{"id":21801,"date":"2024-10-16T06:18:47","date_gmt":"2024-10-16T14:18:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/tesl-ej.org\/wordpress\/?page_id=21801"},"modified":"2024-10-22T16:37:18","modified_gmt":"2024-10-23T00:37:18","slug":"ej111a1","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/tesl-ej.org\/wordpress\/issues\/volume28\/ej111\/ej111a1\/","title":{"rendered":"The Impact of Virtual Exchanges Using English as a Lingua Franca on Students\u2019 Linguistic and Intercultural Competence"},"content":{"rendered":"

November 2024 – Volume 28, Number 3<\/h2>\n

https:\/\/doi.org\/10.55593\/ej.28111a1<\/strong><\/p>\n

Nancy Dieu-Ngoc Nguyen<\/strong>
\nNorthumbria University, UK
\n<n.d.nguyen\"atmark\"northumbria.ac.uk><\/p>\n

Alex Ho-Cheong Leung<\/strong>
\nNorthumbria University, UK
\n<alex.ho-cheong.leung\"atmark\"northumbria.ac.uk><\/p>\n

Ho-Thi Hien<\/strong>
\nIndustrial University of Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
\n<hothihien\"atmark\"iuh.edu.vn><\/p>\n

Nguyen-Thi Thiet<\/strong>
\nPosts and Telecommunications Institute of Technology, Vietnam
\n<thietnt\"atmark\"ptit.edu.vn><\/p>\n

Abstract<\/h3>\n

We created an eight-week virtual exchange (VE) programme called the Virtual Culture Trip which enabled 68 students from seven countries to engage in online intercultural interaction under the guidance of educators. This study investigated participants\u2019 perceived language skill improvement and intercultural competence (IC) after the programme, the change in their interest in the VE discussion topics, and the relationship between their self-perceived improvement and background factors. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted on data obtained from the pre- and post-surveys of 48 students. Results showed that participants believed that their language skills and the four IC constructs (i.e., knowledge, attitudes, awareness and skills) significantly improved. They also seemed to become more interested in the discussion topics. Some statistically significant differences were observed in the abilities to use the language between males and females and these differences might also be associated with the interaction between gender and prior VE experience. Moreover, the interaction between age and English level led to statistically significant differences in their perceived development of intercultural skills. The study shed light on how VE conducted through English as a Lingua Franca can be an enabling means to facilitate interactions across Global North and Global South countries despite challenges posed by geographical immobility due to resource limitations or a global pandemic.<\/p>\n

Keywords<\/em><\/strong>: Telecollaboration, Virtual Exchange, Collaborative Online Intercultural Learning, Intercultural Competence, English as a Lingua Franca<\/p>\n

Owing to the interconnectedness of global societies, it is crucial to be able to communicate and cooperate with people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (Pitts & Brooks, 2017; Yeh & Heng, 2022). This has resulted in a new model of teaching students to become \u201cintercultural speaker[s]\u201d (Byram, 1997) who are willing to \u201csuspend disbelief about other cultures and belief about ones\u2019 own\u201d (p. 57) and are able to help interlocutors holding diverse cultural perspectives, values or beliefs overcome \u201cconflicting interpretations of phenomena\u201d (p. 52). Technological advances have enabled learners living in various parts of the globe to be involved in authentic communication. Virtual Exchange (VE), video synchronous computer mediated communication (VSCMC), and Collaborative Online Intercultural Learning (COIL) are terms used to refer to the engagement of groups of learners in online intercultural interactions and collaboration projects with partners from other cultural contexts or geographical locations under the support and guidance of educators (O\u2019Dowd, 2018). Since English is \u201cthe principal language medium of globalizing processes\u201d (Jenkins et al., 2011, p. 303), English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) plays a pivotal role in the context of increasing intercultural encounters.<\/p>\n

Teaching English in a monolingual Global South country[1<\/a>]<\/sup>, we tried various approaches to create more opportunities for English as a foreign language (EFL) learners to use the language and exchange cultures. After learning about the traditional bilingual mode of VE, we quickly encountered difficulties finding partners from English speaking countries because of native speakers of English\u2019s limited need to partake in culture and language exchanges with English learners. We then decided to lead an 8-week VE programme entitled Virtual Culture Trip (VCT) in the hope of helping those who do not speak English as their first language improve their English and Intercultural Competence (IC). Although the impacts of VE on learning outcomes, especially on gains in language and IC, have been widely discussed (Dooly & Vinagre, 2022), the research has been \u201cnarrowly focused on Western cultural contexts\u201d (Yeh & Heng, 2022, p.2). Moreover, there has been a paucity of VE projects using a lingua franca in synchronous interactions (Akiyama & Cunningham, 2018). Therefore, we decided to create such a VE programme and look at the development of the participants\u2019 linguistic competence and IC after the transnational VE programme, in which English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) was used by English learners from a range of countries, especially with the involvement of students from Global South contexts and of various levels of English. This study aims to evaluate participants\u2019 perceived improvement of foreign language learning and document their perceived development of IC after the VE programme.<\/p>\n

