Intercultural exchange among global teachers: The case of the teaching excellence and achievement study abroad program

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 49 (2015) 100–113

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Intercultural Relations journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel

Intercultural exchange among global teachers: The case of the teaching excellence and achievement study abroad program Susan J. Paik a,∗ , DeLacy Evans Ganley b , Thomas F. Luschei a , Stacy M. Kula a , Matthew A. Witenstein a , Yujiro Shimogori a , Krissyvan K. Truong a a b

School of Educational Studies, Claremont Graduate University Teacher Education, School of Educational Studies, Claremont Graduate University

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 17 February 2014 Received in revised form 14 June 2015 Accepted 24 June 2015 Keywords: Intercultural contact hypothesis Intercultural competence Intercultural sensitivity and awareness Diversity Global teachers Teacher education Cross-cultural Study abroad program

a b s t r a c t This qualitative case study explores the impact of a six-week, US-based study abroad program on the intercultural competence of 22 secondary teachers from Colombia, El Salvador, Ghana, India, Kazakhstan, Morocco, Poland, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, Thailand, and Ukraine. Based on the results of surveys and interviews, the program enhanced teachers’ intercultural sensitivity and awareness, knowledge of other countries and cultures, and teaching skills and professional development in a structured cross-cultural setting. Intercultural activities, coursework, clinical experiences, and exposure to diverse students, classrooms, families, and cultures were helpful experiences for participating teachers. This study offers practice and policy implications in terms of intercultural competence, teacher education, and cross-cultural program development. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction and Purpose of Study In an age of global interdependence, cross-cultural development and intercultural acumen are critical to economics, politics, and education. An intercultural perspective is a necessary component to achieve the goals of mutual understanding and pluralistic civil society (Hicks, 2003; Pike, 2000). More than ever, private foundations and public agencies understand the value of promoting global perspectives; they are willing to direct resources toward programs that foster such ideals. This study describes one such program, the ‘Teaching Excellence and Achievement’ (TEA) Program,1 which fosters intercultural understanding among global teachers.2

∗ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S.J. Paik), [email protected] (D.E. Ganley), [email protected] (T.F. Luschei), [email protected] (S.M. Kula), [email protected] (M.A. Witenstein), [email protected] (Y. Shimogori), [email protected] (K.K. Truong). 1 TEA is co-sponsored by the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) of the US Department of State and IREX. The ECA fosters mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries around the world. ECA does this through a wide range of international exchanges as authorized by the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, as amended. ECA works in close cooperation with US Embassies overseas to promote personal, professional, and institutional ties between private citizens and organizations in the United States and abroad. For further information, see http://exchanges.state.gov. IREX is an international nonprofit organization providing leadership and innovative programs designed to improve the quality of education, strengthen independent media, and foster pluralistic civil society development. Founded in 1968, IREX has an annual portfolio of $60 million and a staff of 500 professionals worldwide. IREX and its partner, IREX Europe, deliver cross-cultural programs and consulting expertise in more than 100 countries. See http://www.irex.org. 2 Although the program was funded, there was no funding for the research conducted in this study. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.06.011 0147-1767/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

S.J. Paik et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 49 (2015) 100–113

101

The TEA Program is a six-week study abroad program serving a cohort of experienced middle- and high-school teachers from around the world, hosted at selected universities in the United States and other countries.3 This program strives to help participating teachers, or ‘Fellows,’ develop expertise in their teaching subject areas, enhance their teaching skills, and increase their knowledge of the host country, as well as other cultures. While individually designed and implemented by each host university, all TEA Programs have three main components in common: (1) university coursework in teaching methodologies, lesson planning, teaching processes and strategies, and educational technology; (2) a clinical experience in local middle- and/or high-schools; and (3) cultural and civic activities, including four days to independently explore their host country, the US. Intercultural exchanges that occurred during the Fellows’ stay at University X (the host institution studied here) included interactions with US instructors; work with US secondary school-level partner teachers and students; living with roommates from other countries; engagement with American ‘Friendship Families’ (community members who volunteered to introduce the Fellows to their daily routines and special events); and participation in team-building activities with one another. Using the intercultural experiences of University X’s TEA Fellows, this study seeks to answer the following research questions: (1) How does the TEA Program foster an intercultural perspective among its participating international teachers? (2) How do intercultural experiences provide professional development opportunities for international teachers? 2. Theoretical framework The theoretical framework adapted for this study is the ‘Intercultural Contact Hypothesis’, a term developed by the authors based on Allport’s (1954) Contact Hypothesis (or Intergroup Contact Theory). Allport’s theory was selected as the basis of this framework for several reasons. First, the Intergroup Contact Theory is considered the most influential theory of prejudice reduction (Brown & Hewstone, 2005; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006; Pettigrew, 1998). As one of the most referenced intergroup theories, it has been described as providing one of the best ways to improve relations among groups experiencing negative stereotyping or possible conflict (Brown & Hewstone, 2005; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006; Pettigrew, 1998; Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005; Wright, 2009). Second, longitudinal, experimental, correlational, and meta-analytic studies have been conducted over time showing significant results supporting Allport’s theory (Pettigrew & Troop, 2006; Pettigrew, 1998; Troop & Pettigrew, 2005). There is evidence that contact contributes meaningfully to the reduction of prejudice, particularly when contact situations are structured. In their meta-analysis of 515 studies, Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) found that intergroup contact produced positive outcomes, but there was a larger effect under managed contact (certain conditions described below). Third, many of the competing theories are extensions of Allport’s work. While some of the competing theories did provide additional perspectives, they were still not suitable for our current study of TEA teachers. For example, cross-group friendship theory (Pettigrew, 1998) pertained to developing friendships under specific conditions. Parasocial contact theory (Schiappa, Gregg, & Hewes, 2005) incorporates mass media as a form of contact. Both theories are well-cited, but they did not support the goals or align with the characteristics of the TEA program. According to Allport’s hypothesis, if certain conditions are present, interpersonal contact can be an effective way to reduce prejudice and promote an understanding and even appreciation of different viewpoints (Allport, 1954; Whitley & Kite, 2010). Allport argued that prejudice and discrimination stem from overgeneralizations; through ‘properly managed’ interpersonal contact, an individual can realize the fallacies of his or her overgeneralized ‘mental models’ (Senge, 1990). Managed contact must involve four conditions to some degree (Allport, 1954): (1) Equal status—Equal engagement in the relationship; (2) Mutual cooperation—Working together toward common goals without competition; (3) Common goals—Working together on a task as a common goal; and (4) Social and institutional authorities—Supportive authorities that help manage contact. For example, cooperative learning has been found to be positive when these conditions are present. The “jigsaw classroom” is one such technique that puts students into small groups, where each student is given a key piece of information to be shared within their groups. Under the guidance of the teacher and group work, the jigsaw technique has been found to be highly effective at promoting shared learning and positive interracial contact (Aronson & Patnoe, 1997). Sports activities, classroom projects, or other structured settings, activities, and programs are other examples of managed settings. Our Intercultural Contact Hypothesis extends Allport’s theory to situations involving people from different cultural origins. It holds that ‘managed’ intercultural exposure promotes cross-cultural development and intercultural acumen, which in turn foster intercultural tolerance and a pluralistic worldview. We consider intercultural contact to play a key role in supporting positive relationships among teachers from different cultural origins. Yet while our study of the TEA Program represents a new application of Allport’s theory, the program itself aligns well with the conditions of managed contact. All teachers as “Fellows” of the program (equal status) work and learn together to achieve their shared professional development goals through their teams, projects, and courses (intergroup cooperation, common goals) under the management and guidelines of the TEA program, staff and instructors (social and institutional authorities). While contact alone is helpful, these managed settings provide the additional support needed for positive cross-cultural experiences.

