progress with writing

Today I have almost finished my depth paper on Intercultural competence and distance education. I will be discussing some the definitions of intercultural competence and the reason why it is some vital in our world today. I will also be examining distance education, its history and what has been its evolutionary development, to what it may become in the future. Finally I will look at the links that tie both intercultural competency and distance education presently and what I think could happen in the future.

Continuous Improvement

http://mywebspiration.com/view/389724a28e9d

two kinds of research

http://mywebspiration.com/view/389686ab93f

Philosophic foundations grid

http://mywebspiration.com/view/389666a171db

Johnson on action research

Johnson, A. P. (2002). A short guide to action research. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Johnson defined action research by six steps: “1. define question, problem, area of interest; 2. plan data collection; 3. collect and analyze data; 4. create an action plan; 5. share findings and plan of action; 6. review of literature” (p. 14).

Johnson stated that there are three “essential parts of establishing accuracy and credibility in any research project are validity, reliability and triangulation” (p. 72). He defined validity as using “the type of data . . . [which provides] the most accurate understanding possible of your research topic” (p. 72). He defined triangulation as “looking at something from more than one perspective . . . [using] various data sources” (p. 73). Finally, he stated that although reliability is something that is repeatable and gives the same results and you can get that to happen in most “traditional experimental research”, it does not take place in action research (p. 73). Action research is “messy, real-world events in which humans are mucking about . . . each time we search and research we expect to see different things” (p. 73). Because of this, the results of action research are limited in their application. They can only be applied to the actual situation where the research took place and other situations that are very similar.

Greenwood & Levin

Greenwood and Levin gave a historical progression of the concepts of action research. Many sources agree with Greenwood and Levin that action research started with Kurt Lewin (1939) with his seminal idea of doing research in the “field rather than [in] the laboratory” (Reason & Bradbury, 1998, p. 17). Greenwood and Levin stated that Lewin was a “social psychologist” who fled Germany when Nazism started to spread (1998, p. 16). Lewin developed a three step process for social change: “dismantling former structures (unfreezing), changing the structures (changing), and finally locking them back to a permanent structure (freezing) (p. 17). Greenwood and Levin further described that Lewin’s second contribution was his ideas on “group dynamics, identifying factors and forces important for development, conflict and cooperation in groups, [which] led to the concept of T-groups” (p. 17). Lewins’s ideas, according to Greenwood and Levin, was a “short-term intervention” rather than what it is today, which is “continuous and participatory learning process” (p. 18). Nevertheless, Lewin’s ideas on group dynamics have remained to be key to action research.

The next step in the historical development of action research that Greenwood and Levin described is the work done in Norway from “the Norwegian Industrial Democracy Project” which was led by “Einar Thorsrud . . . a psychologist and . . . human resource manager of a Norwegian company” (1998, p. 20). Greenwood and Lewin related the story of how a village in Norway was revitalized through the work of Levin and Nilssen (1988). The process of action research and “task forces” within the Norwegian population (p. 37) led to a refocus of the type of labor done by the village from smelting, which had lost its market, to fishing, tourism, building high end boats, and a knife factor (p. 40). Levin was “active in a number of AR programs in Norway and Sweden . . . [and] is a professor at the Norwegian University for Science and Technology at Trondheim . . . [where he] has been the leader in the creation of combined engineering and AR programs there” (p. 10).

Greenwood and Levin proposed a type of action research that has the goal of “democratic social change” which implement “democratic rules [which] guide decision making” (Greenwood & Levin, 1998, p. 11). Initially they entitled their school of action research as “pragmatic action research” (p. 11) but later in the article they called it “participatory action research (PAR)” (p. 174). For these authors democracy was important because it supports “multiplicity of meanings” and “respects and enhances the diversity of groups” (p. 11). As they stated, “we believe that diversity is one of the most important features of human societies” (p. 12); these differences that often divide groups are viewed by Greenwood and Levin “as a rich social resource that, when effectively mobilized, gives a group or an organization a much greater capacity to transform itself” (p. 12).

