Study exchange - a journey to intercultural competence development?

Cross-Cultural Business Conference 2015 st nd May 21 - 22 , 2015 University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria,School of Management, Steyr Campus

TITLE: Study exchange – a journey to intercultural competence development? Elisa Hassinen a a

Lahti University of Applied Sciences, Niemenkatu 73, 15240 Lahti & Jyväskylä University, Seminaarinkatu15, 40014 Jyväskylän yliopisto, FINLAND

ABSTRACT This is an impact study of study abroad programme for students’ intercultural development. The study builds on research that uses Intercultural Competence Development inventory to assess and understand the extent of change in intercultural competence as a result of an international study programme, Eurocampus semester. Participants in the study consist of 20 intercultural communication students from 5 different European universities. The data consists of pre- and post-test data from IDI, qualitative contexting questions of IDI, and in-depth interviews of case student participants. Analysis of the IDI data reveals that international Eurocampus programme for intercultural communication students does not develop all participants’ intercultural competence, rather in many cases students’ intercultural competence regressed as measured by IDI. Case participants’ in-depth interviews are providing further insight in the factors that support or hold back the intercultural competence development during study abroad semester. The Development Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) along a validated assessment tool for assessing intercultural competence, The Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI), provides the core conceptual framework and research instrument in the study. The DMIS as developed by M. Bennett identifies a number of worldviews through which individuals experience cultural difference. The underlying idea of DMIS is that as one’s experience of cultural difference becomes more complex, ones’ intercultural competence is enhanced. Aims of the study were to assess intercultural competence development of international study programme and to understand the factors that improve or hold back the intercultural development of the students. Results show that international experience as such is not enough for intercultural competence development.

1

INTRODUCTION

Higher education institutions are preparing their students to become global citizens and professionals in today’s interconnected world. One very widely used method of developing students’ intercultural competence are study abroad programmes. The EU programme for Education, Training, Youth and Sport, Erasmus +, will be spending 14.7 billion during 2014-2020 financing European cooperation of which 63 % is for mobility actions aiming that 2 million HE students study or train abroad. The previous Erasmus programme (19882013) provided over 3 million European students with the opportunity to go abroad to study or train (European Commission, 2014). It is estimated that 290,000 American students are studying abroad in 20122013 and a total of 1 million U.S students studied abroad for academic credit in 1988-2013 (Institute for International Education, 2013). And the number of study abroad students from Asia, Africa and South America are increasing rapidly through different study abroad programmes. As so much money has been and will be invested in study abroad programmes it is only fair to ask what is the return of investment of this activity. What are the learning outcomes of study abroad programmes? Intercultural competence development has not been a familiar concept among many faculty members and staff in international office. Hammer (2012, 125) states that “political, business, and international education leaders often support study abroad opportunities based on the view that immersion in another culture will lead to students increasing their intercultural competence”. Based on this assumption, education institutions have established mechanism and structures to increase the number of students participating in study abroad programmes. Knight (1995) says that assessment is a moral activity which shows what it valued in education. Along this line of thinking if there is a decision made that intercultural competence is not assessed it shows that it is not an important part of the programme. However, researchers of intercultural competence have shown in their studies on the impact of study abroad experiences on students’ intercultural competence development that the immersion in a culturally different experience is not enough in preparing students to successfully function across cultures.

Cross-Cultural Business Conference 2015 st nd May 21 - 22 , 2015 University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria,School of Management, Steyr Campus

This paper presents a case study of Eurocampus 2012, a four month intensive study abroad programme where students from European Masters Intercultural Communication (EMICC) network universities gather together to study intercultural communication This paper presents the results of Eurocampus programme’ s effectiveness in developing participating students’ intercultural competence as is stated as one of the aims of the programme.

