Introduction
This report offers the essential findings of a longitudinal study on the development of intercultural awareness as an aspect of program effectiveness for students of Morioka Junior College’s Department of International Cultural Studies. The results of a single measure of intercultural awareness were studied, the Intercultural Development Inventory or IDI, developed by Mitchell Hammer and Milton Bennett.
The study was conducted from 2004 to 2011 with a total of six student cohorts, 2004-06 to 2009-11. The results are reported here without addressing broader issues of curriculum design, models of cross-cultural awareness, etc.
Morioka Junior College is located in the northern part of Japan’s main island of Honshu and offers associate degrees from the departments of International Cultural Studies and Living Science. The Department of International Cultural Studies is comprised of a liberal arts core, foundation courses in international and multicultural studies, a language and area studies core, and concentrations in Western studies, Asian studies, and Regional studies. Four English courses are required throughout the program and a second foreign languages are optional. In connection with the three concentrations, students have the option of participating in two-week study trips to the United States or Korea, or a three-day trip to historically and culturally significant locales in the northeastern region of Honshu.
The students of International Cultural Studies, or Kokusai Bunka Gakka were the participants of interest in this study. The purpose of this research was to measure the students’ intercultural awareness and the degree to which it developed over the course of their two-year program.
The Kokusai students took the IDI at the beginning and end of their program. Additionally, students of the final four cohorts, participating more recently in the U.S. and Korea study trips, were measured at the beginning and end of their trips. Students’ data was then explored to determine where on the Intercultural Development Continuum they
placed, how much their scores might change, and what factors might affect this change. It was hoped and expected that the students’ IDI results would show some gains, suggesting that our program effectively helped students gain cross-cultural awareness. This expectation was partially met by the data.
The IDI. The Intercultural Development Inventory is a measure of intercultural awareness and understanding, characterized as behavioral, attitudinal, and cognitive competence at intercultural contact. It is based on the premise that a person’s intercultural competence increases in complexity and nuance as the ability to shift perspectives between the home culture and another culture increases (Hammer, 2009, 2012). The model describing this change, the Intercultural Development Continuum or IDC (Hammer, 2012), shows a set of orientations to cultural difference which characterize growing recognition of, understanding of, acceptance of, and finally functioning in a second culture. Based originally on Milton Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (Bennett, 1986), the IDI locates an individual’s orientation on the IDC model.
The stages of orientation, reflected on the IDI scale, are briefly described below (Hammer, 2012):
Denial. The Denial orientation is characteristic of people who have had little exposure to other cultural groups and may see them in stereotypic ways. While at the denial stage of development, people may have little interest in other groups and may even wish to avoid them.
Polarization. Those who have a Polarization perspective see cultural groups in term of “us” and “them.” This orientation may take on a defensive form, where one’s own group is seen positively and other groups are seen negatively, or may take a reversed form, where identification is made with the other group, valuing it positively, while one’s own group is valued negatively.
