Strategies for Cultivating Intercultural Communication Skills in English Teaching and Learning

A variety of cross-cultural communication behaviors often occur between people of different cultural backgrounds, sometimes the communicating parties are heart-to-heart verbal conversation, sometimes the verbal exchange of words, sometimes the non-verbal exchange of facial gestures, the effect of these communicative behaviors is often different. Communication is an exchange of information, and give its meaning to the process of the information exchanged, the two sides to their respective encoding and decoding, that is, each of them to give meaning to the information, give interpretation. It is almost impossible for two people with the same cultural background to carry out the above potential processes in the same way for the sender and the receiver of the message. Cross-cultural communication behavior, because of its cross-cultural characteristics, makes it even more difficult to achieve this kind of identical meaning assignment.

Intercultural communicative competence is the ability required for successful intercultural communication, which refers to the ability to communicate effectively and appropriately with people from different cultural backgrounds [22]. Intercultural communication competence is an important research topic in the field of intercultural communication. To understand the connotation of intercultural communicative competence, people must pay attention to two important concepts, one is the effectiveness of communication and the other is the appropriateness of communication. The former refers to people’s ability to achieve the desired purpose through communicative behaviors, and the latter refers to people’s ability to use the most appropriate communicative behaviors in specific social environments or occasions.

Intercultural communicative competence generally consists of three basic factors, including affective, cognitive, and behavioral factors. The affective factor here refers to people’s emotions or attitudes during intercultural communication. For example, people with intercultural communication competence are able to show positive emotions before, during and after intercultural communication activities. They recognize the existence of cultural differences, respect the differences between different cultures, and have a high degree of intercultural sensitivity. At the same time, they have a rational and objective understanding of themselves, are able to overcome the nervousness of communication, are willing to express themselves openly and honestly, and are willing to be a faithful listener and listen to the other party’s opinions. Cognitive factors refer to cross-cultural awareness, i.e. changes in people’s perceptions of the world around them based on their understanding of their own and foreign cultures. Behavioral factors refer to the various abilities and skills people have to engage in effective and appropriate intercultural communication behaviors, such as the ability to acquire and use linguistic information. Skills such as how to start a conversation, how to change the turn of phrase during a conversation, how to end a conversation, the ability to empathize, and so on.

Specifically, a person with intercultural communication skills should be able to do the following: 1)

Be able to recognize areas of conflict in the relationship between two groups.

The intensity of globalization in recent years has brought the study of intercultural competence acquisition back to the center stage. In view of the increasing diversity of the world and the growing role played by intercultural competence, a process development model of intercultural communicative competence was constructed as shown in Figure 1 [23]. The model suggests that the development of intercultural communicative competence is an ongoing process and that it is important to give individuals the opportunity to reflect on and assess their intercultural communicative competence. Furthermore, it suggests that this assessment should be integrated throughout targeted interventions. Secondly, critical thinking skills play a crucial role in an individual’s ability to acquire and assess knowledge, which means that critical thinking assessment could also be an appropriate part of an intercultural communicative competence assessment.

Figure 1.

Deardorff’s process development model

Then attitudes, especially respect (which manifests itself differently in different cultures), openness and curiosity, should be the basis of the model and have an impact on all other aspects of intercultural competence. Thus, the assessment of coping attitudes becomes an important consideration.

Finally, cross-cultural experts agree that there is only one aspect of this study, the ability to see things from the perspective of others [24]. Thus, the ability to assess global perspectives and understand other worldviews becomes an important consideration as well. This deeper cultural knowledge requires a more comprehensive contextual understanding of a culture, including historical, political, and social contexts. Thus, any assessment of knowledge of a particular culture needs to go beyond traditional surface knowledge of food, greetings, customs, etc. In addition, the model argues that knowledge alone is not enough to develop intercultural communicative competence, and that developing the skills of intercultural thinking is more important than the actual history of knowledge gained. The application of Deardorff’s process development model to the study of the English language curriculum in this study is very appropriate, which not only reflects the real impact of the curriculum on students, but also understands the curriculum from a more comprehensive and novel perspective.