2

LITERATURE REVIEW

For more than 20 years, the benefits of study abroad programmes for students have been taken for granted. Now, international educators have started to realize that students do not gain the wished global skills and competencies and that globalization do not automatically happen by sending ever higher numbers of students abroad. The quality of international mobility is slowly starting to raise discussion in Europe as it has taken important stage of the debate in the U.S earlier . There are studies which have shown that intercultural competence develop only modestly when people from different cultures meet in study abroad programmes (Vande Berg 2001, 2009; Pedersen 2010; Anderson, 2006). Recent studies show that a person may have a highly developed intercultural knowledge and have the best intensions, but may not be able to act appropriately and effectively in intercultural interaction, meaning that knowledge does not necessarily transfer into appropriate and effective behaviour. There are many studies that study students’ intercultural competence development during short-term and long-term study abroad programmes (Vande Berg, 2009; Pedersen, 2009, 2010, Medina-López-Portillo, 2004, Lou & Bosley, 2008, Jackson, 2009). Majority of these studies show either mild development or clear intercultural development depending on the study abroad programme components (Engle & Engle (2004). However there are fewer impact studies which show clear regression in intercultural competence development of the participating students. This paper will present assessment results of intercultural communication and English communication students participating in a study abroad programme in intercultural communication. What this study can bring into the discourse is to strengthen the previous studies that intercultural competence does not develop if students are left on their own devices without any support on their personal intercultural competence development, not even when the study field is intercultural communication.

3

EUROCAMPUS PROGRAMME

European Masters in Intercultural Communication (EMICC) is a teaching and research network of eight European universities specializing in intercultural communication. The core of EMICC is the yearly Eurocampus which is a four month intensive programme where the professors from EMICC universities are teaching and student participants come from network universities. The 2012 Eurocampus took place at Universidade Alberta in Coimbra, Portugal. During the programme students will learn about intercultural communication theories, will look at intercultural communication from the perspective of different academic disciplines, and will have a chance to acquire advanced intercultural competencies and skills. The programme carries a total of 30 ECTS credits. Aims of Eurocampus described in programme handbook 2012 were 1) Academic Knowledge: to gain knowledge about intercultural communication theories and to be able to understand the contribution of different academic disciplines to the study of intercultural communication; 2) Research Know-How: to be able to identify relevant research problems, formulate research questions and critically evaluate research results; 3) Intercultural Communication Competence and Skills: to develop intercultural communicative competence and be able to apply intercultural communication skills in professional and social settings, to develop the ability to communicate face to face and in technology mediated modes both locally and globally, to increase cultural self- and other-awareness and to acquire the tools to reflect upon and analyse intercultural interactions, to be aware of, and appreciate, cultural diversity and to engage in intercultural dialog; 4) European civic culture: to be able to apply knowledge, research know-how as well as comptencies and skills to participate actively in the building of a peaceful and prosperous Europe, to be a hospitable home to all her inhabitants and citizens. 4

ASSESSMENT OF INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE

Cross-Cultural Business Conference 2015 st nd May 21 - 22 , 2015 University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria,School of Management, Steyr Campus

4.1 General aspects of assessing intercultural competence According to Knight (1995) assessment is a moral activity which shows what we value and what we choose to assess. If there is a decision made that transferable skills of the learners are not assessed it shows that these skills are not an important part of the programme or the course. When writing a programme plan skills and competences are rather easy to set as goals, but in order to know about the quality of a programme or a course the challenge is whether these goal are assessed and how they are assessed. The absence of assessment may give a message that the intentions of reaching the set goals have not been completely realised. Deardorff’s (2004) was covering in her study what constitutes intercultural competence and how it can be effectively assessed. She wanted to point out what should be the focus of intercultural assessment and what the elements and abilities are. Fantini (2009) points out that intercultural field is still evolving and the question of what abilities are needed for successful intercultural interaction is still unanswered. Intercultural competence may be defined as complex abilities that are required to perform effectively and appropriately when interacting with others who are linguistically and culturally different from oneself (Deardorff, 2004). Hammer (2001) defines intercultural competence as “the capability to shift cultural perspective and appropriately adapt behaviour to cultural differences and commonalities”. Deardorff (2004) built in her study a guide, a list of questions, when assessing intercultural competence. The questions are related to the definition of intercultural competence, cultural biases, the context and the purpose of the assessment, how the assessments results are used, time frame and timeline, and whether one method or multiple methods is in use. Fantini (2009) has reviewed basic aspects of assessment. The aspects include the determination of the areas of intercultural competence components that are being addressed. When the components of intercultural competence have been determined the next step is to consider which test types suit the assessment task. The test types include readiness tests, placement tests, diagnostic tests, aptitude tests, attitude, proficiency, achievement tests, and formative tests which measure one’s developmental progress at a given moments over time (Fantini, 2009, 462). Newer tests and strategies help obtain quality assessment results: there is a shift away from traditional paper-and-pencil tests that, used alone, are nowadays not seen effective measures of intercultural competence. Approaches like portfolios, logs, observation, interviews, performance tasks and the like are generally more valuable for assessing intercultural competence. (Fantini, 2009, 462). These approaches permit multidimensional assessment that is essential for monitoring and measuring a complex phenomenon such as intercultural competence.