Minimization. A person in a Minimization orientation is in transition between a monocultural perspective of Denial and Polarization and an intercultural perspective of Acceptance and Adaptation. An emphasis on what is common or universal between 研究報告
An Exploratory Profile of Students’ Intercultural Awareness in an International Studies Program: An IDI Study
Christine Winskowski*
クリスティン・ウィンスカウスキー
Keywords: intercultural awareness, international education, Intercultural Development Inventory, study abroad 異文化理解、国際教育、異文化感受性発達尺度、海外留学
____________
*Department of International Cultural Studies パン産業に関わる企業、工房が、主たる生産品目をホー
ムスパン服地から他品目へ転換させた時代であった。
公設試験研究機関では、繊維の専門研究員が不在となり、
県の支援事業が、仕上げ加工機械の貸付のみとなった。
しかし、その機械も2012年（平成24）にボイラーが故障 し使用不可となった。およそ80年にわたり（戦時下の中 断はあったが）継続された県の支援事業は、機械の故障 とともにすべて終了したといえる。
6) ホームスパン仕上げ加工機械を使用した生産量でみる 産業の盛衰は、公設試験研究機関の繊維工業部の変革と ほぼ一致することが認められた。繊維工業部は、数ある 繊維関連産業の中でもホームスパン産業とともに存在し たことが明らかとなった。
文献㻌
1) 農林省畜産局 『羊毛家庭紡織法』，1926年
2) 朝日新聞社『銃後の農村を視る』，1938年，pp.124-128 3) 全国繊維工業技術協会 『日本織物風土記』，1995年 4) 菊池直子 「及川全三の人間性とホームスパン取り組みへ
の契機」，岩手県立大学盛岡短期大学部研究論集第 15 号，2013年，pp.39-44
5) 地方独立行政法人岩手県工業技術センター沿革，
http://www2.pref.iwate.jp/~kiri/enkaku.html (2014.11.4入 手)
6) 岩手県工業指導所 『岩手県工業指導年報昭和31年度』，
1957年, p.24
7) 岩手県工業技術センター 「顧客満足調査に係るご意見 等に対する回答」， 区分39，2011年
8) 岩手縣商工館『昭和三年度事業報告』，1929年，pp.20-23 9) 岩手縣商工館『昭和四年度事業報告』，1930年，pp.37-46 10) 岩手縣商工館『昭和五年度事業報告』，1931年，p.34 11) 岩手縣商工館『昭和六年度業務報告』，1932年，
pp.54-58
12) 岩手縣商工館『昭和十三年度業務報告』，1939 年，
pp.26-29
13) 堀正文「染めと織り」，『いわての手仕事』，社団法人岩手県文 化財愛護協会，1988年，p.155
14) 「縣産品の不評判を返上㻌 ホームスパン仕上げに新鋭機 械」，『新岩手日報』，昭和26年1月10日
15) 前掲書13， p.158
16) 「毛織物仕上げの威容整う㻌 どっしり八機械」，『新岩手日 報』，昭和26年3月7日
17) 岩手県工業指導所『岩手県工業指導所年報昭和 32 年 度』，1958年，pp.35-36
18) 岩手県工業指導所『岩手県工業指導所年報昭和 34 年 度』，1960年，pp.32-35
19) 岩手県工業指導所『岩手県工業指導所年報昭和 36 年 度』，1962年，p.15
20) 岩手県工業指導所『岩手県工業指導所 1964 年報』，
1966年，p.6
21) 岩手県工業指導所『岩手県工業指導所年報 昭和37年 度』，1963年，p.38
22) 岩手県工業指導所『岩手県工業指導所年報 昭和40年 度』，1966年，p.6
23) 岩手県工業試験場『No.16 岩手県工業試験場研究報 告』，1975年，pp.41-44
24) 岩手県工業試験場『’76 岩手県工業試験場業務報告』，
1977年，p.3
25) 岩手県工業試験場『’78 岩手県工業試験場業務報告』，
1979年，p.7
26) 岩手県工業試験場『岩手県工業試験場業務報告昭和 54年度』，1980年，p.7
27) 岩手県工業試験場『岩手県工業試験場業務報告昭和 58年度』，1984年，p.42
28) 岩手県工業試験場『岩手県工業試験場業務報告昭和 59年度』，1985年，p.48
29) 岩手県工業試験場『岩手県工業試験場報告 No.28』，
1987年，pp.47-50
30) 岩手県工業試験場『岩手県工業試験場業務報告昭和 61年度』，1987年，p.12
31) 岩手県工業試験場『岩手県工業試験場報告 No.29』，
1988年，pp.55-58
32) 岩手県工業試験場『岩手県工業試験場業務報告昭和 62年度』，1988年，p.16
33) 岩手県工業試験場『岩手県工業試験場報告 No.30』，
1989年，pp.113-118
34) 岩手県工業試験場『平成元年度業務報告』，1990 年，
p.13
35) 岩手県工業技術センター『岩手県工業技術センター業 務年報平成6年度(1994)』，1996年，p.21
36) 岩手県工業技術センター『岩手県工業技術センター業 務年報平成8年度(1996)』，1997年，p.27
37) 梅原五朗「岩手ホームスパンの歩み」，『季刊 No.19㻌 染 織と生活』，染織と生活社，1977年，p.36
38) 岡本正行『理論實際㻌 緬羊飼育精説』，賢文館，1937 年，
pp.546-548 39)㻌 前掲書，pp.82-84
40) 独立行政法人北海道立総合研究機構工業試験場沿革，
http://www.iri.hro.or.jp/organization/history.html㻌 (2014.12.1入手)
謝辞㻌
本研究を進めるにあたり、ご協力をいただいた岩手県 工業技術センターの皆様に深く感謝いたします。
また、貴重な資料をご提供いただいた盛岡短期大学部国 際文化学科の三須田善暢先生に厚く御礼申し上げます。
groups is characteristic, and may mask a lack of awareness of deeper and more nuanced group differences in needs and values.
Acceptance. The perspective of Acceptance is one of awareness and appreciation of cultural differences between groups. A person with an Acceptance orientation may not be able to participate fully in the practices and mindset of another group, but acknowledges the differences and is interested in learning more about them.
Adaptation. The mindset of Adaptation enables people to shift their cognitive and behavioral frameworks readily between cultures.
Essentially, such a person is able to take the perspective of another culture and participate in it.
Additionally, an orientation called Cultural Disengagement has been observed, reflecting a sense of alienation from one’s culture.
However, it is not considered to be part of the Intercultural Development Continuum described by the orientations named above.
