them with materials of their own choice or adapt them to the particular teaching circumstances and learning groups. Without doubt, they have realized that materials are influential tools that function as sociocultural mediators. As mediators, materials should bridge the gap between communities and make possible the intercultural encounters. Rico, states that materials could serve as "the auxiliary means to promote mutual understandings between people and cultures as well as powerful tools to deal with cultural diversity' (2011: 90).

In a like manner, "materials might contribute to broaden students' perceptions about cultures and empower them to develop social behaviours such as tolerance and respect towards diversity' (Rico, 2011: 91). Through materials students are aware of how other people do things differently. How people live and behave in different ways. Also they can develop positive social attitudes towards difference (i.e. a good starting is avoiding a priori value judgements). These are fundamental behaviours individuals require for the development of ICC.

It is true that materials are culturally loaded and are influenced by social context. Of interest here is to mention that despite innovative ideas of how to bring cultural explanations to the classroom, coursebooks stay with the idea of language training. Pulverness (2003) asserts that in some ELT coursebooks iconic, tourist brochure images of Britishness have been replaced by material that is more representative of the multicultural diversity of contemporary British life. The idea of language training remains but the new texts and visuals are just contextual backdrops to language tasks. Additionally, "the majority of coursebooks are designed to function in as diverse a market as possible, materials design is rarely capable of encompassing the learner's cultural identity as part of the learning process. At most, learners may be called upon to comment on superficial differences at the level of observable behaviours' (Pulverness, 2003: 429).

Clearly, cultural information in coursebooks is still treated incidentally or even worse it is treated as additional information. Students are not required to compare cultural similarities and differences, or integrate new information to their scheme of thought, or to relate their experiences with the experiences of others. In conclusion, "the subculture of the language learner and the small culture of the classroom tend not to be addressed' (Pulverness, 2003: 429).

Specific principles for the development of materials for ICC

Although I have mentioned some "foundation principles of ICC', we need to know which specific principles are linked to the purpose of developing materials for ICC. These can be grouped in three main categories which are related to whether materials allow learners to have intercultural experiences. Materials for ICC should promote among other things:

  • An experiential learning
  • A structured approach to intercultural learning
  • An intercultural learning linked to a language learning

Intercultural learning implies experiential learning (Kolb, D.A., 1984; Tomlinson, B., 2003; Moon A.J., 2004). It is not sufficient to read books or to listen to lectures about other cultures. It is necessary to be confronted with new unknown situations, to experience insecurity, fear, rejection as well as security, trust and sympathy, and to deal with the subject of culture on an emotional level. In fact, this is one of the main characteristics of the "Text Driven Approach' for materials development: learners experience texts emotionally. Generally texts, in this approach, are characterised as cultural artefacts: a piece of literature, an article, a song etc., which enable learners to acquire a language.

The approach of learning experientially is linked to the left and right hemispheres of our brains. According to Fennes&Hapgood, "the left hemisphere is concerned with learning that is analytical, rational, intellectual and numerical, whereas the right hemisphere deals with the experiential, the visual, the imaginative, the intuitive, the spatial' (1997: 74). Since culture is reflected in both parts of our personality, materials should address both parts to guarantee an intercultural learning experience.

Fennes and Hapgood, assert that "the concept of experiential learning means moving in circles from experience to reaction to reflection to conceptual understanding to change behaviour. This means that a pedagogic concept for experiential learning activity has to refer to both cognitive and the affective components of the learning process' (1997: 74).

This experience takes place not only in multicultural classrooms where students hold personal encounters with people from other countries or cultures. It also happens in monocultural scenarios where students although belonging to the same culture, yet have different backgrounds. We do not have to forget that misunderstandings happen in every human interaction. What seemed to be self-evident suddenly is not clear. One's own behaviour, which can be perceived as completely normal, results totally differently when we relate to the other.