4.2 Intercultural Development Inventory There are different assessment tools and instruments available (Fantini, 2009). When choosing a right instrument you need to understand what it is that you are assessing; needs analysis, measure training or programme impact, individual or team development, selection, coaching or something else. The Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) is assessing “the capability to shift cultural perspective and appropriately adapt behaviour to cultural differences and commonalities”. IDI is a rigorously researched assessment tool of intercultural competence with over 60 journal studies and over 40 PhD. dissertations. The literature provides compelling, cross-cultural validation of the IDI as both an effective assessment tool of intercultural competence as a key resource informing the design of facilitated interventions to build intercultural competence. Intercultural Development Inventory is a cross-culturally valid and reliable assessment of (Paige, R.M., Jacobs-Cassuto, M., Yershova, Y., & DeJaeghere, J. 2003) intercultural competence at the worldview level, how a person feels and thinks about, and thus reacts to, cultural difference. Results from the IDI v3 are arrayed to the Intercultural Development Continuum (IDC). The IDC was constructed and grounded in the Development Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) by M. Bennett. (1986). The DMIS constitutes a progression of worldview orientations toward cultural difference that comprise the potential for increasingly more sophisticated intercultural experiences. Three ethnocentric orientations (Denial, Defense, and Minimization) and three ethnorelative orientations (Acceptance, Adaptation, and Integration) are identified in the DMIS (Bennett, 1986).

Cross-Cultural Business Conference 2015 st nd May 21 - 22 , 2015 University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria,School of Management, Steyr Campus

As a revised theoretical framework of DMIS, Intercultural Development Continuum introduces monocultural mindsets of Denial and Polarization (Defense/Reversal) orientations, a transitional stage of Minimization and intercultural mindset orientations of Acceptance and Adaptation which IDI measures. The IDI v3 measures Cultural Disengagement as a separate dimension which is not a dimension of intercultural competence along the continuum. When a person reaches Adaptation orientation it can be said that the person is interculturally competent; capable of shifting cultural perspective and bridging behaviour across cultural differences (Hammer, 2012, 118). 4.3. Intercultural Development Continuum (IDC) A Denial mindset is characteristic of persons who have no or very little experience with other culture groups. They do not recognise differences of individuals from other culture groups as perceptions and behaviour as cultural. Study abroad students with a Denial mindset may become rapidly overwhelmed upon arrival in a new culture because of the lack of cultural experience and hence lack of intercultural frameworks to understand the host culture. Students are naïvely optimistic, however finding quickly that their skill set is not sufficient to cope with cultural differences. They might also feel misunderstood, confused, and increasing frustrated and as a result may end up maintaining a distance from other cultural groups. Polarization is a mindset that views cultural differences from “us versus them” perspective. Individuals in Polarization/Defense usually think that their cultural practices are superior to other cultural practices. Differences are considered threatening to one’s identity and culture. In Polarization/Reversal mindset individuals see other cultures being better than their own. Among study abroad students’ cultural learning tends to reinforce pre-existing views and/or stereotypes and they interact mostly with likeminded individuals; from the student’s own country/ host nationals/exchange group. Students with Reversal express a favorable view toward the host country and may also denigrate their own culture. Minimization orientation over-generalizes similarities between self and other. Individuals emphasize human similarity and universal values. This can mask a deeper understanding and consideration of cultural differences. Study abroad students generally experience a certain degree of success in navigating unfamiliar cultural practices and they are often skillful in identifying commonalities and can bridge different cultural practices. When the challenges in the host culture do not demand accommodation to different values or practices, students at Minimization will experience a sense of effectiveness. In Acceptance orientation individuals recognize and appreciate cultural difference and commonality in their own and other cultures. Individuals are able to identify significant cultural differences and begin to understand how a cultural pattern of behaviour makes sense within a different cultural community. Exchange students are often often curious about different cultures, however they are not clear about how to appropriately adapt to cultural difference. They might face challenges around ethical or moral dilemmas on the concept “acceptance”. In Adaptation individuals are capable of shifting cultural perspective and changing behavior in culturally appropriate and authentic ways and intercultural competence means adaptation in performance. Students typically engage people from the host culture/other exchange students in deep and meaningful ways. Problems might arise when students with an Adaptation mindset express little tolerance toward the ‘‘nonadaptive’’ intercultural competence capability of study abroad counterparts and interactionally distance themselves from their fellow study abroad students which can cause that learning from fellow students is compromised.

