Transcript A Comparative Study on

A Comparative Study on the Intercultural
Communicative Competence of Non-English–
major EFL Learners in Different Contexts
By Wang Yanping (王艳萍）
1. Introduction
The Background of Developing ICC
 globalization and internationalization
 frequent intercultural communication
 English as a lingua franca
 Wang Zhenya (1994), Zhong Hua (2001) and Wang Fei
(2005) conducted some surveys among the English/
non-English-major students and found that the
coefficient of correlation between the students’ ICC
and their language proficiency was quite low and their
competence is quite unsatisfactory.
 Will the external context of intercultural
communication affect the development of their ICC?
And this empirical study is conducted to seek the
answer to this question.

Purpose of the study:
1. to investigate the status quo of EFL learners’ ICC of
the non-English majors.
2. to find out whether the context is an influential factor
for cultivating non-English majors’ ICC in the
higher education by comparison.
3. to reveal some possible problems of the non-English
majors’ ICC development in the university.
4. to make some suggestions for non-English majors’
ICC development.
Theoretic Foundation
 Intercultural Communicative Competence
Byram’s model (1997) of ICC: four dimensions
critical cultural awareness, attitude, skills &
knowledge
Three context dimensions are taken into consideration
in this model
 Between people of different languages and
countries where one is a native speaker of the
language used;
 Between people of different languages and
countries where the language used is a lingua
franca;
 And between people of the same country but
different languages, one of whom is a native
speaker of the language used (Byram 1997:22)
 Attitudes: attitudes of curiosity and openness, of
readiness to suspend disbelief and judgment with
respect to others’ meanings, beliefs and behaviors;
furthermore, there also needs a willingness to
suspend belief in one’s own meanings and behaviors,
and to analyze them from the viewpoint of the others
with whom one is engaging.
 Knowledge: knowledge about social groups and their
cultures in one’s own country, and similar knowledge
of the interlocutors’ country on the one hand;
knowledge of the processes of interaction at
individual and societal levels on the other hand.
 Skills: (two levels) one is skills of interpreting and relating which
refer to ability to interpret a document or event from another
culture, to explain it and relate it to documents from one’s own,
and in establishing relationships, the individual will discover both
common ground, easily translated concepts and connotations, and
dysfunctions; the other involves the ability to acquire new
knowledge of a culture and cultural practices and the ability to
operate knowledge, attitudes and skills under the constraints of
real-time communication and interaction.
 Critical cultural awareness: an ability to identify and evaluate
critically and on the basis of explicit criteria perspectives,
practices and products in one’s own and other cultures and
countries, to interact, mediate and negotiate in intercultural
exchanges in accordance with explicit criteria by drawing upon
one’s knowledge, skills and attitudes. (Byram 1997)
Research questions
 General questions:
(1) What is the status quo of non-English-major EFL learners’
ICC in these two different contexts?
(2) Does the external context of intercultural communication
influence the development of non-English-major EFL
learners’ ICC?
 Sub-questions:
(1) What are the potential problems of the EFL learners’ ICC at
present?
(2) Are there any differences of non-English majors’ ICC between
these two kinds of context?
(3) If the differences of the non-English majors’ ICC between
these two contexts are significant, what are they? If not, what
are the possible reasons for that?
The Operational Definition of “Context”
In this study, context denotes the probability for the
EFL learners of non-English majors at university to
be exposed to the foreigners or encounter the
people from different cultures in the social setting
especially out of their campus.
2. The Research Methodology
(1) Designing Questionnaire
theoretical base: Bryam’s (1997) ICC model
form: Fantini’s questionnaire (2000) —Assessing Intercultural Competence:
A YOGA Form.
construction: personal data, ICC assessment, intercultural cases
(2) Participants
The participants were non-English majors (to be exactly, they exclude all
other foreign language majors) from two parallel universities in Guangdong
and Guangxi. They were assigned to two groups: group1, 107 students from
GX; group2, 86 students from GD. These two universities were chosen
because except for the different contexts of the intercultural communication,
they have much in common.
(3) Data Collection Procedures
the respondents are required to finish the questionnaire within 25mins.
3. Data Analysis and Results
Statistical Methods: independent samples T-test, One-way Anova and
post hoc test of Scheffe (the sig. level was 0.05)
3.1 Comparison Between Groups
3.1.1Comparison of ICC Mean Scores
 Table 3.1.1 Group Statistics of Competence Scores
 Table 3.1.2 Independent Samples Test
3.1.2 The Comparisons in Four Dimensions
 Table3.1.3 Group Statistics of the Scores in Four Dimensions
 Table 3.1.4 Independent Samples T-Test
3.1.3 Comparison between Intercultural Interaction Cases
 Table 3.1.5 Group Statistics
 Table 3.1.6 Independent Samples Test
3.2 ICC Internal Factor Comparison within Group
 3.2.1 Factor Comparison within group one
 Group1: 1.00 awareness: 18.1262