Fennes and Hapgood claim that intercultural education is a synonym for conflict pedagogy. In interactions we have to cope with different value systems, beliefs, attitudes, views of life and of the world, consequently it implies conflict. We know that conflicts are part of being human and should not be avoided. We also learn through crisis. Sometimes there are conflicts we cannot solve and we have to learn about them. It is important that we learn to "recognize, to accept and to carry out the conflict in a democratic way. This process is not pleasant. It can be painful and therefore requires an adequate pedagogy' (Fennes&Hapgood, 1997: 75).

Experiential learning also implies an exercise of consciousness. When we are exposed to a different culture, we start developing our consciousness. We are aware of our own values, beliefs, lifestyles, habits, norms and therefore culture. It is clear that this experience is fundamental for being able to perceive cultures without judging them.

In respect of the structured approach to intercultural learning, we know that intercultural learning does not happen incidentally or by chance. Meeting people from different cultures does not assure the development of intercultural communicative competence. Fennes and Hapgood affirm that "pupils will tend to avoid communication if their language skills are not sufficient or if there is no specific need for communicating with the other cultural group' (1997: 76). Also meeting people from different backgrounds does not guarantee that pupils change their prejudices or stereotypes.

In this regard, intercultural learning materials should expose pupils to different cultural situations where they have to confront their own cultural behaviours and reflect upon them. Maybe this is one way pupils gain an awareness of how cultural behaviours differ one from another. In so doing, Fennes and Hapgood suggest an important element of a pedagogic concept for intercultural communication which is the "triangular didactic' as opposed to a "dual didactic'. In a "dual didactic' only deals with the "me' and the "you' in a relationship. At the beginning this is very stimulating as we have seen in some Communicative Language Teaching-CLT activities, where students get to know each other by communicating about each other's personality, but after a while it becomes superficial.

A "triangular didactic' involves a three-point relationship: you, me and a common theme or project that is pursued jointly. "Working together on a specific project makes cultural differences and cultural conflicts visible. Intercultural learning means how to deal with these differences and conflicts when doing a common task' (Fennes and Hapgood, 1997: 76).

We can have a list of projects but, of course, they change according to the curriculum and the school. It could be something of general concern, like environmental issues, nuclear energy, European integration, etc. Or, It could be related to politics, economy, society or the culture of the countries, such as comparisons of the educational systems, political decision-making processes, lifestyles, etc. It could also be related to specific subjects like history, science, business, etc. The idea of the projects is that pupils will be learning together and learning from each other.

Finally, we have to say that language learning is an essential element of intercultural learning. In bicul-tural or multicultural classroom situations, a major emphasis is put on the minority cultural language group(s) to learn the teaching language, which is normally the language of the majority culture or language group. Fennes and Hapgoog states that "ideally, teaching would be done bilingually'. (1997: 77). For the minority culture group(s), being able to communicate in the language of the majority culture and thus to participate -at least to some extent- in its social life is not a choice.

Regarding the approach to language learning in bicultural or multicultural classes, Fennes and Hapgood propose, "the intercultural language trading'. This refers to a pupil-centred language learning methodology where two people from different cultures, speaking different languages teach each other their language simply by speaking to the other in their own language until communication is established (1997: 78). Here, the process is interactive and the teacher's role is just to structure and monitor the learning process, to suggest themes, to give assignments and consult with the pupils on how they can learn the language from each other.

Results

The results presented here were taken only from one part of the research that was intended to describe whether the materials (coursebooks) helped students to develop their ICC. With regard to the coursebook students were asked to think of the frequency by which they developed some activities linked to the components of ICC when using the course book. They were able to choose the best option that suited them.

The results gathered, first were grouped in terms of their frequency (Fig. 5) and secondly in terms of the components of ICC (Fig. 6). Figure 5 shows the answers given by students in relation to their thoughts about their course book.

