DISCUSION GENERAL

The assessment and its function

According to Eisner (2002), in general, assessment refers to the appraisal of individual student performance and without assessment, the teacher cannot know what the consequences of teaching have been.

Byram (1997) suggests that one aspect of assessment is that it can have an effect on teaching and learning. If teachers and students can see that competences are assessed, they will be reassured in pursuing their objectives.

Corbett (2003) states:

Assessment does have an institutional and individual use: state educational systems demand assessment to measure the performance of schools and the individuals who

43

attend them. Teachers and learners also demand assessment as a means of measuring their progress, charting future needs, and diagnosing problems. In addition, recognition by an institution that a subject like culture is worth assessing can act as a stimulus for teachers and students to take it seriously (p. 192). Testing from an intercultural perspective can enrich a language course. (p. 194)

According to Skopinskaja (2009), the assessment of ICC components is rewarding though complex. It not only provides students with feedback related to their ICC learning, but also informs teachers about the level of their students‘ ICC performance. According to Fantini (2009), assessment can be used to find out whether and to what extent students attain the learning objectives. It can not only provide useful information that guide teaching practices but also enrich and transform the teaching and learning process.

For this study, it was a given that assessment is indispensable and assessment has a positive impact on teaching and learning. In addition to the good reasons noted by Eisner, Byram, Corbett and Fantini above, assessment was viewed as offering the researcher some idea of whether the intervention was associated with an improvement in intervention class students‘ language skills and ICC learning.

ICC assessment

Since ICC is seen as a complex combination of knowledge and skills, many researchers acknowledge that the assessment of ICC is also sophisticated. However, there have been frameworks devised by scholars such as Byram (1997, 2008), Corbett (2003), Skopinskaja (2009), Fantini (2009), Paige (2000), and Deardorf (2009). The assessment of ICC in this research was largely based on Byram (1997, 2008), Lussier (2007), Corbett (2003), Skopinskaja (2009), and Fantini (2009). The latter four‘s working models were actually developed from Byram‘s framework of ICC theory.

Contents of ICC assessment

Since ICC emphasizes the acquisition of knowledge, skills, attitudes and critical cultural awareness, Byram (1997) has proposed in great detail a framework of modes of assessment for those dimensions of ICC, that is, assessment of the various intercultural savoirs he identifies (noted in the previous section).

Byram defines skills, knowledge and attitudes in terms of objectives (see Section 2.3.2) which provide the basis for assessment of the competence of learners. According to Byram

44

(1997), assessment should firstly focus on those objectives to determine how far learners have reached the competence described by those objectives. Secondly, it should also consider the purposes of assessment which are determined by context such as the educational institutions and the societal and geo-political factors to which educational institutions and the education system as a whole must respond. Byram suggests assessing those dimensions of ICC in terms of objectives: knowledge, skills, attitudes and critical cultural awareness. He suggests that the forms of assessment should follow logically from the objectives and specifications of those ICC dimensions. Fantini (2009) also notes that instructional objectives, course design and implementation, and assessment should be aligned. They should not be separated, otherwise, the educational process is compromised. For this study, globally I closely related the objectives of ICC defined by Byram to the curriculum design, teaching and assessment, that is, based on those objectives I taught and tested those dimensions: attitudes and critical cultural awareness, knowledge, skills. The purpose of assessment was also taken into account according to the specific context, namely Chinese students in China‘s educational context, the need and learning purpose of Chinese students and the fact that this study was aiming to attain short-term goals only.

Skopinskaja (2009) notes: ―despite recent research in the field of ICC (Byram & Azrate, 1997; Byram, 1997; Balboni, 2006), the relationship between teaching-and-learning language-and- culture (Byram & Morgan 1994) and ICC assessment issues seems to have been underestimated, hence there is a need for a new conceptual framework of ICC‖ (p. 137). In her research about assessing intercultural communicative competence, Skopinskaja used the model designed by Lussier from McGill University as a working model.

With a view to obtaining a profile of learners‘ intercultural learning experiences (Lussier, 1997, cited in Skopinskaja, p. 137, 2009), Lussier designed a working model of the three dimensions in assessing ICC as follows:

 savoirs, relating to the declarative knowledge profile which takes into account both small ―c‖ culture and capital ―C‖ culture aspects, such as ways of life, practices, music, arts, architecture, literature, history, individual and social norms of reference. It refers to collective memory, diversity in the ways of living as well as the sociocultural context of the target language communities.

 savoir faire, referring to the behavioural profile which is concerned with different forms of behaviour in the target language and culture, plurilingual and pluricultural practices from the family, cultural and social environment of individuals, aiming at the development of specific skills related to various contexts ofcustomary

45  communication.

 savoir etre, referring to the attitudinal profile which is concerned with the mental representations of individuals and development of attitudes able to cross over from self-awareness to sensitivity towards Otherness, acceptance of and respect for the values of other cultures. (Lussier et al. 2004)

With regard to assessing those dimensions of intercultural communicative competence, Skopinskaja (2009), based on this working model designed by Lussier, specified further the kinds of attitudes, knowledge and skills to be judged when assessing students‘ intercultural knowledge, skills and attitudes.