Greenwood and Levin divide PAR into two camps—northern and southern. The southern PAR “has clearer moral content . . . [and] its alignment [is] with the poor and oppressed of the world” (Greenwood & Levin, 1998, p. 175). The northern PAR is “co-opted and collaborationist with power holders” and because of that, their research does not affect the type of social change or power change that the southern branch is defined by (Greenwood & Levin, p. 175). They also linked southern PAR with radical feminism because both groups share the same agenda of “fundamental alteration in the distribution of power” (Greenwood & Levin, p. 176). Greenwood and Levin further defined PAR by differentiating it from “standard revolutionary praxis or orthodox labor organizing tactics” because it “relies much more on the knowledge analyses, and efforts of local people” (p. 177).

The final type of action research that Greenwood and Levin discussed is Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) (also know as Rapid Rural Appraisal, RRA) which is “strongly associated with . . . a single practitioner: Robert Chambers” (p. 246). Although they are highly critical of this type of action research because it has a “complete lack of baseline data” and it because it works from the outside either as a non-governmental organization (NGO) or non-profit organization, it can often be corrupted. As they stated, “PRA, through an array of techniques, in the hands of incompetent or insincere practitioners can become an empty formalism, a set of ritual steps to go through rather than a set of tools to be deployed differently as the complexities of local situations become better understood” (pp. 248-249). At its worst, PRA is an extractive approach to information in which data are gathered for the purposes of the development agency rather than for meeting the espoused intention of having the agency’s programs built to suit the needs of the community”(p. 249). PRA is further defined by the fact that it is a “short-term” project rather than the traditional time-frame of action research which is a long-term cycle of interventions, evaluations and adjusted interventions (p. 250). Because of being short-term, “PRA is not likely to alter exiting power relations” (p. 250). Even with their strong criticism of PRA, they finished their description by stating that “PRA is a far better option than previous practices for agencies that are the plainly coercive political arms of foreign governments” (p. 251).

McNiff & Whitehead on Action Research

Action Research

McNiff, J. & Whitehead, J. (2002). Action research principles and practice, 2^nd ed. London: Routledge/Falmer.

“The basic action research process can be described as:

• We review our current practice
• Identify an aspect we want to improve
• Imagine a way forward
• Try it out
• Take stock of what happens
• We modify our plan in the light of what we have found and continue with the ‘action’
• Evaluate the modified action
• And so on until we are satisfied with that aspect of our work” (quoting Mc Niff et al, (1996), Mc Niff & Whitehead, 2002, p. 71)

Action research is focused on how to improve the learning that takes place, not necessarily the test scores of the class. As McNiff and Whitehead stated, “as an action research you would not ask questions of the kind, ‘How many people have achieved a specified level of expertise?’; you would ask ‘How do I help Y to learn more effectively?’(McNiff & Whitehead, p. 85). McNiff and Whitehead suggested that “you need to stay focused on one issue, and get on the inside of it and understand it . . . concentrating on only one part of your work helps you to understand the nature and process of your own learning” (p. 85).

McNiff and Whitehead discussed the issue of validity and how the criteria differ in “traditional conventions” from “action research” (p. 106). This is a problem that has “largely to do with power and politics” (p. 106). Traditional science research values the ideas of “replicability and generalisability” but these are not useful in action research (p. 107). As Winter (1989) suggested that the validity of action research could be established by six “new kinds of criteria for assessing action research reports” (p. 107). His ideas included a “reflective critique”, a “dialectical critique”, working with the subjects of the study in a collaborative manner which will enable the researcher to “accommodate a multiplicity of viewpoints” (p. 107).

McNiff and Whitehead clearly stated their disagreement with those within the action research family who want to set strict definitions on what action research consists and what it does not; “I do not believe that action research is a rigidly definable form of practice . . . I have always resisted being corralled into one camp or another” (p. 140). As they summarized, “If we are going to talk about action research and good social orders we need to step into the light of day and show how we are prepared to live out our rhetoric in our practice, otherwise we should be silent about these matter” (p. 140).

John Dewey -- Education Today

John Dewey integrated two ideas into his foundation for educational philosophy. He stated that the educator should consider the inner qualities of the student, the "psychological insight into the child's capacities, interests and habits" (p. 6) and the "sociological" aspect which is "the stimulation of the child's powers by the demands of the social situation in which he finds himself" (p. 3). The focus of the classroom are activities constructed by the teacher with the inner qualities in mind to make education effective.

