lable at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1571e1582

Contents lists avai

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tate

Intercultural learning in English as foreign language instruction:The importance of teachers’ intercultural experience and theusefulness of precise instructional directives

Kerstin Göbel a,*, Andreas Helmke b,1

aDepartment of Education and Social Sciences, Center for Educational Research and Teacher Education (CERTE), University of Wuppertal,Gausstr. 20, 42119 Wuppertal, GermanybUniversity of Koblenz-Landau, Campus Landau, Department of Psychology, Fortstraße 7, 76829 Landau in der Pfalz, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 14 October 2009Received in revised form6 May 2010Accepted 31 May 2010

Keywords:Educational processClassroom perspectiveTeacher competenciesInstructional effectivenessEnglish e second languageIntercultural education

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ49 202 4392326; faE-mail addresses: kgoebel@uni-wuppertal.de (K. G

(A. Helmke).1 Tel.: þ49 6341 280227.

0742-051X/$ e see front matter � 2010 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.05.008

a b s t r a c t

The development of intercultural competence, especially in foreign language instruction, is considereda key goal of teaching in German schools. The present article sheds light on the teaching of interculturaltopics in the context of English as a foreign language (EFL). It presents the results of an analysis of datafrom a larger study (DESI study e Assessment of Student Achievements in German and English asa Foreign Language) bringing the intercultural experience of teachers and observable aspects ofinstruction into focus. Videotapes of EFL-classroom instruction of 9th and 10th grade students areanalyzed in order to assess characteristic of the implementation of intercultural topics. The study revealsthe impact of teachers’ intercultural experience on the quality of their intercultural instruction.Furthermore, the results indicate that precise external directives for particular lessons can help teachersput intercultural topics into practice.

� 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The development of intercultural competence, especially inforeign language instruction, is considered a key goal of teaching inGerman schools. With respect to the teaching of foreign languages,English as a Foreign Language (EFL) has a central position inGerman secondary schools, one major aspect of which is thedevelopment of students’ intercultural competence and sensitivityto intercultural issues (see KMK,1994) EFL curricula emphasize thisaim accordingly (Göbel & Hesse, 2004).

The present article intends to shed light on the teaching ofintercultural topics in the context of foreign language instruction.The paper brings into focus the intercultural experience of teachersand observable aspects of instruction. The study analyses thepromotion of intercultural topics in class by comparing the teachingquality of videotaped lessons of teachers with more vs. lessfrequent contact to English-speaking countries and the teaching

x: þ49 202 4393681.öbel), helmke@uni-landau.de

All rights reserved.

quality of videotaped lessons with more vs. less precise directivesfor the particular lesson assigned by researchers.

In the following sections, a review of the literature on thepromotion of intercultural sensitivity in the context of foreignlanguage teaching and learning on the one hand, and on instruc-tional quality on the other, will be presented.

1.1. Content and topics of intercultural learningin the EFL classroom

In Germany the shift to a communicative approach in appliedlinguistics was followed in the 1980s by an emphasis on intercul-tural issues, with the result that these also became increasinglyrelevant in language education. The literature on foreign languageteaching and intercultural competence has, however, worked withdifferent theoretical models. First of all, the strong link betweenlanguage and culture was stressed in the work of Kramsch (1998);and affective components of cultural contact, like concepts ofprejudice, were focused on by Hu (1995) and Zarate (1986).Discussion of these concepts in Germany was dominated by thenotion of intercultural empathy and mutual understanding incultural contact (Bredella, 1992). This involved a third culturemodel, based on the assumption that a commonly constructed thirdculture would mediate between two interacting persons of

K. Göbel, A. Helmke / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1571e15821572

different cultural background. Subsequently, however, compe-tence-oriented models, as conceptualized by Byram (1997), werefavored. These highlighted the competencies required for positiveoutcomes in intercultural contact and for intercultural teaching andlearning in schools.

Current German EFL curricula provide at least some directiveson intercultural language teaching. Within the context of foreignlanguage teaching, knowledge about other cultures, openness andempathy toward other cultures, critical involvement with inter-cultural topics, the readiness to put one’s own convictions intoperspective, and the ability to deal with people from differentcultures are to be promoted (Göbel & Hesse, 2004). Nevertheless,curricula concentrate primarily on general intercultural learninggoals such as overcoming ethnocentrism, developing cultural self-awareness, and encouraging appreciation, interest and respect forcultural diversity. But they fail to indicate how these general goalsare to be taught, and thus lack a convincing link between generalintercultural learning goals and those concerned with specificcultures.

At a European level, the Common European Framework (CEF;Trim, North, Coste, & Sheils, 2001) has become increasinglyimportant for language teaching in Germany. Its definition ofintercultural competence is, however, limited to the linguistictreatment of sayings, expressions, different registers and socialvarieties of language. In contrast, the Educational Standards forforeign language teaching at lower secondary level in Germanyprovide explicit detail on the subject of intercultural competence(Steinert & Klieme, 2004). Their definition covers the ability to dealwith cultural differences, intercultural situations, and the avail-ability of knowledge about sociocultural contexts (Steinert &Klieme, 2004). The central goals of intercultural learning in theEFL classroom can, therefore, be described as cultural awareness,acceptance of cultural differences, and interest in the specificculture of the language being taught, as well as in interculturaltopics in general. Looking further afield, Anglo-American literatureon intercultural language teaching has developed various teachingconcepts for intercultural content. Thus Paige, Jorstadt, Siaya, Klein,and Colby (2003) distinguish between ‘culture general’ and‘culture-specific’ goals encompassing the knowledge, skills andattitudes of students. ‘Culture general’ goals reflect learning aboutthe self as a cultural being, and about the impact of culture onhuman communication, behavior and identity, as well as learningabout cross-cultural phenomena and cultural adjustment. ‘Culture-specific’ goals refer to a specific culture and its history, geography,specific cultural values and interaction patterns.

Taken together, therefore, German school curricula, theCommon European Framework and the Educational Standards forlanguage learning lack a homogeneous definition of interculturalEFL teaching. They focus on describing goals for interculturalteaching in foreign language learning and teaching, but there is noclearly discernible teaching concept common to all three sets ofdirectives. In recent years, only a few empirical studies have dealtwith the implementation of the aims of intercultural teaching inthe real world of the EFL classroom (e.g. Göbel, 2007; Göbel &Hesse, 2008; Burwitz-Meltzer, 2003; Byram, 1991). Further andmore comprehensive empirical research about the promotion ofintercultural learning in language teaching is still needed (Göbel &Hesse, 2008).

1.2. Concepts of intercultural teaching in the foreignlanguage classroom

Traditionally the emphasis of cultural learning in the classroomhas been on the acquisition of knowledge about another countryand culture (Byram, 1997). Nowadays teachers need to

acknowledge the interactive nature of culture and transmit thisidea to their students. As the objectives of intercultural learning arequite complex, they are difficult to put into the practice. Never-theless classroom learning retains the great advantage of present-ing a space for the systematic and structured acquisition ofknowledge and skills under the guidance of a teacher (Byram,1997). The classroom can be seen as a protective environmentwhere students can make mistakes without lasting repercussions.Thus, it can be seen not only as a preparation for experience but alsoas an experience itself.

Current intercultural didactics distinguishes four differentapproaches to learning about another culture (Müller-Jacquier,2004). First of all, there is the contact situation approach, inwhich students have direct contact with the other culture. Nextcomes the cognitive approach, in which cognitive insights aboutthe other culture (e.g. cultural values, cultural practices) and theirbehavioral implications are taught in class. Virtual contrast isanother classroom approach in which a virtual interaction betweenown and target culture is presented in order to enable students toevaluate this (and the target culture itself) from different culturalperspectives. Finally, there is the linguistic awareness approach, inwhich cultural differences are taught by discussing linguisticdifferences in class.