The answers given by students showed that one of the issues of the coursebook was the big emphasis given to the target language. The course book was entirely developed based on the idea of acquiring the foreign language. Through the activities proposed, students did not have enough opportunities to think about their own language and culture. From my perspective, this is one of the problems found in intercultural learning in FLT: the lack of activities that allow students to compare and contrast cultures -the one's own with the other's culture. (Byram& Fleming, 1998; Byram, 1997)

On the other hand, the tendency of focusing exclusively on the target language strengths the idea that the best language learner is the one who comes nearest to the native speaker mastery of the grammar and vocabulary of the language; the one who can therefore "pass for' or be identified as a "native' speaker (Byram, 1997; Corbett, 2003). This idea is related to what Corbett (2003) calls "Enculturation' (or assimilation). It means, the point reached when the person adopts the language, habits, and patterns of behaviour of a second culture and rejects or refrains from the use of his or her primary language, that is to say when the person adopts a new cultural identity. In FLT enculturation is seen as the learner's ability to become as close as native speakers as possible, in the gloomy knowledge that few can reach that goal.

If materials, and specifically coursebooks, are developed from the perspective of an intercultural approach they should be designed with the intention of helping learners become adapted to a new culture. In other words, materials should encourage learners to function within a new culture, while maintaining their own identity. The basis of Acculturation or adaptation process is the idea that the more learners know their culture, the more they understand the other's culture. Valdes (quoted by Corbett, 2003: 25) states that "once people recognize that they are, truly, products of their own cultures, they are better prepared and more willing to look at the behaviour of persons from other cultures and accept them non-judgmentally'.

From this perspective, it is clear that materials should allow students to develop their abilities to function more appropriately within the new culture. It does not mean that students have to absorb the new culture; on the contrary, they should try to understand and empathize with it. Therefore the idea is not to create a "new person' as in the melting-pot effect. The idea is to educate a bicultural or multicultural person who can deal appropriately with people with different cultural backgrounds. From my perspective this is what our Ministry of Education should address within the policy of bilingualism.

Additionally, students perceived that the course book was more inclined to provide knowledge and information of the target culture. According to the students' answers the coursebook was more concerned with topics related to festivities, historical events and celebrities. In this respect, the course book sees culture as "the uppercase culture' (Bennett, 1998), it means the kind of things that everyone should know in area studies or history courses (i.e. literature, drama, fine arts, music, etc). In this sense, culture is referred to as "the visible parts of the iceberg' such as laws, rules, customs and traditions (Kramsch, 1998; Bennett, 1998; Fennes&Hapgood, 1997).

Now, grouping the answers in terms of the components of the ICC, Fig. 6 shows how skills and knowledge were the components most developed in the coursebook. At the same time, awareness and proficiency from the students' perspective were less developed. The following figure shows the results in detail.

Students pointed out that the coursebook enabled them to develop their language skills. Particularly the ones required to deal with people who are linguistically different. These skills were referred to the process of understanding and producing messages. The question that arises is whether these abilities are enough for the development of ICC. According to Deardorff (2008) learners should identify two types of skills in intercultural learning: communicative and cognitive skills. The first ones are related to the ability to understand and produce messages within processes of interaction. The second ones allow students to process information by means of using their capacities (i.e. capacity to compare, relate and think critically).

Having evaluated the coursebook, Ican affirm that although it did have interesting communicative activities for students to think and talk, they were not exploited completely. Activities were not designed for students to develop their abilities to negotiate and mediate in intercultural encounters. They were nearly designed for students to express their point of view concerning any cultural or social issue.

In the same vein, Byram (1997) states that in intercultural encounters, learners need to develop their skills to interpret an event or episode from another culture, to explain it and relate it to events or episodes from one's own (savoir comprendre). Also it is equally important that learners acquire the skills of finding out new knowledge and integrating it with what they already have (savoir apprendre/faire).

Now, with regard to knowledge most students agreed that the coursebook enabled them to expand their knowledge about the target language and culture. At the same time, students affirmed that the coursebook did not help to broaden such knowledge of their own culture. However, they recognized that sometimes the coursebook helped them understand some social behaviour (i.e., interactions) of the foreign culture. We have to clarify that knowledge is understood by students as the amount of "data' they possessed. This information is linked to facts, events, places and people. If students see that the coursebook copes with this, thus it contributes to expand their knowledge of the target culture.