Item response theory (IRT) is based on two main principles: 1)

In actual testing, learners’ test scores are closely related to their latent traits, which in testing can be interpreted as learners’ knowledge level, which can be measured as an unknown value θ.

There are various IRT-based item response models, the most commonly used model is the three-parameter logistic model proposed by Birnbaum, which is a dichotomous model because the model only considers two possible responses of the learner to the item, i.e., correct or incorrect. The three-parameter logistic model (referred to as the 3PL model) is defined as follows: 1P(ui=1/θ)=ci+(1−ci)1+e−1.702ai(θ−bi)

Here, P(u_i = 1/θ) denotes the likelihood that a learner with knowledge level θ will answer item i correctly:2P(ui=0/θ)=1−P(ui=1/θ)

It indicates the likelihood that a learner with knowledge level θ will answer item i incorrectly, u_i indicates the result of the learner’s response to item i, u_i = 1 indicates that the learner will answer item i correctly, and u_i = 0 indicates that the learner will answer item i incorrectly. θ denotes the learner’s knowledge level, which can be measured by a test. The theoretical range of values for the knowledge level θ is [–∞, +∞], but the range generally considered in practical applications is [-4.0, 4.0] or [-3.0, 3.0].

The three parameters that determine the shape of the item characteristic curve are: 1)

Distinctiveness i_a

It refers to the ability of test items to differentiate learners’ potential traits (e.g., ability, knowledge level), and is proportional to the slope of the item characteristic curve, i.e., the greater the slope of the curve at the inflection point, the higher the corresponding item differentiation. The higher the value of item discrimination, the better the ability to distinguish learners with different knowledge levels.

If it is assumed that the discriminant a_i in the 2PL model is always equal to 1, then a one-parameter logistic model (referred to as the 1PL model), also known as the Rasch model, is obtained [25]. Its formula is defined as follows: 4P(ui=1/θ)=11+e−1.702(θ−bi)

Or: 5P(ui=1/θ)=11+e−(θ−bi)

Item response theory can be used to determine a learner’s state of knowledge. In this theory, the inference process of knowledge level is calculated using the likelihood distribution curve P(θ/u₁,…u_n), where u₁,…u_n is the vector of learner responses to all test items. The methods often used to estimate the knowledge level θ are the great likelihood estimation (MLE), and Bayesian approach (BE). Great likelihood estimation calculates the learner’s knowledge level after the learner has completed u₁,…,u_n items, and the great likelihood function is defined as follows: 6L(u1,u2,…,un∣θ)=∏i=1nPiuiQi1−ui

Where n denotes the total number of items that the learner participated in answering, i denotes the i th item answered by the learner, and Qil−ui denotes the likelihood that the learner answered the i th item incorrectly.

The Item Information Function (IIF) proposed by Item Response Theory can be used as a standard error reference for great likelihood estimation of knowledge level θ, which can be applied to the construction of tests, item selection, assessment of measurement accuracy, comparison between tests, determination of score weights, and comparison of scoring principles. The item information function is defined as follows: 7I(θ)=∑i=1n{ [ (Pi′(θ)) ]2/[ Pi(θ)Qi(θ) ] } where Pi′(θ) is the first-order derivative of p_i(θ) and I(θ) is the amount of information in the n items for a learner with knowledge level θ. The total amount of information for the n items is defined as the amount of information for each item: 8I(θ,ui)=(Pi′)2/PiQi

The items were compiled according to the constructed evaluation index system, and in this study, the quiz item questions consisted of two types of questions: single-choice questions and fill-in-the-blank questions. Since this study needs to examine the development of intercultural communication competence of non-English majors (sophomores and juniors), the items prepared need to be based on the knowledge base common to both levels. However, when preparing the test questions, we should try to select unfamiliar test situations to avoid the authenticity of the assessment results due to the fact that students mechanically memorize or do not apply the knowledge of intercultural communication in their answers.