5

THE STUDY

5.1 Research design and aims The aim of this research is to assess participants’ intercultural competence development in a study abroad semester, Eurocampus 2012. This study is a longitudinal follow-up study using both quantitative and qualitative approaches. It consists of two phases. The first phase uses quantitative approach and aims at answering to the research question if students’ intercultural competence develops during Eurocampus study abroad programme. The first phase consists of two Intercultural Development Inventory measures among the participating students and based on the IDI results the case students were selected for the second phase of the study. The purpose of the IDI

Cross-Cultural Business Conference 2015 st nd May 21 - 22 , 2015 University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria,School of Management, Steyr Campus

is to provide useful and valid information concerning the intercultural competence of respondents and their potential for exercising intercultural competence in any cross-cultural situation. Therefore the progression of students’ individual IDI profiles is the basis for the selection of case students. The second phase of the study uses qualitative approach and case study method. The purpose of the second phase is to answer the research question why some students’ intercultural competence developed clearly while some students’ intercultural competence regressed as measured with IDI. The selected case students were interviewed during the last week of Eurocampus programme. The purpose of the qualitative data is to understand the process and those factors which effect the development of students’ intercultural competence during their study period. 5.2 Case study Case study research is an empirical inquiry, in which focus is on a contemporary phenomenon within its reallife context and when boundaries between phenomenon and its context are not clearly evident (Yin 2003, 515). Therefore it is suitable for studying complex social phenomena. Case study research examines complex and long-term phenomenon and can be chosen as a research strategy in situation when “how” or “why” questions are asked on extent of control over behavioural events and when investigator has a little or no possibility to control the events (Yin 2003). Pre- and post-semester IDI questionnaires were administered in an attempt to capture changes in participants’ intercultural competence development. Nine participants were chosen for the case study analysis based on their shift in IDI pre-post measurement. Nine students were selected for the case study; four students whose IDI scores clearly increased placing them to the next orientation of the IDC, two students showed hardly any change in their IDI score and three students whose IDI scores regressed back to the previous dimension. 5.3 Participants The sample consists of 20 students from five European universities; 2 from University of Bayreuth, 5 from Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, 2 from University of Jyväskylä, 2 from University of Lugano, 3 from University of Tartu, 5 from Utrecht University, and 1 from the host university University of Coimbra, Universidad Aberta. Participant nationalities The nationalities of the participants were The Netherlands (6), Estonia (3), Germany (2), Italy (2), Portugal (2), USA (1), UK (1), Spain (1), Austria (1), Finland (1), and Russia (1). There were 3 males and 17 females. The average age of the group was 26. 6

DATA COLLECTION

6.1 Quantitative measure Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) was administered for paired-test analysis (pre-post). The pre-test was administered on the first day of the Eurocampus programme and the post-test on the last week of the programme. The pre- and post-test was administered to all 20 Eurocampus students. The participant’s names and email addresses were collected before the Eurocampus semester. First phase was to collect the consent from the students by a consent agreement. The IDI was conducted as online survey. The participants received access codes by email to IDI online questionnaire. The IDI group profile was discussed with participants in a classroom situation after one week of the first IDI round. The participating students did not receive their individual IDI profiles and IDP reports before the post-test so that the results would not have any impact on their process. The second round (post-test) of the IDI measurement took place during the last week of the Eurocampus semester. The participants received their own access code to IDI online questionnaire by email. The individual pre- and post-test IDI profiles were then sent to the participants and their individual results were discussed in brief sessions. Students were also offered a possibility to call and discuss about their profile in more details. Each participant received his Intercultural Development Plan (IDP) via email after this procedure. The students were informed that their individual pre-post IDI profiles would be kept confidential and would not influence their grades of the Eurocampus modules.