As I mentioned before, knowledge (savoirs) embraces the understanding of the social groups and their products and practices in one's own and the other's context. In ICC, the intercultural speaker should be aware of the different types of knowledge such as culture specific (everyday life behaviour) and culture general (topic-related knowledge). Additionally, he/she should consider the knowledge of self and other, knowledge of interaction (individual and societal) and insight regarding the ways in which culture affects language and communication (Sercu, et al., 2005).

Likewise, I could infer from the students' answers that the biggest problem found in the coursebook was the lack of activities to develop language/cultural awareness and the proficiency level. According to students, the coursebook did not give them the chance to think and reflect upon things they do in their own culture and compare to others. It means the coursebook did not encourage them to develop their ability to evaluate critically, and on the basis of explicit criteria, perspectives, practices and products in one's own and other cultures and countries (Byram, Nichols, & Stevens, 2001).

Without doubt, language and culture awareness should be visible in coursebooks. They should enable students understand the nature of language (learning and acquisition) and develop positive and realistic attitudes towards language learning. Also, coursebooks should encourage students to draw conscious attention to the similarities with and differences between students' first language and another language (Buttjes&Byram, 1991).

Furthermore, from an intercultural perspective, coursebooks should include activities where students can develop their ability of standing back from themselves and become aware of their cultural values, beliefs and perceptions that are different from the others. In this regard, students understand that people interpret and evaluate things in different ways. In so doing, they start developing awareness of why they do things in the way they do and why they react in any particular way.

Now, in terms of the proficiency level, students expressed that their course book did not help them become proficient in a foreign language. They said that they still found difficulties in understanding the different language varieties -accents- as well as the other ways people communicate(i.e. the body language). They also affirmed that when facing communicative situations they struggle in making themselves understood. They did not feel conident in speaking. They worried about sending the right' message (data taken from the register of students' observation).

Students were very concerned about developing a "good' level of proficiency in the foreign language. They wanted to be good communicators, and they saw that they needed more than a simple word or a verb. They needed to understand how the others "think and behave'. In other words, they experienced that language learning should go beyond the idea of developing merely the linguistic competence. In their view, what coursebooks propose is that language learners must recognize and use accurately the components of the language (phonological, lexical, grammatical, semantic and orthographic).

In the light of these comments, the point that deserves discussion is whether the coursebook enables learners to develop their abilities to identify the register, situation and context where language is used (sociolinguistic knowledge). Additionally, whether it contributes to the development of the learners' abilities to recognize the intentions of the speakers and the way messages are conveyed in interactions and more importantly whether the coursebook contributes, to some extent, to develop students' general competences (savoirs: savoir, savoir-apprendre, savoir-comprendre, savoir-êtreand savoir-faire) (Council of Europe, 2001).

It is clear that students see the process of communication as not simply the exchange of information or a means by which people pass on information. They see the communication process as a way to interchange messages and negotiate meanings, cultural meanings (Byram, 1997 ; Thompson, 2003).

Now, when students were asked about the level of satisfaction with their coursebook in general as well as the level of satisfaction with the cultural contents in particular, the answers were dissimilar. Of course this question was more related to how they had experienced the process of learning a language by using a coursebook. Students who were comfortable affirmed that they liked the coursebook because

  • "It has different types of activities for all areas'
  • "It covers different topics and the exercises are very useful for the development of my language'
  • "The tasks seem to be at the correct level, not too difficult but challenge me also'
  • "I like how the class and homework book are linked, similar material'
  • "It is clearly set out and easy to follow'

Conversely students who were not satisfied with the coursebook mainly said that it was "grammar based' and "it was quite boring and some of the exercises were quite strange and sometimes unrelated'. With regard to the question as to whether students were comfortable with the way cultural content was developed, most of them were happy with it. However 13% thought that "explanations about culture of different countries were very poor, trivial and superficial'.

