Intersection of intercultural communication theory and ESL pedagogy

I recently wrote a paper for my communication theory course in which I apply intercultural communication theories to the teaching of English as a Second Language (ESL) to foreign-born students. I have reproduced a slightly revised version of the paper below.

Intercultural Communication in the English as a Second Language (ESL) Classroom 

By Divine Agodzo

Every day, new immigrants across Canada attend English as a Second Language (ESL) classes that not only immerse them in a foreign language but also a foreign culture. Instruction and learning across this cultural divide can pose significant communication challenges for both teachers and students. This paper suggests that ESL instructors can address some of these challenges by incorporating intercultural communication knowledge and practices into the classroom, using Howard Giles’ Communication Accommodation Theory, Stella Ting-Toomey’s Face-Negotiation Theory and Gerry Philipsen’s Speech Codes Theory.

I posit that ESL teachers can bridge intercultural communication and learning gaps by applying convergence, divergence, and discourse management, all concepts drawn from Communication Accommodation Theory. From Face-Negotiation Theory, awareness of facework and the concept of power distance, will help ESL teachers improve classroom interaction. Teaching practice will also be helped by an appreciation of three key propositions of Speech Codes Theory pertaining to the distinctiveness, interpretation, and force of speech codes.   

Communication Accommodation Theory
    
ESL teachers can employ convergence strategies to accommodate the learning needs of their students. Convergence occurs when you “adapt your communication behaviour in such a way as to become more similar to another person” (Griffin, 2012, p. 395). Two key areas in which ESL teachers can practice convergence relate to the rate/speed of their speech and their vocabulary. Most ESL learners speak slowly, allowing them to think before expressing their thoughts. By mimicking this speech pattern, ESL teachers will provide their students with the reflective and analytical space they need to process the teacher’s words and imbibe learning concepts.

Similarly, teachers should adapt their vocabulary to their students’ limited understanding and use of the English language. For example, telling a class of ESL students to “Ensure you have a concrete thesis at the commencement of your composition” would be a failure to apply appropriate lexicographical convergence. Instead, the teacher might say, “Tell me what you will be writing about, in a short sentence, before you begin work.”

ESL teachers will also need to use appropriate divergence in the classroom. Divergence is particularly useful in modeling correct usage and addressing common pronunciation mistakes. For instance, when a student mispronounces a word or uses a wrong grammatical form, the teacher can illustrate the correction through divergence by restating the sentence correctly, instead of pointing out the student’s error. An international student, for example, might say, “I playing soccer with a friends last weekend,” to which the teacher would say, “You played soccer with some friends last weekend?”

ESL teachers can also apply discourse management to foster intercultural engagement with their students. As Shepard, Giles and Le Poire (2001) note, “discourse management strategies focus upon the other person's conversational needs and attune to them" (p. 36). Students could be asked, for example, to select a favourite tourist attraction in their home country and explain why it is a must-see for visitors. Or the teacher might ask students to share aspects of their country’s culture with the class. Discourse management of this kind is likely to elicit greater expressiveness from ESL students and increased opportunities to practice and develop their oral communication skills because the selected topics allow them to discuss subjects in which they have expertise or interest.

Face-Negotiation Theory

The concept of facework (Ting-Toomey, 1999) helps ESL teachers understand how culture might influence students’ attitudes toward individual performance and group work. People from individualistic Caucasian cultures generally have “self-face” concerns to preserve their autonomy whereas people from collectivistic cultures mostly exhibit “other-face” concerns to “defend and support another person’s need for inclusion” (Griffin, 2012, p. 412). As most ESL learners are from collectivistic cultures, the teacher may notice a reluctance by students to stand out academically, because that could be perceived as elevating “self-face” over “other-face.”

The reservations that students from collectivistic cultures may have about standing out academically can manifest in various ways in the classroom. It may inhibit students from answering questions in class, even when they have great ideas, because exhibition of their academic abilities runs counter to other-face concerns for the class. The individualistic expectation in Western cultures that students work independently (for example during exams) may also be disregarded. By sharing answers to test questions with classmates, students from collectivistic countries like China are merely demonstrating other-face concern, not cheating.