The advantage of dealing with intercultural topics in the class-room is that learners can acquire skills in eliciting meaning underthe guidance of the teacher. Teachers and students can take theirtime to develop interaction skills within the safety of the classroomsituation. In this respect critical reflection of experience is partic-ularly important: this might be a student’s reflection on her or hisown unguided intercultural experience, on fieldwork, or on otherindependent learning tasks (Byram,1997) Sercu (2002) proposes towork on intercultural topics fromproper intercultural experience ofstudents, so to reflect upon cultural differences. An exploratorystudy of Göbel (2007) points at the positive impact of experienceorientation in the intercultural EFL classroom for the promotion ofstudents’ interest in intercultural topics. The teacher should makeuse of the potential for tardiness in classroom work. Bearing inmind underlying attitudes and the educational objectives of inter-cultural learning, teachers should give students the opportunity toreflect critically on cultural meanings (Hallet, 2002). When dis-cussing cultural differences there is always the risk of promotingstereotypical conceptions. To avoid the formation of stereotypes instudents’ minds, and to enhance cultural self-awareness, it may behelpful to point out similarities and differences between one’s ownand the target culture (Hendson, 2005). Furthermore, addressingcommon stereotypes toward a student’s own culture (the externalview) will facilitate the detection of cultural heterogeneity withinthat culture (Scheu, 2005), which might assist in developingempathy toward persons from other cultures.

To enhance students’ critical reflection, teachers could make useof disorienting dilemmas such as those deployed in transformativeeducation. Like the didactic concept of virtual contrast, disorientingdilemmas can help to bring inadequate attitudes or values closer toreality, and thus promote a transformation of perspective(Glicszinski, 2007). In the field of intercultural training the use ofsuch dilemmas is known as “Critical Incident Technique”. In orderto sharpen students’ awareness of different perspectives, trainerspresent a selection of case studies that allow different interpreta-tions and solutions in terms of disparate cultural orientations(Bhagat & Prien, 1996).

In general, instruction in open education settings has to beengaging and personally relevant for students, nurturing a deeperunderstanding of contents (Shermann, 2009). Constructivismsupports the use of authentic tasks requiring learnt knowledge.Developing new knowledge through a process of active

K. Göbel, A. Helmke / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1571e1582 1573

construction in which new content is linked to pre-existingknowledge and beliefs anchored in concrete experience is one ofthe principles of constructivist practice (Good & Brophy, 1997).

The work of Bennett, Bennett, and Allen (2003), which has beeninductively derived from observations and qualitative interviews inthe field of intercultural learning and training, gives conceptualhints on sequencing intercultural topics in the foreign languageclassroom. The idea of sequencing such topics is based on thedevelopmental model of intercultural sensitivity (DMIS, Bennett,1993) which reflects how individuals construe cultural differ-ences between themselves and others. Intercultural sensitivity isunderstood here as consciousness of one’s own cognitive, affectiveand behavioral responses to cultural difference. This modelproposes the conceptualization of six stages along a continuum ofintercultural development, three of which are ethnocentric (denial,defense, minimization) and three of which are ethno-relative(acceptance, adaptation, integration). In the ethnocentric stages anindividual’s world view, based on their culture, provides a platformfor the construction of reality. In contrast, the construction ofreality in ethno-relative stages is based on one’s interculturalrelations. With growing sensitivity, cultural differences areperceived in a more complex way. To promote interculturallearning in the foreign language classroom, Bennett et al. (2003)suggest considering learners’ intercultural sensitivity, whichmeans choosing the content of intercultural lessons according tostudents’ intercultural preconditioning. For more advancedlearners, challenging topics such as discussion of differences invalue systems and culture shock are recommended. For lessadvanced learners, topics might well concentrate on similaritiesbetween cultures and differences in cultural products.

Summarizing these concepts, the main feature of good inter-cultural foreign language instruction would seem to be thepromotion of reflection about cultural perspectives. These reflec-tions should be anchored in the students’ own cultural experience,as this alone will enable them to actively construct new knowledgewithin existing concepts and at the same time to avoid stereotyp-ical conceptions. Furthermore intercultural instruction has toconsider the starting point of students when setting objectives, aswell as when choosing topics and materials.

1.3. Instructional quality of intercultural teachingin the foreign language classroom

The concept of instructional quality entails that of the outcomeof instruction. In Germany output orientation has generally beenpromoted in EFL intercultural learning, and earlier concepts ofintercultural understanding have accordingly been replaced by theconcept of intercultural competence. Nevertheless, output orien-tation is still heavily criticized (Hu & Byram, 2009). Thus thereseems to be a need to define the goals of intercultural learning inthe classroom more precisely. The results of Burwitz-Meltzer’s(2003) study point to the importance of defining interculturallearning outcomes in the classroom and using them to preciselydefine specific learning goals. Hesse and Göbel (2007) successfullyoperationalized the intercultural learning outcomes of 9th gradestudents in terms of their subjective construction of interculturalsituations by working with critical incidents and using Bennett’smodel (Bennett, 1993; DMIS e see above) to classify the students’conceptions via a paperepencil instrument. In Germany, furtherattempts to conceptualize intercultural learning outcomes are inprogress, focusing on tasks geared to measuring knowledge,behavior and attitudes (Caspari & Schinschke, 2009).

Like any other learning outcomes, the intercultural learningoutcomes of foreign language students will be influenced bystudents’ individual preconditioning. Students’ attitudes toward

intercultural topics, as well as their cognitive skills, have an impacton their intercultural learning (Bennett & Hammer, 2002; Gardner& Lambert, 1972). Empirical analyses of the intercultural EFL classhave shown that learners with higher cognitive skills benefit morefrom intercultural instruction than those with lower cognitive skills(Göbel, 2007; Hesse, Göbel & Jude, 2008).

Nevertheless, the way teachers teach in their classrooms isrecognized as being of central importance in the achievement ofoutcomes (Muijs & Reynolds, 2007). Indeed so far as the influenceof schooling is concerned, the quality of instruction is said to havethe greatest impact on student learning (Campbell, Kyriakides,Muijis, & Robinson, 2004; Rivin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005).Instructional research has established that the actual time spent ona specific content (time on task) is an important parameter oflearning effectiveness (Scheerens & Bosker, 1997). For interculturalinstruction in the EFL classroom this means that the time spent onintercultural content is an important conditioning factor of inter-cultural learning. Hence, the crucial question is to what extentstudents actually have the opportunity to learn about interculturaltopics in the EFL class and whether and how they seize thisopportunity.

This is a matter of the quality of the time spent (Göbel, 2007;Wang, Haertel, & Walberg, 1993). Instructional research indicatesthat the most important quality dimensions of instruction are goodclassroom management, a good classroom climate, and clear andcomprehensive instruction (Hattie, 2009; Muijs & Reynolds, 2007).Good instruction involves structured, content-based discourse thatis not limited to rapidly-paced interactions. Effective teaching willenable a sustained and thoughtful development of key ideas(Brophy, 2002). Research on instructional quality in mathematicsand science additionally reveals that students’ achievements anddevelopment of interests are most successful when instructionincludes openness to their ideas and experiences (Gruehn, 2000).

What this means for the EFL classroom in relation to intercul-tural topics is that EFL teaching should provide a cooperativelearning environment focused on content, enabling a thoughtfuldiscourse about cultural meanings (Ramsey, 1996) and about thetarget culture, by engaging students in discussion of culturaldifferences, contrasts and conflicts (Paige et al., 2003; Smith, Paige,& Steglitz, 1998). However, little systematic empirical research isavailable on intercultural learning in the language classroom(Byram & Feng, 2004). When Byram, Esarte-Sarries, Taylor, andAllatt (1991) researched the impact of different teaching styles onteaching culture, the factors determining a change in the culturalunderstanding of students were situated exclusively outside theclassroom. Teachers reported viewing the teaching of culture asa pedagogic device to make lessons interesting rather than as animportant goal in itself. Consequently there was at the time severecriticism of culture teaching as such in the classroom (Damen,1987;Paige et al., 2003).