Dewey seems very contemporary in his understanding of the methods needed. He stated "the active side precedes the passive in the development of the child-nature; that expression comes before conscious impression; that the muscular development precedes the sensory; that movements come before conscious sensations; I believe that consciousness is essentially motor or impulsive; that conscious states tend to project themselves in action" (p. 12).

Dewey further stated that it was a mistake to place a student "into a passive, receptive or absorbing attitude" (p. 13). In this idea he and Freire had the same concept of what is true education. Dewey held that real education takes place within the mind of the student. "What a child gets out of any subject presented to him is simply the images which he forms with regard to it [in his mind]" (p. 13). "If nine-tenths of the energy at present directed towards making the child learn certain things were spent in seeing to it that the child was forming proper images, the work of instruction would be indefinitely facilitated" (p. 13). Dewey was asking educators to construct the teaching environment to assist the student to learn and then to assess quickly and accurately if learning has taken place, and re-teach in another way if needed. This sounds very much like what is being suggested by our administrators and professional learning communities.

reflections on Paulo Freire

Freire defined “the term, conscientização [as] learning to perceive social, political and economic contradictions and to take action against the oppressive elements of reality” (p. 17). Freire stated that instead of destroying their world, conscientização “enrolls them (the oppressed) in the search for self-affirmation and thus avoid fanaticism” (p. 18).

It is interesting to me that Freire links Christians and Marxists together in the same group as the ones who would be the most open to his ideas. He stated that although “they may disagree with me . . . [they] will continue reading to the end” (p. 19). The explanation that he suggested is that these two groups are both in agreement with human liberation and recognize that man is presently being oppressed. In this definition, Freire describes both of these groups as radical. “The radical, committed to human liberation, does not become the prisoner of a ‘circle of certainty’ within which reality is also imprisoned. On the contrary, the more radical the person is, the more fully he or she enters into reality so that, knowing it better he or she can better transform it. This individual is not afraid to confront, to listen, to see the world unveiled. This person is not afraid to meet the people or to enter into dialogue with them. This person does not consider himself or herself the proprietor of history or of all people, or the liberator of the oppressed; but he or she does commit himself or herself, within history, to fight at their side. The pedagogy of the oppressed . . . is a task for radicals; it cannot be carried out by sectarians” (p. 21). Freire defined sectarianism as “any quarter, [which] is an obstacle to the emancipation of mankind” (p. 19).

I was surprised by Freire’s statement that the oppressors do not have the power or “strength to liberate either the oppressed or themselves . . . only [the] power that springs from the weakness of the oppressed will be sufficiently strong to free [them] both” (p. 26). It is almost Biblical in nature; in our weakness, we are strong. As he explained, “who can better understand the necessity of liberation?” (p. 27). Freire further challenged the oppressed to not turn and become oppressors themselves after freeing themselves, but choose to become “restorers of the humanity of both” (p. 26).

What then is the role of the oppressor in this liberation? Freire stated that “the oppressor is solidary with the oppressed only when he stops regarding the oppressed as an abstract category and sees them as persons who have been unjustly dealt with, deprived of their voice, cheated in the sale of their labor—when he stops making pious, sentimental, and individualistic gestures and risks an act of love . . . to affirm that men and women are persons and as persons should be free” (p. 32).

I can understand the power of what Freire achieved in Brazil because he not only taught peasants to read, his word and his philosophy empowered them to become their own liberators. They were the ones who “recognize or begin to recognize themselves as oppressed [and they] must be among the developers of the pedagogy” (pp. 35-36). The pedagogy “cannot be developed or practiced by the oppressors”; it needs to be far away from any “models from among the oppressors” (p. 36).

Freire quoted Memmi in describing the contradiction of feelings that the oppressed have about the oppressor. The oppressed have a “colonized mentality” where they at the same time hate the oppressor and yet want to be just like him (Memmi, 1967, p. x). The solution that Freire found to counter this emotional contraction was conscientização, which would lead to “transformation” (p. 49).