A potential solution to the challenges posed by “face-giving” in the ESL classroom is greater reliance on team work and explaining expectations, and “rules” up front. By working as a group and sharing the same marks, the other-face concerns of students from collectivistic cultures are addressed. Multiple small groups could be created in the class, allowing for some measure of inter-group competition. The ESL teacher must however carefully facilitate discussions within the teams to prevent groupthink, a phenomenon that teams in the ESL classroom may be more prone to because challenging the ideas of group members could be perceived as not face-giving.

Another cultural factor likely to influence classroom discourse is the high power distance orientation of students from collectivistic cultures, where “there is great importance placed on status and rank” (Dainton & Zelley, 2011, p. 185). Research has shown that “for large power distance cultures…formal verbal and nonverbal interaction is expected. For small power distance cultures, informal verbal and nonverbal interaction is preferred" (Ting-Toomey, 1999, p. 265). Because teachers occupy a very high place in the social hierarchy of collectivist cultures, they are accorded much reverence and deference. Students hardly speak to the teacher and even refrain from asking questions because this is construed as not maintaining appropriate power distance. Students also treat teachers as unchallengeable bastions of knowledge, hence a “jug and mug” pedagogic model is the norm (that is, the students are just containers that the teacher must fill with knowledge). The ESL teacher will therefore need to work harder to draw these students out and get them to engage in critical thinking, as opposed to viewing themselves as mere passive receivers of knowledge.

Speech Codes Theory

Speech Codes Theory has another important lesson for ESL teachers – avoid putting all your students in one cultural box because "each community has its own cultural values about speaking and these are linked to judgments of situational appropriateness" (Philipsen, 1990, p. 11). While collectivistic cultures have commonalities, individuals from specific speech communities within these cultures have distinct communication practices and rules. Even factors such as the specific region in a country that the foreign student grew up in and the corresponding cultural, social, educational and economic context will have an impact on speech codes. For example, some students who grew up in a collectivistic culture may have been so exposed to Western cultural values that they may have speech codes closer to those of the Nacirema (the theory’s name for the archetypical North American) than other students in the class from the same country.

Philipsen’s proposition on the interpretation of speech codes will help the ESL teacher avoid the mistake of cultural over-generalization. This construct asserts that we must turn to the users of a speech code to help us interpret the code; after all, “it’s their practice; they decide what it means” (Griffin, 2012, p. 425). This demands that the ESL teacher be a pseudo-ethnographer, committed to investigating and understanding the various speech codes of students in his or her class. The teacher can begin this process by asking the students and potentially their parents to fill out a short survey prior to the start of classes. Alternatively, this could be accomplished by interviews. The questionnaire or interview questions should aim at identifying the speech values of the particular student by probing cultural do’s and don’ts and how they might help or hinder classroom communication and learning.

Finally, ESL teachers need to acknowledge the force of speech codes, implying that they have very real and practical implications and may be difficult to dismiss or alter. Cultural speech codes are not easy to break. A student who has learned from childhood that teachers must not be questioned will be under the strong influence of this cultural taboo even after the ESL teacher has explained that this does not apply in Western society. That means ESL teachers will need to be patient and continue to explain the different needs and expectations of the new learning environment to their students. The teacher should aim for slow but steady change in his students’ behaviors, recognizing that it will take some time to unlearn familiar speech codes, and that some will do this faster than others. The teacher must help his or her students along the journey of transformation by also making practical changes to course material and pedagogy that show awareness of the force of culture.

References

Dainton, M., & Zelley, E.D. (2011). Applying communication theory for professional life:
A practical introduction (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Griffin, E. (2012). A first look at communication theory (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Philipsen, G. (1990). Speaking “like a man” in Teamsterville: Culture patterns of role enactment
in an urban neighborhood. In D. Carbaugh (Ed.), Cultural communication and intercultural contact (pp. 11-20). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com

Shepard, C. A., Giles, H., & Le Poire, B. A. (2001). Communication Accommodation
Theory. In W. P. Robinson & H. Giles (Eds.), The new handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 33-56). Chichester, England: Wiley. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com

Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating across cultures. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Retrieved from http://www.questia.com

Lessons from Dr. Kevin Schut: Study and teach what you love

Dr. Kevin Schut may be the coolest academic you’ll ever meet. He studies video games, using his doctorate degree in communication to explore the social, psychological, economic and even spiritual dimensions of one of the hottest media genres around today (check out his new book, Of Games and God: A Christian Exploration of Video Games, to learn more).