Recently, in the course of a large scale German study, theinfluence of teacher and classroom characteristics on interculturallearning outcomes has been empirically analyzed (Göbel, 2007;Göbel & Hesse, 2008). Initial exploratory studies revealedevidence of the benefit of teaching methods incorporatingstudents’ experience into the lesson (Göbel, 2007). Classes inwhichlearners were encouraged to articulate their personal experiencesin the classroom discourse showed a heightened interest in inter-cultural topics when compared to other classes. The resultsfurthermore indicated that explicit attention to explaining andexpanding the participation of students in the classroom discoursepositively influenced their interest in intercultural topics (Göbel,2007). Unsurprisingly, the general didactic skills of teachers alsoseemed to be important for the motivation of students towardintercultural topics. Didactic methods allowing self-regulated

K. Göbel, A. Helmke / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1571e15821574

learning seemed to be beneficial for the development of students’interest. This being so, teachers should include individual or groupwork in their intercultural learning class in order to encourageinterest in intercultural topics (Göbel, 2007, 2008). Regressionanalysis on a larger representative sample of students revealed thatgeneral instructional quality aspects like the classroom manage-ment skills of the teacher, as well as a positive error culture(constructive treatment of errors in classroom discourse asperceived by students) were significant determiners of intercul-tural learning outcomes.

Beside these general didactic aspects, a number of specificcompetencies seem to be fundamental. Exploratory studies bringinto focus the importance of discourse about intercultural experi-ences andmeanings in the intercultural foreign language classroom(Göbel, 2007). Further hierarchical regression analysis on a repre-sentative sample shed light on the importance of the interculturalexperience of teachers, confirming that teachers’ contacts toEnglish-speaking countries have an impact on interculturallearning outcomes (Göbel & Hesse, 2008). It is, therefore, importantto examine how the intercultural experience of teachers impactsthe way they act in the intercultural classroom. How do teachersdiffer in their classroom approach to intercultural learning, andwhat didactic conclusions can be drawn from such differences?

Student prerequisites: Individual cognitive prerequisites,

intercultural sensitivity and experience

Teacher competence:

professional and

intercultural competence

Intercultural lesson

offer:

general and specific

instructional quality

Offer

take-up:

student

learning

activity

Results:

cognitive

and

affective

inter-

cultural

learning

outcome

Fig. 1. Offer-take-up model (Göbel, 2007, p. 59).

1.4. Preconditions of intercultural instruction in the teacher

EFL teachers in Germany are restricted in the number of text-books about intercultural competence on which they can draw(Baron, 2002). Besides textbooks, they can also turn to instructionalconcepts published in didactic journals (e.g. Diehr, 2009). Arepresentative teacher survey has shown that only a third of theteachers interviewed use textbooks or pre-assembled materials toimplement intercultural topics, the other two thirds rely on theirown materials (Göbel & Hesse, 2008). Intercultural teaching inGermany, in other words, is still strongly reliant on teachers’ ownideas and initiatives, as didactic materials are still scarce andseldom used. Nevertheless, according to recent empirical analyses,EFL teachers in secondary schools judge intercultural topics to beimportant for the classroom, and they allow intercultural topics totake up to 80% of teaching time (Göbel & Hesse, 2008). But we stilldo not know much about their actual teaching, how they allowintercultural topics to enter classroom discourse, or to what extentthey are themselves informed about such topics (Byram, 1991).

The cultural experience of teachers and their interculturalinterests are generally assumed to have a strong effect on theimplementation of intercultural topics (Paige, 1993). Althoughresearch on acculturation and prejudice demonstrate, that inter-cultural experience alone is not sufficient for the development ofintercultural competence (Ward & Rana-Deuba, 1999), severalstudies on teacher education reveal the positive impact of suchexperience. Studies of global teacher education programs revealthat study abroad or international field experience can improveintercultural sensitivity and teaching (Lee, 2009; Pence &Macgillivray, 2008). Despite some negative cases, overall empir-ical findings suggest that teaching experience abroad broadensteachers’ views and increases their professional competence (Lee,2009; Ward & Ward, 2003). The positive outcome of teachers’contacts abroad may be due to common status and common goalsin relation to their intercultural counterparts (Aronson, Wilson, &Akert, 2008, Thomas, 2006). This positive precondition for inter-cultural learning might be further supported by a specific interestin the other culture. Both these factors suggest that interculturalunderstanding and learning in professional intercultural contactsituations might be easier for this group.

It is essential for the realization of intercultural topics thatteachers know about the target cultures, about cultural phenomenain general, and about their students’ cultural backgrounds (Damen,1987). Pajares’ (1992) study showed that teachers’ attitudes andopinions influence their teaching methods. Teachers should, there-fore, be interested in cultural issues and intercultural phenomena,and they should continuously enhance their knowledge in thesefields. Accordingly, Byram (1991) states that intercultural experienceis the main precondition for successful intercultural teaching. Thisstatement is confirmed by recent empirical findings from EFL-class-room research, which suggest a substantial connection betweenteachers’ international experience and the intercultural outcomes oftheir students (Göbel & Hesse, 2008).

1.5. Offer-take-up model of interculturalforeign language instruction

The modelling of the relevant parameters of interculturallearning in the EFL class can be theoretically conceptualized usingthe type of offer/take-up-model (Angebots-Nutzungs-Modell)developed by Fend (1998), Helmke (2006a,b), and Göbel (2007).This assumes that the learning outcomes of students are governedby a combination of their individual predetermining factors, thoseof their teachers, and the interactions that take place throughoutthe intercultural lesson (Fig. 1).

The quality of intercultural instruction in the ESL class has not yetbeenwidely researched. All we know up to now is the importance ofstudents’ cognitive and affective preconditioning and the importanceof the general didactic quality of the instruction. There is littleempirical research available on the question of how teachers designtheir intercultural EFL class, and this still requires greater detail. Inorder to achieve this, we decided to use videography. We are inter-ested in the influence of teachers’ preconditioning on their actualteaching, and in shedding light on the kindof help that could be givento teachers to put intercultural topics into practice in their classroom.

1.6. Research questions

The present study uses video data to analyze the process ofintercultural learning in the EFL classroom. It aims to shed light onthe connection between teachers’ intercultural contacts and thequality of their instruction. Furthermore, it analyzes the potentialimpact of a more concrete directive on the implementation ofintercultural topics in the language classroom.

K. Göbel, A. Helmke / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1571e1582 1575

As teachers’ intercultural contact to English-speaking countriesmakes a difference in the learning outcomes of students (Göbel &Hesse, 2008), what kind of differences can be observed basedupon the quality of their intercultural EFL instruction? Further-more, can a more concrete directive for the actual lesson be helpfulfor the realization of a higher instructional quality in the intercul-tural instruction?

2. Methods

In order to explore the impact of intercultural experience onintercultural instruction, videos of teachers with high and lowintercultural contact were compared. To further examine theimpact of a concrete directive for the intercultural lesson, videoswith a high and low level of specification with regard to intercul-tural content were contrasted. The study was based on partial datacollected in the course of the DESI study (Assessment of StudentAchievements in German and English as a Foreign Language).

2.1. Sample

The article uses partial data from the DESI study, which wasfunded by the Ministries of Education and Cultural Affairs of thefederal German states. The complete sample of the main DESI studycovered 11,000 students from 9th grade classes, randomly selectedfrom different types of German high school, and their 460 EFL andGerman teachers. In addition to questionnaires and tests adminis-tered over the course of the study, video recordings of 104randomly selected EFL classes were also made (for details seeHelmke et al., 2008). Besides the data from the main study, partialdata from a DESI pilot study were also integrated into the analysis.The total sample of the DESI pilot study consisted of 460 9th and10th grade students. Of these, 10 randomly selected EFL classeswere videotaped.

The following analysis is intended as an initial exploratoryapproach to analyzing the practice of intercultural EFL instruction.The database for analysis is the total sample of 10 video recordingsfrom the pilot study and a selection of 10 videos from the mainstudy. In order to ensure that student ability remains constant, theselected videos from the main study consist of classes with anoverall similar (higher) ability level. The videotaped material inboth pilot and main study consists of two lessons (45 minuteseach), one of which was dedicated to a linguistic topic, the other toan intercultural topic. For the following analysis only the lessonswith intercultural focus were integrated into the sample.

2.2. Design of the study

In the following paragraphs the two different research designapproaches of the present article will be described: First thecomparison of teachers with high and low levels of contact withpersons from English-speaking countries, and secondly thecomparison of classes that received only general instructionaldirectives with those that received specific directives.