3 The Fall 2011 TEA Program involved approximately 88 Fellows and four host universities, with approximately 22 Fellows at each host university. Participating Fellows were selected through a competitive process coordinated by the US Department of State (and its embassies) and IREX. The Fellows hailed from Europe, South and Central Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, the Near East and the Western Hemisphere. Host universities were selected through a competitive process overseen by IREX.

102

S.J. Paik et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 49 (2015) 100–113

Because teachers are key influences in classrooms worldwide, intercultural programs such as the TEA program have the potential of promoting intercultural sensitivity and awareness. Therefore, intercultural contact for teachers is an area that deserves more attention among teacher educators (Heyl & McCarthy, 2003; Merryfield, 2000). Teachers who are culturally sensitive and aware have the ability to effectively engage with diverse students and worldviews, instilling these skills in their students (Cushner & Mahon, 2009; Le Roux, 2002; Moule, 2012). Programs that can provide such skills for teachers are necessary for the 21st century, but many teacher education programs are often limited in providing cross-cultural experiences and exposure. Researchers have contended that successful models must include structured (managed) international programs that expose teachers to other cultures and ways of thinking (Heyl & McCarthy, 2003; Kissock, 1997; Merryfield, 1996). Because intercultural competence can be taught, it is important to identify effective programs that support managed intercultural contact. To examine the experiences of ‘managed’ intercultural exposure, we surveyed and interviewed teachers from 12 different countries who participated in the TEA Program. The TEA program provided opportunities to learn about and engage more with (1) the host culture, (2) other cultures, and (3) professional development through an intercultural teacher training program. Within these opportunities, managed intercultural contact included specific program activities (e.g., weekend activities), interactions with others (e.g., Fellows, staff, local teachers and students), and professional development opportunities (e.g., courses, clinical experiences). To help the reader understand the importance of intercultural education and competency for teachers, the following section provides a review of literature related to intercultural sensitivity and awareness. 3. Literature review: intercultural education for teachers 3.1. What is intercultural competence? Fantini and Tirmizi (2006) define intercultural competence as the ability to ‘perform effectively and appropriately when interacting with others who are linguistically and culturally different from oneself’ (p. 12, emphasis in original). Lindsey, Robins, and Terrell (2003) provide a similar definition: ‘a way of being that enables both individuals and organizations to respond effectively to people who differ from them’ (p. 5). Deardorff’s (2008) dynamic intercultural competence model describes an internal shift in flexibility and adaptability regarding other cultures. The internalization of this intercultural perspective is then manifested externally through appropriate behaviors and communication during intercultural interactions. According to Fantini and Tirmizi (2006) and Sinicrope, Norris, and Watanabe (2007), many terms are used to discuss intercultural competence, including intercultural communicative competence (ICC), transcultural communication, cross-cultural adaptation, and intercultural sensitivity. For the purposes of this study, the following related terms will also be used: intercultural perspectives, multicultural teaching, cross-cultural development, and intercultural acumen. Each term attempts to account for one’s ability to ‘step beyond one’s own culture and function with other individuals from linguistically and culturally diverse backgrounds’ (Sinicrope et al., 2007 p. 1). In this article, the terms intercultural competence and intercultural perspective are used interchangeably. A number of researchers argue that intercultural competence is important for individual enrichment and communicative proficiency (Robins, Lindsey, Lindsey, & Terrell, 2002; Sinicrope et al., 2007; Villegas & Lucas, 2007). Additionally, they suggest it is critical for successful collaboration in an increasingly globally interdependent and diverse society. Scholars have investigated the importance of intercultural competence in diverse contexts including education (Lindsey et al., 2003; Yamazaki, 2007). 3.2. Intercultural competence: importance for teachers A subsection of literature focuses specifically on the importance of intercultural perspectives for teachers. This literature addresses the value of teachers’ ability to engage an interdependent world comprised of diverse populations and, as such, endorses the ideals of global education. It is important to recognize that discussions related to the importance of a teacher’s intercultural competence are not restricted to an international context but also include the context of heterogeneous classrooms such as those in the US (Lindsey et al., 2003). The literature indicates that culture should not be examined simplistically. For example, Le Roux (2002) argues that interculturally competent teachers are aware of how students differ within a culture (i.e., with regard to socioeconomic status or family circumstances) as well as cross-culturally, a nuanced concept that is sometimes forgotten. According to LeRoux (2002), a teacher’s understanding of this nuance can be honed by developing empathy and an appreciation for culturally different students’ life experiences. Research suggests that students of culturally competent teachers are more likely to reach their full potential than students with teachers who lack this characteristic (Moule, 2012). Le Roux (2002) and Moule (2012) stress that teachers need to accept multiple worldviews in order to develop an open communication style; in addition, they must develop a willingness to learn from and about their students. Gay (2006) concludes that if teachers build better relations toward students different from themselves, indicators of success will likely soar. Cushner and Mahon (2009) agree that when teachers make intelligent, culturally competent behavioral choices, students from diverse backgrounds (whether domestic or from abroad) have a better chance of succeeding.

S.J. Paik et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 49 (2015) 100–113

