Chapter I Introduction
1.1 Background of the Study
In its broadest sense, intercultural communication competence (ICC for short) isthe ability to communicate with people from different cultures. And it can be definedas “the ability to effectively and appropriately execute communication behaviors thatnegotiate each other's cultural identity or identities in a culturally diverse environment(Chen & Starosta, 1996).” In other words, people who do well in interculturalcommunication can not only transform the information smoothly to his or hercounterpart in a different culture, but also behave in an appropriate way during thecommunication, considering each other’s cultural background.Five main trends have characterized this 21stcentury: “technology development(especially the development of computer and the internet), globalization of theeconomy, widespread population migrations, development of the multiculturalism andthe demise of the nation state in form of sub- and supranational identifications (Chen& Starosta, 1996)”. All of them have been leading the world into a global societywhere people from different countries and cultures are more closely connected thanever before, both in the real and in the virtual world. Then interculturalcommunication is inevitable and even becomes an important part in people’s workand daily life. Therefore, intercultural communication competence is an essentialability for citizens of this new millennium to promote a meaningful and productivelife.
………..
1.2 Significance of the Study
This study is one of the initial empirical studies to explore the value and theapplication of a new course mode—the international telecollaboration course onfostering English majors’ intercultural communication competence in China. Itpossesses great significance both in theory and in practice.In theory, relevant studies on intercultural communication competence are notenough, especially at home, according to some authoritative surveys, despite the factthat the importance of intercultural communication competence has been widelyaccepted. Scholar Hu Wenzhong conducted a survey in 2005 and found that“empirical studies on intercultural communication competence fail to reach 1%among the publications in our country from year 1999 to 2002 (Hu Wenzhong,2005).” A more recent study by Kong Deliang & Luan Xuwen in 2012 calculated thenumber of studies on intercultural communication competence in the area of collegeforeign language education in our country. The results showed that “the averageamount of related books and papers in core journals on intercultural communicationcompetence published every year were 3.3 and 8.4 respectively, which cannot satisfythe needs of intercultural education (Kong Deiliang & Luan Shuwen, 2012).” What’sworse, among the limited previous studies, seldom is based on empirical studies. Andeven in the few empirical studies, most are investigations revealing teachers’ orstudents’ intercultural communication competence level. Attempts that aim atestablishing teaching method or course pattern to cultivate students’ interculturalcommunication competence are rare. But “intercultural communication competence isa behavioral ability in essence, and lacking the support of empirical studiescontradicts its primary attributes, which may result in no applicable value (ZhangWeidong & Yang Li, 2012)”. So, empirical studies on intercultural communicationcompetence, especially those trials on fostering students this competence, are badlyneeded.
…………
Chapter II Literature Review
2.1 Key Concepts
Before reviewing the literature, it’s necessary to make the key concepts in thisstudy explicit, and then the terms and theories in this study can be better understood.The key concepts defined below are intercultural communication competence,intercultural sensitivity and intercultural effectiveness. Although intercultural communication competence (ICC) is individuals’ vitalability in intercultural interaction, no consensus has been reached on its definition,despite much effort has been made (Bennett, 1993; Byram, 1997; Chen & Starosta,1996, 1999; Deardorff, 2006; Gao Yihong, 2002; Gudykunst, 1994; Hu Wenzhong,1999; Jia Yuxin, 1997; Kim, 1992; Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984; Zhong, 1998). Manyterms have been used interchangeably to mean almost the same. Table 2-1 gathers 18terms which have been utilized as alternatives for ICC. Generally speaking, tworeasons are responsible for this phenomenon. One is that the existing large amount ofdefinitions is put forward by scholars from different disciplines. These scholars withdiverse backgrounds, such as linguistics, sociolinguistics, anthropology and so on,conceptualize ICC from their own perspectives, so this results in the large number ofthe definitions, but they all vary from one to another in some degree. The other reasonis that the connotation of ICC itself is complex by nature. It is the integration ofcommunication competence and intercultural interactional context, both of whichcover various elements and different levels. So the integrated production—the ICC—becomes a really much more comprehensive concept. However, the ambiguity on thedefinition is raising confusions on perceiving ICC studies. What’s worse, thismisconception could also lead to failures in developing valid measurements of ICC.So there is a need for a clear definition.