Another concept that Freire tackled was the philosophy of education. He viewed the whole concept of tabula rasa as another type of oppression; He defined this type of thinking as the “banking concept of education” where teachers are depositing knowledge into empty “receptacles” (p. 53). The problem with this type of educational philosophy is that the teacher is viewed as the only holder of the power of education and the students are seen as completely ignorant; the students “never discover that they educate the teacher” (p. 53). Freire despairingly called these teachers as “bank-clerk teachers who do not realize that they are serving only to dehumanize” (p. 56).

The type of education that Freire suggested was problem-posing education, which differs from the banking type of education because it “breaks the vertical patterns . . . through dialogue” (p. 61). “The teacher is no longer merely the-one-who-teaches, but one who is himself taught in dialogues with the students, who in turn while being taught also teach” (p. 61).

Freire’s defined action research as cultural action which consisted of “action and reflection: it is praxis; it is transformation of the world” p. 106). “Cultural action is always a systematic and deliberate form of action which operates upon the social structure . . . either serves domination (consciously or unconsciously) or it serves the liberation of men and women” (p. 160).

What was Freire's legacy...he changed lives in Brazil and the thinking of his students at Harvard, but what is his enduring effect? I went on-line and looked for any evidence. I found the website www.freireproject.org which has complete description of what Freire did, but also what others who joined him continue to do. This organization has established educational entities in over 20 countries world wide and 23 of the 50 states here in the U.S. The foundations for critical pedagogy is directly related to this work that has been done by Freire, McLaren, Kincheloe and others.

Argyris in his book, Reasoning, learning and action: Individual and organizational presented some foundational ideas for action research. Although this book was difficult at first to read, once I understood the basic concepts and definitions that Argyris proposed, his ideas were clear and practical in actual situations. The first concept that Argyris presented was the idea of single loop learning versus double loop learning. When a problem exists, Argyris suggested that most of the time I will look for the simple cause and try to fix that. Finding the simple cause and fixing it is an example of single loop learning applied to a single loop problem. The main problem with this type of learning is that many of the problems I encounter in a work situation or in an educational setting are not simple single loop problems. Many problems exist because of problems with the underlying philosophies or assumptions that exist within the system that need to be examined and reevaluated (Argyris, 1982).

In reading his explanation of action research I realized that action research is similar to the work that my husband does as a church health consultant. Action research is not the same as “normal science” (Argyris, 1982, p. 491). It does not have a control group because “the action scientist . . . has little or no control over the environment” (Argyris, p. 491). Unlike pure science, action science is working with a client who expects help. Another difference between “normal science” and action science is the idea of failure. When an experiment does not proceed along the lines that the experimenter expected, that experiment should be considered a “failure” (Argyris, p. 492). In action research, the actual goal of the researcher is helping the client re-examine the situation and make the necessary changes. This is more like a journey or a process and not just one experimental procedure. The action researcher and the client may have to re-examine the situation and change the response again and again until the desired result is obtained. “The action scientist is producing an experimental treatment . . . to help people become aware of their theory-in-use and the learning systems that they create . . . long complex processes . . . which are placed into action as a response to the client’s reactions” (Argyris, p. 491). Many teachers employ the process of action research when they evaluate the effectiveness of a specific method or unit of study. The goal of action science, unlike pure science, is to train the client in action methods so that the client will become an “effective interventionist” (Argyris, p. 491). In taking these actions, educators improve the effectiveness of learning process in their classrooms.

I've been review Reason and Bradbury for the philosophical foundations of Action Research. Traditional scientific research is based on rationalism (knowledge based on what we think or reason -- which uses logical argument to establish a line of thinking). This was used by Plato and Descartes. The next step in traditional scientific research was empiricism (knowledge is based on what we our senses tell us, what we experience outside of our thoughts). This was used by Aristotle and Newton and resulted in the scientific method of research. Post-modern philosophy called into question the "given" of rationalism and the objectivity of researchers in empiricism. As Gregory Bateson (1972) "argued that he . . . was deeply concerned with . . . the epistemological errors of our time and their consequences for justice and ecological sustainability. So the challenge of changing our worldview is central to our times" (as quoted in Reason & Bradbury, p. 4).