Firstly, as to the assessment of the awareness and attitude dimension of ICC, according to Skopinskaja, it proceeds through three levels: cultural awareness, critical awareness and transcultural internalisation (Lussier et al. 2007, cited in Skopinskaja, 2009). As proposed by the INCA project (Council of Europe, 2005), at the low level (cultural awareness), learners are able to understand the differences in beliefs, attitudes and values across cultures. At the medium level, the learners show openness, interpreting critically their own cultural identities, and accepting the fact that other cultures may have different beliefs and values. At the high level of proficiency, students are able to empathise with other cultural identities, trying to imagine themselves in the position of other people and so to share their beliefs and values, reshape their opinions and integrate new cultural perspectives. They are able to take the role of mediators in situations of tension, or cultural misunderstanding.

Secondly, in assessing the knowledge dimension of ICC, tests should not only aim at assessing so-called ―shallow learning‖, such as the memorisation of cultural facts (Corbett, 2003, p. 196, cited in Skopinskaja, 2009, p. 139), which are carried out by means of objective tests like multiple choice, true or false statements, and short question-answer items and so on. The tests should also involve assessment of ―deep learning‖, including learners‘ ability to compare, regroup, infer, appreciate, synthesise, and judge the information found in the texts (Lussier et al. 2007). The rating scale for assessing the knowledge dimension is as follows. At the low level of proficiency, the so-called level of recognition, learners are able to produce simple descriptions and identify the limited number of cultural facts related to their own culture, or to the target language culture. When questioned, they may refer to stereotyped cultural ideas or images. At the medium level, the so-called level of comparison, the learners possess diversified cultural images and concrete knowledge about cultural facts and can gradually build on and modify the information acquired. They are able to compare cultural

46

facts with their own life experience, and regroup different types of cultural characteristics. At the high level of performance, the so-called level of analysis, learners display a deep knowledge of specific characteristics of other cultures (e.g., products and practices, traditions, values, etc), and a clear perception of diverse cultural images. They can infer meaning from different sources, analyse, appreciate and evaluate different types of cultural characteristics (Lussier et al. 2007, cited in Skopinskaja, 2009, p. 140)

Thirdly, the assessment of the skills dimension of ICC, according to Skopinskaja (2009), has been focusing more on the linguistic aspect of communicative competence, which reflects the degree of students‘ ability to function and interact in the target language. She suggests that the assessment of skills should take into account how students adjust to the requirements of the social and cultural environment of the target language culture and mediate in intercultural exchanges, or how they integrate experiences in the target language to use efficiently their communicative competence as intercultural speakers (Lussier et al. 2007).

Both Lussier‘s working model of the three dimensions in assessing ICC and Skopinskaja‘s further specifications on the basis of Lussier‘s model provided a detailed guideline for ICC assessment in this study. They were applicable as, when I set the paper for the examination, based on the objectives of ICC learning defined by Byram, I referred to Lussier‘s model and Skopinskaja‘s specifications of the three dimensions in assessing ICC to design the test for my study. For each dimension and aspect of ICC in terms of objectives, I decided on, as appropriately as possible, the methods and the types of test format (see the following section about methods of assessment).

Methods of ICC assessment

While acknowledging that tests of ICC face many questions such as: What is the best way of specifying context and constructing test formats? Corbett (2003), based on Byram‘s theory, suggested ways in which a cultural perspective can be assessed. He argued: ―If tests are then matched to curricula goals, then the tests should be valid‖ (p. 194). According to him:

Intercultural communication should be a clearly defined option in language education. The goals of any course should specify whether learners, teachers and institutions are concerned with (1) increasing language proficiency, (2) gaining factual knowledge about the target culture, (3) acculturating, and/or (4) mediating between cultures. (p. 193)

47

In relation to matching to curricula goals, Corbett (2003) offers in great detail guidance on the issues surrounding assessment. They are: (1) test formats including pre-test, test during a course, post-test; (2) objective and subjective tests; (3) formative and summative assessment; (4) ways of determining progress. Analytically and critically I referred to some of his suggestions when they were applicable and practicable for this study.