…………
2.2 Main Models of ICC
Throughout the literature, theoreticians and researchers have used a range ofmore or less related terms to describe and discuss the components or dimensions ofthe models of ICC. In this section, three main models will be introduced: Ruben’sBehavioral Approach, Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity(DMIS) and Chen & Starosta’s Model. They are selected because of their outstandingstatuses in serving as basis for developing assessments to gauge an individual’s ICC. Ruben’s Behavioral Approach was one of the earliest comprehensive models todefine and measure ICC (Ruben, 1976; Ruben & Kealey, 1979). Different from itsprevious approaches which focused on the interactants’ personality and attitude,Ruben’s model tried to bridge the gap between knowing and doing in interculturalsituations. Ruben & Kealey (1979) also believed that an individual may have strongdesire to communicate with culturally different people and have a good command ofthe knowledge of intercultural effectiveness, but he might also fail to act competentlyin intercultural communication. Then Ruben (1976) further picked out sevendimensions of ICC which were built on the findings of former researchers and on hisown studies. The seven dimensions are: Display of Respect, Interaction Posture, andOrientation to Knowledge, Empathy, Self-oriented Role Behavior, InteractionManagement and Tolerance for Ambiguity.
…………
Chapter III Research Methodology........25
3.1 Research Questions.....25
3.2 Subjects ........25
3.3 The International Telecollaboration Course Mode .......26
3.4 Instruments........29
3.5 Data Collection ......31
3.6 Data Analysis .........33
Chapter IV Results and Discussions ......35
4.1 Effects on Intercultural Sensitivity ......35
4.2 Effects on Intercultural Effectiveness .......41
4.2.1 Effects on the Overall Intercultural Effectiveness......41
4.2.2 Effects on the Components of Intercultural Effectiveness ........42
Chapter V Conclusion........50
5.1 Major Findings of the Study ......50
5.2 Implications of the Study ......51
5.3 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Study....52
Chapter IV Results and Discussions
4.1 Effects on Intercultural Sensitivity
This section mainly deals with the results and discussions concerning the effectsof the international telecollaboration course on the subjects’ intercultural sensitivity,providing an answer for the first research question of the current study. And thoseresults and discussions are presented in two different layers: the overall interculturalsensitivity level and its components level. Aiming at revealing the effects of the international telecollaboration course onEnglish majors’ overall intercultural sensitivity, the Paired-samples T Test was run todetermine the differences between its scores in the pre- and post-survey. And theresults are shown in Table 4-1. From the table it can be seen that the subjects’intercultural sensitivity in post-survey has been improved compared with that in thepre-one. However, the difference between these two surveys is not statisticallysignificant (t= -1.955, Sig> .05) which indicates that the intercultural telecollaborationcourse has no significant effects on English majors’ intercultural sensitivity, althoughit has exerted positive influences on its improvement.There are several reasons that could explain this result. The first possibleexplanation is that intercultural sensitivity is the emotional dimension of ICC, whichmainly concerns about an individual’ s willingness to contact with other countries’ culture or to communicate with people from different cultures. And it is anindividual’s subjective desire which relates to his or her psychological factors. Somestudies have already proved that intercultural sensitivity can be affected by anindividual’s personality, involving attributes such as extroversion, openness,agreeableness, conscientiousness and so on (Ward & Low, 2004; Zeng Bin, 2009). Forinstance, those who are extrovert usually tend to communicate with others moreinitiatively, and are more curious about new things. Therefore, their interculturalsensitivity is more likely to be improved. In contrary, the introverts may have someopposite experiences. Therefore the subjects’ psychological factors may accelerate ordelay their development on intercultural sensitivity, which may be beyond the powerof the international telecollaboration course.
……………
Conclusion
The current study aims to explore the effects of the internationaltelecollaboration course on English majors’ intercultural communication competence(ICC), which is tested by the participated English majors’ intercultural sensitivity andintercultural effectiveness—the affective and behavioral dimension of ICC. The majorfindings of this study are summarized as follows.The first finding of the present study is about the effects of the internationaltelecollaboration course on the participated English majors’ intercultural sensitivity. Inthe overall level, the international telecollaboration course in the present study failedto have a significant effect on the English majors’ intercultural sensitivity, although ithas positively influenced their development on this dimension. Possible reasons maybe some relevant psychological factors of the subjects, for example, one’s character.And the short duration of the international telecollaboration course in this study couldalso be responsible for this result. However, the international telecollaboration coursehas succeeded in affecting two components of the English majors’ interculturalsensitivity—“Interaction Confidence” and “Interaction Enjoyment”. The real contextof intercultural communication in the international telecollaboration course and thedelightful atmosphere of the intercultural communication created by the students fromthe two countries are considered as main reasons for these significant changes.
…………
Reference (omitted)