In the rejection of traditional science philosophers such as Michel Foucault proposed that knowledge was based on what society constructed because of the operation of power. As he stated, "There are, in the end, no foundations on which truth can be securely laid" (as quoted in Reason & Bradbury, p. 6). Brian Trainor, in his article on Post-modernism, truth and social work, criticised Foucault's theoretical philosophy, but "embrace the practical and methodical Foucault who recommends a full professional immersion into the real personal and social problems of everyday life" (Trainer, 2002, p. 212). Trainor thought is that action research needs to strive for the truth and best action in order to be effective.

Another school of philosophy that contributed to action research arose from liberation theology and liberation pedagogy. One of the best examples of this school of thought was Paulo Freire who proposed that education is power and education of the poor give them power. In his article, Education: Praxis de Liberte (1968) Freire outlined his thoughts on how education extends liberty to the students. In this action we can move them away from oppression and towards democracy. He paid a dear price for these ideas and had to escape to Harvard to survive.

Tentative syllabus for course

Intercultural Competence

Instructor/Facilitator: Suzanne Jones

Course objectives

We live in a time of rapid globalization in which being able to communicate across cultures is imperative to our ability to function in a diverse workplace and world. This course is not just theoretical or political, but rather it involves us as people; how you and I interact with people in our personal situation. The course is a learning journey. It starts with discovery of your own cultural heritage, and then through readings, research, online discussions this course in designed to increase your sensitivity to other cultures. You will be expected to maintain an intercultural journal, explore another culture in depth and reflect on your own cultural assumptions in various forms through this course.

The specific course objectives are:

· Analyze your own cultural values, attitudes and beliefs

· Demonstrate the awareness of their impact on your life

· Research about another culture

· Compare and contrast the value and beliefs of that culture with your own cultural heritage

· Synthesize your knowledge, skills and attitudes which will increase your intercultural competence as compared to your initial level of comprehension

Course assignments:

Pre-test/Post-test: 10%

You will be given a pre-test at the beginning of the course to determine your level of knowledge and understanding of cultural competence. At the end of the course, you will complete a post-test. The results will aid you in understanding your improvement and development.

Cultural Identity paper: 35%

This paper is designed to allow you to examine your own cultural and social heritage by answering a series of questions and then reflecting on how these beliefs, values affect your life and behavior. Your paper will be evaluated on the level of insight and y our demonstrated understanding of cultural concepts and the quality of your writing. Papers should be double space, written in APA format and should be 5-6 pages in length.

Group presentation: 20%

The course participants will be divided into groups of 2-3 individuals and will be required to research a specific culture and create a PowerPoint presentation to present your findings to the class via the class forum. The PowerPoint will need to have 20 – 25 slides and adequately represent the chosen culture to fulfill the assignment.

Your group presentation needs to show what your chosen culture looks like and sounds like and take the other class members into that culture by demonstrating as many of that culture’s norms, values and beliefs as possible. Participation is required by all members of your group and each member will receive the same letter grade. Non-participatory/supportive members who have been “fired” by the group will need to do an alternative project/assignment.

Presentation will be graded on:

· Preparation (research & planning)

· Completeness (effectiveness in demonstrating knowledge about chosen culture)

· Course relevance (use of course concepts within presentation)

Cultural study paper: 20%

In addition to the group project, you will write a 5-6 page paper that summarizes your research on the culture you have chosen. This could be a review of the literature or you answer the questions that were a part of the cultural autobiography assignment, but in terms of the chosen culture. This paper should also follow APA format and be double spaced.

Reading reports: 15%

The purpose of the reading is to give you a theoretical as well as narrative basis to understand different dynamics within Intercultural competence, you will be expected to read the assigned texts and write a one-page reflection that includes at least three quotations from the text and personal thoughts on that quote. You will publish your report online and then respond to at least two of your classmates reflections. These response posts should go beyond short sentences where you basically say whether you agree or disagree. They should draw on your personal thoughts and experiences and move the dialogue further in the class. Through this dialogue, you will gain insights and reflections that will open you up to new ideas. It is also hoped that you will find common ground with some of the other students so that you will be able to choose who you want to work with for the group project. That is the reason the 5 reading assignments, personal reflections and interactive postings are placed well before the groups need to be formed.