The previous answer was very similar to the one found by Davcheva & Sercu (2005) in their study. They found that most of "cultural contents of textbooks are often presented in a way which appears superficial, shallow, chaotic and simplified and in some cases impersonal or neutral' (101). Also these researchers noted that materials give the impression of being artifically constructed, thus failing to motivate the students to relate the culture presented to reality.

Finally, when students were asked about whether they thought they were dealing with cultural information in their coursebook, half answered affirmatively. Some of the answers given pointed out that they were able to do it when they "talked about historical places, festivities and people'. Nonetheless, the other half affirmed that they were not dealing with cultural information. Sometimes activities "did not go beyond, and were superficial '. Additionally, students claimed that much of cultural aspects "were always presented in the same way and at the end of the coursebook unit'.

Of interest here is to see the students' narrow perception about culture. Culture for them is referred to as the visible things that characterise a society, i.e. tourist attractions, famous people, historical events, etc. Basically, this perception is reinforced by what it is represented in the coursebooks. According to Davcheva&Sercu (2005) coursebooks do not deal with typicalities, but with topics of superficial and general interest only. Cultural themes such as beliefs, social behaviours, cultural stereotypes, folklore are completely missing.

To sum up, I can state that teaching from intercultural perspective goes beyond teaching contents. Culture is not easily teachable. If culture is understood as a 'whole way of life' (Geertz, 1975) then we should teach all the behaviours, symbols, beliefs and value systems of a society. Then, the question that arises is of whether the materials we use in teaching languages help students to develop, to some degree their behaviours, beliefs and their value system. As this is difficult to observe and manipulate, some teachers and materials developers decide to teach 'cultural contents' which are more related to pieces of information about the artefacts or products of any society.

The debate is, if Culture is seen as the expression of beliefs, thoughts and values, and if language is seen as the representation of cultural identity, then the methodology used requires ways in which the language expresses cultural meanings. I totally agree with Pulverness (2003) when he says that the cultural agenda for FLT tend to come from the ethnocentric perspective of the private sector where language teaching is mostly constructed as a training enterprise. In this regard the idea of the language materials, specifically the coursebooks, is not to teach a language as an expression of cultural meaning but to teach the language as an expression of the formal system of communication. From this perspective, the principles of the old school of thought remain the same.


Footnote

1A culture bump activity is a scenario where participants read a short account of any cultural incident where someone from another culture finds him/herself in an uncomfortable or strange situation when interacting with someone from a different culture. See an example in the end of this article.
2Text Driven Approach (TDA), TBL (Task Based Learning).


References

Bennett, J. M. (2004), "Becoming interculturally competent", in J. Wurzel, Toward multiculturalism: A reader in multicultural education (pp. 62-67). Newton, Massachusetts, USA, Intercultural Resource Corporation.        [ Links ]

__. (2008), "On becoming a global soul: A path to engagement during study abroad", in V. Savicki, Developing intercultural competence and transformation. Theory, research, and application in international education, (pp. 13-31), Sterling Virginia USA, Stylus Publishing, LLC.        [ Links ]

__. (1998), Basic concepts of intercultural communication. Selected readings. Boston USA, Intercultural Press, A Nicholas Brealey Publishing Company.        [ Links ]

Buttjes, D., & Byram, M. (1991), Mediating languages and cultures, Clevedon, Avon, Multilingual Matters.        [ Links ]

Byram, M. (1989), Cultural studies in foreign language education, (D. Sharp, Ed.), Clevedon UK, Multilingual Matters Ltd.        [ Links ]

__. (1997), Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence, Clevedon, United Kingdom, Multilingual Matters.        [ Links ]

Byram, M., & Fleming, M. (1998), Language learning in intercultural perspective. Approaches through drama and ethnography, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.        [ Links ]