Finally, it should be noted that the administration of the IDI produces two overall measures on the above scale, locating scores on the ID Continuum. One is the Perceived Orientation, an unweighted score locating the person’s view of his or her intercultural sensitivity or competence on the scale; the other is Developmental Orientation, a weighted score reflecting how the individual construes cultural difference, hence the person’s (or group’s) primary orientation on the continuum.
Research questions. Since the purpose of this study was to explore students’ progress in developing intercultural sensitivity, using the IDI data as a “window” of observation, initial formal hypotheses were not posed. Rather, measures and observations were taken to determine what the IDI results could tell us about our student population, and the impact of our program from the beginning to the end. As the data was collected through the years, interests and questions gradually emerged.
The original focus of observation was on class cohorts as they progressed through our program. The Cohort focus of interest continued through the duration of the study. As the data accumulated, these research questions have emerged:
a. Did group means for the six cohorts show gains in their IDI Developmental Orientation scores (or DO) from Entrance to Graduation?
b. What was the IDI orientation at which students most frequently scored in their initial and final administrations, and did it correspond to the observations made in other studies published in recent years?
c. Did the gap between Perceived Orientation (PO) and in Developmental Orientation (DO), measured at Entrance and again at Graduation, decrease? That is, did IDI scores show that students became more accurate at assessing their own intercultural competence as measured by shrinkage in the PO-DO gap?
A secondary focus of the research emerged when it began to appear that students participating in either the U.S. study trip or the
Korea Study trip (Trip students) and those students not participating (NonTrip students) might differ in their results. Hence, the data was examined for these questions:
d. Is there a difference in the Entrance and Graduation IDI DO scores of Trip students and NonTrip students?
e. Did the PO-DO gaps sizes differ for the Trip and NonTrip students at Entrance and Graduation?
Finally, the IDI was administered to Trip students of the last four cohorts of the study, 2006-08 to 2009-11, at the beginning and end of their trips. Discussion and debate on the marginal effects of short-term abroad trips appear in the research literature, but often describe a minimum four- or six-week program. No expectations of findings were held for the college’s two-week trips. Still, they were measured nonetheless, since no lack-of-effect for a two-week abroad trip had been documented either (or even mentioned to the author’s knowledge), hence this final question:
f. Did IDI scores change for Trip students from start to end of their study trip abroad?
Method
Participants. Six student cohorts entering Morioka Junior College Department of International Cultural Studies, in the years 2004-06 to 2009-11, were the subjects of this study. In typical years, 53-57 students were admitted. The great majority had been accepted to the college immediately after high school graduation. Only a very few, perhaps 1-3 per year, had worked or studied for a time outside of school.
Additionally, the majority was female; in any given year, males typically numbered from 1-5.
Procedure. The IDI was routinely administered (along with other measures, such as an in-house English skills inventory, the institutional TOEIC test, etc.) to all incoming students at the beginning of their program in April, and two years later to all graduating students shortly before graduation in March. Every attempt was made to include all students; however, there were some absences. For the purposes of this study, students participating in the U.S. trip or Korea trip (Trip students), and those not participating (NonTrip students), were identified as sub-groups of a class cohort.
Table 1 shows the total number of students who were administered the IDI for each class cohort at entrance and graduation, as well as the subtotal of students participating in a study trip, and those not participating. 1
1 Since initial administrations were analysed with IDI v.2 software and final administrations with v.3 software, attempts were made to resubmit older data for v.3 analysis. Data for 2004-06 graduation results and most of 2005-07 results could not be successfully submitted, though it is unlikely to impact the study results significantly.
Table 1
Total Students, Trip Students and NonTrip Students at Entrance and Graduation for Each Cohort
The Japanese language version of the IDI was used, and students were given as much time as they needed to complete the inventory. It was explained to students that the purpose of administering the IDI was as one of a few measures of the effectiveness of our international studies program.
The last four student cohorts of this project, 2006-08 to 2009-11, also received administration of the IDI at the start and the end of their two-week abroad trip, which took place in February-March, nearly one year after entering the program. Table 2 shows the number of students measured at the beginning and end of their trip, usually at orientation and debriefing events.
Table 2
Total Trip students’ IDI administrations at the Start and End of their U.S. or Korea trip
Results
The results may be divided between measures for the cohorts, and the measures for Trip and NonTrip groups.
Cohort measures
The first set of results are focused on measures taken for the six cohorts at Entrance and at Graduation.
DO changes from Entrance to Graduation. The first measure examines whether students in the six cohorts show gains in
their IDI Developmental Orientation scores (DO) from Entrance to Graduation. Table 3 shows that all cohorts except 2005-07 had positive gains in their DO scores ranging from 0.20 (2008-10) to 7.47 (2007-09).
The 2005-07 cohort scores declined.