Required texts: (pdf files of these texts can be downloaded)

Black, S. (1999). Using Polynesian legends and folktales to encourage culture vision and creativity. Childhood Education, 75(6), 332-337.

Calderón de la Barca, F. (2007). Three Mexican rituals. New England Review, 28(1), 201-206.

Carlson, J. (1995). The stranger’s eyes. Notes on Anthropology and Intercultural Community Work, 20, 34-38. Accessed through SIL (Summer Institute of Linguistics) website, http://www.sil.org/anthro/CommunityWork.htm.

Jordan, S. A. (2001). Writing the other, writing the self: Transforming consciousness through ethnographic writing. Language and Intercultural Communication, 1(1), 40-56.

Tracy, H. (1995). Reflections on “The stranger’s eyes”: From the viewpoint of ICW/CD. Notes on Anthropology and Intercultural Community Work, 20, 29-42. Accessed through SIL (Summer Institute of Linguistics) website, http://www.sil.org/anthro/CommunityWork.htm.

Walker, P. O. (2004). Decolonizing conflict resolution. American Indian Quarterly, 28(3&4), 527-549.

Class policies

My role, as instructor, will be primarily that of a facilitator of discussions . . . someone who brings to you certain texts and readings that are relevant to the module for that week. I hope this will be a class where we can all teach each other, through our own experiences and reflections about culture in various contexts. It is my hope that the dialogue will be fun and enlightening. Respect for every student’s experience and opinion will be expected.

We will move through the modules week by week. It is obviously important that you stay current on your readings and assignments. A significant portion of the class grade depends on your active participation in the class.

Academic honesty and plagiarism: all assignments must be the student’s own original work. Any work from which you are quoting needs to be attributed to that source properly and according to APA format. Any work that is found to be plagiarized can result in an “F” on the assignment and in the class.

Grading

Pre-test/post-test MDS 100

Cultural identity paper 350

Group presentation 200

Cultural study paper 200

Reading reports 150

Total points possible 1,000

Course Schedule

Module	Topic	Class Assignment(s)
1	Multicultural dispositions survey	Take the Multicultural dispositions survey
2	Cultural identity paper	Using the cultural identity assessment questions, write a 5-6 page paper exploring your cultural heritage
3	Reading assignment #1	· Read the Jordan article. · Write a one-page reflection in your journal. · Respond to two other classmates’ reflections in the class forum.
4	Reading assignment #2	· Read The Stranger’s eyes. · Answer the questions raised in Reflections on the Stranger’s eyes in your journal. · Respond to two other classmates’ reflections in the class forum.
5	Reading assignment #3	· Read the Calderón de la Barca article. · Write a one-page reflection in your journal. · Respond to two other classmates’ reflections in the class forum.
6	Reading assignment #4	· Read the Black article. · Write a one-page reflection in your journal. · Respond to two other classmates’ reflections in the class forum.
7	Reading assignment #5	· Read the Walker article. · Write a one-page reflection in your journal. · Respond to two other classmates’ reflections in the class forum.
8	Group Presentation	Choose groups – inform instructor Research one culture Present PowerPoint to class in class forum
9	Cultural study paper	Using the research you did in the group presentation, write a 5-6 page paper detailing what you learned
10	Multicultural dispositions survey -- retest	Take the MDS and see where you have changed your thinking and where you have grown
11	Final forum and feedback	Celebration forum with class Feedback for the instructor

10 steps to group success

1. Take time to get acquainted – exchange email addresses, discuss individual schedules, break the “newness” tension.

2. Decide on norms for group member behavior – how late is late? What should members do if they are going to miss a meeting? How many meetings can members miss?

3. Clarify the task assigned – review criteria in the assignment and make sure you agree on what’s involved/expected of each group member. Ask the instructor when in doubt.

4. Create structured meetings – include in email action and/or discussion items with responsible group members names attached. Create timelines for the project.

5. Create a supportive environment in the group

6. Encourage participation of all members by having all members express ideas in a round robin method, using written comments, or rotating the recorder role.

7. Decide by consensus rather than majority voting whenever possible – be creative, combine ideas and find common ground.

8. Discuss accountability measures – make sure all members are aware of rewards and penalties for their behavior. Non-supportive behavior does not get better on its own.