103

Conversely, research suggests that when teachers lack intercultural competence, the impact can be devastating for students. Evidence demonstrates that such lack of awareness or knowledge may lead to excessive discipline and even dropouts (Cushner & Mahon, 2009; Lindsey et al., 2003; Moule, 2012). Interculturally competent behavior recognizes key non-verbal nuances such as social space, body language and facial expressions, and leads to enhanced cross-cultural understanding (Le Roux, 2002). For example, a teacher who is keenly aware of cultural differences in eye contact can avoid uncomfortable situations that deter from learning (Bayles, 2009). Fostering interpersonal relationships among members of the learning community is critical to developing an environment that promotes learning (Klump & Nelson, 2005). Teachers also play a critical role in fostering intercultural competence in their students. Cushner and Mahon (2009) suggest that adding ‘Relations’ as another ‘R’ in education would help students gain intercultural competence and become globally aware adults, likely giving them a competitive edge in the interconnected world of the 21st century. 3.3. Developing intercultural competency in teachers Education and training can play important roles in the development of intercultural sensitivity (Lindsey et al., 2003; Lindsey et al., 2008; Multicultural, Diversity and Inclusion Network Groups, 2009). While it is highly important for teachers to have global education knowledge, Merryfield (2000) argues that teacher education programs are often unsuccessful at cultivating such ideals in teacher candidates. Merryfield (1991) and DeJaeghere and Cao (2009) argue that teachers need more than a short in-service program to gain the skills needed to be global educators. Merryfield contends that a more successful model includes a structured experience where teachers leave the context of their own community and submerge themselves in a culture different than their own (Merryfield, 1996), such as sojourn experiences that put educators in a context of being ‘the other.’ Merryfield (1991) suggests that longer and ongoing experiences (or deeply connected experiences) have greater potential to impact teachers’ paradigms. Other research echoes Merryfield’s findings. Kissock (1997) and Alfaro and Quezada (2010) suggest that educators who leave their home country (i.e., teach abroad) become more globally minded. Heyl and McCarthy (2003) further suggest that international exposure for pre- and in-service teachers is key to the use of global perspectives in their teaching. The student teachers in Sahin’s (2008) study reported that their experiences abroad not only aided the development of a global perspective but also helped strengthen their teaching abilities. Alfaro’s (2008) and Alfaro and Quezada (2010) student teacher participants engaged in a structured program involving teaching in another country while developing dialogue and relationships with students, teachers and host families. These individuals similarly credited the program with increasing their ability to bring global perspectives into their profession. Some research suggests that these types of experiences may not be the only way to achieve intercultural competence. Merryfield (2003) investigated the impact of online platforms on teachers and teacher educators. She reported that online synchronous interactions provide some opportunities for cross-cultural learning not possible in a classroom experience, particularly in the creation of a global community with students from all over the world. Her work demonstrated that ongoing discussion threads and sharing of online resources added meaningful global perspectives for participants. Mehta, Brannon, Zappe, Colledge, and Zhao (2010) express hope that online platforms will prove an effective alternative to programs that take teachers to other countries, given the potential logistical, financial and political difficulties of such sojourn experiences. Wilson (1993) agrees that an experience abroad can help teacher candidates become more culturally aware but also suggests that the same can be achieved through on-campus cross cultural activities with international students. According to Wilson, the increased value in cross-cultural knowledge gained by these experiences enhances the teacher candidates’ intercultural competence and also broadens their global perspectives, knowledge and understanding. Taken as a whole, the literature indicates that intercultural competence is a growing concern in an increasingly interconnected world and that it is particularly necessary for teachers to develop this characteristic. Intercultural competence is not only personally rewarding and enriching; it also enhances a teacher’s ability to effectively engage students from multiple origins. Further, teachers who value intercultural competence for themselves tend to develop such skills in their students, which compounds the positive impact. Because intercultural competence in teachers can be enhanced through targeted experiences, education, and training, it is important to identify effective programs that provide them and to study what components of the programs are particularly important to the goal of intercultural competence development. 4. Methodology 4.1. Sample A private university in Southern California (University X) hosted 22 TEA Fellows (N = 6 males, 16 females) in the Fall of 2011. The sample size was small, but represented twelve different countries: Colombia (2 males); El Salvador (1 male); Ghana (1 male); India (2 females); Kazakhstan (2 females); Morocco (2 females); Poland (2 females); Romania (1 male, 1 female); Russia (3 females); Rwanda (1 male); Thailand (2 females); and Ukraine (2 females). Seven of the teachers were experienced Social Studies/History teachers and 15 were experienced English/ESL/EFL teachers. The group was also diverse in terms of their international experiences, urban and rural experiences, English-speaking abilities, as well as their financial

104

S.J. Paik et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 49 (2015) 100–113

support and resources. While all Fellows were conversational in English, there was a range in English language fluency: TOEFL scores ranged from 433 to 643, with the average score being 551. 4.2. Design and measurement tools Research design. The qualitative case study design used a survey questionnaire and interview protocol. Both the survey and interview data helped to assess the overall experiences of participating teachers. Data was analyzed for content and coded for themes, and further reported in percentages to discuss the key findings. Measurement tools were developed based on inter-rater agreement, consensus, and screened by members of the research team. Given the unique characteristics of this program, a control group was not possible for the research design; consequently, the study is not intended to measure causality. To answer the two research questions posed earlier, the study explores the perceptions of the participating teachers in terms of their intercultural experiences and knowledge of the host culture and other cultures, as well as their teaching skills and professional development opportunities in an intercultural setting. In applying the theoretical framework (intercultural contact hypothesis), the TEA program (managed setting) provided activities (managed intercultural contact) to enhance Fellows’ intercultural perspective (or intercultural competency). Some examples of ‘managed’ activities included cultural weekend outings, engaging with friendship families from local communities, living with a roommate from another culture, interactive classroom and school experiences in a study-abroad university setting, and clinical experiences with teachers and students. For the list of all ‘managed’ activities, please refer to Tables 1 and 2. It is important to note that while the research team consisted of 7 researchers, 6 of the 7 authors were not involved directly with program implementation. One author was involved with the program, but is not the first author of this study. Because of potential bias, this author was also not directly involved in the data collection or final analysis. All of the results and discussion involved inter-rater agreement and consensus for both survey and interview data. Survey questionnaire. To ensure content validity, the authors developed a 35-item survey with largely open-ended questions (31 open-ended questions, 4 closed-ended questions). All questions were developed based on the goals and theoretical framework as a guide for this study; thorough discussion and consensus ensued to carefully conceptualize and clarify survey items. The survey items found in Table 1 were designed to elicit comments about the effects of the 11 core components of the TEA Program on intercultural awareness and sensitivity (intercultural and host country knowledge) and professional development (teacher skills) in a study abroad program. Core areas one through five covered non-education components such as intercultural weekend activities (1a–g), ‘Friendship Families’ (2c and d), general free time (3b and 4b), and roommate interactions (5). Core areas six through 10 involved formal and educational experiences such as TEA meeting structure and program experiences (6a,b and 7), university coursework (8a–c), classroom clinical experiences (9a–g), and other teaching experiences/skills (10a and b). Core area 11 examined the overall TEA program and intercultural experiences (11a and b). Interview protocol. Similar to the survey, a structured interview protocol (13 open-ended questions) was developed based on both the objectives of the study and the theoretical framework (See Table 2). The interview questions consisted of the following categories: (1) host country/culture and knowledge (Q 3–5), (2) other countries/cultures and knowledge (Q 6–8), (3) culture & self awareness (Q 9–10), and (4) overall program and intercultural experiences (Q 1, 2, 11–13). To ensure content validity, all questions in the interview protocol were based on inter-rater agreement, thorough discussion, and consensus by the research team. 4.3. Procedures Data was collected from University X’s 22 TEA Fellows in the last week of their six-week program. First, a reflection workshop was held, during which the participants were divided into four small groups with a researcher acting as a group facilitator. A three-hour time block was designated to answer the survey. Participants were allotted two to three minutes before answering each item to engage in reflection as a group and/or to ask for item clarification from the group facilitator. Participants were asked to be candid and were assured that their responses would be confidential. This survey served three purposes: first, it allowed the Fellows to become acquainted with the researcher who would interview them later; second, it scaffolded the Fellows’ ability to put their reflections into words by allowing them to talk in a group and to write; third, it supplied the team with data on the effects of each component of the Program. Within four days of the reflection workshop, individual interviews of approximately one hour in length were held at the Fellows’ residence. Interviews were recorded and researchers took detailed field notes. Because of the Fellows’ wide range of English abilities, researchers often repeated the answers that they had heard back to the participants in order to insure fidelity of the data. 4.4. Data analysis Data analysis occurred in several stages. First, researchers developed summaries of the survey and interview data from each of their the Fellows. Half of the research team then analyzed the survey data while the other half analyzed the interview data, using content analysis to find key words or ideas that encapsulated patterns in these summaries. This was first done

Table 1 Survey.

