Cultural competence: Difference between revisions

The educational technology and digital learning wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 7: Line 7:


Heyward (2002) cited by Deithl & Prints (2008), defines intercultural literacy as the competencies, understandings, attitudes, language, proficiencies, participation and identities necessary for effective cross-cultural engagement.
Heyward (2002) cited by Deithl & Prints (2008), defines intercultural literacy as the competencies, understandings, attitudes, language, proficiencies, participation and identities necessary for effective cross-cultural engagement.
== Teaching intercultural literacy ==
Deborah Corder and Alice U-Mackey (2015) argue that educating intercultural literacy is very challenging.
{{quotationbox|Research shows that the development of IC is a complex process that involves
cognitive, metacognitive, affective and behavioural development, and has to be
intentionally developed over time (Ehrenreich 2006; Stier 2006; Crossman 2011;
Deardorff 2011). As Perry and Southwell (2011) and Witte (2011) point out, there is
increasing evidence that the normal classroom or lecture context with a cognitive
orientation alone cannot provide the environment for learners to develop the neces-
sary competencies. Nor will IC automatically develop by just encountering other
cultures whether in the classroom, through study abroad, overseas holidays, the
workplace or social settings.}}


== Technologies for cultural literacy ==
== Technologies for cultural literacy ==

Revision as of 18:56, 16 February 2016

Draft

Introduction

Cultural literacy or intercultural competence or being able to cope with cultural diversity is becoming increasingly important.

With increasing cultural diversity as a result of globalization, intercultural competence (IC) to interact and co-exist in multicultural environments is recognized as being very important. (Corder and U-Mackey, 2015).

Heyward (2002) cited by Deithl & Prints (2008), defines intercultural literacy as the competencies, understandings, attitudes, language, proficiencies, participation and identities necessary for effective cross-cultural engagement.

Teaching intercultural literacy

Deborah Corder and Alice U-Mackey (2015) argue that educating intercultural literacy is very challenging.

Research shows that the development of IC is a complex process that involves cognitive, metacognitive, affective and behavioural development, and has to be intentionally developed over time (Ehrenreich 2006; Stier 2006; Crossman 2011; Deardorff 2011). As Perry and Southwell (2011) and Witte (2011) point out, there is increasing evidence that the normal classroom or lecture context with a cognitive orientation alone cannot provide the environment for learners to develop the neces- sary competencies. Nor will IC automatically develop by just encountering other cultures whether in the classroom, through study abroad, overseas holidays, the

workplace or social settings.

Technologies for cultural literacy

According to Anstadt (2015), an environment like second life has several affordances:

  • The ability to role play simulations without compromising the identity of the individual. Yet at the same time there, is a relationship between users virtual lives and their real lives.
  • A simulated environment offers the potential for a range of experiences that is not available in "real live", including connecting with people that otherwise cannot be met.


Bibliography

  • Bruckman, A. (1997). MOOSE Crossing: Construction, community, and learning in a networked virtual world for kids. Unpublished PhD, MIT.
  • Corder, Deborah. & U-Mackey, Alice. (2015). Encountering and dealing with difference: second life and intercultural competence, Intercultural Education, DOI:10.1080/14675986.2015.1091213
  • Diehl, William, C. and Prins, Esther, Unintended Outcomes in Second Life: Intercultural Literacy and Cultural Identity in a Virtual World, Language and Intercultural Communication (Impact Factor: 0.65). 05/2008; 8(2):101-118. DOI: 10.1080/14708470802139619 Research gate
  • Diehl, W. C., & Prins, E. (2008). Unintended outcomes in Second Life: Intercultural literacy and cultural identity in a virtual world. Language and Intercultural Communication, 8(2), 17.
  • Heyward, M. (2002). From international to intercultural: Redefining the international school for a globalized world. Journal of Research in International Education 1 (1) 9-32.
  • Jarmon, L., Traphagan, T., Mayrath, M., & Trivedi, A. (2008).Exploration of learning in Second Life in an interdisciplinary communication course. Paper presentation at American Educational Research Association (AERA). New York, New York.
  • Unesco (2009), Investing in Cultural Diversity and Intercultural Dialogue. World Report, home page PDF
  • Salmon, G., Nie, M., & Edirisingha, P. (2010). Developing a five-stage model of learning in second life. Educational Research.Special Issue: Virtual Worlds and Education, 52(2), 169-182. doi:10.1080/00131881.2010.482744
  • Vernon, R., Lewis, L., & Lynch, D. (2009). Virtual worlds and Social Work education: Potentials for “Second Life”. Advances in Social Work 10(2), 176-192.