2.2.1. Comparison of classes taught by teachers with high and lowlevels of culture contact experience

The comparison of culture contact experience was mainlyrealized within the partial sample of the DESI main study. Viaextreme group comparison teachers from the main study with highvs. low levels of actual culture contact experience were compared(for questionnaire see Appendix). Teachers scoring extremely highand extremely low in culture contact to English-speaking countrieswere selected from the DESI main study video sample. 5 teacherswith a score at least one SD higher than average in culture contact,

and 5 teachers with at least one SD lower than average score in theculture contact questionnaire were singled out for analysis.

2.2.2. Comparison of classes that received general with those thatreceived specific instructional directives

The comparison of high and low instructional specification wasdone by comparing the videos from the DESI pilot study with thosefrom themain study. Employing an exploratory quasi-experimentalmethod, the previously described selection of videos from the DESImain study (n¼ 10) and the videos from the pilot study (n¼ 10)were compared in order to assess the effect of the degree ofinstructional specification (directive) upon the interculturalcontent of the videographed lessons.

In our quasi-experimental set-up, two different investigationsituations can be distinguished according to our video samples:

(A) The English teacher is given a general directive for his/herintercultural instruction (main study).

(B) The English teacher is given a specific directive for his/herintercultural instruction (pilot study).

(A) General directiveIn the main study teachers only received the directive to realizean intercultural lesson. Teachers were asked to implementwhatever intercultural topic they liked; no further specificationwas given.

(B) Specific directiveThe video pilot study was characterized by a more detailedpredefinition of lesson content. Within the pilot study, theteachers were given a more concrete directive for their inter-cultural lesson. They were asked to realize an intercultural topic,but they were additionally requested to focus on Great Britain,which is an important target culture within the curricula of EFLteaching for lower secondary schools in Germany. The teachersin the pilot study were furthermore asked to elaborate uponcultural differences between German and British people in orderto help students learn about culturally different ways ofexpressing criticism and desires in the course of their lesson.

2.3. Procedures

2.3.1. Teacher questionnaireThe amount of culture contact was operationalized by

measuring the frequency of teachers’ contact to English-speakingcountries. Teachers reported their level of personal contact andcontact by telephone, e-mail, and mail with native English speakersby answering the question “How often are you in contact withpeople from an English-speaking country?” on a 5-point scaleranging from 1¼ not at all, 2¼ several times a year, 3¼monthly,4¼weekly, to 5¼ daily. The Cronbach’s-a of the scale (Cronbach’s-a¼ .82) argues for a high level of reliability.

2.3.2. VideographyThe EFL lessons were recorded with two cameras, one following

the teacher and the other providing an overview of the class. Fivemicrophones were installed in the classroom, one for the teacherand four for the class. The way in which the lessons were recorded(video script) was based on the TIMSS-R video study (Stigler,Gonzales, Kawanaka, Knoll, & Serrano, 1999). Students rated the“normality” of the lesson via questionnaire: more than 60% of thestudents rated the lessons as being not overly different from usual,which indicates relative representativeness of the videographedlessons.

Incorporation of intercultural experience and

meanings of students

0,5

0,7

0,9

1,1

1,3

1,5

1,7

1,9

2,1

2,3

2,5

M1-M5 M6-M10

Low contact w/ English speaking cultures High contact w/ English speaking cultures

Fig. 2. Comparison of teachers with high and low culture contact experience.M1eM10: classes from the main study (M), numbered from 1 to 10. ManneWhitney Utest: high contact average rank¼ 7.28; low contact average rank¼ 3.8; p¼ 0.095.

K. Göbel, A. Helmke / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1571e15821576

2.4. Analysis of the videos

The video recordings were completely transcribed. Furtheranalysis was realized in two different ways: A high inference ratingwas carried out by trained raters, and a description of instructionalcontent was executed. In order to better differentiate betweenmainand pilot study in the presentation of the results, the videos fromthe main study were indicated with an “M” before their respectivenumber and the videos from the pilot study with a “P”.

2.4.1. High inference ratingA high inference rating regarding the intercultural quality of the

instruction units was carried out by trained raters. The high infer-ence ratings refer to the extent to which students’ ideas about, andexperiences of, intercultural situations were taken up. This aspectof instruction tends to be significant for the learning outcomes ofstudents (Göbel, 2007). The scale is called “Incorporation ofCultural Experience and Cultural Opinions of Students” and consistsof 9 Items which describe the intercultural focus of the lessons interms of reflection on students’ intercultural experiences, focus ondifferent cultural opinions, and focus on cultural self-awareness.Answers are given on a 4-point scale (ranging from 1¼ stronglydisagree, 2¼ disagree, 3¼ agree, to 4¼ strongly agree e seeAppendix). The videos from the pilot study were rated by 4 trainedraters, while the videos of the main study were rated by 2 trainedraters. The consistency of the ratings between the raters was testedvia computing a G-score (Brennan, 2001) for both sample ratings.The G-score for the rating of the scale in the pilot study was G¼ .70,while the G-score for the rating of the subsample of the main studywas G¼ .86. The G-scores of the ratings in both samples isacceptable for the integration of the scores into further analysis.

2.4.2. Description of instructional contentIn addition to the high inference rating, a description of

instructional content was made in order to compare the content ofthe different videos. The focus of the lessons with regard to contentwas assessed by using predefined categories. In order to categorizethe content of the lessons, a broad concept of possible content wasneeded in order to depict the heterogeneous content of the lessons.In order to differentiate between a focus on surface culture orcultural products vs. a focus on cultural opinions, the labels‘objective culture content’ and ‘subjective culture content’ wereused, in accordance with the conceptual model of interculturallearning of Paige et al. (2003). Furthermore, a distinctionwas madeas to whether only a target culture was examined or whetheradditional comparisons to one’s own culture were included. Theimplementation of role play during the course of the lesson as animportant, experience-oriented didactic approach to interculturallearning in the language classroom (Göbel, 2007; Bennett, 1993;Brislin, 2002) was likewise assessed. Besides the categorization,a description of the content was made in the sense of a qualitativecontent analysis (Mayring, 2008). Two independent raters judgedthe videos based on the content categories and made a contentdescription. They validated their judgments and descriptions viainterpersonal consensus (Bortz & Döring, 2009).

3. Results

3.1. Comparison of teachers with high and lowculture contact experience

The influence of intercultural experience of EFL teachers on thequality of intercultural instruction has beenwidely presumed in theliterature (e.g. Byram, 1997) and empirical evidence has beendetected of a relation between intercultural experience and the

learning outcomes of students (Göbel & Hesse, 2008). In order toexamine differences in actual instruction that might stem fromteachers’ intercultural experience, a subsample of video recordingsfrom the main DESI study was analyzed. By means of extremegroup comparison teachers with high culture contact experiencewere contrasted to those with low culture contact experience(Section 2.2.1). Fig. 2 shows the results of the high inference ratingon the intercultural quality of instruction, which was operational-ized as the “Incorporation of Cultural Experience and CulturalMeanings of Students” in classroom discourse. The results showsignificant differences in this quality dimension between the twogroups. Teachers with more frequent culture contacts receivedhigher scores within the rating than those with less frequentculture contacts. There are moderate, but considerable differencesbetween the video recordings of these two groups of EFL teachers.As the sample is very small, a rank-correlation test of differencesbetween the two groups is significant on the 10% alpha error level.Teachers with more culture contact experience seem to refer moreto the notion of developing cultural awareness of their studentsduring the lesson by integrating intercultural meanings and expe-riences of their students into their classroom discourse. Thesedifferences can be explained inmore detail by describing the lessoncontent.

When teachers were asked to give an “intercultural lesson”without having received any specifications concerning the lessoncontent (DESI main study), theymade strikingly different choices oftopic (see Table 1). Teachers with higher than average culturecontact experience dealt with the following topics: the AmericanMidwest, football hooligans, British school exchange, Ireland, andchild labour. On the other hand, teachers with lower than averageculture contact experience chose topics like Australia, learning inAfrica, youth magazines, youth and disco, and child crisis hotline.