Table 3
Change in Developmental Orientation from Entrance to Graduation
The mean increase between Entrance DOs and Graduation DOs across all cohorts is 2.18. A one-tailed t-test for dependent samples (t = 1.57, df = 5, p > .05), predicated on an expectation of a gain over time, shows this difference is not statistically significant.2
Leading orientation. The IDI Developmental Orientation at which students most frequently scored in their initial and final administrations or ”leading orientation,” are reported here. Shown in Table 3, the mean DO scores at Entrance hover below and around the cusp between Polarization, at the range of 70-84, and Minimization, at 85-114. This means that Kokusai students, as a group, are poised to move out of the Polarization stage or are just at the beginning of the Minimization stage. At Graduation, the cohorts’ DO scores have moved a small amount to range around the cusp of Minimization with a mean of 85.50.
Gap between Perceived Orientation and Developmental Orientation. Did the distance between the PO-DO Gap from Entrance to Graduation shrink, indicating that students became more accurate at assessing their own intercultural competence? In Table 4, the PO-DO Gap for each Cohort shows a decrease from Entrance to Graduation in the cases of four cohorts. However, it increased by a fraction in the case of one cohort (2008-10), and increased more substantially for Cohort 2005-07.
2 All calculations were performed on VassarStats: Website for Statistical Computation, http://vassarstats.net/ .
groups is characteristic, and may mask a lack of awareness of deeper and more nuanced group differences in needs and values.
Acceptance. The perspective of Acceptance is one of awareness and appreciation of cultural differences between groups. A person with an Acceptance orientation may not be able to participate fully in the practices and mindset of another group, but acknowledges the differences and is interested in learning more about them.
Adaptation. The mindset of Adaptation enables people to shift their cognitive and behavioral frameworks readily between cultures.
Essentially, such a person is able to take the perspective of another culture and participate in it.
Additionally, an orientation called Cultural Disengagement has been observed, reflecting a sense of alienation from one’s culture.
However, it is not considered to be part of the Intercultural Development Continuum described by the orientations named above.
Finally, it should be noted that the administration of the IDI produces two overall measures on the above scale, locating scores on the ID Continuum. One is the Perceived Orientation, an unweighted score locating the person’s view of his or her intercultural sensitivity or competence on the scale; the other is Developmental Orientation, a weighted score reflecting how the individual construes cultural difference, hence the person’s (or group’s) primary orientation on the continuum.
Research questions. Since the purpose of this study was to explore students’ progress in developing intercultural sensitivity, using the IDI data as a “window” of observation, initial formal hypotheses were not posed. Rather, measures and observations were taken to determine what the IDI results could tell us about our student population, and the impact of our program from the beginning to the end. As the data was collected through the years, interests and questions gradually emerged.
The original focus of observation was on class cohorts as they progressed through our program. The Cohort focus of interest continued through the duration of the study. As the data accumulated, these research questions have emerged:
a. Did group means for the six cohorts show gains in their IDI Developmental Orientation scores (or DO) from Entrance to Graduation?
b. What was the IDI orientation at which students most frequently scored in their initial and final administrations, and did it correspond to the observations made in other studies published in recent years?
c. Did the gap between Perceived Orientation (PO) and in Developmental Orientation (DO), measured at Entrance and again at Graduation, decrease? That is, did IDI scores show that students became more accurate at assessing their own intercultural competence as measured by shrinkage in the PO-DO gap?
A secondary focus of the research emerged when it began to appear that students participating in either the U.S. study trip or the
Korea Study trip (Trip students) and those students not participating (NonTrip students) might differ in their results. Hence, the data was examined for these questions:
d. Is there a difference in the Entrance and Graduation IDI DO scores of Trip students and NonTrip students?
e. Did the PO-DO gaps sizes differ for the Trip and NonTrip students at Entrance and Graduation?
Finally, the IDI was administered to Trip students of the last four cohorts of the study, 2006-08 to 2009-11, at the beginning and end of their trips. Discussion and debate on the marginal effects of short-term abroad trips appear in the research literature, but often describe a minimum four- or six-week program. No expectations of findings were held for the college’s two-week trips. Still, they were measured nonetheless, since no lack-of-effect for a two-week abroad trip had been documented either (or even mentioned to the author’s knowledge), hence this final question:
f. Did IDI scores change for Trip students from start to end of their study trip abroad?
Method
Participants. Six student cohorts entering Morioka Junior College Department of International Cultural Studies, in the years 2004-06 to 2009-11, were the subjects of this study. In typical years, 53-57 students were admitted. The great majority had been accepted to the college immediately after high school graduation. Only a very few, perhaps 1-3 per year, had worked or studied for a time outside of school.
Additionally, the majority was female; in any given year, males typically numbered from 1-5.