Intercultural activities (“Sunday Fun”) 1A. Insights from Venice beach trip 1B. Insights from LA County Fair trip 1C. Insights from LA Via the Metro trip 1D. Insights from Disneyland trip

1F. Insights from “Sunday Fun” activities 1G. Insights from intercultural experiences during “Sunday Fun” activities Friendship families 2C. Insights from contact with Friendship Families 2D. “Take away” idea of memory from Friendship Family Free time 3B. Insights from “general free time” 4B. Insights from 4 free days Roommate experiences 5. Insights from TEA roommate experience TEA meetings 6A. Insights from organization, structure or “style” of the TEA meetings 6B. Insights from intercultural gatherings with all TEA fellows Interactions with others 7. Insights from observing TEA leadership interactions with others 8A. Insights from university classes 8B. Differences between university and home country classes 8C. Similarities between university and home country classes

Code 2

Code 3

Diverse America1 0.650 Family-oriented 0.278 Diverse America 0.317 Entertainment 0.324 Art appreciation 0.570 American values 0.477 Intercultural connection/ understanding 0.614

Creativity 0.246 Food 0.238 Entertainment 0.242 Capitalism 0.210 Order 0.153 Family-oriented 0.114 Adaptation

Other 0.103 Capitalism 0.143 Transportation technology 0.217 Family-oriented 0.188 Other 0.278 Other 0.409 Other

0.182

0.205

Family-oriented 0.416 Accommodating 0.265

Generosity 0.197 Social Networking 0.182

Friendliness 0.159 Friendliness 0.175

Other 0.227 Other 0.379

American Values 0.485 Capitalism 0.287

Friendliness 0.257 Artificial Grandiosity 0.280

Other 0.257 Natural Grandiosity 0.106

Other 0.325

Intercultural growth 0.538

Adaptation 0.220

Negotiation 0.129

Other 0.114

American values 0.409 Intercultural dynamics

Efficiency 0.273 Other

Organization 0.159

Other 0.159

0.833

0.167

Equality (non-hierarchical) 0.530 Interactive learning 0.432 Interactivity 0.390 System structures 0.603

Mutual respect 0.379 Efficiency 0.318 Informality 0.288 Group work 0.182

Other 0.091 Other 0.250 Advanced technology 0.163 Other 0.214

Code 4

Code 5

Order 0.095 Other 0.225 Desire for happiness 0.184

Other 0.246

Other 0.092

S.J. Paik et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 49 (2015) 100–113

1E. Insights from Pasadena trip

Code 1

Other 0.159

105

106

Table 1 (Continued)

9B. Differences between U.S. and home country secondary schools 9C. Similarities between U.S and home country schools 9D. Insights from observing teacher-to-student interactions 9E. Insights from observing teacher-to-supervisor interactions 9F. Insights from observing teacher-to-teacher interactions 9G. Insights from teacher-to-fellow interactions Teaching experiences/skills 10A. TEA program’s influence on subject matter expertise 10B. Anticipated changes in teaching from TEA program experience Overall program & intercultural experiences 11A. How TEA program enabled greater cultural awareness 11B. How TEA program enabled a more “global perspective” 11C. “Below the surface” aspects of culture encountered during TEA program 11D. Most valuable lesson, idea, memory from TEA program (“take away idea”)

Code 1

Code 2

Code 3

Code 4

Code 5

Interactivity 0.214 System structures 0.390 System Structures 0.401 Positive student/teacher interactions 0.470 Autonomy 0.353 Collaborative 0.545 Friendliness 0.545

Organization 0.142 Resource rich 0.250 Interactivity 0.310 Unexpected student/ teacher interactions 0.242 Friendliness 0.294 Non-interactive 0.250 Accommodating 0.250

Informality 0.079 Active learning 0.113 Extracurricular activity 0.182 Other

Other 0.563 Classroom performance 0.060 Other 0.106

Other 0.185

Teaching strategies 0.658 Lesson planning 0.371

Student-centered 0.120 Technology use 0.227

Technology use 0.120 Student-centered 0.204

Cultural differences 0.545 Authentic perspective 0.636 “Concept of cleanliness” 0.095 American values

Cultural similarities 0.182 Other 0.364 “Nature of friendship” 0.095 Concern for others

Other 0.273

“Courtesy” 0.071 Concern for self

“Ideals of childrearing” 0.071 Other

0.424

0.288

0.197

0.091

0.288 Other 0.353 Other 0.205 Other 0.205 Other 0.098 Other 0.197

Other 0.667

S.J. Paik et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 49 (2015) 100–113

Clinical experiences 9A. Insights from clinical experience

Table 2 Interviews.

Program & intercultural experiences 1. Describe your objective in applying for and participating TEA program 2. Do you feel you accomplished your goals?

4. What are your perceptions now of American culture? 5. What experiences best helped you to understand American culture? 6. What were your perceptions of other cultures before coming here?

Other countries/cultures knowledge 7. What are your perceptions now of other cultures? 8. What experiences best helped you to understand other cultures? Culture & self awareness 9. What particular activities challenged your thinking or comfort level?a

10. Have your perspectives of your own culture changed?

Overall program & intercultural experiences 11. What was your most memorable experience in the U.S.? 12. How would you describe your overall TEA experience? 13. Would you recommend this experience to others? Why? Other comments

Code 3

Code 4

Code 5

See/experience America

Improve/learn teaching skills 0.306 Yes, multicultural perspective 0.31

Apply/share experiences

Improve English skills

Other

0.185 Yes, used and improved english 0.151

0.11 Other

0.045

Positive views of America

Other

0.333 Open/hospitable/ friendly

0.129 Confirmed positive view 0.238 Clinical experience 0.197 Had negative expectations

0.06 Sunday activities 0.132 Expected unknown differences

0.379

0.261 Free time 0.269 Superficial factual knowledge of other cultures 0.325

0.121

0.068

0.106

Recognize differences in cultural behaviors 0.545 Free time with Fellows

Recognize human commonalities 0.318 Roommate

Other

Sunday activities

Other

0.341

0.273

0.045

0.227

Challenged through clinical experience

Challenged to complete program requirements

0.386 Recognized changes needed in home country/culture 0.614

0.136 No change

Activities involving multicultural contexts (uncertainty in how to behave) 0.114 Other

0.25

0.136

Travels to cities/sites

Interacting with Americans 0.291 Life-changing 0.288 Recommending program to others 0.211 Other

TEA program staff/faculty

Other

0.132 Intensely enriching 0.106 Plan to share broadly

0.095 Other 0.068 Other

0.143

0.091

0.352 Yes, enhanced educational knowledge 0.47 Negative views of America 0.538 Changed: more positive view 0.307 Friendship family 0.31 Did not know/cultural unaware

0.481 Great overall 0.538 Yes, of course 0.554 Program should run longer 0.273

Several Fellows did not understand this question (n = 4).