The quality of the test questions has a direct impact on the results of the assessment, which in turn will affect the respondents’ answers. Content validity is the first indicator that the test should ensure, so the following principles should be followed in the design process. 1)

The scope of knowledge of the examination questions will not exceed the outline, so as not to prevent the subjects from being unable to answer.

In order to ensure the reasonableness of the test items, this paper constructs the assessment index system based on Deardorff’s process development model proposed in the previous section, from the three dimensions of cross-cultural sensitivity, cross-cultural awareness and cross-cultural effectiveness. The bi-directional breakdown of the intercultural communication competence testing tool for college students is shown in Table 1. In the initial scale of the intercultural communication competence assessment for non-English majors, there are a total of 15 descriptors under the descriptive indexes. The factor loadings of the 15 descriptors are greater than 0.5, which may indicate that the descriptive index system is in line with the conceptualization of the intercultural communication competence of the non-English majors.

The sample for the first round of testing was selected from an art program in a college where the general level of English proficiency of the students is good. The test was administered to students in a sophomore class, and in one round of the test, 55 copies of the measurement instrument test were distributed, and 55 copies were obtained from the final collection, and the test lasted for 45 minutes.

Winsteps software was used to analyze one round of test data to test the reliability and validity of the instrument. In this study, the test questions were only multiple choice and fill-in-the-blank questions, and the subjects were scored 1 point for a correct answer and 0 points for an incorrect answer, and the students’ test results were summarized into an Excel data sheet, processed and analyzed using Winsteps software, and the results obtained are shown in Table 2.

The five-point Likert scale format most commonly used for questionnaires was used for this student survey, which asked students to judge their proficiency on each descriptor. The scoring options were set in five categories: not at all (1), barely (2), mostly (3), better (4), and completely (5). Whether subjects were able to respond according to these five forms, whether the categories of the scale were used rationally, and whether the design of the five-level scale was reasonable will be tested in this section. That is, it will be tested whether the scale functions performed well and whether the subjects used the categories of the scale in a more rational manner.

In testing the reasonableness of the scale’s category setting, Linacre suggests eight guidelines:

First, each category was selected by at least five subjects. If an option was selected less frequently than 5, it would not provide sufficient data to support the estimation of the critical value, and it would be necessary to merge the option into neighboring options.

Second, the frequency distribution of options should be regular, e.g., presenting a monotonic distribution, normal distribution, slightly skewed distribution, etc.

Third, the average difficulty value of each category shows a monotonic increase from low to high.

Fourth, the Outfit MnSq should be less than 2.0.

Fifth, the critical value should show a monotonically increasing trend, and the probability graph of each category should show independent peaks and tips.

Sixth, the classes and measurements should be able to correspond.

Seventh, the difference in difficulty between neighboring categories should be greater than 1.5 logits.

Eighth, the difficulty difference between neighboring categories should be less than 5 logits.

A rating scale test was conducted in this study and Table 3 provides information on Observed Count, Average Measure, Outfit MnSq and Structure Calibration. It can be seen that subjects chose each option category more frequently than 5, and the average difficulty of each category increased in parallel with the option level, showing a monotonically increasing trend from low to high. The Outfit MnSq for Options 1 through 4 were all less than 2, and the Outfit MnSq for Option 5 was 2.085, which is slightly above Linacre’s suggested criterion of less than 2. Scale difficulty increases monotonically as the option level increases, and the difference in difficulty between neighboring categories is between 1-2 logits, which indicates that there are differences between the scales, while the scale differences are not too large. Figure 2 shows the response probability graphs for each item of the scale, which shows that all five option categories of the scale have crests, indicating that all five rating options work better.

Figure 2.

Response probability curves for each item of the scale

The above results indicate that the design of the student self-assessment using a five-point Likert scale is more in line with the descriptors and the overall distribution of the subject group, the category setting of the scale did not have an impact on the validity of the measurement, and the scale function performed well.