Procedure. The IDI was routinely administered (along with other measures, such as an in-house English skills inventory, the institutional TOEIC test, etc.) to all incoming students at the beginning of their program in April, and two years later to all graduating students shortly before graduation in March. Every attempt was made to include all students; however, there were some absences. For the purposes of this study, students participating in the U.S. trip or Korea trip (Trip students), and those not participating (NonTrip students), were identified as sub-groups of a class cohort.
Table 1 shows the total number of students who were administered the IDI for each class cohort at entrance and graduation, as well as the subtotal of students participating in a study trip, and those not participating. 1
1 Since initial administrations were analysed with IDI v.2 software and final administrations with v.3 software, attempts were made to resubmit older data for v.3 analysis. Data for 2004-06 graduation results and most of 2005-07 results could not be successfully submitted, though it is unlikely to impact the study results significantly.
Table 4
Change in the PO-DO Gap from Entrance to Graduation
While the overall trend in the PO-DO Gap is a decline, the changes in either direction are small, less than 2 points in four of the six cases.
As may be expected, one-way t-test of the mean PO-DO gaps at Entrance and at Graduation is not statistically significant (t = -1.22, df = 5, p > .05, dependent samples).
Trip and Nontrip group measures
The next measures were taken with the cohorts divided according to whether they participated in a Korea or U.S. trip (Trip students) and those who did not (NonTrip students).
Trip students vs. NonTrip students’ DO scores. First, DO scores for the Trip and NonTrip groups were compared at Entrance to see if they differed. The results, shown in Table 5, shows that in three cohorts, the Trip students had higher DO scores; in three cohorts the reverse was true.
Table 5
Difference of DO scores for Trip and NonTrip Students at Entrance
The mean of Cohort mean DOs for Trip students was 83.69; the mean for NonTrip students it was 82.78, a difference of 0.91. To rigorously determine whether the groups are different would involve applying the null hypothesis (i.e. that there is no difference) and a two-way t-test for independent samples. However, with a t = 0.62, df = 10, the p-value is well above .01 (indeed, even well above .05). Thus
the difference between Trip and NonTrip students’ DO mean scores was likely due to random variation rather than group membership.
Next, the DO scores for students at Graduation in each cohort were also divided between Trip and NonTrip students, and analyzed separately. As Table 6 shows, the mean of Cohort means for Trip students was 87.19, and for Nontrip students, 82.85, a difference of 4.34 points.
Table 6
Difference of DO scores for Trip and NonTrip Students at Graduation
Again, a strict examination of the data would follow the same conditions as the previous measure. A t-test (independent samples) of Trip and Nontrip means showed that at t = 2.25 (df = 10), statistical significance is not seen with a two-way test, p = 0.048 > 0.01; however, the result predicated on the assumption that Trip students may have higher DOs is statistically significant with the less rigorous one-way test, p = 0.024 < .05).
Degree of Trip and NonTtrip students’ DO gains. Since Trip students’ DO score means were notably higher than NonTrip students, Trip and NonTrip cohort DO means were re-examined more directly for Entrance-Graduation increases.
Table 7
Change of DO scores for Trip Students from Entrance to Graduation
First, Trip students’ DO scores at Entrance and Graduation are shown in Table 7. A one-tailed t-test of DO means (dependent samples) shows a statistically significant increase, t = 2.20 (df = 5, p = 0.04 < .05)
from Entrance to Graduation.
Similarly, a one-tailed t-test was carried out for the NonTrip students’ DO scores at Entrance and Graduation (dependent samples);
see Table 8. The mean increase of 0.09 proved to be much smaller and not statistically significant (t = 0.05, df = 5, p > .05).
Table 8
Change of DO Scores for NonTrip Students from Entrance to Graduation
PO-DO Gap change from Entrance to Graduation for Trip and NonTrip students. The gap between Perceived Orientation (PO) and Developmental Orientation (DO), showing the degree of self-awareness of intercultural sensitivity, was examined separately for the Trip and the NonTrip student groups.
Table 9 shows the PO-DO Gaps for the Nontrip students at Entrance and at Graduation. There is a mean decrease of 1.5 points.
Consistent with the overall Cohort data, 2005-07 is the single year when the PO-DO Gap shows an increase. All other Cohorts decline.
Table 9
Change in PO-DO Gap for NonTrip Students from Entrance to Graduation
For all the NonTrip student, the mean PO-DO Gaps’ decrease of 1.50 is not statistically significant (t = 0.84, df = 5, p > .05, dependent samples).
Table 10 shows the PO-DO Gaps for the Trip students at Entrance
and at Graduation. There is a mean decrease of 1.79 points, slightly greater than for the Nontrip students. Both the Cohort data for 2005-07 and 2008-10 show small increases.
