Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Dr. Robert CampbellDr. Grisel M.García PérezDr. Karen Ragoonaden
UBC Okanagan
Background Rationale Participants Research Design Materials Procedure Results Discussion and Implications Limitations
Growing number of international students at UBC Okanagan
Problems adapting to university life; Kelowna and English pronunciation
Relationship between language and culture Students believe in the value of
pronunciation classes (Derwing 2003; Derwing and Rossiter, 2002)
Debate about the value of teaching pronunciation◦ Fossilization (Selinker, 1972, Acton, 1984)◦ Critical Period (Lenneberg, 1967; Scovel, 2000)
To assess the impact of a thirty hour language/culture based course on Chinese learners’ achievement of a comfortably comprehensible pronunciation
To see if there is a causal relationship between cultural mindset and language learning.
Comprehensibility: The listener’s ability to understand the meaning of an utterance in its context (Jenkins, 2002). The measurement relies on the ratings of listeners who are native speakers.
Intercultural Competence: the capability to accurately understand and adapt behaviour to cultural difference and commonality.
IDI (Intercultural Development Inventory)
is a statistically reliable, cross-culturally valid measure of intercultural competence
is a 50-item, theory-based instrument that can be taken either in paper and pencil form or online.
is currently in twelve languages (Bahasa Indonesian, English, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, Russian, Korean, French, Japanese and Chinese).
provides valuable information about your own orientations toward cultural difference and commonality.
can help you reflect on your experiences around cultural differences and similarities.
Makes sense of cultural differences and commonalities based on one’s own values and practices
Uses broad stereotypes to identify culturaldifference
Supports less complex perceptions andexperiences of cultural difference andcommonality
Makes sense of cultural differences and commonalities based on one’s own and other culture’s values and practices.
Uses cultural generalizations to recognizecultural difference
Supports more complex perceptions andexperiences of cultural difference andcommonality
Denial: An orientation that likely recognizes more observable cultural differences (e.g., food) but may not notice deeper cultural difference (e.g., conflict resolution styles) and may avoid or withdraw from cultural differences.
Polarization: A judgmental orientation that views cultural differences in terms of “us” and “them”
Minimization: An orientation that highlights cultural commonality and universal values and principles that may also mask deeper recognition and appreciation of cultural differences .
Acceptance: An orientation that recognizes and appreciates patterns of cultural difference and commonalities in one’s own and other cultures.
Adaptation: An orientation that is capable of shifting cultural perspective and changing behaviour in culturally appropriate and authentic ways.
Perceived Orientation (PO): Your Perceived Orientation (PO) reflects where you place yourself along the intercultural development continuum. Your Perceived Orientation can be Denial, Polarization, Minimization, Acceptance or Adaptation.
Developmental Orientation (DO) indicates your primary orientation toward cultural differences and commonalities along the continuum as assessed by theIDI . The DO is the perspective you most likely use in those situations where cultural differences and commonalities need to be bridged. Your Developmental Orientation can be Denial, Polarization, Minimization, Acceptance or Adaptation.
The Orientation Gap (OG) is the difference along the continuum between your Perceived Orientation and Developmental Orientation. If the gap is greater than 7 you have overestimated your intercultural competence.
Subjects 8 (3 females, 5 males) Age: 19-31 (m=24.9) L1: Chinese AOL: 5-14 (m=10.3) Motivation: 2.75
Raters: 3 Canadian born ESL trained females
ESL instructor
Within groups (Experimental and Control), pretest-posttest
a. More than Words (Pamela M. Elder and Barbara Chen, 1997)
b. Language Background Questionnairec. Comprehensibility testd. IDI
IDI (before ESL class started) Comprehensibility test: Recorded answers to
four questions (before and after)◦How long have you been learning English for? ◦What do you know about life in Canada? ◦What do you know about culture in Canada?
◦Have you had the opportunity to interact with
locals in Kelowna? And what cultural differences did you notice?
Culture based ESL class. Feedback to pronunciation mistakes was given in the classroom.◦
Experimental Denial Defense Minimization Acceptance Adaptation
E1 117.41 E3 116.09 E4 118.08 E15 106.70 Group Profile 114.57
Experimental Denial Defense Minimization Acceptance Adaptation
E1 87.34 E3 75.76 E4 79.62 E15 66.22 Group Profile 77.20
Control Group Denial Defense Minimization Acceptance Adaptation
C9 131.37 C16 118.39 C17 121.40 C18 119.71 Group Profile 122.72
Control Group Denial Defense Minimization Acceptance Adaptation
C9 114.92 C16 80.08 C17 92.48 C18 86.97 Group Profile 93.60
Table 1: Mean Assessment Scores
Question #
Experimental Group Control Group
Before After Before After
1 3.50 3.44 4.11 3.90
2 2.99 3.58 3.42 4.08
3 2.91 3.58 3.74 3.83
4 3.24 3.33 3.83 4.16
Control Group: Intercultural Mindset more open to become ‘the other’, more motivated to improve pronunciation
Experimental Group: Monocultural Mindset, more resistant to become ‘the other’. Less motivated to improve pronunciation. Rapid progress in recognizing commonalities and differences between the Canadian culture and the Chinese culture due to training.
Minimal improvement in Comprensibility test results in both groups.
Should foreign language learning be used to make cultural learning more effective?
Will a more effective foreign language teaching improve intercultural awareness?
Will increasing intercultural awareness facilitate language learning?
Does intrinsic motivation have an impact in language learning and intercultural awareness?
Sample size (small number) Age difference (fossilization, critical period) Exposure to the language Longitudinal effect No intelligibility test No post IDI
