Theoretical positioning of the pedagogy in the study 44

The   primary   aim   of   incorporating   sequenced   pedagogical   approaches   into   study   abroad  programmes  is  to  provide  students  with  a  foundation  of  knowledge  and  skills,   which   guides   them   to   make   sense   of   their   intercultural   communication   experiences,   and   to   be   able   to   engage   in   meaningful   intercultural   interactions   and   relationships   while  abroad  and  onwards  (Deardorff,  2008;  Jackson,  2010).  However,  as  discussed  in   Section   2.1,   the   difference   in   interpretations   and   approaches   to   understanding   cultures  affects  the  way  such  activities  and  learning  materials  are  designed  and  offered   to   students.   Therefore,   I   discuss   how   the   pedagogies   differ   based   on   different   theoretical  assumptions  about  the  meaning  of  culture  (i.e.  neo-­‐essentialised  and  non-­‐ essentialised   approaches)   (Holliday,   2012),   and   clarify   the   positioning   of   my   study   below.  

The  neo-­‐essentialised  approach  to  culture  (as  applied  in  intercultural  education)  tends   to   aim   to   increase   students’   awareness   and   understanding   as   to   how   particular   cultures,   typically   on   a   national   or   ethnic   basis,   may   be   different   from   or   similar   to   their   own   culture.   Based   on   the   basic   framing   of   cultural   difference,   students   are   facilitated   to   suspend   instant   judgments,   reflect   on   and   analyse   their   intercultural   experience,  and  shift  frames  of  reference,  while  being  careful  not  to  stereotype  others   (e.g.,  Paige  et  al.,  2006;  University  of  the  Pacific,  n.d.).  This  approach  equips  students   with  knowledge  and  skills  to  recognise  and  work  with  potential  perplexities,  confusions,  

or   misunderstandings   entailing   intercultural   interactions   and   communication,   and   facilitate   multiple   perspectives   and   positive   relationship-­‐building.   Nevertheless,   critiques  concern  the  predefined  and  oversimplified  view  of  individual  cultural  realities   which   are   more   fluid   and   complex.   As   Holliday   (2012)   cautions,   ‘….problems   arise   when  these  descriptions  are  used  to  explain  and  indeed  predict  cultural  behaviour  and   values   as   though   they   are   contained   within   the   system,   giving   the   impression   that   individual  behaviour  is  determined  rather  than  autonomous’  (p.  38).    

On   the   other   hand,   a   non-­‐essentialised   approach   focuses   on   the   development   of   students’  criticality  and  reflexivity.  Criticality  involves  a  range  of  perspectives,  based  on   which   students   learn   to   question   persistent   stereotyping   and   reification   of   culture   (Tupas,   2014).   Reflexivity   enables   students   to   acknowledge   the   role   of   self   in   understanding  others  (Roberts,  2003).  Given  the  breadth  and  complexity  of  meanings   and  practices  which  individuals  share  and  develop  with  multiple  social  groups  (Berger   &   Luckmann,   1966),   the   emphasis   of   learning   is   on   the   means,   or   the   know-­‐how   of   analysing,  understanding,  and  relating  to  other’s  social  world  which  are  brought  into   interaction  (Abdallah-­‐Pretceille,  2006;  Byram,  1997).  Based  on  this  approach,  cultural   knowledge   is   not   considered   as   an   object   to   be   acquired   but   to   be   reciprocally   represented,   identified,   and   interpreted   through   students’   experience   and   communication  (Guilherme,  2002).  

Furthermore,  understanding  the  complexity  and  multiplicity  of  individual  identities  is   central  to  an  intercultural  approach  (Dervin,  2009;  Holliday,  2016b;  Holmes,  Bavieri,  &   Ganassin,  2015).  How  students  want  to  be  seen  or  what  they  project  about  themselves  

vary   by   contexts   and   types   of   people   in   contact.   Hence,   it   is   with   criticality   and   reflexivity   that   students   begin   to   recognise   and   analyse   how   their   perceptions   and   assumptions   affect   the   way   they   perceive,   understand,   and   interact   with   others.   Instead   of   simply   cautioning   against   stereotyping   others,   students   can   be   invited   to   understand   how   stereotypes   are   formed   and   coconstructed,   and   how   stereotypes   affect   their   reactions   and   perceptions   about   those   who   resort   to   them   (Abdallah-­‐ Pretceille,  2006;  Dervin,  2012).  As  Guilherme  (2002)  draws  on  the  concept  of  critical   cultural  awareness,  the  pedagogy  involves  ‘a  reflective,  exploratory,  dialogic  and  active   stance   towards   cultural   knowledge   and   life   that   allows   for   dissonance,   contradiction   and  conflict  as  well  as  consensus,  concurrence,  and  transformation’  (p.  219).    

An   educational   initiative   which   incorporates   the   non-­‐essentialised   approach   into   its   modules   is   the   IEREST   (Intercultural   Education   Resources   for   Erasmus   Students   and   their  Teachers)  project  (2012-­‐2015).  The  experiential  learning  activities  guide  mobile   students,   particularly   in   the   Erasmus   programme,   to   go   beyond   easy   attribution   of   membership,   such   as   nationalities,   and   to   recognise   and   analyse   the   variety   and   complexity  within  themselves  and  others  (IEREST,  2015).  Other  projects  and  learning   materials   based   on   the   non-­‐essentialised   approach   include   The   Interculture   Project,   Intercultural   Language   Activities   (Corbett,   2010),   and   Understanding   intercultural   communication   (Holliday,   2013)   (for   a   comparison   of   aims   and   objectives   of   the   respective  materials,  see  Cebron,  Golubeva,  and  Osborne,  2015).    

Likewise,  I  position  the  educational  practice  in  this  study  within  the  non-­‐essentialised   context.   As   discussed   in   section   2.1.3,   the   similarities   and   differences   among  

individuals  emerge  as  products  of  human  activities,  which  are  constantly  constructed   and   reconstructed   as   cultural   threads   through   multiple   cultural   domains,   and   objectivated   in   society   (Holliday,   2011,   2013).   In   light   of   the   complex   and   multiple   nature  of  such  cultural  realities,  the  focus  of  students’  intercultural  learning  will  be  on   individual   cultural   threads.   Students   need   to   recognise   the   threads   in   their   personal   cultural  trajectories,  connect  their  threads  to  the  thread  of  others,  find  threads  that   they  can  relate  to,  and  to  demonstrate  such  engagement  in  the  way  they  communicate   (Holliday,  2016b).  By  incorporating  the  non-­‐essentialised  approach,  the  students  in  the   study   will   be   encouraged   to   recognise   and   understand   how   their   common-­‐sense   knowledge   and   perceptions   about   self   and   others   are   constructed,   and   can   be   reconstructed,   by   questioning   and   critically   reflecting   on   their   intercultural   communication  experiences  through  the  study  abroad  programme.  In  order  to  explore   the   pedagogical   approaches   on   this   basis,   I   review   the   relationship   of   individuals’   learning  and  intercultural  encounters  in  the  next  section.