Table 1Comparison of teachers with different degrees of intercultural experience.

Intercultural content of videographed lesson

Objective culture Subjective culture

Class Topic Intercultural experience of teacher Information Comparison Information Comparison Role play

M1 Child crisis hotline � XM2 Youth and disco � X XM3 Australia � XM4 Learning in Africa � X X (X)M5 Youth magazines � (X)M6 Football hooligans þ X (X) XM7 Ireland þ XM8 School exchange þ X XM9 Child labour þ X X XM10 American Midwest þ X

M1eM10: classes from the main study (M), numbered from 1 to 10.X: realization of respective dimension in the respective class.(X): insignificant realization of respective dimension in the respective class.

K. Göbel, A. Helmke / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1571e1582 1577

The content of the lessons was further assessed by evaluatingwhether the lesson broached issues of objective culture by givinginformation or comparing material dimensions of differentcultures, and/or issues of subjective culture, which is connectedwithcultural meanings in terms of information or comparison. Lessonswhich dealt with tangiblematerial aspects of the target culture, likefood, sports, architecture and other visible features, were assignedto the category objective culture, while the category subjectiveculture was assigned when lessons dealt with social and psycho-logical features, i.e. aspects of cultural diversity that affect anindividual’s social interaction or the appropriateness of speechpatterns in different situations. Both dimensions were againdivided into informative and comparative sub-categories. Classesassigned to the informative category dealt with a single cultureonly. When lessons focused on two or more cultures in comparisonto one another they were assigned to the comparative category. Inaddition to the assessment of cultural content, the occurrence ofrole play was rated. All categories were rated with respect to theiroccurrence for each recorded lesson.

The following Table 1 shows the results of the intercultural fociassessed in the study. Dimensions that have already been imple-mented are indicated by an X. An (X) e in brackets e indicates thatthe respective dimension has only been marginally implemented:such aspects have only been dealt with in terms of short teach-erestudent-interaction during a lesson, with a maximum of 5turns.

The assessments of the intercultural orientation of the recordedlessons reveal at least some variety in the judgments made(see Table 1). While the discourse about objective cultural issues ispresent in most videos, subjective cultural issues are hardly dealtwith. The lesson content of most videos remained knowledgeoriented toward another specific culture, and issues of objectiveculture were made the subject of discussion in different ways. Theteacher of class M3, for example, showed a video to give animpression of landscape features and unknown animals inAustralia, whereas class M5 had a close look at real English youthmagazines (which students could skim through), class M7 listenedto traditional and current Irishmusic, and classM10 discussed basicindustrial features of the American Midwest in relation togeographical issues. The results show that teachers with a higherdegree of culture contact experience are more likely to give infor-mation on tangible or material cultural topics. Among teacherswith little cultural contact, only 3 out of 5 dealt with tangible ormaterial topics. The other 2 did not deal with cultural topics at all.

Although the videotaped lessons for the most part do notdisplay any negotiation of subjective cultural meanings, some

lessons engaged in the discourse about cultural differences invalues and meanings. One example is class M9, which deals withthe meaning and evaluation of child labour in Germany, Asia andthe US; the discussion was partially based on comparisons of theactual and historical significance of child labour. Furthermore inclasses M4 and M6 information on cultural meanings can beobserved. They touch upon the issue of cultural relevance ofeducational opportunities in Africa and the emergence of footballhooliganism. Still, the topics in the latter classes were only touchedupon briefly and therefore could be elaborated only in a superficialway.

Cultural comparisons are sometimes observable in the analyzedvideos of the main study. But they mostly refer to objective cultureand are only touched upon briefly, as in classes M2, M4, M5, andM9. The teacher in class M2 questioned his students on their ownknowledge of, and experiences with, drugs and hitchhiking afterthe class had read a text about two English friends who went toa disco. Students in class M4 were asked to judge their educationalsituation in comparison to that of Africa as presented in theirtextbook, whereas class M5 gathered information about thecontent of English youth magazines and class M9 dealt with thetopic of child labour. Class M4 was exceptional in this respect, asthe cultural comparison taken up played a central role throughoutthe lesson. However, it was used in an ethnocentric manner todisplay the deficits of the foreign culture in comparison to Germanculture. The comparison of perspectives can be more frequentlyobserved among teachers with less-than-average cultural experi-ence, but the elaboration of these comparisons is quite limited.

Role plays are possible didactic means to facilitate awareness ofdifferent perspectives. Theywere only observable in classes M6 andM8. In concrete these classes dealt with a family discussion abouta teenager who was arrested for hooliganism, and a discussionbetween parents and students about a former school exchange.Both lessons were taught by teachers whose cultural contact toEnglish-speaking countries was high. In class M1, a role play abouta consultation at a child crisis hotline was conducted, but there wasno reference to any cultural topic. The teacher of class M1 had littleexperience with other cultures.

Summarizing the results concerning the impact of culturecontact experience on the actual lesson, we can say that there areobservable differences between the two groups of teachersanalyzed. Teachers with higher than average intercultural contactexperience tend to integrate cultural and intercultural topics moreexplicitly into their lessons than those with less current intercul-tural experience. All teachers with greater current interculturalexperience integrated cultural or intercultural topics in their

K. Göbel, A. Helmke / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1571e15821578

classroom. In contrast those teachers with little cultural contact(most strikingly almost half of this group) hardly treated intercul-tural topics at all, although they had been explicitly instructed to doso before of the lesson. The remaining teachers of the respectivegroup dealt with cultural topics in their lessons, but either ina superficial or polarizing way, i.e. by derogating the foreignculture. Subjective cultural meanings were seldom or only super-ficially touched within the sample analyzed. An exception of thiswas a video of a teacher with more frequent intercultural contactexperience, which was characterized by intense discourse aboutcultural meanings.

3.2. Comparison of classes with general and specificinstructional directives

Intercultural language instruction seems to depend partly onthe intercultural experience of teachers as confirmed by this studyand as stated in former theoretical conceptions (e.g. Byram, 1991;Paige et al., 2003). Thus, the experience and ideas of teachersplay a key role in the realization of intercultural topics. But wouldmore specific directives for teachers enhance the quality of theirintercultural instruction? The results of the analysis of the impact ofgeneral vs. specific instructional directives on quality of classroomteaching will be examined in the following section. Two differentlevels of instructional specification were compared in order toevaluate whether more precise directives for the interculturallessons would help teachers to achieve a higher degree of inter-cultural teaching quality. The videos of the main study and those ofthe pilot study were compared (see Section 2.2.2). Fig. 3 shows thedifferences in the impact of general and specific instructionaldirectives in the high inference ratings of intercultural quality,operationalized as the “Incorporation of Cultural Experience andCultural Meanings of Students” in class.

The comparison of the high inference rating on the incorpora-tion of students’ experience and ideas shows a striking differencebetween the two groups, which is significant at the 0.01 level(Fig. 3). Lessons with a specific directive for instruction, oper-ationalized as “Elaboration on cultural differences between Britishand German ways to express criticism and desires” seem morelikely to incorporate students’ experiences and ideas than those

Fig. 3. Comparison of high inference ratings on the incorporation of interculturalexperiences and cultural meanings of students; ic_experience: high inference score onthe incorporation of students’ intercultural experience. ManneWhitney U test: specificinstruction average rank¼ 14.4; unspecific instruction average rank¼ 6.6; p¼ 0.002.

with a rather general directive. The focus on cultural awarenessseems to be easier for classes which received a specific directive. Adescription of the lesson content is displayed in Table 2.

Table 2 shows the comparison of intercultural content for videoswith specific (pilot study) and those with general directives (mainstudy) for intercultural instruction.

The topics dealt with during the lessons which receiveda specific directive were much more homogeneous than in lessonswith a general directive. This is hardly surprising, as most teachersstuck to the topic of intercultural comparison between British andGerman culture and the culturally different ways of expressingcriticism and desires. Concerning the intercultural content thespecific-directive lessons incorporated more discourse aboutsubjective cultural comparisons into their class than the othergroup. Class P4 is exceptional, as the teacher mainly elaborated onissues related to objective culture and did not stick as strongly tothe prescribed content as the other teachers from the pilot study.