Cross-Cultural Business Conference 2015 st nd May 21 - 22 , 2015 University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria,School of Management, Steyr Campus

6.2 Qualitative data The aim of the qualitative method use was to answer to the research question: what are the factors that enhance or hold back the development of intercultural competence? For this phase nine cases students were selected for further analysis. The qualitative data consists of IDI questionnaire’s contexting questions, student profiles, and interviews. According to Cresswell (2005) interview as a data collection method is selected e.g. when one wants to clarify other form of results or to deepen gained knowledge. In qualitative inquiry the intent is to develop an in-depth exploration of a central phenomenon. Thus to best understand this phenomenon, the qualitative researcher purposefully or intentionally selects individuals and sites. Focused, semi-structured interviews were used to collect data to gain a deeper understanding of the intercultural competence development of the selected Eurocampus participants. the interviews were recorded on tape with the permission of the participants. The interviews took place in a classroom as one-toone interview during the last week of the Eurocampus 2012 programme. 7

FINDINGS

The aim of this study was find out if the Eurocampus programme is successful in developing students’ intercultural competence. Findings in intercultural competence development are based on two main data; quantitative assessment with Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) measurement and on qualitative assessment of interviews and participant profiles. 7.1 Does students’ intercultural competence develop during the programme? Finding 1 Eurocampus 2012 IDI group pre-post IDI scores

Pre-semester group IDI results The Group’s Perceived Orientation (PO) is 123.71, Acceptance. The Group’s Development Orientation (DO) is 98.13, Minimization, which - reflects a tendency to highlight commonalities across cultures that can mask important cultural differences in values, perceptions and behaviours. Post-semester group IDI results The Group’s Perceived Orientation (PO) is 125.15, Acceptance. The Group’s Development Orientation (DO) is 100.41, Minimization, which reflects a tendency to highlight commonalities across cultures that can mask important cultural differences in values, perceptions and behaviours. The group’s development orientation score moved from 98.13 from pre-semester measurement to 100.41 post-semester measurement, indicating 2.28 points improvement of intercultural competence as measured by IDI.

Table 1. Orientation scale points Denial 55-69.9

Polarization/ 70-84.9

Minimization 85.00-114.99

Acceptance 115.00-129.99

Adaptation 130-145



A group’s Perceived Orientation (PO) score reflects where the group as a whole places itself along the intercultural development continuum



The Development Orientation (DO) indicates the primarily orientations of the group toward cultural differences and commonalities along the continuum as assessed by the IDI



The DO is the perspective the group is most likely to use in those situations where cultural differences and commonalities arise.

Finding 2 Intercultural learning of the students As a rough summary of students’ pre-post-IDI measurement there were 9 students whose IDI scores increased and 11 students’ IDI scores decreased.

Cross-Cultural Business Conference 2015 st nd May 21 - 22 , 2015 University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria,School of Management, Steyr Campus

In Table 2 students’ are placed according to their change in Intercultural Development Continuum (IDC). The results show that there were three students whose pre-post-IDI scores took them back to previous orientation, 13 students’ orientation remained the same despite that their score was either increasing or declining. The results show that four students moved on to a next phase on the Intercultural development continuum hence showing significant progress during the programme. Table 2. Participants intercultural competence development Pre DO

Post DO

Difference

Change in IDC

Student P

90.30

78,07

-12,23

Polarization  Minimization

Student B

120.23

108,89

-11,34

Minimization  Acceptance

Student T

81.10

69,81

-11,29

Denial  Polarization

Student I

97.70

87,66

-10,04

Minimization  Minimization

Student G

106.82

96,94

-9,88

Minimization  Minimization

Student F

110.17

102,98

-7,19

Minimization  Minimization

Student E

110.73

103,87

-6,86

Minimization  Minimization

Student J

97.63

93,3

-4,33

Minimization  Minimization

Student R

82.71

79,03

-3,68

Polarization  Polarization

Student L

95.52

93,4

-2,12

Minimization  Minimization

Student S

81.42

79,99

-1,43

Polarization  Polarization

Student D

111.15

113,56

2,41

Minimazation Minimization

Student M

95.42

98,69

3,27

Minimization  Minimization

Student K

96.00

101,52

5,52

Minimization  Minimization

Student A

124.52

134

9,5

Acceptance  Adaptation

Student O

94.15

105,83

11,68

Minimization  Minimization

Student C

112.43

124,78

12,35

MinimazationAcceptance

Student Q

84.50

100,38

15,88

Polarization  Minimization

Student N

95.40

112,93

17,53

Minimization  Minimization

Student H

98.41

122,4

23,99

Minimization  Acceptance

7.2 Case student findings In order to deepen our understanding of students’ intercultural competence development differences, case students’ pre-post-IDI scores and their qualitative data are linked. The nine case students’ IDI scores and their change in Intercultural Development Continuum are shown in the table 3. Table 3. Case students‘ pre-post IDI scores Pre DO