2.00 attitude: 18.0542

3.00 skills: 17.6290

4.00 knowledge: 13.7271
 the comparisons between four dimensions of ICC with
One-way Anova and post hoc of Scheffe: the
differences between knowledge and other three are
significant, sig.= .00

3.2 ICC Internal Factor Comparison within Group
 3.2.2 Factor Comparison within group two
 Group2: 1.00 awareness: 17.0349

2.00 attitude: 18.3779

3.00 skills: 17.43.2

4.00 knowledge: 14.6279
 the comparisons between four dimensions of ICC with
One-way Anova and post hoc of Scheffe: the
differences between knowledge and other three are
significant, sig.= .00

4 Discussion and Conclusion
4.1. Major Findings
 (1) Generally speaking, the present average level of the
non-English majors’ ICC is not high in these two universities
without regarding to the external contexts of intercultural
interaction.
 (2) There isn’t very significant difference in the non-English
majors’ ICC status quo between these two different contexts
of intercultural communication. Therefore, it can be
concluded that the external context of intercultural
communication may not exert much influence on their ICC
development.
 (3) The non-English majors’ ICC construct of the four
dimensions in these two contexts are similar to each other.
(positive and active awareness and attitude but some skills
and even inadequate culture knowledge)
4.2. Reason Analysis
(1) the frequency of contacting with the
foreigners
(2) the students’ attitude to EFL learning
(3) EFL learners’ own concept of oral English
level
(4) the inadequacy of culture knowledge
Comparison of Other Aspects Concerning with ICC
Comparison of Intercultural Communication Experience
Table 4.6.1 Frequency of Contacting with the People from Other Cultures
Always
Very often
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
Total
GX
0
0%
3
2.8%
6
5.6%
79
73.8%
19
17.8%
107
100%
GD
1
1.2%
3
3.4%
12
14.0%
50
58.8%
20
23.4%
86
100%
Table 4.6.2 The Purpose of Studying English
GX
GD
to have more job opportunities
80
74.77%
73
84.88%
to pass the CET4 or CET6
76
71.03%
63
74.12%
to get the diploma of Bachelor
67
62.62%
47
54.65%
to broaden the to obtain new ideas
and broaden horizontal
44
41.12%
32
37.21%
to pass the examination of postgraduate
43
40.19%
20
23.26%
to understand and appreciate the
culture of English-speaking countries
35
32.71%
27
31.40%
to communicate with foreigners
or make friends with them
29
27.10%
28
32.56%
to read the literature in English
23
21.50%
29
33.72%
to study abroad
10
9.34%
8
9.30%
Table 4.6.5 Respondents’ Self-concept about Their Level of Oral English:
very good
good
so-so
poor
very poor
GX
2 1.87%;
8
7.48%
73
68.22% 23
21.70%
1
0.93%
GD
0 0%
12
13.95% 59
68.60% 10
11.63%
4
4.65%
5. Conclusion
Pedagogical Implications for ICC Cultivating in EFL
Teaching
(1) more intercultural communication experiences
(2) more knowledge about culture
(3) intercultural communication should be set as a
required or an optional course
(4) revise the previous syllabus of college English especially the
purposes of teaching and learning
Weakness of the Study
1. the representativeness of the study
2. inherent setbacks of the questionnaire
Thank you
for your
attention!