I was thrilled to meet with the Trinity Western University communication department chair recently, to get his thoughts on learning and teaching communication. Schut, who was born and raised in Canada and pursued graduate studies in communication in the U.S., welcomed me to his Langley, British Columbia office with a warm smile and a friendly handshake. I glanced at the display of books on his office book shelf and Ronanowski’s classic Eyes Wide Open caught my eye. Not surprisingly, Romanowski’s ideas have been a strong influence on Schut’s work.

The blue-jeaned academic guru of video games told me his journey to the role of communication professor was not a straightforward one. After completing a first degree in history, he served a stint as a teacher in Cote D’Ivoire in West Africa and contemplated being a history teacher at the university. That was before an advisor suggested he consider the job market for history professors. So he made a detour to the field of communication. Then came another piece of advice from one of his profs – the road of academia is a long one so make sure you specialize in something you enjoy. This is what will keep you going when the going gets tough.

That’s when the light bulb came on for Schut. “Video games! Can you study that?” he thought.  From his youth, Schut loved gaming (and still does). It turned out he could study video games academically, and so he did. Schut says there wasn’t a lot of research literature in the burgeoning field, but there were lots of great academic questions worth investigating. And specializing in this field gave him scholarly justification to play the games he loved.
________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Schut recently made a presentation to students at Spring Arbor University, arguing that video games are a “double-edged sword.” Watch on YouTube.
________________________________________________________________________________

Video games may not be your passion, but Schut’s choice and career path offers a valuable lesson for those thinking of careers in communication scholarship. Find an area in the field that resonates with you at a personal level. If you don’t love what you are studying or teaching, your journey in academia becomes hard to sustain over the long haul.

Below is a summary of the great tips that Dr. Schut shared with me:

1.    While it’s great to study what you love, don’t forget about jobs. Do some research to find out what areas universities are focusing on in their hiring activities. You can do this by checking out current job postings. If you can align your passion to the market needs, you have a double win.

2.    Professional groups such as the National Communication Association and the International Communication Association provide excellent avenues to learn about opportunities in the field and what’s “hot” right now. By reviewing what topics are being discussed in conferences and the subjects leading presenters are focusing on, you can get a good sense of areas of relevance that you may wish to specialize in.

3.    Think global. In an increasingly globalized economy, specializations that are relevant to the networked reality of contemporary life will command appeal. Intercultural communication, for example, has applications for a world that has been made smaller by immigration and media technology.

4.    For those with an interest and background in this area, teaching communication from a Christian worldview offers good employment prospects, especially in the U.S.

5.    Don’t be afraid to combine multiple interests and theoretical perspectives to creatively arrive at an area of specialization in communication that you are passionate about. What’s most important is your ability to justify your focus as a relevant and needed contribution to the study and practice of communication. 

Many thanks to Dr. Schut for allowing me to share these insights on my blog. Watch this blog for my upcoming review of his latest book, Of Games and God.

Communication as community of thought

It is interesting to note that, etymologically, the word communication and community have the same root. Both communication and community speak to the idea of ”making common” or bringing together. In that regard, Shepherd (2001) observes that "the simultaneous experience of self and other might serve well as a definition of communication" (p. 32), adding that "when communication occurs, something communal is made… it is something synergistic. It is community" (p. 32). In communication, we "partake of one another; each is taken into the other and made a part of the other (hence another associated word, communion)" (p. 32).

This leads to a community-centred view of communication. Looked at this way, we can see that communication allows us to initiate and negotiate communities of shared understanding. Whether we are communicating with one person, a group, or mass audiences, we are engaging in community building through communication. At all levels (interpersonal, family, church, work place), the quality of the community we build will depend on the quality and character of our communication and how we are able to negotiate and share mutually beneficial meaning.