9. Take time at the end of each meeting to assess progress, assign tasks and evaluate timelines. Be realistic in your assessments, groups that just hope things will “work out” do not generally succeed.

10. Accept that groups go through natural stages of development – some of which are unpleasant and uncomfortable – refuse to be a victim of circumstance or other members’ problematic behavior – understand that the absence of conflict can be a bad sign.

(adapted from Massey, L. Intercultural Communication Handouts. Accessed on 2-10-2010 http://faculty.spokanefalls.edu/inetshare/autowebs/larrym)

intercultural competence training websites

I visited a number of training websites this week to see how they structure their courses.

Most of them were business oriented. Two of those were INCA that is located in England and has multiple pdf files in English, French, German, and Spanish. They have personal inventories, video situations and role plays on line that are focused upon developing culturally aware business executives.

I also visited the Center for Culturally Responsive Teaching and Learning which offer school site seminars and workshops for helping teachers become more effective in teaching the culturally diverse student populations.

Just as a lark I looked up the Summer Institute for Linguistics which I had been familiar with in the 70's and found that they have a complete program of multicultural training and through their links found another course at Warner University's HEART program which is designed for training people that want to do overseas compassion work in other countries.

The one thing that was facinating on the SIL website was the concept of developing indigenous leadership using their community...that is using the cultural methods coming from their milieu to develop new leadership within that community. That was big for me.

Chapter 18 for reason and bradbury

Torbert talks about how action research can be done on three different levels or from an English comp point of view: in 1st person, 2nd person or 3rd person.

1st person is "personal" -- this is research to improve our own practice or performance.

2nd person is "team" -- this is research that is done through a team effort where we help each other's performance.

3rd person is "organizational" -- this is research that is done for a larger organization to help focus future policy changes

Tolbert also talked about 4 territories of experience:

1. visioning -- framing

2. strategizing -- advocating

3. performing -- illustrating

4. assessing -- inquiring

chapters for reason and bradbury

I think the most helpful chapters in this book...to finish is chapters 11, 18,22,26 and 32. These are the topics that seems to be the most appropriate for my study...what do you think?

Intercultural competence course outlines

I've been studying different approaches to course structure...from business applications, medical applications and educational applications. They all have their dominant ideas, but some concepts are constant.

It seems that pre-testing is a constant as well as self discovery from either an inventory of questions or list of cultural issues to consider is a start.

The course texts are still in doubt, but it is clear that case studies or videos where the student encounters intercultural experiences is an important component.

chap 7 concept map

http://mywebspiration.com/view/312419a1df70

distance learning analysis

I read a study by Bernard, Abrami, Borokhovski, Wad, Tamim, Surkes and Bethel (2009) which did a meta-analysis on Moore's three types of interaction in distance education. They looked at 6,000 studies and after refining their definitions of what they required of the study to be included, they analyzed 74 of these studies. What they discovered was that if student-content interaction was high quality and either student-teacher interaction or student-student interaction was moderate, the student learning would be positively affected. The student-content interaction was key. At least one other method of interaction needed to be included at a moderate quality.

ways of knowing

Chapter 7 introduces the idea that there are different ways of knowing. Science is looking for facts -- factual knowledge. But participatory action research is not just looking for facts. The author, Peter Park is drawing a picture that this type of discovery is much more like hermeneutics -- which I understand. My cousin, Norm Arnensen was the toughest professor at Bethany Bible College because he taught hermeneutics and demanded that his student used the proper steps in arriving at their interpretation of scripture. You not only need to know what the original language said, but the entire context in which it was spoken . . . cultural, situational and relational. This is also like the process that lawyers go through to prove their points in court based on legal precedents. The other analogy that Park ties to this is the Chinese language . . . which I found so fascinating. The classical Chinese letters are not letters at all, but symbols that are put together to convey an action. The symbol is more like a stop sign or a bathroom sign, telling the reader something they should do. Their whole language is action oriented rather than abstract thought or ideas conveyed by letters of an alphabet. I remember when Leighton and I were in Japan and I was looking at a book about the Japanese language and how they had three ways to write a message -- they could use classical Chinese figures, Japanese figures which looked a lot like chinese symbols and then they had a more modern Japanese alphabet system which most people understood and used today. Participatory action research uses relational knowledge which emphasizes community and common sense knowing in order to discover the actions that must be taken.