Subjective cultural comparisons in the pilot study were carriedout by teachers in similar ways, due to the thematic specificationsgiven. The directive apparently triggered a discourse about twocultural perspectives: that of German protagonists on the one hand,and that of English protagonists on the other. These perspectiveswere for example analyzed in class P1 and followed up bya language pattern exercise dealing with moderate criticism. Inclass P3 and P8 the students tried to find more polite alternativesfor the answers of a German protagonist. Students of class P5worked on the problem of direct expression of discontent and ofthe rather indirect British style of conversation. Working in pairs oftwo, they tried to imagine situationswhere direct criticism could beregarded as appropriate and other situations where more indirectcriticism was adequate. The results were presented in the class-room discussion. In class 10 students worked on role plays dealingwith different complaining styles. Some teachers opted for a moreinformative approach to subjective culture. For example teacher ofclass P2 introduced different ways of expressing criticism inEngland. Also, a fill-in-the-blanks text on politeness was given tothe students of class P4.

While almost all pilot study lessons focused on the subjectivepart of the intercultural encounter presented, the issue of infor-mation and comparison within objective culture was dealt with inless than half the lessons. It is remarkable that class P4 is as anexample for integrating objective culture information andcomparison into the lesson, just as the majority of the classes of themain study did. In class P4 students were asked to identify Germanand English food products and to discuss and compare German andEnglish habits and peculiarities. Class P5 started the lesson ina similar way, dealing with differences in German and English food,drinks and habits. However, after an initial focus on objectivecultural comparison, the teacher moved on to subjective culturalissues. Class P7 elaborated upon aspects that could be consideredtypically British or German, after having raised the students’awareness of living (as Germans) in Germany and thus according toGerman habits. The teacher of class P9 provided three texts onprejudices about the British which were taken up in class.

Comparing the results of the different instructional specificationgroups suggests the presence of a more subjective culture orienta-tion, and ofmore cultural comparisons and role plays, in lessonswithmore specific instructional directives (pilot study) than in thosewithgeneral instructional directives (main study). This analysis clearlyconfirms the differences in the high inference ratings on interculturalquality of instruction and illustrates the stronger notion of a focus oncultural awareness in the specific-directive lessons.

Within the main study, where teachers were offered onlygeneral directives for introducing intercultural topics to theirstudents, only one out of ten teachers (compared to nine out of ten

Table 2Comparison of classes with specific and unspecific instructional directives.

Intercultural content of videographed lesson

Objective culture Subjective culture

Class Topic Directive Information Comparison Information Comparison Role play

P1 How to be polite e language pattern Specific (X) XP2 Politeness and criticism e language pattern Specific X X XP3 Politeness and criticism e language pattern Specific X XP4 British politeness Specific X X XP5 Direct vs. indirect expressions Specific (X) X X (X)P6 Problem of direct criticism in Britain Specific X (X)P7 Direct vs. indirect criticism Specific X XP8 Direct and indirect criticism Specific X X XP9 Stereotypes and prejudices Specific X X XP10 How to criticise in Britain; prejudices against Germans Specific X X XM1 Child crisis hotline Unspecific XM2 Youth and disco Unspecific X XM3 Australia Unspecific XM4 Learning in Africa Unspecific X X (X)M5 Youth magazines Unspecific (X)M6 Hooligans Unspecific X (X) XM7 Ireland Unspecific XM8 School exchange Unspecific X XM9 Child labour Unspecific X X XM10 American Midwest Unspecific X

P1eP10: classes of the pilot study (P), numbered from 1 to 10.M1eM10: classes of the main study (M), numbered from 1 to 10.X: realization of respective dimension.(X): weak poor realization of respective dimension i.

K. Göbel, A. Helmke / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1571e1582 1579

teachers in the pilot study) included subjective culture comparisoninto their class (M9). Yet, this cannot only be ascribed to a lack ofopportunities, because some of the topics that teachers of the mainstudy decided to include into their intercultural lesson couldtheoretically be approached in a comparative way to includesubjective culture, such as Youth culture (M2), Learning in Africa(M4), Hooligans (M6), School exchange (M8) and Child labour (M9).With the exception of class M9, teachers of the named topicsdecided to give information on the target culture only (mainlyobjective), with a few who also included objective culturalcomparisons.

When looking at the difference in intercultural experience of theteachers in the pilot study, we first have to acknowledge that we donot have the same design in the pilot study as in the main study.Therefore the intercultural experience of teachers is not reported inthe same way as in the main study. Still we can find some hints ofdifferences between more ore less interculturally experiencedteachers in the pilot study. Pilot study teachers also integratephases dealing with subjective cultural issues into their lessons, yetthere is a difference inwhat aspects of the subjective cultural topicsare picked up and focussed upon. While teachers with moreintercultural experience pick up aspects of stereotyping and prej-udices, and thus focus on the content, teachers with less intercul-tural experience elaborate subjective cultural topics mainly byfocusing on the role of language in intercultural situations ratherthan the role of cultural significance, interpretation and opinion increating situations of conflict. All in all, teachers with greaterintercultural experience seem to use language to talk about culturaldifferences while teachers with less intercultural experience reflectabout language patterns.

4. Discussion e the theoretical and educationalsignificance of the findings

Up to now, findings about instructional quality have mostlydealt with mathematics or science subjects, and little empiricaldata has been gathered about instructional quality in language

classes (Göbel, 2009). In the international literature on instruc-tional quality, general criteria regarding the quality of instructionare described without relation to a topic or subject. The meta-analyses conducted by Wang et al. (1993) show that content-specific factors play an important role in the quality of instruction.However, as Klieme (2001) points out, the content of instructionhas not yet been adequately considered in the conceptualization ofinstructional quality. The present essay is an effort to fill in thisblank by starting to conceptualize instructional quality for inter-cultural EFL teaching.

The results of the present study shed light on the actual difficultythat EFL teachers have in integrating intercultural topics into theirlessons. Comparing less and more interculturally experiencedteachers showed that the latter were rather more likely to focus oncultural comparison and on topics of subjective culture, and to givestudents the opportunity to share ideas and intercultural experiencethan the former. In contrast, less interculturally experienced teachersrelied mostly on objective information and, in 2 out of 5 cases of themain study, did not even explicitly deal with an intercultural topic atall. The implementation of intercultural topics in EFL instructionseems, therefore, to rely markedly on teachers having appropriateintercultural experience anddoes not actually seem to bepart of theirprofessional competence (Göbel & Hesse, 2008).

By comparing the videotaped lessons with general and specificdirectives for the intercultural lesson the study revealed thatlessons with a higher degree of specification more often focussedon intercultural comparisons, on subjective culture, and subjectivecultural meaning, interpretation and significance. Those teachersmade more use of students’ experiences and ideas than teacherswho received only a general directive. Taking a closer look at thetopics of the compared groups one realizes that those in the mainstudy were not as focused and as concrete as those from the pilotstudy. The specific directive of the pilot study seems to helpteachers to put the negotiation of cultural meanings and culturaldifferences into their lessons. In contrast the teacher that receiveda general directive only, seldom interpreted it with a focus oncultural awareness. Furthermore these teachers rarely included

K. Göbel, A. Helmke / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1571e15821580

a task that presented a concrete situation to which students couldeasily connect and which led to taking up the protagonists’perspectives. Instead, the topics were approached with regard totheir objective cultural issues, talking mostly about the generalsituation in the target culture and thus elaborating one side only.The topics in themain study lessonswere rarely related to students’experiences or ideas.

Findings from earlier studies already suggested that experience,meaning and interpretation in intercultural classrooms wereimportant for the development of students’ intercultural sensitivity(Göbel, 2007). Current results show that teachers with greaterintercultural experience tend to give students more opportunitiesfor developing their own ideas and for expressing their own expe-riences, thereby enabling them to reflect upon intercultural topicsfrom their personal point of view. Although one important goal ofthe EFL class is to foster the intercultural awareness of students, andalthough teachers see intercultural topics as being important fortheir classes (Göbel & Hesse, 2008), the actual implementation ofintercultural topics seems to be a demanding task for teachers. Therealization of such topics seems to rely heavily on teachers havingalready acquired the necessary intercultural experience.