0.136 Home culture presentations 0.114

Code 6

0.068

Attention to order/rules

Other

0.364

Clean/ environmentally friendly 0.041 Coursework 0.09 Other

Other 0.091 Other 0

0.727

107

a

Code 2

S.J. Paik et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 49 (2015) 100–113

Host country/culture knowledge 3. What was your perception of American culture before coming here?

Code 1

108

S.J. Paik et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 49 (2015) 100–113

individually and then together to achieve inter-rater agreement. The coding schemes emerged naturally from the data for each measurement tool and were submitted to the entire team. Email communication and a shared (online) spreadsheet were used to discuss possible further codes; alterations to proposed codes; and clarifying questions on definitions for proposed codes. The team met several times to discuss in detail the codes for each question; coming to the finalized coding scheme by consensus through a process of: (a) further defining codes in question; (b) adding codes agreed upon by all the researchers; (c) consolidating several codes; and (d) eliminating unnecessary codes. All codes were represented in responses for at least one-fourth of the participants; and were worded carefully to encompass as much of the data as possible. Coding procedures involved determining which code(s) were represented by respondents’ answers, and giving point values to the codes according to the percentage of the response each code represented. For example, a value of 1 meant that the respondent’s answer fit entirely within one code; however, if a participant’s answer touched on two codes, the values to those were .50 each. When all participants’ answers had been coded, means were calculated for each code; these means demonstrated the percentage of responses from the group that were represented by the codes.

5. Results 5.1. Survey Survey results were clustered around the three goals of the Program: increased intercultural knowledge, host country knowledge, and teaching skills (Table 1). Due to the length of the survey and the high number of resulting codes, responses with lower than a 20% rating were omitted from the analysis, as were the ‘other varied responses’ categories, unless entries from that code provided insight. Intercultural knowledge. A core aspect of the Program involved developing an intercultural perspective. Survey responses on three components of the Program particularly touched upon increased intercultural awareness. These were: (1) TEA Fellow meetings, which Fellows said increased their understanding of intercultural dynamics (83%); (2) structured civic/cultural outings (called ‘Sunday Fun Activities’) shared with other Fellows, which led to increased intercultural connection and understanding (61%), among other varied effects (21%), including a greater feeling of safety with groups and the ability to enjoy time with other Fellows; and (3) the roommate experience, which caused intercultural growth (54%) and Fellows’ ability to adapt to others (22%). Further, Fellows indicated that the TEA Program enabled a more ‘global perspective’ through its focus on authenticity of perspectives (64%), and by other varied means (36%), including strategies for making global connections in classrooms or learning about different educational systems. Also, Fellows indicated that the TEA Program enabled greater cultural awareness by enabling exposure to and discussion of cultural differences (55%). Other varied responses (27%) included an increase in understanding of cultural traits or of the concept of culture, as well as enabling intercultural networks among the Fellows. Teacher skills. Since improving teacher skills is one of the TEA goals, teachers were exposed to diverse ideas and skills from the U.S. and other cultures in an intercultural setting. Fellows noted that they had gained skills in two areas. The first involved the TEA Program’s influence on subject matter expertise, in which Fellows indicated they had gained subject matter-specific teaching strategies (66%). The second involved anticipated changes in teaching (general, not specific to their subject areas) from the TEA Program experience; here, Fellows indicated that they had learned strategies for lesson planning (37%), technology use (23%), and student-centered teaching (20%). Fellows also observed good teaching strategies in action through their clinical experiences and university classes. Clinical experiences had the most varied responses of any question (56%), with most Fellows commenting on the diversity or ‘feel’ of the classroom rather than the strategies they learned from the experience; others commented on the high level of interactivity between teachers and students (21%). Comments on strategies observed in university coursework included a focus on interactive learning (43%) and the efficiency of lessons (32%). Host country knowledge: US in perspective. Improving the host country’s knowledge is another objective of the TEA Program. The aspects of the Program that targeted this goal included participating in structure civic/cultural activities designed specifically for the TEA Fellows at University X (called ‘Sunday Fun Activities’), time observing or interacting with Americans, and the clinical experience, which allowed Fellows to observe student/faculty/staff interactions as well as to compare their experience with education in their home countries. Intercultural activities (or Sunday Fun Activities). Fellows participated in a number of scheduled cultural activities, most of which were on Sundays. Fellows most commonly reported learning about the diversity in America as well as great variety of entertainment and creativity. For example, an outing to Venice Beach gave them an understanding of the cultural and economic diversity of the United States (65%) and US creativity (25%). A trip to Pasadena and the Norton Simon Museum provided them a sense of American appreciation for the arts (57%). Visiting downtown Los Angeles via public light rail reinforced the idea of a diverse America (32%) and gave them a sense of Americans’ focus on entertainment (24%), as well as the state of US transportation technology (22%). A trip to Disneyland reinforced the American focus on entertainment (32%), as well as the influence of capitalism (21%). Finally, a trip to the Los Angeles County Fair showed them that America is family-oriented (28%) and indulges in food (24%). Participants noted that their strongest impression or ‘take-away idea’ from these activities was a sense for American values (48%). Other varied responses (41%) included comments on American diversity (cultural and economic), technology, and the influence of capitalism.

S.J. Paik et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 49 (2015) 100–113