Defining communication as a meeting of minds aligns with a cultural or interpretive view of the communication process. However, early communication theorists held a transmissive view of communication, variously known as a "magic bullet theory," "hypodermic needle theory," "transportation theory" or "conveyor belt theory" of communication (Cassata & Asante, 1979, p. 79). This view is based on a linear model of the communication process, with a simplistic presupposition that the meaning encoded by the sender will largely be the same meaning decoded by the receiver of the message. Scholars today acknowledge that communication is more than the transmission of information. This cultural or interpretive approach assigns moderate effects to messages and holds that communication is not automatic, simply because a message has been sent. In this view, communication only occurs when some degree of shared meaning is in fact achieved between the sender and receiver of the message.

The perspective that one takes (transmissive or cultural view) will influence approaches to research. Those inclined towards a transmissive view will be drawn towards quantitative social science research methodologies that seeks to measure the effects of messages on the audience (with the expectation that the message would have produced the intended/expected effects). Those inclined towards a cultural view of communication are likely to use research methods drawn from the humanities, such as an ethnographic approach.

The way one defines communication also has practical implications. If a person views information and communication as synonymous, it may lead them to conclude that once a message has been expressed, understanding has resulted. In interpersonal interactions, this may result in less effort to ensure true understanding. Those who believe it takes more than messages to impart meaning are more likely to check and verify that there is consistency between intended meaning and the interpretation of the receiver. Separating message and meaning also means that the person communicating has the right to say, "This is not what I meant." The receiver who subscribes to this view will accord this right to the sender of the message, giving him/her the opportunity to clarify their intended meaning, so that true communication or "meeting of minds" can be achieved.

References

Cassata, M. B., & Asante, M. K. (1979). Mass communication: Principles and practices. New York, NY: Macmillan. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com

Shepherd, G. J. (2001). Community as the interpersonal accomplishment of communication. In G. J. Shepherd & E. W. Rothenbuhler (Eds.), Communication and community (pp. 25-33). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com

A tale of two perspectives (and four crucial questions): Opposing schools of thought in communication theory and practice

Griffin (2012) describes communication as “the relational process of creating and interpreting messages that elicit a response” (p. 6). Communication is an incredibly complex phenomenon and scholars continue to make attempts to understand both the cognitive processes that produce it and its effects at the interpersonal, group and mass media level. These attempts to understand and explain communication take the form of theories, which could be metaphorically represented as “lenses” or “maps” helping us to better view or navigate the world of communication (Griffin, 2012, p. 5).

But while communication is one discipline, it is a divided one, with two diametrically opposing camps. One school of communication is described as objective, or in some literature, the social science or transmissive view of communication. The other school employs an interpretive or humanistic focus, also variously called the cultural or phenomenological approach. Communication theorists generally gravitate towards one or the other of these two camps. “Membership” of a particular camp has significant implications for the way the communication theorist approaches the tasks of research and scholarship. In fact, the schism is so consequential that the two schools have divergent worldviews, shown in how they answer four fundamental questions. These questions are:

1.    What is truth?
2.    Is human nature governed by determinism or based on free will?
3.    What is a higher value: objectivity or emancipation?
4.    What is the purpose of theory: to provide universal laws or serve as interpretive guides?

The conflicting assumptions of the social science and humanities schools are evident in the responses the two camps provide to these questions. Social science believes it can discover objective truth that is largely applicable to humans. The interpretive school disagrees, arguing that while truth exists, it is not universal. To this end, there are multiple truths, or “multiple realities.”

For the second question, social scientists largely see human nature as ruled by determinism. They see a cause and effect relationship in human behavior and believe that a particular communication stimulus will yield a specific behavioral response. This has been fittingly described as a “hypodermic needle” or “magic bullet” view of communication because of the direct, no-miss, effective impact messages are believed to have.