Table 10
Change in PO-DO Gap for Trip Students from Entrance to Graduation
For the Trip students, the mean PO-DO Gaps’ decrease, though larger than the NonTrip amount, is also not significant (t = 1.76, df = 5, p > .05, dependent samples).
Pre-Post Trip measures
The final results are taken from students IDI results at the beginning and end of their trips.
Pre-Post Trip Developmental Orientations. Here, the results of IDI administration at the beginning and end of the Trips students’ two-week study trips were explored. Recall that these were collected from four cohorts only, 2006-08 to 2009-11. Table 11 shows the mean DOs just prior to and just after the trips. Though there is no DO change in 2009-11, the overall mean Pre-Post Trip increase is 2.11.
Table 11
Change of DOs from PreTrip to PostTrip
A t-test shows that the mean increase of DOs from the beginning to the end of the abroad trips is not statistically significant with a t-value = 2.26, df = 3, but hovers close to the border of statistical significance with p = 0.054 > .05 (dependent samples). It can be additionally noted that the Pre-Post DO change declines over these four years.
Table 4
Change in the PO-DO Gap from Entrance to Graduation
While the overall trend in the PO-DO Gap is a decline, the changes in either direction are small, less than 2 points in four of the six cases.
As may be expected, one-way t-test of the mean PO-DO gaps at Entrance and at Graduation is not statistically significant (t = -1.22, df = 5, p > .05, dependent samples).
Trip and Nontrip group measures
The next measures were taken with the cohorts divided according to whether they participated in a Korea or U.S. trip (Trip students) and those who did not (NonTrip students).
Trip students vs. NonTrip students’ DO scores. First, DO scores for the Trip and NonTrip groups were compared at Entrance to see if they differed. The results, shown in Table 5, shows that in three cohorts, the Trip students had higher DO scores; in three cohorts the reverse was true.
Table 5
Difference of DO scores for Trip and NonTrip Students at Entrance
The mean of Cohort mean DOs for Trip students was 83.69; the mean for NonTrip students it was 82.78, a difference of 0.91. To rigorously determine whether the groups are different would involve applying the null hypothesis (i.e. that there is no difference) and a two-way t-test for independent samples. However, with a t = 0.62, df = 10, the p-value is well above .01 (indeed, even well above .05). Thus
the difference between Trip and NonTrip students’ DO mean scores was likely due to random variation rather than group membership.
Next, the DO scores for students at Graduation in each cohort were also divided between Trip and NonTrip students, and analyzed separately. As Table 6 shows, the mean of Cohort means for Trip students was 87.19, and for Nontrip students, 82.85, a difference of 4.34 points.
Table 6
Difference of DO scores for Trip and NonTrip Students at Graduation
Again, a strict examination of the data would follow the same conditions as the previous measure. A t-test (independent samples) of Trip and Nontrip means showed that at t = 2.25 (df = 10), statistical significance is not seen with a two-way test, p = 0.048 > 0.01; however, the result predicated on the assumption that Trip students may have higher DOs is statistically significant with the less rigorous one-way test, p = 0.024 < .05).
Degree of Trip and NonTtrip students’ DO gains. Since Trip students’ DO score means were notably higher than NonTrip students, Trip and NonTrip cohort DO means were re-examined more directly for Entrance-Graduation increases.
Table 7
Change of DO scores for Trip Students from Entrance to Graduation
First, Trip students’ DO scores at Entrance and Graduation are shown in Table 7. A one-tailed t-test of DO means (dependent samples) shows a statistically significant increase, t = 2.20 (df = 5, p = 0.04 < .05)
Discussion and Conclusions
The fact that our students’ IDI scores at Entrance are located at the high end of the Polarization range and the beginning of Minimization range suggests that at the inception of the program, many students are close to or beginning the transition between the view of their own cultural group and other cultural groups as strongly distinct, and the view of these cultural groups as having similar and universal characteristics. The latter view is reflected more strongly in the results at the end of the program, although it is still at the low end of the Minimization range. This result appears to be somewhat below measures in multicultural settings like the U.S. (Engle and Engle, 2012;
Hammer, 2005; Medina-Lopez-Portillo, 2004; Paige, Cohen, and Shively, 2004; Rexelson, 2012-13; and others). This would be reasonable, given the relatively rural location of the college and the comparatively monocultural setting of Japan.
It is encouraging to note that the students showed some gains in their IDI scores from their entrance in the International Cultural Studies program to graduation, even though it was not statistically significant.
Similarly, it is encouraging to see the small decline in the PO-DO Gap, suggesting some slight increase in the accuracy of self-perceived cultural competence, though it too is not statistically significant. It is not certain what might account for the fact that the 2005-07 DO scores declined rather than increased, nor that the 2005-07 cohort had an increase in their PO-DO gap. It may reflect normal variation over time with periodic curricular changes, student population characteristics, or faculty turnover. (In fact, one of the two native English-speaking faculty members left in this period and was replaced by a Japanese English faculty member of native proficiency.)