109

Observations and intercultural interactions. Fellows reported a variety of American values they observed that helped them understand the US better. One way in which this happened was through observing TEA leadership interactions, in which they saw equality (53%) and mutual respect (38%). From their time in meetings they observed American values (41%) including egalitarianism or respect and the importance of efficiency (27%). Insights from their own activities during general free time included a sense for American values (49%), and American friendliness (26%). During the four unscheduled days in which many Fellows traveled to other cities, Fellows reported being struck by the emphasis on capitalism (29%), as well as the artificial (man-made) grandiosity of the cities (28%).4 Through contact with ‘Friendship Families,’ they learned that Americans are family-oriented (42%) and generous (20%); their ‘take away’ memory from time with Friendship Families elicited varied responses (38%), though many specifically mentioned how accommodating the families were to them in order to give them the best experience possible (27%). Observing US classrooms and intercultural experiences. Participants had mostly positive experiences in the K12 classrooms in which they conducted their clinical work and in the university-based classrooms in which they received their professional development coursework. By observing teacher-to-teacher interactions at the K12 setting, they found K12 faculty to be either collaborative (55%) or non-interactive (25%). They reported that their interactions with K12 teachers were characterized by friendliness (55%) and that K12 teachers were accommodating (25%). When observing teacher-to-student interactions at their K12 clinical settings, many Fellows were struck by positive student/teacher interactions (47%) and unexpected student/teacher interactions (often, by a lack of formality) (24%). Finally, they observed interactions between K12 teachers and K12 supervisors, particularly noting teachers’ autonomy (35%) as well as the friendliness of these interactions (29%). As Fellows reflected on similarities and differences of the US and their home countries’ schools in general, high responses related to system structure and interactivity. For example, they compared their university-based courses and higher education courses in their home country, noting similar structures (60%); differences noted related to interactivity (39%) and informality (29%) in the US. Prominent similarities between US and home country secondary schools included system structures (40%) and classroom interactivity (31%), while others listed differences in system structures (39%) and the fact that US schools (both K12 and university-level) have many more resources than schools in their home countries (25%). 5.2. Interviews Overall program and intercultural experiences. Two broad questions opened the interview, focusing on Fellows’ objectives in participating in the Program and whether they had met these goals. The Fellows’ indicated their main objectives for participating in the Program were to see and experience America (35%), improve and learn teaching skills (31%), apply and share experiences (19%), and improve their English skills (11%). The Fellows believed they had accomplished their goals through enhanced educational knowledge (47%), multicultural perspectives (31%), and improved English (15%). See Table 2 for more details. The Fellows reported that they would recommend (55%) the Program to others, that they were already recommending the Program to others (21%), and that they had concrete plans to share their experience broadly (e.g., through workshops or press conferences) (14%). The Fellows described their overall TEA experiences as great overall (54%), life changing (29%), intense and enriching (11%), among other positive effects (10%). Intercultural knowledge: other cultures and self-awareness. The Fellows’ responses to questions about perceptions of other cultures before coming to the US indicated they did not know or were culturally unaware (38%), had superficial factual knowledge of other cultures (33%), had negative expectations (12%), and anticipated unknown differences (7%). Other responses varied (10%), including known awareness of cultural differences (for example, from previous intercultural experiences). Fellows’ perceptions of other cultures after the TEA Program fell into categories of recognizing differences in cultural behaviors (55%), recognizing human commonalities (32%), and other (13%) such as being more tolerant, no change in perceptions due to no prior bias, and wanting to learn more about other cultures. The Fellows reported that the experiences that best helped them to understand other cultures were spending free time with other Fellows (34%), living with roommates (27%), home culture presentations5 (11%), ‘Sunday Fun Activities’ (5%), and other (22%), such as resolving conflicts, being oneself, cooking and dining together, being tolerant and respectful, and getting to know others. The Fellows’ responses to whether their perspectives toward their own culture changed as a result of the TEA Program indicated that many had come to believe that changes were needed in their home country or culture (61%) or that there was no change in perspective (25%). Other remaining responses (14%) varied, including recognizing how others view their home countries. Host country knowledge: US in perspective. The Fellows’ responses about perceptions of American culture before participating in the TEA Program indicated a negative view (54%) or a positive view of the United States (33%). Other remaining responses varied (13%), including an awareness of cultural differences, fast food, and the perception that the United States is tolerant. Their responses regarding changing perceptions of American culture indicated a change toward a

4

A number of the Fellows visited Las Vegas and the Hoover Dam. Each Fellow at University X did an hour-long presentation on his/her home countries/cultures. These presentations were called ‘Home Country Presentations.’ 5

110

S.J. Paik et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 49 (2015) 100–113

more positive view (31%), that American culture is open, hospitable, and friendly (26%), a confirmed positive view (24%), that Americans are orderly and follow rules (6%), and that Americans are clean and environmentally friendly (4%). Other responses varied (9%), including comments on capitalism and that the Program had given them a wider perspective. The Fellows reported that the experiences that best helped them to understand American culture were interactions with their Friendship Families (31%), free time (27%), their clinical experiences (20%), ‘Sunday Fun Activities’ (13%), and coursework (9%). The activities that challenged their thinking or comfort level were the clinical experience (39%), completing program requirements (14%), and activities involving multicultural contexts (11%). Other remaining responses varied (36%), including interactiveness, observing students kissing in school, different social statuses, amount of money spent on entertainment, and issues related to sexual orientation. The Fellows reported that their most memorable experiences in the US were travels to cities and other sites (48%), interacting with Americans (29%), and interactions with TEA Program staff and faculty (13%). Other remaining responses varied (10%), including comments on being a student and the roommate experience. 6. Discussion The survey and interview data indicate that the TEA Fellows were universally positive in their perceptions of their own professional and personal growth through the intercultural experiences and exposure to the program and to each other. According to the Fellows, the Program had overall positive effects on their intercultural competence in terms of their experiences and interactions with other cultures. They also felt they had acquired valuable new teaching skills and knowledge from their professional development opportunities through an international setting. 6.1. Increased intercultural knowledge One major component of the TEA Program involved increasing the Fellows’ intercultural perspectives, awareness, and sensitivity. The ‘managed’ program activities support Allport’s (1954) assertion that properly designed contact can reduce prejudice and make individuals recognize fallacies in their beliefs about other cultures. The Program helped facilitate positive changes in the attitudes and actions of Fellows through intercultural experiences. This was done in a variety of ways: it was a component of classroom instruction, the roommate experience, and TEA activities. Results of the interviews and surveys indicate that all of these components were instrumental in bringing about positive change in intercultural awareness and acceptance among the Fellows. Many Fellows indicated that simply spending time with other Fellows, either in official TEA activities or during free time, gave them the opportunity to observe differences in perspectives and behaviors both between and within cultural groups. In other words, there was both an acknowledgement of cultural patterns and individual differences, the nuanced idea of intercultural competence advocated by Le Roux (2002). Parsing out what was cultural from individual personality traits was a major focus of many respondents’ learning in this area. For example, one Fellow from Eastern Europe commented that she had originally thought that the Fellows from Asia were shy. However, through her interactions with them, she found that they observed cultural notions of respect and deference that she had misinterpreted as shyness due to the differing norms of her own culture. Several Fellows also mentioned increasing their level of tolerance and patience as well as learning from one another through programmatic functions. One participant mentioned that by explaining and understanding others’ actions, Fellows ‘gradually [came to] feel more at ease with one another.’ The deepest changes in perspectives about other cultures seemed to arise from the interactions with roommates from other cultures, a result consistent with the intercultural contact hypothesis. One Fellow remarked that living together forced her to engage in deep interactions: ‘You can know somebody from a distance and have so many misconceptions, but when you live with them and then you have. . . to figure out what were the reasons for her to do this or that, you have to put some effort to understand this person. Because if you do not live with this person, then you could just choose to not hang out with them. But if you live in the same room, you have to find time to figure it out.’ Another component of increased intercultural knowledge involved observations of basic human similarities. Participants talked of the shared need or desire for love, respect, kindness, and compassion, and, for some of the Fellows, this was the greatest part of their intercultural learning experience. This understanding also came about from observations of and interactions with other Fellows, both during TEA activities and free time. The Program also helped Fellows increase their intercultural capacities by debunking previous stereotypes. For example, one participant previously believed Americans underestimated people from developing countries, ‘but found out that is not true.’ Importantly, many Fellows mentioned changing their attitudes and views on previously held beliefs. For example, more than one Fellow mentioned that their interactions and exposures to other Fellows helped challenge their overgeneralized stereotype of Muslim women as quiet and submissive. 6.2. Improved teacher skills All Fellows agreed that the Program had enhanced their teaching skills. The TEA Program fostered an intercultural exchange for global educators in a host country. These additional program benefits included learning about specific strategies or activities, gaining technological knowledge, and greater pedagogical understanding of the nature of education and the teaching/learning process. Coursework at the university, technology classes, and the clinical experience in schools were

S.J. Paik et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 49 (2015) 100–113

111

instrumental, though to varying degrees for different Fellows. One Fellow, who stayed in contact with others in the TEA Program from her country who were sent to other host universities, remarked that this university seemed to be the only one to offer courses and clinical experiences at the same time, and that the simultaneity of these two components were added strengths. Fellows’ responses suggest that perhaps the greatest growth in teaching skills involved changed pedagogical perspectives. In the surveys, Fellows repeatedly remarked upon differentiated learning (the idea that ‘students will not all understand lessons with only one method,’ as one Fellow wrote) and student-centered learning. The underlying message was that authentic learning happens when focusing on the student and that all students can learn when in the right environment. These experiences gave new perspectives to many teachers from countries with different educational practices and beliefs; for example, a Fellow from India indicated that students in her country are segregated into groups of high, average and low performing students while another explained that students are merely ‘receivers’ of knowledge in Thailand. Several Fellows supported this notion in their survey answers, writing that ‘the role of the teacher is to guide and help- this makes students feel comfortable;’ ‘the role of teacher is to engage students;’ and ‘students are the center of teaching.’ One interviewee put it this way: ‘Before, I thought that educating was just presenting, and then testing, just checking to see if they got it. But now, I am checking to make sure I did a good job.. . . Education is finding ways to make people really understand and acquire the knowledge, and making sure that they did.’