Besides the experience of teachers, it can be seen that whenintercultural content is more precisely defined, teachers seem to bemore easily able to put this content into practice and to encouragestudents to discuss their ideas and intercultural experiences. Sofactors beyond the intercultural experience of teachers e namelychoice of topic and the degree of concreteness it offers e can beextracted as being relevant for the implementation of interculturalissues. Reflection on concrete situations seems to have potential forreference to students’ own experiences and their own concepts andopinions (see Sercu, 2002). From the comparison between mainstudy and pilot study we can learn that the more concrete directivewas a help for all teachers not only for the more experienced ones.The cultural comparison approach offered a good opportunity todiscuss cultural meaning and reflect about own experience. Soteachers need to be better guided and supported in order tointroduce intercultural topics in their classroom.

The results of this study are of course limited, as not all videorecordings from the main study have been included. Furthermore,the sample of the pilot study cannot be treated as representativedue to the small sample size and the comparison between pilotstudy and the selected videos of the main study can only be seen asexploratory, as the videos have not been paralleled in terms ofstudents’ preconditioning. The results of this study are no morethan an initial impression e one which has to be taken up intoa future analysis of the total video data corpus of the main study.

5. Conclusion

The results of this study confirm theoretical conceptions thatindicated that the intercultural experience of teachers was ofimportance for the content quality of intercultural lessons (Byram,

Table ATeachers’ questionnaire on frequency of intercultural contact.

Scale Description Number of items

Contact Reported contact with English-speaking countries: N¼ 4“How often are you in contact with people froman English-speaking country?.directly/personally.via mail.via e-mail.via telephone”

1991), as well as empirical findings that the intercultural experi-ence of teachers influenced students’ intercultural learningoutcomes (Göbel & Hesse, 2008). As more highly interculturallyexperienced teachers are more likely to put cultural awareness andthe discussions about cultural meaning, interpretation and signif-icance into the practice of their classrooms, it might be helpful toencourage teachers to make more intense intercultural contacts.This should already be done during their studies and then furtherdeveloped during their professional careers. Teachers should beencouraged to participate more frequently in school exchanges andin virtual school contacts. Furthermore, it might be helpful toinform teachers more extensively about intercultural learningmodels and their development in order to enable them to take intoaccount the preconditioning of their students in amore appropriateway. In order to realize the highly demanding goal of fosteringintercultural competence among students, teachers evidently needmore help and support. This support could be provided by moreprecise instructions within the textbooks and should be com-plemented by more comprehensive teacher training.

But besides the experience and knowledge of teachers, thechoice of content and topics seems to play a major role. The resultsof the comparison of the different directive specifications indicatethe importance of the selection of good topics for interculturalinstruction. The more concrete directive in the pilot study wasa help for all teachers not only for the more experiences ones. Thecultural comparison approach offered a good opportunity todiscuss cultural meanings. Moreover, reflection on concrete inter-cultural situations seems to have a potential for a comparison withstudents’ own experiences and ideas (see Sercu, 2002). So teachersneed to be better guided and supported in order to choose goodintercultural topics in their classroom.

For future research on intercultural learning in the foreignlanguage classroom it should to be considered that students’intercultural attitudes, as well as their cognitive learning precon-ditions, influence their intercultural learning development (Göbel,2007; Bennett et al., 2003; Gardner & Lambert, 1972). This aspectshould be included in future research approaches. For futureresearch thematching of different teaching approaches for differentstudent groups, and the interrelation between instruction andintercultural outcomes of seems a valuable research line to follow.

Acknowledgements

Wewant to thank Tuyet Helmke,WolfgangWagner, and Friedrich-Wilhelm Schrader for their realization of the videographies. Furtherwe thank Martyn Barrett, Ryan Dorr, Gabriel Horencyk and AndreaWester for their helpful comments and suggestions on this paper.

Appendix

Answering format Reliability

5-Point scale a¼ .82Not at all Several times a year Monthly Weekly Daily

, , , , ,

, , , , ,

, , , , ,

, , , , ,

Table BRating scale for the videoed lessons. “Incorporation of intercultural experiences and cultural meanings of students”.

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree

The lesson’s content ties in with the students’ intercultural experiences. , , , ,

The students are exposed to different cultural views in the classroom. , , , ,

The students express their personal ideas and perceptions about cultural diversity. , , , ,

The students are offered possibilities to explore their personal perceptions on cultural diversity. , , , ,

The students’ intercultural ideas are part of the classroom discourse. , , , ,

The students’ suggestions and views are taken seriously. , , , ,

The students show independent interest in other cultures (through independent questions and comments). , , , ,

The students are made aware that their personal cultural concepts are culturally shaped. , , , ,

The students reflect their personal cultural views during the lesson. , , , ,

K. Göbel, A. Helmke / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1571e1582 1581

References

Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Akert, R. M. (2008). Sozialpsychologie (6th ed.). Mün-chen: Pearson Studium.

Baron, R. S. (2002). Interculturally speaking. München: Langenscheidt ELT.Bennett, J. M., Bennett, M. J., & Allen, W. (2003). Developing intercultural compe-

tence in the language classroom. In D. L. Lange, & M. Paige (Eds.), Culture as thecore (pp. 237e270). Greenwich: IAP.

Bennett, M. J. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: a developmental model of inter-cultural sensitivity. In M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience(pp. 21e72). Yarmouth: Intercultural Press.

Bennett, M. J., & Hammer, M. R. (2002). The intercultural development inventory (IDI).Portland: International Communication Institute.

Bhagat, R. S., & Prien, O. K. (1996). Cross-cultural training in organizational contexts.In D. Landis, & R. W. Brislin (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (2nd ed.).(pp. 216e230) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bortz, J., & Döring, N. (2009). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation für Human- undSozialwissenschaftler. Heidelberg: Springer Medizin Verlag.

Bredella, L. (1992). Towards a pedagogy of intercultural understanding. Amer-ikastudien/American Studies, 37(4), 559e594.

Brennan, R. L. (2001). Generalizability theory. New York: Springer.Brislin, R. (2002). Encouraging depth rather than surface processing about cultural

differences through critical incidents and role plays. Online Reading Psychologyand Culture. www.ac.wwu.edu/wculture/brislin.html.

Brophy, J. E. (2002). Teaching. Educational practices series-1. 2003, from www.ibe.unesco.org.

Burwitz-Meltzer, E. (2003). Allmähliche Annäherungen: Fiktionale Texte im inter-kulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht der Sekundarstufe I. Tübingen: Günter NarrVerlag.

Byram, M. (1991). Teaching culture and language: towards an integrated model. InD. Buttjes, & M. Byram (Eds.), Mediating languages and cultures: Towards anintercultural theory of foreign language education (pp. 17e30). Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.

Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence.Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Byram, M., Esarte-Sarries, V., Taylor, S., & Allatt, P. (1991). Young people’sperception of other cultures. In D. Buttjes, & M. Byram (Eds.), Mediatinglanguages and cultures: Towards an intercultural theory of foreign languageeducation (pp. 103e119). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Byram, M., & Feng, A. (2004). Culture and language learning: teaching, research andscholarship. Language Teaching, 37(3), 149e168.

Campbell, J., Kyriakides, L., Muijis, D., & Robinson, W. (2004). Assessing teachereffectiveness. Developing a differentiated model. London: Routledge.

Caspari, D., & Schinschke, A. (2009). Aufgaben zur Feststellung und Überprüfunginterkultureller Kompetenzen im Fremdsprachenunterricht: Entwurf einerTypologie. In A. Hu, & M. Byram (Eds.), Intercultural competence and foreignlanguage learning (pp. 273e287). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.

CEF. Arbeitsplatz Europa: Sprachkompetenz wird messbar. Bonn: Deutscher Industrie-und Handelstag (DIHT).

Damen, L. (1987). Culture learning. The fifth dimension in the language classroom.Reading: Addison-Wesley.

Diehr, B. (2009). Cultural studies on a shoe string. Der Fremdsprachliche Unterricht,102, 34e41.