According to Corbett (2003), formal assessment can occur as different parts of a course: pre- test, test during a course and post-test. He notes that pre-test can find out the level of the students‘ knowledge and ability before the course starts, and so perform a useful diagnostic function; tests during a course can gauge progress and increase motivation, and act as a further diagnostic information; while post-tests can both measure individual students‘ skills and knowledge when a course has ended, and give some indication of the effectiveness of the course. For my study, I used both a pre-test which determined the level of students‘ knowledge and ability before the intervention started, and a post-test which measured students‘ ICC learning and gave some indication of the effectiveness of the intervention. During the intervention no test was done, but at the end of each phase during the intervention, intervention class students were invited to write reflective journals where they evaluated themselves in various aspects of ICC learning. I also wrote my reflective journal by observing students‘ learning process and performance during the intervention, based on which I gave them prompt feedback and appropriate praise. These might enhance students‘ intrinsic motivation according to Deci & Ryan (1985) and Dornyei‘s (1994) theories of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and Dornyei‘s (1994) theory of motivational components (see Section 2.4). Interviews were also conducted at the completion of the intervention program to investigate aspects of their learning process and experience.

With regard to objective and subjective tests, Corbett(2003) notes that the former tests students‘ knowledge but not necessarily skills while the latter is preferable for deeper and more global testing of students‘ abilities. He points out that objective tests usually include multiple-choices, true-false items, topic-focused matching of test items, and short question- answer tests, while subjective tests involve some kind of personal evaluation of more complex responses by learners, such as identifying genres, selecting appropriate language, transformation tasks, reflective tasks, role-plays, interpretive skills, projects and portfolios, and so on. Some objective tests were applied to the assessment in this study. As for subjective tests, most of them were applied to the assessment in this study analytically and specifically,

48

based on ICC in terms of objectives defined by Byram. As to the item role-plays, according to Corbette, some of the skills can only be properly tested orally, most probably by role-play or simulation. These skills include: using everyday conversation to construct and maintain individual identity within a group; using formal and informal interviews to elicit cultural knowledge. This was restricted to summative tests in this study because of time constraints. In critiquing Corbett (2003) I would suggest that these skills are not necessarily only to be tested orally and might be tested in written form. They could be tested by analysis of cases of intercultural communications or conversations, and by setting tasks to elicit cultural knowledge or by recognition of cultural facts and so on.

Both Corbett (2003) and Skopinskaja (2009) made a distinction between formative and summative assessment. Formative assessment, as Skopinskaja stated (2009), is conducted during the course as an ongoing process. The purpose is to give students guidance on their performance, and improving the learning process. Summative assessment evaluates the students‘ achievement by the end of a course, with a final grade or mark. According to Corbett (2003), the choice and implementation of formative and summative assessment depends on many factors, such as the length of the course, its aims, the number and language level of the students, and especially the time that the teacher is willing and able to devote to assessing students‘ work. This study mainly chose summative assessment for the reason of limited time-frames/time constraints, the large number of students and students‘ heavy study task of other subjects. But still, at the end of each phase during the intervention, both teacher and students wrote reflective journals about various aspects of the learning and teaching which not only gave students guidance on their performance, and improving the learning process, but also gave me some indication of the effectiveness of the course so that I could adjust my teaching to students‘ need for the following phases and some implications for future study and research.

It is well acknowledged by ICC experts such as Corbett, Fantini and Byram that the assessment of ICC is sophisticated and faces a lot of challenges. As Corbett (2013) notes, tests of intercultural competence face many questions such as how to construct test formats and how to specify context in which knowledge of the cultural functions of language inform but do not confine or restrain students‘ creativity.

According to Fantini (2009), many issues remain unsolved in the assessment of ICC as the intercultural field is still developing. The most fundamental question is that, in addition to

49

language, what abilities are needed for successful intercultural action, the answer to which is key to the assessment process.

Byram (2008) also acknowledges that assessment of all the saviors does raise some questions. However, he suggested certain safeguards which include selecting topics carefully, using more than one examiner, examing different aspects of intercultural competence in separate as well as holistic procedures, and producing a profile of marks rather than a single summative assessment. It is true, as Corbett (2003) stated, that it is the responsibility of local curriculum planners and teachers to specify the details of the most appropriate goals, formats and grading criteria for the assessment of the intercultural content of their language courses to create general examinations in intercultural content of their language courses .

For the assessment in this study, based on the objectives of ICC learning defined by Byram, I referred to Lussier‘s model and Skopinskaja‘s specifications of the three dimensions and aspects of ICC in terms of objectives to decide on the content and format of the tests. Summative assessment was conducted with the combination of teacher‘s and students‘ reflective journals and interviews which investigated aspects of their learning process, experience and performance. I was well aware that assessment of ICC, according to Byram (2008) and Lussier (2009), should also be formative rather than occurring as a single summative assessment. For this study, if it were not for the limited time-frames of the intervention, students‘ heavy workloads in other subjects and the large number of students, I would have used more formative assessment tools such as portfolios, dialogue journals, self- evaluation reports, on-going performance evaluations and so on. ICC assessment including summative and formative assessment of ICC is an area that needs long-term further experiment, study and research (see Discussion).

2.4 Learning motivation and self-confidence in L2 and ICC classroom learning