Dividing the six cohorts into their Trip and NonTrip student groups shows that the Trip students do make gains of moderate significance in their IDI scores, both compared to NonTrip students or measured from the beginning to the end of their program. The NonTrip students do not.
The increases of the Trip students’ DO scores might be attributed to program tracks (Western and Asian concentrations) and brief abroad trips. However, this remains to be confirmed, since students taking the Regional concentration can also participate in a study trip, and some students taking the Western and Asian concentrations may not participate in a study trip. Individual student interest in foreign language and culture is also a likely factor, leading a student to seek out exposure to foreign music, entertainment, inter-personal contacts, etc. At any rate, the data suggest the potential for more rigorous field testing in the future.
As to the IDI measures taken at the beginning and end of the two-week trips to U.S. and South Korean destinations, the gains were small but somewhat surprising. The mean Pre-Post Trip DO gain of 2.11 was not significant, but were fairly strong, compared to the mean Trip students’ Entrance-Graduation gain, as Table 12 shows.
Table 12
Comparison of Change in Trip Students’ Entrance-Graduation DOs, and Pre-Post Trip DOs
While only the Entrance-Graduation increase in Developmental Orientation is significant, the comparative strengths of t-values and p-values for Entrance-Graduation and for Pre-Post Trip measures are striking, given that the first reflects a change over two years, and the second reflect a change over two weeks. They bring to mind Hammer’s observation that IDI gains appear to depend less on abroad trip length than the presence or absence of intercultural orientation and continuing mentoring through the sojourn and afterward (2012, pp. 126-131).
In fact, orientation of any kind for study trips in the case of this curriculum has been minimal. In the early years, it was limited to pre-departure practice with currency, classroom and household conversation and customs, and an end-of-trip debriefing. Unfortunately, even these few opportunities shrank as the available time was taken for other curricular demands and administration. This could be responsible for the steady decline in the Pre-Post DO gains (Table 11).
Still, brief as they are, the study trips may be offering a substantial contribution to the overall program gains in IDI scores for Trip students.
Tracking individual students’ scores through the program (including choices in concentrations, actual course participation, etc.), including trip and nontrip choices, would be the preferred method to confirm this.
At the same time, consideration must be given to the fact that students who do not participate in a study trip do not appear to make substantial gains in intercultural competence, at least as measured by the IDI (though of course, gains of other kinds may be occurring).
Many or most of these students might be taking the Regional Studies concentration, focused on Japanese and especially Northeastern (Tohoku) history, society and culture. Ironically, it has long been observed that increased cross-cultural understanding promotes deeper understanding and appreciation of one’s home culture. Thus, there is no reason that this group of students could not benefit from targeted cross-cultural education as the trip students do.
This study offers a longitudinal profile of the Kokusai Bunka students’ changes in intercultural competence over the duration of our two-year program, viewed through the basic scores of the IDI. The findings suggest that program goals and targeted student outcomes on
cross-cultural competence may be due for clarification and focusing, given the increasing prominence of broader, globally-oriented goals in higher education being encouraged at the national level.
References
Bennett, M.J. (1986). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R.M. Paige (Ed.), Cross-cultural orientation: New Conceptualizations and applications. New York: University Press of America.
Engle, L. & Engle, J. (2012). Beyond immersion: The AUCP experiment in holistic intervention. In Vande Berg, M., Paige, R.M., Lou, K. (Eds.), What our student are learning, what they’re not, and what we can do about it (pp. 284-308). Stergling, VA: Stylus.
Hammer, M.R. (2005). Assessment of the impact of the AFS study abroad experience: Executive Summary & Final Report. New York: AFS, International.
Hammer, M.R. (2009). The Intercultural Development Inventory: An Approach for assessing and building intercultural competence, In M.A. Moodian (Ed.), Contemporary leadership and intercultural competence: Exploring the cross-cultural dynamics within organizations (pp. 203-108). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hammer, M.R. (2012). The Intercultural Development Inventory: A new frontier in assessment and development of intercultural competence, in M. Vande Berg, M. Paige & K. Lou (Eds.), Student learning abroad: What our students are learning, what they’re not, and what we can do about it (pp. 115-136). Stirling, VA Stylus Publications.
Medina-Lopex-Portillo, A. (2004). Intercultural learning assessment:
The link between program duration and the development of intercultural sensitivity. Frontiers, 179-200.
Paige, R. M., Cohen, A. D., & Shively, R. (2004). Assessing the impact of strategies-based curriculum on language and culture learning abroad. Frontiers, X, 253-276.