Post DO

Difference

Change in IDC

Student P

90.30

78,07

-12,23

Polarization  Minimization

Student B

120.23

108,89

-11,34

Minimization  Acceptance

Student T

81.10

69,81

-11,29

Denial  Polarization

Student S

81.42

79,99

-1,43

Polarization  Polarization

Student D

111.15

113,56

2,41

Minimazation Minimization

Student A

124.52

134

9,5

Acceptance  Adaptation

Student C

112.43

124,78

12,35

MinimazationAcceptance

Student Q

84.50

100,38

15,88

Polarization  Minimization

Student H

98.41

122,4

23,99

Minimization  Acceptance

Cross-Cultural Business Conference 2015 st nd May 21 - 22 , 2015 University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria,School of Management, Steyr Campus

Finding 3 Total time lived abroad and IDC change The first factor studied to impact the case students change in IDC was the time lived abroad before Eurocampus programme. The table 4 shows the comparison between the change in IDC and time lived abroad. Analysis reveals that the time lived abroad does not have impact on students’ change in IDC. Table 4. Case students’ IDI gain and time lived abroad

Pre DO

Post DO

Student P

90.30

78,07

Difference Change in IDC -12,23

Polarization  Minimization

Total time lived abroad 6-10 years

Student B

120.23

108,89

-11,34

Minimization  Acceptance

1-2 years

Student T

81.10

69,81

-11,29

Denial  Polarization

1-2 years

Student S

81.42

79,99

-1,43

Polarization  Polarization

6-10 years

Student D

111.15

113,56

2,41

Minimazation Minimization

3-5 years

Student A

124.52

134

9,5

Acceptance  Adaptation

less than 3 months

Student C

112.43

124,78

12,35

MinimizationAcceptance

7-11 months

Student Q

84.50

100,38

15,88

Polarization  Minimization

1-2 years

Student H

98.41

122,4

23,99

Minimization  Acceptance

3-5 years

Finding 4 Students’ academic background and change in IDC Second factor which was studied to have an impact on students’ gain in IDC was their academic background. Table 5 shows that students’ bachelor degrees before current master did not have any impact on students’ change in IDC. Table 5. Academic background and change in IDC Difference

Change in IDC

Student P

-12,23

Polarization  Minimization

Student B

-11,34

Minimization  Acceptance

Academic background BA Interpretation and translation BA International business administration

Current Master Translation and interpretation studies

Student T

-11,29

Denial  Polarization

BA Arabic Studies

Language- Interaction- Culture

Student S

-1,43

Polarization  Polarization

Intercultural communication

Student D

2,41

Minimazation Minimization

Student A

9,5

Acceptance  Adaptation

Student C

12,35

MinimizationAcceptance

Student Q

15,88

Polarization  Minimization

Student H

23,99

Minimization  Acceptance

BA Labour Relations BA Communication studies BA Combined studies degree Master in Economics and Management BA Applied Computer and Multimedia Studies BA Translation and Interpreting

Intercultural communication

Public Management and Policy Intercultural communication Intercultural communication Language- Interaction- Culture Intercultural communication

Findings from interview data The interviews were transcribed and read and reread to find themes and specific words in students’ responses (Cresswell 2002). In this paper the link between the case students’ change in the IDC and the interview responses is presented. Student H & C: Minimization Acceptance

Cross-Cultural Business Conference 2015 st nd May 21 - 22 , 2015 University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria,School of Management, Steyr Campus