Interpretive communication theorists disagree with the idea that humans can be that subject to media manipulation. They emphasize individuality and the ability of humans to control how they respond to communication. In the opinion of interpretivists, messages are always filtered through an individual’s cultural context and experiences and this can lead to varying responses to the same message.

Should the highest goal of scholarship be objectivity or emancipation?  The social science school of communication theorists argue for the former, while the humanistic school elevates the latter. For social scientists, personal involvement opens the door to dangerous bias that will mislead researchers searching for the truth. The interpretive camp, on the other hand, places the highest premium on social transformation, particularly liberation from perceived oppression or unfair power dynamics. To achieve this, members of the interpretive school believe involvement by the scholar in his or her work is not only acceptable, but sometimes desirable.

In their answers to the fourth question, social scientists and humanistic theorists again show they are polar opposites. Tied to their response to question 2, social scientists are confident that their theories can uncover universal laws. Interpretive communication theorists wouldn’t go as far. For them, their theories only serve as interpretive guides for understanding human communicative behavior. They provide rules that are flexible and adaptable, not laws that are binding and predictable.

These critical distinctions lead to very different approaches to communication theory and practice by these two schools. It is the reason communication theorists in the social science camp focus on prediction of future events (grounded in the belief in determinism and universal laws) and data-based empirical research (quest for objective truth that can be tested). On the other hand, the core assumptions of the interpretive school serve as the basis for its commitment to societal reform (because the highest value of scholarship is emancipation) and the use of qualitative forms of research that they see as better able to distinguish and comprehend multiple experiences and realities.
Is one of these two camps stronger than the other? Are there any ways to reconcile these differences? Perhaps both perspectives have their own appeal, which would make a pragmatic stance the most practicable position for the communication scholar?

References

Griffin, E. (2012). A first look at communication theory (8th edition). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

How to achieve success in online learning (and any kind of academic pursuit, for that matter)

How can students succeed in the online learning environment? Several factors come into play, but here are some key considerations.

1. Knowledge and application of one’s learning style is helpful, but it is not a panacea for success

There are a wide range of learning style inventories available that assess students’ instructional, social interaction, and information processing preferences, as well as the connection between personality traits and learning (Lynch, 2004, p. 134). These inventories are helpful, for both online and traditional learning environments. By being aware of their learning styles, students can intentionally adopt study methods that play to their strengths. However, this does not provide a magic bullet for success. And no particular learning style provides an advantage over others in online learning. 

2. Self-regulated learning behaviors provide a significant advantage in online learning

Positive learning behaviors are centred on self-regulated learning. According to Zimmerman (2001), “this approach views learning as an activity that students do for themselves in a proactive way, rather than as a covert event that happens to them reactively as a result of teaching experiences” (p. 1). With self-regulated learning (also known as self-directed or active learning), the student takes ownership of his/her learning, developing and implementing a strategy for personal success. Scholars have identified four dimensions of academic self-regulation – the self-regulation of motive, method, performance outcomes and environmental/social setting (Schunk & Zimmeman, 1994).

If positive learning behaviors are centered on self-regulated learning, they are anchored on learner conation – the student’s motivation or drive for success. The impetus for motivation is not fully understood, but it appears to be stronger in individuals who have, among other qualities, clear goals for their learning, who are self-aware and who have curiosity about the subject matter (O’Neil & Drillings, 1994). While individuals draw their motivation from different places, it seems “the simplest and most direct motivational explanation of why some people perform better on work tasks than others is because they have different performance goals" (Locke, 1994, p. 15).

3. Learning supports enhance the online learner’s prospects for success

By learning supports, I refer to the availability of academic and physical resources needed for academic success. This includes the quality of the online program (proper accreditation is critical); course design; instructor skills, experience and accessibility; and technological infrastructure.

References

Locke, E. A. (1994). Goal setting theory. In H. F. O'Neil Jr. & M. Drillings (Eds.), Motivation: theory and research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com

Lynch, M. M. (2004). Learning online: A guide to success in the virtual classroom. New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com

O'Neil, H. F., Jr., & Drillings, M. (Eds.). (1994). Motivation: theory and research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.). (1994). Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com

Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview and analysis. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical Perspectives (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com