three types of interaction within the online learning environment:

1. learner -- teacher interaction via webex meetings

2. learner -- content interaction via questions to be answered through reading/resources

3. learner -- learner interaction via discussion forums, either blackboard or webex meetings

Intercultural competence domains

Munoz, Dobroka & Mohammad listed five:

1. Cultural awareness

2. Cultural knowledge

3. Cultural skills

4. Cultural encounter

5. Cultural desire

Sercu listed four:

1. knowledge

2. skills

3. attitudes

4. traits

Byram listed four "savoir"s

1. Savior-comprendre

2. Savoir-apprendre/faire

3. Savoir-s'engager

4. Savoir-etre

Arasaratnam listed five:

1. empathy

2. motivation

3. attitude toward other cultures

4. experience

5. listening

interactive learning

In looking at the articles that I found through the Fielding Library search, I discovered many articles that described various assessments to be used to determine the amount of intercultural competence an individual possesses.

common to many of these articles are:

-- IDI Intercultural Development Inventory which is based on Bennett's DMIS developmental model of intercultural sensitivity

-- MES Multicultural Teacher Efficacy Scale (Guyton & Wesche)

-- TES Teacher Efficacy Scale (Gibson & Dembo)

-- MDI Multicultural Dispositions Index (Thompson)

There was also a great article by Lies Sercu which outlined the criteria by which a research can examine an assessment tool for its quality.

Course construction ideas

I read an article by Robert Weigl that discussed his construction of an open ended course for intercultural competence which was used by the Peace Corps and the U.S. State Department's Foreign Service Institute. He constructed a course that uses as a text, McGoldrick, Giordano and Garcia-Preto (Eds.) (2005). Ethnicity and family therapy, 3rd Ed. The only assignment is that the student completes a 2400 word paper that focuses on how the student, their family and their larger cultural reality is described from 8 different conceptual patterns.

Weigl strongly upholds the idea that the process of self-discovery will open a larger door of cultural awareness that will lead the learner to further examination of other cultures and understanding.

Michael Moore

Michael Moore – main issues were structure and dialogue. “The primary interest is in . . . constructing an environment inn which the individual learner . . . can learn” (Moore, 1986, p. 8). He describes a situation where 90% of adults are interested in learning something on their own and looking for environments where this can take place. Many times educational institutions ignore these students because they do not fit their educational definitions because they do not place much importance on self-directed learners. Moore emphasized the need for the “institution of distance education [to] modify its teaching in order to give each learner the chance to exercise autonomy” (Moore, p. 19). He placed importance on creating an environment where the individual adult learner can not only structure the program learning objectives, but can also determine the resources and projects where “discovery learning . . . give the learner a chance to be actively involved” (Moore, p. 19). The overall idea for distance education is “to serve others, not to serve the machine” which means that the educational system is structured to support “learner freedom, individualism and self-direction” (Moore, p. 22).

Reason & Bradbury -- chapters 2-6

Chapters 2-5 were an ongoing explanation of the historical roots of action research. It was interesting to understand that action research was brewed in the turmoil of the late 60's and 70's. Some of the main goals at that time was that: 1) ideas should be communicated in common language and not academic language so that "ordinary people could be a part of the scientific process" (p. 28).

2) action research should move away from the idea of science = truth and therefore being important in and of itself without having a moral conscience. Scientific knowledge needs to have "a moral conscience and reason . . . [needs] to be enriched with sentiment and feeling" (p. 29).

3) the distinction between "researcher and the researched" should be discarded in favor of both groups being empowered to fully being part of the process of discovery (p. 30).

Chapter 4 described how race became part of the motivation and discussion on how to liberate underempowered groups in America and the world. Chapter 5 described how feminism was added to the discussion and the empowering of women. Both of these ideas were historical movements from the 70's.

Chapter 6 outlined and reinforced these historical roots with the present practice of empowerment of regular people by allowing them to being a part of the process and in control of the knowledge generated through the research. There is a balance between three primary ideas: knowledge, action and consciousness (p. 76).