6.3. Improved knowledge of the host country Many Fellows had as a basic goal for their time in the Program an increased understanding of the US and its culture, and participants universally agreed that the TEA Program was highly effective in this regard. Most participants’ only prior knowledge of the United States was through its movies, and many remarked that they expected racial divisiveness, a rich and spoiled citizenry, or an uncaring and apathetic culture. There were a few participants who had prior experience in the US and/or positive views of US culture, but these were in the minority. No matter their prior perspectives, Fellows credited the extensive contact they had with Americans for their positive perceptions of American culture after the Program. ‘Sunday Fun Activities’ and free time unearthed the diversity of American culture for the Fellows. They observed an appreciation for art and entertainment. ‘People in America felt really free to express their personalities and they do it in different ways,’ one Fellow wrote. Participants mentioned diversity in all facets of the culture. They witnessed the time and care American people give to their family and children. They also noticed that Americans balanced both the ethic of hard work with the importance of leisure as ‘American people seem busy but enjoy their free time.’ Several of them mentioned the necessity of a car—‘a personal car here is like a family member.’ The clinical experience and university coursework offered another chance to observe American culture. Fellows noted the mutual respect in the teacher–student relationship. One participant remarked, ‘[Students] can always come up and talk, ask questions and get help.’ They saw meaningful collaboration, positive interactions and friendliness between teachers and students. In fact, they even observed ‘teachers and students giggl[ing] together.’ They also noted the informal atmosphere that often included students being allowed to eat in class. One Fellow called US students flexible and relaxed, with ‘more freedom.’ One Fellow shared that Thai students ‘express ideas less in class than US students.’ Generally, they found US university and K-12 classrooms to be more student-centered. Fellows shared new understandings through observing the organization and structure of TEA meetings. They noticed efficiency and proper planning in American meetings, saying they ‘run like a Swiss watch.’ Other core American values were touched upon; interestingly, several Fellows were surprised and even initially disturbed by having food available during meetings. One Fellow sees this combination of food and American style meetings as an opportunity for bonding and to ‘be closer to each other.’ Though all types of contact with Americans helped the Fellows understand American culture, of special note were the Friendship Family experience and their interactions with TEA staff and faculty. For example, one Fellow noticed a lack of using titles among TEA staff, and another that conversations with supervisors were less formal. Knowledge also increased by observing Friendship Families. Many were impressed by how generous and family-oriented they were and remarked on how that helped shape their understanding of America. One participant initially thought Americans were superficial, yet learned ‘they can do much more than smile.’ One Fellow spoke of two instances with her Friendship Families that greatly impacted her. One was a trip to a Bunco game, in which she participated with a group of women chatting and having fun ‘like any other females in the world.’ The other experience happened at a birthday party, at which there were ‘nine or ten people. . . and I was amazed by these people—they were talking about poetry: about Virginia Woolf, about Edgar Allen Poe. I was immersed in a very literary, artistic world. So American people can be anything.’ The impact of Fellows’ contact with the host country was overall very positive. America itself, was described as ‘a beautiful country.’ Its people were considered to be ‘friendly, fun, hospitable, clean, hardworking people who loved their families and made the most of every minute of their time.’ Those with whom they had the most contact (i.e., TEA staff and faculty, Friendship Family members) were observed to be very egalitarian in their interactions with others, incredibly compassionate, and genuinely concerned about the welfare of the Fellows.

112

S.J. Paik et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 49 (2015) 100–113

7. Conclusion and implications Intercultural awareness and sensitivity, knowledge of diverse countries and cultures, and professional development opportunities provided important learning experiences for the participating teachers in the TEA program. An intercultural perspective was managed and fostered through various activities and relationship-building such as team meetings and projects, clinical experiences in schools, collaborating with teacher partners, workshops, home country presentations, friendship families, spending time with other Fellows, roommate experiences, and cultural and civic activities. Through the intercultural exchange, the program provided opportunities for professional development through exposure to diverse students, classrooms, schools, and cultures in a host country. University coursework, technological workshops, and clinical classroom experiences were instrumental in their learning process. Within these ‘managed’ settings, new ideas and teaching strategies were shared among TEA leaders, partner teachers, and Fellows. Fellows also collaborated and learned from each other through team projects and meetings. Consistent with the intercultural contact hypothesis, the ‘managed’ interactions between Fellows of different cultures, as well as their experiences in their host country appeared to greatly influence their intercultural perspectives. In fact, the more prolonged and deep this contact was, the greater its impact was felt and the more highly it ranked among the responses of the participants. As the Fellows have remained in contact with the TEA leadership team and staff even after their departure, there is reason to believe from their communications that this impact will continue to be sustained. While these results are highly positive, as noted earlier, a case study design in general does not utilize control groups. The aim of this qualitative case study was to explore teacher perceptions of their own personal and professional experiences as educators. Based on the Fellows’ responses, all strongly agreed that the TEA program met their goals. Towards the end of the program, all Fellows felt that they had acquired new information and gained a new set of skills in terms of their own intercultural competence, cultural knowledge and awareness, and professional development in teacher education. Many even felt that their 6-week experience was ‘life-changing’. Although the sample size was relatively small and many participants were hand-selected as teacher-leaders in their own countries, a number of countries were represented in this study. Future studies might also incorporate more than one particular site as other programs may have managed intercultural interactions differently. Nevertheless, the case study provided a rare opportunity to observe 22 educators across twelve countries throughout 6-weeks. Many Fellows also made particular mention of the well-organized program and the level of detail carried out by University X. Despite some of the limitations of this study, the participating teachers in the TEA Program felt that they had gained skills both personally and professionally. The international and cultural experiences in the TEA program supported their intercultural knowledge and competence, while providing the professional development opportunities desired by these teachers in a study abroad setting. While the program was well-received, at the same time, educators need to realize that international program experiences are rare; intercultural sensitivity still needs to cultivated locally, if not in their own backyards. Nevertheless, the potential of such study abroad programs to foster intercultural understanding, provide personal and professional opportunities for growth, and develop cross-cultural relations to educators across the globe offers new opportunities and important implications to our global society. In the 21st century, intercultural sensitivity and awareness are critical to cross-cultural communication in all fields, especially education. Intercultural competence is imperative for teachers; the goals of mutual understanding and a pluralistic civil society cannot happen without committed teachers. Educators who are capable of making culturally competent cognitive and behavioral choices not only encourage students to become globally aware, culturally sensitive, and better citizens, but also support the pluralistic ideals of equity, diversity, and social justice. References Alfaro, C. (2008). Global student teaching experiences: stories bridging culture and inter-cultural difference. Multicultural Education, 15(4), 20–26. Alfaro, C., & Quezada, R. L. (2010). International teacher professional development: teacher reflections of authentic teaching and learning experiences. Teaching Education, 21(1), 47–59. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books. Aronson, E., & Patnoe, S. (1997). The jigsaw classroom: building cooperation in the classroom (2nd Ed.)). New York: Addison Wesley Longman. Bayles, P. P. (2009). Assessing the intercultural sensitivity of elementary teachers in bilingual schools in a Texas school district. In Doctoral dissertation. University of Minnesota. Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 255–343). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press. Cushner, K., & Mahon, J. (2009). Intercultural competence in teacher education—developing the intercultural competence of educators and their students: creating the blueprints. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 304–320). Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. DeJaeghere, J. G., & Cao, Y. (2009). Developing U.S. teachers’ intercultural competence: does professional development matter? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(5), 437–447. Deardorff, D. K. (2008). Intercultural competence: a definition, model, and implications for education abroad. In V. Savicki (Ed.), Developing intercultural competence and transformation: theory, research, and application in international education (pp. 32–52). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Fantini, A., & Tirmizi, A. (2006). Exploring and assessing intercultural competence. World Learning Publications. Available at: http://digitalcollections.sit.edu/worldlearning publications/1 (Accessed 14.05.12). Gay, G. (2006). Connections between classroom management and culturally responsive teaching. In C. M. Evertson, & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management (pp. 343–372). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Heyl, J. D., & McCarthy, J. (2003). International education and teacher preparation in the US. In Global challenges and US higher education: national needs and policy implications Durham, NC, January 23. Hicks, D. (2003). Thirty years of global education: a reminder of key principles and precedents. Educational Review, 55(3), 265–275.

