Interactions in the Formal Curriculum

Many of the studies of interaction occurring in universities cite the work of Volet and Ang (1998). Their research has provided the groundwork for many of the studies that seek to improve interactions between international and home students. Volet and Ang found that a lack of interactions between student groups resulted in lost chances for intercultural learning. They also argued that (similar to high schools today) “ad-hoc”

strategies for improvement were not working — that real research needed to be done on the topic (Volet & Ang, 1998).

Volet and Ang collected data from students that had participated in group learning exercises (i.e. groupwork). In this case, six of eleven groups included both home and international students while the others were made up of only home students or only international students (Volet & Ang, 1998). Overall, students preferred to work with homogenous group members. Most did not actively desire to work in a diverse group. In other words, given the choice, students would self-segregate themselves due to language, culture, and stay within their comfort zones. Negative stereotypes among both groups also play a role in students' self-segregating themselves for group activities; each group had some negative views about the other and this influenced their decision when selecting groups (Volet & Ang, 1998). In the groups that were mixed, positive examples of challenging negative stereotypes, working across differences, and revising perspectives did happen. International and home students worked together, and the students grew closer together during the process. Unfortunately, the study also found that students that participated in mixed groups would not purposefully seek out the same situation for the next assignment (Volet & Ang, 1998). One experience would not be enough to challenge students to purposefully seek out this type of experience. Once again the idea is noted that spontaneous interactions will not simply take place — they must be directed and guided as students undergo the mentally demanding effort of interacting across cultures (Volet & Ang, 1998).

Other scholars also state how intercultural learning cannot happen by itself and, therefore, the self-selection of groups is not always the best idea if intercultural interactions are an ideal. Where internationalization is the goal, teacher direction, group assessment, and well-designed tasks are crucial for developing skills through interaction.

Additionally, ample time for student reflection after the work is done can further develop these goals in developing intercultural competencies (DeVita, 2005; Pitts and Brooks, 2016; Arkoudis; Cuickshank, Chen, & Warren, 2012).

Other key concepts are also introduced, such as the role that cultural differences play in academic work, or how socializing differences can make international students sometimes think their home counterparts are not as academically motivated as they are

(Wright & Lander, 2003). When conditions for interactions are created with this knowledge in mind, the benefits are measurable. Students who participated in responsibly maintained group tasks reported increased cultural self-awareness as well as increased friendship-formation (Hansell & Slavin, 1981). Surely, what takes place in the classroom can have a dramatic effect on the level of intercultural interactions that take place in schools.

As much of the research in these interactions within the formal curriculum is based on cooperative or collaborative learning activities, the elements of effective cooperative learning theories can help to explain what is happening with these formal learning activities. Five elements of effective cooperative learning have been found. First and foremost is positive interdependence, which occurs when outcomes are affected by one’s own and others' efforts. This idea of positive interdependence as opposed to negative interdependence can also help explain why some interactions in group activities might be effective and others are not (Johnson & Johnson, 2009). Effectiveness may not be simply be a result of ‘group dynamics’ or personality, but how the task was set up. Figure 1 further explains this element to cooperative learning. Positive interdependence results in effective actions, promotive (encouraging) interactions, and, ultimately, positive learning outcomes. Negative or nonexistent interdependence does the opposite. In these cases, ineffective group activities where students don’t work together results in worse relationships or mental health. By looking at this model through the lens of intercultural interactions, task design becomes a critical element if sustaining lasting intercultural relationships inside the class curriculum.

FIGURE 1. Overview of Social Interdependence Theory (Johnson and Johnson, 2009, p.

367)

The remaining elements of effective cooperative learning activities are individual accountability (own efforts, pulling one’s own weight), promotive interaction (groupmates support each other), social skills (skills needed to interact and cooperate), and group processing (time for group reflection and subsequent improvement) (Johnson

& Johnson, 2009). These characteristics of good group activities must be understood in

order to be fully aware of how culture, teaching, task design, and interactions all link together in the formal curriculum.

The Social Interdependence Theory and its research into creating meaningful cooperative learning activities automatically places a heavy emphasis on the role of the teacher. As such, a study of how students interact must include a discussion on the role of the teacher since he or she is the one directly responsible for designing the tasks and supporting student work. Simply put, teaching practices matter — they play a critical role in creating these interactions (Robertson, Line, Jones & Thomas, 2000). Without intentionality, unplanned activities can work against school goals of intercultural learning (Cruickshank, Chen, & Warren, 2012). Some instructors are aware of this dynamic as they seek to teach in internationalized environments. And while certain instructor practices such as having clear notes, slowing down lectures, and other teaching practices are widely known, these do not concern the topic of interaction. However, in addition to these practices, the formation of culturally-mixed small groups can have an effect in how teachers integrate intercultural dialogue into their classes. (Arkoudis.)

Faculty members, however, do not only need to know best teaching practices, they need to be interculturally competent themselves in order to understand the nature of the learners and these interactions. Without this knowledge, it could be more likely that staff becomes critical of international students who they might see as being unwilling or not possessing skills necessary to actively participate in class (Robertson, Jones, & Thomas, 2000). Instead of marginalizing these learners, understanding the backgrounds of students can help teachers see international students as a resource. They can be used to enhance class discussions and stimulate learning in home students (Rance-Roney, 2008, p. 20). Also, the adult-child or teacher-student relationship is a key part of whether a student is feeling engaged in the classroom, which in turn affects feelings of isolation, well-being, and connectedness (Anderson, Christenson, Sinclair, & Lehr, 2004, pp. 96, 108). Without cultural knowledge, the ability to foster relationship-building as a learning tool can be lost. Naturally, the role of teacher education comes up in this discussion (DeJong & Harper, 2005; Koizol, Greenberg, Williams, Niehaus, & Jacobson, 2011). While

highlighting its importance, it won’t be discussed any further for the purpose of this thesis and its topic of intercultural interactions.