Fend, H. (1998). Qualität im Bildungswesen. Schulforschung zu Systembedingungen,Schulprofilen und Lehrerleistung. München: Juventa.

Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second languagelearning. The role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.

Glicszinski, D. J. (2007). Transformative higher education: a meaningful degree ofunderstanding. Journal of Transformative Education, 5(4), 317e328.

Göbel, K. (2007). Qualität im interkulturellen Englischunterricht. Eine Videostudie.Münster: Waxmann.

Göbel, K. (2008). Die Entwicklung von thematischem Interesse im interkultur-ellenEnglischunterricht. In T. Ringeisen, P. Buchwald, & C. Schwarzer (Eds.),Interkulturelle Kompetenz in Schule und Weiterbildung. Münster: Lit-Verlag.

Göbel, K. (2009). Die Bedeutung von Kulturkontakterfahrung der Lehrerenden fürdie Implementierung interkultureller Lerninhalte im Englischunterricht. InA. Hu, & M. Byram (Eds.), Interkulturelle Kompetenz und fremdsprachliches Lernen(pp. 179e198). Tübingen: Günter Narr.

Göbel, K., & Hesse, H. G. (2004). Vermittlung interkultureller Kompetenz imEngli-schunterricht - eine curriculare Perspektive. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 50(6),818e834.

Göbel, K., & Hesse, H.-G. (2008). Vermittlung interkultureller Kompetenzen imEnglischunterricht. In DESI-Konsortium. (Ed.), Unterricht und Kompetenzerwerbin Deutsch und Englisch (pp. 398e410). Weinheim: Beltz.

Good, T., & Brophy, J. (1997). Looking in classrooms (7th ed.). New York: Longman.Gruehn, S. (2000). Unterricht und schulisches Lernen. Münster: Waxmann.Hallet, W. (2002). Fremdsprachenunterricht als Spiel der Texte und Kulturen. Trier:

Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to

achievement. London: Routledge.Helmke, A. (2006a). Unterrichtsqualität: Erfassung, Bewertung, Verbesserung. Velber:

Kallmeyersche Verlagsbuchhandlung.Helmke, A. (2006b). Unterrichtsqualität: Erfassen, Bewerten, Verbessern (4th. Ed.).

Seelze: Kallmeyersche Verlagsbuchhandlung.Helmke, T., Helmke, A., Schrader, F. W., Wagner, W., Nold, G., & Schröder, K. (2008).

Die Videostudie des Englischunterrichts. In DESI-Konsortium. (Ed.), Unterrichtund Kompetenzerwerb in Deutsch und Ergebnisse der DESI-Studie (pp. 345e363).Weinheim: Beltz.

Hesse, H.-G., Göbel, K., & Jude, N. (2008). Interkulturelle Kompetenz. In DESI-Kon-sortium. (Ed.), Unterricht und Kompetenzerwerb in Deutsch und Englisch -Ergebnisse der DESI-Studie (pp. 180e190). Weinheim: Beltz.

Hendson, U. S. (2005). The interaction of language and culture: new views inforeign language teaching. In W. Gehring (Ed.), Kulturdidaktik im Engli-schunterricht. Oldenburg: Universität Oldenburg.

Hesse, H. G., Göbel, K. (2007). Interkulturelle Kompetenz. In B. Beck , & E. Klieme(Hrsg.). Sprachliche Kompetenzen - Konzepte und Messung - DESI-Studie (pp. 253-269). Weinheim: Beltz.

Hu, A. (1995). Ist Kultur eine fruchtbare, notwendige oder verzichtbare fremd-sprachendidaktische Kategorie? Überlegungen aufgrund einer person-enorientierten qualitativ-empirischen Studie. In L. Bredella, & H. Christ (Eds.),Didaktik des Fremdverstehens (pp. 20e36). Tübingen: Narr.

Hu, A., & Byram, M. (2009). Intercultural competence and foreign language learning:Models, empiricism, assessment. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.

Klieme, E. (2001). Unterrichtsstunden als differentielle Lernmilieus e oder wiedetailliert muss Unterrichtsforschung sein?. Vortrag präsentiert im Rahmen derKonferenz “Schulen als differentielle Lernmilieus” Berlin: MPI.

KMK. (1994). Überlegungen zu einem Grundkonzept für den Fremdsprachenunterrichtmit Gutachten zum Fremdsprachenunterricht in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland.Bonn: Sekretariat der ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister.

Kramsch, C. (1998). Language and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Lee, J. F. K. (2009). ESL student teachers’ perceptions of a short-term overseas

immersion programme. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(8), 1095e1104.Mayring, P. (2008). Qualitative inhaltsanalyse. Weinheim: Beltz-Verlag.Muijs, D., & Reynolds, D. (2007). Effective teaching: Evidence and practice (2nd ed.).

London: Sage.Müller-Jacquier, B. (2004). Interkulturelle Didaktik. [Intercultural didactic]. In

M. Byram (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of language teaching and learning(pp. 303e307). London: Routledge.

Paige, R. M. (1993). Trainer competencies for international and intercultural pro-grammes. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience. Yar-mouth: Intercultural Press.

Paige, R. M., Jorstadt, H. L., Siaya, L., Klein, F., & Colby, J. (2003). Culture learning inlanguage education: a review of the literature. In D. L. Lange, & R. M. Paige(Eds.), Culture as the core (pp. 173e236). Greenwich: IAP.

Pajares, F. M. (1992). Teacher’s beliefs and educational research: cleaning upa messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307e322.

Pence, H. M., & Macgillivray, I. K. (2008). The impact of an international fieldexperience on preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1),14e25.

Ramsey, S. (1996). Creating a context: methodologies in intercultural teaching andlearning. In H. N. Seelye (Ed.), Experimental activities for intercultural learning(pp. 7e24). Yarmouth: Intercultural Press.

Rivin, S., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academicachievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417e458.

Scheerens, J., & Bosker, R. J. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness.Oxford: Elsevier Science.

K. Göbel, A. Helmke / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1571e15821582

Scheu, D. (2005). Linguistic and cultural relativity in foreign language education. InW. Gehring (Ed.), Kulturdidaktik im Englischunterricht. Oldenburg: UniversitätOldenburg.

Sercu, L. (2002). Autonomes Lernen im interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht.Kriterien für die Auswahl von Lerninhalten und Lernaufgaben. Zeitschrift fürInterkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht, 7(2), 1e18.

Shermann, S. C. (2009). Haven’t we seen this before? Sustaining a vision in teachereducation for progressive teaching practice. Teacher Education Quarterly, Fall.

Smith, S. L., Paige, R. M., & Steglitz, I. (1998). Theoretical foundations on intercul-tural training and applications to the teaching of culture. In D. L. Lange, &R. M. Paige (Eds.), Culture as the core (pp. 32e91). Minnesota, MN: Center forAdvanced Research on Language Acquisition.

Steinert, B., & Klieme, E. (2004). Was kommt mit einer Einführung der Bildungs-standards auf die Schulen zu? SchulVerwaltung NI SH (2), 36e39.

Stigler, J. W., Gonzales, P., Kawanaka, T., Knoll, S., & Serrano, A. (1999). The TIMSSvideotape classroom study: Methods and preliminary findings. Los Angeles:National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.

Thomas, A. (2006). Die Bedeutung von Vorurteil und Stereotyp im interkulturellenHandeln. Interculture Journal, 2, 3e20.

Trim, J., North, B., Coste, D., & Sheils, J. (Eds.). (2001). Gemeinsamer europäischerReferenzrahmen für Sprachen: Lernen, lehren, beurteilen. Berlin: Langenscheidt.

Wang, C. M., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. (1993). Toward a knowledge base forschool learning. Review of Educational Research, 63(3), 249e294.

Ward, C., & Rana-Deuba, A. (1999). Acculturation and adaptation revisited. Journal ofCross-Cultural Psychology, 30(4), 422e439.

Ward, M. J., & Ward, C. J. (2003). Promoting cross-cultural competence in preserviceteachers through second language use. Education, 123(3), 532e536.

Zarate, G. (1986). Enseigner une culture etrangère. Paris: Hachette.