Rexelson, R.J. (Winter 2012-Spring 2013). Study abroad and the boomerang effect: The end is only the beginning. Frontiers, XXII, 166-181.
Acknowledgements
I am indebted to Catlin Hanna Evans, my colleague and co-administrator in the first years of the study. I also wish to express my appreciation to colleagues Osamu Yoshihara, Anders Carlqvist, Harumi Ogawa, Sanae Kumamoto, and Aki Yoshihara, all of whom assisted with administration at various stages of this investigation.
Discussion and Conclusions
The fact that our students’ IDI scores at Entrance are located at the high end of the Polarization range and the beginning of Minimization range suggests that at the inception of the program, many students are close to or beginning the transition between the view of their own cultural group and other cultural groups as strongly distinct, and the view of these cultural groups as having similar and universal characteristics. The latter view is reflected more strongly in the results at the end of the program, although it is still at the low end of the Minimization range. This result appears to be somewhat below measures in multicultural settings like the U.S. (Engle and Engle, 2012;
Hammer, 2005; Medina-Lopez-Portillo, 2004; Paige, Cohen, and Shively, 2004; Rexelson, 2012-13; and others). This would be reasonable, given the relatively rural location of the college and the comparatively monocultural setting of Japan.
It is encouraging to note that the students showed some gains in their IDI scores from their entrance in the International Cultural Studies program to graduation, even though it was not statistically significant.
Similarly, it is encouraging to see the small decline in the PO-DO Gap, suggesting some slight increase in the accuracy of self-perceived cultural competence, though it too is not statistically significant. It is not certain what might account for the fact that the 2005-07 DO scores declined rather than increased, nor that the 2005-07 cohort had an increase in their PO-DO gap. It may reflect normal variation over time with periodic curricular changes, student population characteristics, or faculty turnover. (In fact, one of the two native English-speaking faculty members left in this period and was replaced by a Japanese English faculty member of native proficiency.)
Dividing the six cohorts into their Trip and NonTrip student groups shows that the Trip students do make gains of moderate significance in their IDI scores, both compared to NonTrip students or measured from the beginning to the end of their program. The NonTrip students do not.
The increases of the Trip students’ DO scores might be attributed to program tracks (Western and Asian concentrations) and brief abroad trips. However, this remains to be confirmed, since students taking the Regional concentration can also participate in a study trip, and some students taking the Western and Asian concentrations may not participate in a study trip. Individual student interest in foreign language and culture is also a likely factor, leading a student to seek out exposure to foreign music, entertainment, inter-personal contacts, etc. At any rate, the data suggest the potential for more rigorous field testing in the future.
As to the IDI measures taken at the beginning and end of the two-week trips to U.S. and South Korean destinations, the gains were small but somewhat surprising. The mean Pre-Post Trip DO gain of 2.11 was not significant, but were fairly strong, compared to the mean Trip students’ Entrance-Graduation gain, as Table 12 shows.
Table 12
Comparison of Change in Trip Students’ Entrance-Graduation DOs, and Pre-Post Trip DOs
While only the Entrance-Graduation increase in Developmental Orientation is significant, the comparative strengths of t-values and p-values for Entrance-Graduation and for Pre-Post Trip measures are striking, given that the first reflects a change over two years, and the second reflect a change over two weeks. They bring to mind Hammer’s observation that IDI gains appear to depend less on abroad trip length than the presence or absence of intercultural orientation and continuing mentoring through the sojourn and afterward (2012, pp. 126-131).
In fact, orientation of any kind for study trips in the case of this curriculum has been minimal. In the early years, it was limited to pre-departure practice with currency, classroom and household conversation and customs, and an end-of-trip debriefing. Unfortunately, even these few opportunities shrank as the available time was taken for other curricular demands and administration. This could be responsible for the steady decline in the Pre-Post DO gains (Table 11).
Still, brief as they are, the study trips may be offering a substantial contribution to the overall program gains in IDI scores for Trip students.
Tracking individual students’ scores through the program (including choices in concentrations, actual course participation, etc.), including trip and nontrip choices, would be the preferred method to confirm this.
At the same time, consideration must be given to the fact that students who do not participate in a study trip do not appear to make substantial gains in intercultural competence, at least as measured by the IDI (though of course, gains of other kinds may be occurring).
Many or most of these students might be taking the Regional Studies concentration, focused on Japanese and especially Northeastern (Tohoku) history, society and culture. Ironically, it has long been observed that increased cross-cultural understanding promotes deeper understanding and appreciation of one’s home culture. Thus, there is no reason that this group of students could not benefit from targeted cross-cultural education as the trip students do.
This study offers a longitudinal profile of the Kokusai Bunka students’ changes in intercultural competence over the duration of our two-year program, viewed through the basic scores of the IDI. The findings suggest that program goals and targeted student outcomes on