The distribution of intercultural communication competence levels in different classes is described, and the subjects’ competence is compared with the level difficulty so as to judge which level level they belong to, and the final results are shown in Table 4. When the subjects’ ability is greater than the highest water average, it can be considered that they have reached the highest level of competence and have the competence characteristics of that level, but there are still a small number of subjects below the lowest level. Therefore, on the basis of the original level division, the stratification below the lowest level will be added. The number of people in the three classes is 50, 49 and 53 respectively. taking class 1 as an example, the number of subjects with ability Level 1 is 13, the highest level (Level 5) is only 1, and the rest of the levels are 16, 11, and 9 respectively, the number of people in this level divided by the total number of people in the class is the percentage of people in the level of the hierarchy, and the other two classes are also counted according to the same way.

From the results, it can be seen that for the 5 level levels, the level with the highest percentage of class 1, 2 and 3 is Level 2 or Level 3, followed by Level 4 and Level 1. It can be judged that most of the students in the 3 classes are at an intermediate level of intercultural communication competence.

The mean values of the subjects’ abilities in the different levels of the three classes were counted by adding the values of the subjects’ abilities in the same level and dividing them by the corresponding number of people, and the mean value of the overall class ability was calculated by adding the values of the subjects’ abilities in the class and dividing them by the number of people in the class. The final results are shown in Table 5, and from the statistical results, it can be found that the class ability means in descending order are class 2 (0.1477), class 3 (0.0087), and class 1 (-0.5801), respectively.

The competence range for Class 1 was -2.79 to 1.94, spanning 4.73 logit, and the level with the largest number of students was Level 2 (32.00%), which had a competence mean of -1.0771. Its class mean (-0.5801) was above the overall mean for this level, indicating that students in this class at this level were performing at a level slightly below average. The number of students below Level 2 was 13, with a proficiency mean of -1.6522, which is 3.69 logit from the mean of the highest level, indicating that the students’ level of intercultural communication proficiency is not at the minimum level and there is a gap. Class 2 has a competence range of -2.05 to 2.51 with a span value of 4.56 logit and a competence mean value of 0.1477, which is at the highest competence value among the three classes. The level with the largest percentage of people is Level 3 (30.61%), which has a proficiency mean of 0.5334. class 3 has a proficiency mean of 0.0087, which ranges from -2.41 to 3.25 and spans 5.66 logit, and there is one person at the highest level of the class, which has a proficiency of 2.2388.

There were 152 subjects in this study, 69 male subjects and 83 female subjects, and using gender as a classification criterion, the analysis of the different levels of male and female subjects consisted of the following two analyses of the number of people and their percentage, and the analysis of the mean value of the subjects’ abilities.

First, the number and percentage of male and female subjects under different levels are analyzed, and the final results are shown in Table 6. It can be seen that both subjects are mainly concentrated in the middle level of Level 2 and Level 3, and the proportion of Level 5 and Level 4 is relatively small. In addition, the proportion of female subjects in the higher levels of intercultural communication competence is higher than that of female subjects, and male subjects are mostly concentrated in the lower levels of computational thinking skills.

Next, the mean values of intercultural communicative competence of male and female subjects at different levels of hierarchy were calculated, and the statistical results are shown in Table 7. On the whole, the level of intercultural communication competence of female subjects is higher than that of male subjects, and the range of the mean value of the competence of male subjects is - 2.0826~2.1008, with a span of 4.1834 logit, and the largest proportion of the number of people is located in Level 2, which means that the overall performance at this level is poor. The mean value of female subjects’ ability ranges from –1.7573 to 2.9850, spanning 4.7423 logit, with the largest number of people located at Level 3, indicating a better overall performance at that level. From the P-value, it can be seen that both male and female subjects showed significant differences in the five levels of intercultural communication competence.

Combined with the above evaluation of the intercultural communicative competence of three classes of students majoring in art in a university, we can get the following problems in the university: 1)

Teachers are familiar with the cultural content of the textbooks, but lack the awareness of intercultural communication competence cultivation.