Student commented: “Most challenging in working with people from other cultures was that sometimes you do not have enough tools to judge whether their behaviour is due to their culture or their personality. We need to take into account that our ways of working, planning and making decisions is quite different. Only if we bear that in mind we will be able to work together and be successful in our goals. I never would have said I am so Spanish in Spain. But abroad I really felt very Spanish. Turning point in Eurocampus was that group discussions were interesting, you could see culture differences in a way how people interact or the way didn’t interact, what people spoke the most, how they took turns.” “I try not to judge people from different cultures so much which I think I have developed during this Eurocampus semester. And I realise that still do it a lot and I do exactly the same as people who have not heard about intercultural communication, it can’t be good, I have to apply what I have learned.” Student A: Acceptance Adaptation The key goals, responsibilities or tasks team work has are “effective communication”. In group work we “were not given enough thought: no exploration on group work process, roles, theories etc. An analysis of the group work process was asked on occasions as a group and in front of a group, it takes time to build trust in order to be able to say things that difficult, that trust has not been achieved. In group work I know I can be quire assertive, took more conscious being less assertive, maybe I was going with the flow. Turning point during Eurocampus programme was “to realise that being a native English-English speaker. Sometimes other students totally misunderstood me, they were critical I was using too much idioms, I forget that others spoke English as a second language. I changed the use of English. Feel difficult, had to let go part of my personality.” Student Q: Polarization  Minimization Most challenging in working with people from other cultures is the “lack of language skills on my part or theirs.” After Eurocampus “I am just much more patient now. Due to my experiences I also know that the things in Germany do not work in other countries, I came with no expectations. I just went along. I can cope.” “In my mind I have the idea that nationality does not really play important role when it comes to the persons itself. Asians, Russians etc. they might realise certain things differently, but they still do a lot of things that mean the same thing, I just need to realise how they express it. So I feel that there is not that much national differences, there are individual and characteristic differences.” Group work was difficult was because “ some students had lower English skills, we only had a limited time for tasks, and I wanted to accommodate and wanted to compromise that everybody were happy, but had to compromise because it took so much time and I had to make decisions which I would not normally do. So I had to push people that there is no time.” Every single person in this class would say I am typical German. There is one problem with me saying that I am German as I don’t believe in any concept of “German” or German national identity. Student T: Denial  Polarization Eurocampus experience expectations were “Portugal experience because I wanted to learn one more language, Portuguese and Portugal was similar to Spain as I liked Spain.” My role in group work changed; “In the beginning I was very present, but I really stepped back because I knew I was not happy anymore. I had personal issues with some people and I wanted to quit the programme. It is not my fault if you don’t get along with personality, I cannot do anything about it.”I thought I am more culturally competent, I really thought I was interculturally competent, but it was too much dealing with that one culture anymore for me. “ Student P: Polarization Minimization “I must say I had some prejudices but did not dare say no I don’t want to work with you. In some way it worked somehow. I have to say that found group work very hard, all the group work we done, I cannot say I was fully satisfied , there was always some frustrations, not necessarily the outcome but the process. As for different cultures, it is hard to say if it is cultural or personal.”

Cross-Cultural Business Conference 2015 st nd May 21 - 22 , 2015 University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria,School of Management, Steyr Campus

“I think I am quite empathetic and also tolerant; my problem is being more communicative with people, and not just sitting there in silence and talking to people”. ...”There is something that annoyed me during Eurocampus, that somehow even teachers brought me as an example that I am very, very shy. It is somehow very obvious that I am a shy person, but I had not thought that it is so extreme that I am used as an example.”

Summary of interview findings The case student interviews reveal that those students who increased their intercultural competence were able to make sense of their cultural experiences during Eurocampus. However, students whose intercultural competence regressed seemed not have been able to understand cultural impact in relationships. Their experiences seemed to have remained unresolved and hence might have resulted in holding back their intercultural competence development. However, their experiences could have been transformed to success factors if their experiences had been supported by intercultural mentoring as is suggested by Hammer (2012) and Vande Berg et al (2009) in their studies.