Byram, M., Nichols, A., & Stevens, D. (2001), Developing intercultural competence in practice, Clevedon UK, Multilingual Matters LTD.        [ Links ]

Corbett, J. (2003), An intercultural approach to English language teaching, Clevedon, Great Britain, Multilingual Matters.        [ Links ]

Council of Europe. (June 2008), The White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue: living together as equals in dignity, Strasbourg, Council of Europe.        [ Links ]

Cummins, J., Harley, B., Swain, M., & Allen, P. (1990), "The nature of language proficiency", in J. Cummins, B. Harley, P. Allen, & M. Swain, The development of second language proficiency, (pp. 7-24). Cambridge UK, Cambridge University Press.         [ Links ]

Davcheva, L., & Sercu, L. (2005), "Culture in teaching language materials", in L. Sercu, E. Bandura, P. Castro, L. Davcheva, C. Laska-ridou, U. Lundgren, et al., M. Byram, & A. Phipps (Eds.), Foreign language teachers and intercultural competence, (pp. 90-109), Clevedon UK, Multilingua Matters LTD.        [ Links ]

Deardorff, D. K. (2008), "Intercultural competence: A definition, model, and implications for education abroad", in V. Savicki, Developing intercultural competence and transformation: Theory, research, and application in international education, (pp. 32-53), Sterling Virginia USA, Stylus Publishing, LLC.        [ Links ]

Fantini, A. E. (2000), A central concern: developing intercultural competence. Adapted in part from a "Report by The Intercultural Communicative Task Force, Brattleboro Vermont USA, World Learning.        [ Links ]

__. (2006), "SIT Graduate Institute. A program of world learning", pdf. Retrieved 2008, June-5 from: http://www.sit.edu/publications/docs/feil_research_report.pdf        [ Links ]

Fennes, H., & Hapgood, K. (1997), Intercultural learning in the classroom. Crossing borders, London UK, Cassell Council of Europe Series.        [ Links ]

Geertz, C. (1975), The interpretation of cultures, New York, Basic Books.         [ Links ]

Kolb, D. (1984), Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development, New Jersey US, Prentice Hall.         [ Links ]

Kramsch, C. (1998), Language and culture, Oxford, Oxford University Press.         [ Links ]

Lázár, I., Huber-Kriegler, M., Lussier, D., Matei, G., & Peck, C. (2007), Developing and assessing intercultural communicative competence, Austria, Council of Europe Publishing.        [ Links ]

Moon A., J. (2004), A handbook of reflective and experiential learning: theory and practice, Abingdon, Oxon UK, Rootledge Falmer.        [ Links ]

Pulverness, A. (2003), "Materials for cultural awareness", in B. Tomlinson, Developing materials for language teaching (pp. 426-438), London, Great Britain, Continuum.        [ Links ]

Quappe, S., & Cantatore, G. (2007), "What is cultural awareness, anyway? How do I build it?" Retrieved 2009, October-22 from Culturosity.com: http://www.culturosity.com/articles/whatisculturalawareness.htm        [ Links ]

Rico Troncoso, C. (2010), "The effects of language materials on the development of intercultural competence", in B. Tomlinson, & H. Masuhara, Research for materials development in language learning (pp. 83-102), London, Continuum.        [ Links ]

Savicki, V. (2008), Developing intercultural competence and transformation. Theory, research and application in international education, Virginia, United States of America, Stylus Publishing.        [ Links ]

Sercu, L., Bandura, E., Castro, P., Davcheva, L., Laskaridou, C., Lundgren, U., et al. (2005), Foreign language teachers and intercultural competence: an international investigation, Clevedon UK, Multilingual Matters.        [ Links ]

Tomlinson, B. (2003), "Developing principled frameworks for materials development", in B. Tomlinson, Developing materials for language teaching, (pp. 107- 129), London UK, Continuum.        [ Links ]

Valdes, J. (1986), Culture bound: bridging the cultural gap in language teaching, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.        [ Links ]

Creative Commons License All the contents of this journal, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License