S.J. Paik et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 49 (2015) 100–113

113

Kissock, C. (1997). Student teaching overseas. In M. M. Merryfield, E. Jarchow, & S. Pickert (Eds.), Preparing teachers to teach global perspectives: a handbook for teacher education (pp. 123–142). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Klump, J., & Nelson, S. (2005). Research-based resources: cultural competency of schools and teachers in relation to student success. Oregon: Oregon Department of Education. Available at: http://www.ode.state.or.us/opportunities/grants/saelp/cuturlcmptencebibnwrel.pdf (Accessed 16.03.12). Le Roux, J. (2002). Effective educators are culturally competent communicators. Intercultural Education, 13(1), 37–48. Lindsey, R. B., Graham, S. M., Westphal, R. C., & Jew, C. L. (2008). Culturally proficient inquiry: a lens for identifying and examining educational gaps. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Lindsey, R. B., Robbins, K. N., & Terrell, R. D. (2003). Cultural proficiency: a manual for school leaders (2nd Ed.)). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Mehta, K., Brannon, M. L., Zappe, S., Colledge, T., & Zhao, Y. (2010). Eplum model of student engagement: expanding non-travel based global awareness, multi-disciplinary teamwork and entrepreneurial mindset development. American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference Proceedings, 1–14. Merryfield, M. (2000). Why aren’t teachers being prepared to teach for diversity, equity, and global interconnectedness? A study of lived experiences in the making of multicultural and global educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(4), 429–443. Merryfield, M. (2003). Like a veil: cross-cultural experiential learning online. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 3(2), 146–171. Merryfield, M. M. (1991). Preparing American secondary social studies teachers to teach with a global perspective. Journal of Teacher Education, 42, 11–20. Merryfield, M. M. (1996). Making connections between multicultural and global education. Washington, DC: The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Moule, J. (2012). Cultural competence a primer for educators. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Multicultural, Diversity and Inclusion Network Groups. (2009). Multiculturalism, diversity and inclusion exchange diversity tool kit. In American Occupational Therapy Association Conference Houston, TX, April 23–26. Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review Psychology, 49, 65–85. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. Pike, G. (2000). Global education and national identity: in pursuit of meaning. Theory into Practice, 39(2), 64–73. Robins, K. N., Lindsey, R. D., Lindsey, D. B., & Terrell, R. D. (2002). Culturally proficient instructors: a guide for people who teach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Sahin, M. (2008). Cross-cultural experience in preservice teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(7), 1777–1790. Schiappa, E., Gregg, P. B., & Hewes, D. E. (2005). The parasocial contact hypothesis. Communication Monographs, 72(1), 92–115. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday. Sinicrope, C., Norris, J., & Watanabe, Y. (2007). Understanding and assessing intercultural competence: a summary of theory, research, and practice. (Technical report for the foreign language program evaluation project). Second Language Studies, 26(1), 1–58. Tropp, L. A., & Pettigrew, T. F. (2005). Relationships between intergroup contact and prejudice among minority and minority status groups. American Sociological Society, 16, 951–957. Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2007). Responding to changing demographics: the culturally responsive teacher. Educational Leadership, 6(6), 28–33. Whitley, B. E., & Kite, M. E. (2010). The psychology of prejudice and discrimination. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Wilson, A. H. (1993). Conversation partners: helping students gain a global perspective through cross-cultural experiences. Theory into Practice, 32(1), 21–26. Wright, S. C. (2009). Cross-group contact effects. In S. Otten, T. Kessler, & K. Sassenberg (Eds.), Intergroup relations: the role of emotion and motivation (pp. 262–283). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Yamazaki, M. (2007). Shifting from intercultural communication competence to multicultural communication competence: A development of the concept and the application. In World Communication Association 2007 Conference Brisbane, Australia, July.

Susan J. Paik is an Associate Professor in the School of Educational Studies at Claremont Graduate University. Her research interests include international and urban studies, educational and human productivity, minority learning and achievement, family–school–community partnerships, research methods and evaluation. DeLacy Evans Ganley is an Associate Professor in the School of Educational Studies at Claremont Graduate University. She directs the University’s Teacher Education Program. Her research interests include teacher preparation & quality, the education of marginalized youth, and global contexts for teaching/learning. Thomas F. Luschei is an Associate Professor in the School of Educational Studies at Claremont Graduate University. His research interests include international comparative education, teacher quality and teacher labor markets, and educational reform in developing countries. Stacy M. Kula received her doctoral degree from the School of Educational Studies at Claremont Graduate University. Her research interests include the education of immigrant and 2nd-generation students, multilingual education, urban schools, teacher education, and family–community–school partnerships. Matthew A. Witenstein received his doctoral degree from the School of Educational Studies at Claremont Graduate University. His research interests include international comparative education, immigrant education, and educational reform in developing countries. Yujiro Shimogori received his degree from Claremont Graduate University and San Diego State University’s joint doctoral program. His research interests include human developmental psychology, bicultural identity development, second language acquisition, and multicultural education. Krissyvan K. Truong received her doctoral degree in the School of Educational Studies at Claremont Graduate University. Her research interests include college access, persistence, and success among Southeast Asian students, international comparative education, education and economic development, and education stratification.