8

DISCUSSION

This paper presents the results of the impact of study abroad experience on Eurocampus 2012 students’ intercultural competence development. The results support the evidence of previous study abroad studies that immersion in international experience does not obviously result in increased intercultural competence (Hammer 2005; Pedersen, 2009, 2010; Vande Berg et al., 2009). The study also reveals that gaining knowledge of intercultural communication does not equal intercultural competence development. The gap between (inter)cultural knowledge and intercultural competence may be due to being unaware of one’s own culture and therefore not fully capable of assessing the cultural position of others. On the other hand the overreliance on the knowledge may lead to less development of affective and behavioural capacities (Bennett, 2009, 123). Hammer (2012) is proposing guided reflection on students’ experiences during study abroad programmes in order to support their intercultural development. The Georgetown Consortium study results show that the greatest impact in increasing students’ intercultural competence is cultural mentoring (Vande Berg et al.2009). Targeted cultural reflection using in-depth critical incidents’ analysis where students’ own cultural assumptions, values, and practices meet the assumptions, values, and practices of host country nationals and other international students will support intercultural learning during study abroad programmes. Further studies would be needed which use post-post assessment to increase our understanding on the development of intercultural competence after a certain period of exchange students’ return. More comparative studies would also be needed where one exchange student group is left on its own devices and other group’s international experiences are guided by cultural mentoring. REFERENCES Anderson, P.H., Lawton, l., Rexeisen, R.J., & Hubbard, A.C. (2006). Short-term study abroad and intercultural sensitivity: A pilot study. International Journal of Intercultural relations, 20(4), 457-469. Bennett, J.M. (2009). Cultivating Intercultural Competence. A Process Perspective. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.) The Sage Handbook of Intercultural Competence, 121-140. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bennett, J. M., & Bennett, M.J. (2004). Developing intercultural competence: A reader. Portland, OR: Intercultural Communication Institute. Cresswell, J., W. (2005). Educational Research. Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. Deardorff, D.K. (2009). Implementing Intercultural Competence Assessment. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.) The Sage Handbook of Intercultural Competence, 477-491. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. DeJaeghere, J.G., & Yi,C. (2009). Developing U.S. teachers’ intercultural competence: Does professional development matter? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(2009), 437-447.

Cross-Cultural Business Conference 2015 st nd May 21 - 22 , 2015 University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria,School of Management, Steyr Campus Engle, L., & Engle, J. (2004). Assessing language acquisition and intercultural sensitivity development in relation to study abroad program design. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad X, 219-236. European Commission. Erasmus – Facts, Figures and Trends. The European Union support for student and staff exchanges and university cooperation in 2012-2013. Luxembourg: http://ec.europa.eu/education/library/statistics/ay-1213/facts-figures_en.pdf Fantini, A. E. (2009). Assessing Intercultural Competence: Issues and Tools. In D. Deardorff (Ed.), The Sage Handbook of Intercultural Competence, 456-476. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hammer, M. & Bennett, M. (1998, 2001). The Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) manual. Portland, OR: Intercultural Communication Institute. Hammer, M. & Bennett, M. (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The intercultural development inventory. In International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 421-443. Hammer,M. (2012). The Intercultural Development Inventory: A new frontier in assessment and development of intercultural competence. In M. Vande Berg, R.M. Paige, & K.H. Lou (Eds.), Student Learning Abroad (Ch.5, pp. 115136). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Institute of International Education. (2013).Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange. Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/opendoors. Jackson, J. (2009). Globalization, internationalization, and short-term stays abroad. International Journal of Intercultural relations, 32,349-358. Kehl, K. & Morris, J. (2008). Differences in Global-Mindedness between Short-Term and Semester-Long Study Abroad Participants at Selected Private Universities. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, XV, 67-80. Knight, P. (1995). Assessment of learning in higher education (13-25). London: Routledge. Lou,K., & Bosley, G. (2008). Dynamics of cultural context: Meta-Level intervention in the study abroad experience. In Savicki, V. (Ed.). Developing Intercultural competence and transformation: theory, research, and application in international education. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Paige, R.M., Cohen, A., & Shively, R. (2002). Maximizing study abroad: A students’ guide to strategies for language and culture learning and use. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. Pedersen, P., J. (2010). Assessing intercultural effectiveness outcomes in a year-long study abroad program. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34, 70-80. Rexeisen, R. J., Anderson, P. H., Lawton, L., & Hubbard, A. C. (2008). Study Abroad and Intercultural Development: A Longitudinal Study. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, v17 p1-20. Vande Berg, M. (2001).The assessment of learning outcomes in study abroad. International Educator,10 (2) 31. Vande Berg, M., Connor-Linton, J., & Paige, R.M. (2009). The Georgetown Consortium Project: Interventions for student learning abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, XVIII, 1-76. rd

Yin, R, K.(2003). Case Study Research. Design and Methods. 3 edition. London: Sage.