Virtual Exchange<\/h3>\n

The Internet and the development of its communication tools have enabled foreign language learners to have first-hand experience encountering users of the language elsewhere (Furstenberg, 2010). Quite a few terms have been used to refer to the practice of connecting geographically distant students, they include, Computer Mediated Communication (CMC), eTandem, Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL), telecollaboration, online intercultural exchange, and many more (Hagley, 2020b). According to O\u2019Dowd (2016), there are two principal VE approaches in the teaching and learning of foreign languages, namely e-tandem and telecollaboration. In the first model, communication takes place between two native speakers of different languages to help each other practise their target language with half of the communication in the target language and half in the mother tongue (O\u2019Rourke, 2007). As peer tutors, e-tandem partners are expected to provide feedback on each other\u2019s content and language performance. It means that the success of an e-tandem mainly relies on learners and the focus is placed on developing communicative competence (O\u2019Dowd, 2020). The second model, however, involves international partnership between classes under the close collaboration between teachers and focuses on developing intercultural communicative competence (ICC). Like e-tandem, traditional approaches of telecollaboration have been bilingual-bicultural, which has several limitations (O\u2019Dowd, 2020). First, it is evident that those based in countries speaking less popular languages tend to find it more challenging to find partners learning their languages (Hoffstaedter & Kohn, 2015; O\u2019Dowd, 2020). Although Kato et al. (2016) show how partners who are already learning each other\u2019s language can overcome such a challenge, there are far fewer English native speakers who learn various L2s than EFL learners. Therefore, partners can still be difficult to find. Second, English is frequently used in most of the intercultural communication (Baker, 2015) between non-natives rather than between non-native and native speakers (Graddol, 2006). An alternative model of VE using ELF, therefore, has been proposed (O\u2019Dowd, 2020) and the VCT is a programme of this model.<\/p>\n

Developing IC and Linguistic Competence through VE<\/h3>\n

IC is \u201cthe complex of abilities\u201d someone needs to be able to interact with others from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds in an effective and appropriate manner (Fantini, 2006, p. 12). Physical (geographical) mobility has been recognised as one of the tools to foster the development of language and intercultural learning (Helm & Acconcia, 2019). However, even when such mobility programmes exist in Europe through the Erasmus scheme, only 20% of tertiary students could study and train abroad, let alone students in less well-resourced contexts. This necessitates \u201cmore inclusive programmes\u201d (Helm & Acconcia, 2019, p. 212), which provide learners from a wider range of backgrounds with equal access to international experiences at no extra cost (\u00c7ift\u00e7i & Sava\u015f, 2018). The Internet has been employed to give foreign language (FL) learners first-hand experience of interacting and collaborating with users of the language somewhere else and VE has been recognised as \u201cthe most common approach to providing intercultural experience and learning to students\u201d (Godwin-Jones, 2013, p. 1).<\/p>\n

Many studies have found that VE helps learners develop their overall language skills (Schenker, 2012a, b), and aspects of IC (Chun, 2011; Hagley, 2020a; O\u2019Dowd & Lewis, 2016;; Uzum et al., <\/em>2020). Abundant research has also revealed that VE brings about positive learning experiences thanks to the opportunities for \u201cgeographically-distanced learning partners\u201d (Dooly, 2022, p. 1) to be engaged in lively and authentic interaction with each other (\u00c7ift\u00e7i & Sava\u015f, 2018). Some view it as an eye-opening (Helm & Beaven, 2020) and enjoyable experience (Angelova & Zhao, 2016). Despite ample evidence of VE\u2019s great potential for positive learning outcomes, there have also been some opposing views regarding its impacts and some aspects of simple VE, e.g., not providing adequate academic challenges (O\u2019Dowd & Lewis, 2016; Ware & Kramsch, 2005). It is clear that \u201clinguistic and intercultural gains are by no means automatic\u201d (Godwin-Jones, 2019, p. 8) and that VE practitioners need to design online tasks and interaction carefully and provide required scaffolding so that learners can benefit from their VE participation (Hauck & Youngs, 2008; O\u2019Dowd & Waire, 2009). For example, Spring et al. (2019) found that one of the outcomes of the VE (i.e., increased oral fluency) was associated with different factors such as instructional level, participants\u2019 engaged speaking time, and their reasons for enjoying the VE programme. Teachers should also be aware that beginners might just simply turn the exchange from written form into \u201cthe form of spoken chat\u201d when engaging in online meetings (Ware & Kramsch, 2005, p. 199). However, participating in VE makes English learning more interesting (Hagley & Thomson, 2017), more engaging and real (Hagley, 2020a), more meaningful (O\u2019Dowd, 2018), and hence increases learners\u2019 motivation (Canals, 2020) and confidence in their abilities to communicate with people from linguistically and culturally diverse backgrounds (\u00c7ift\u00e7i & Sava\u015f, 2018). Wang and Devitt (2022) have also conducted a systematic review suggesting several affordances and limitations of VE in certain contexts.<\/p>\n

Factors affecting the development of IC and linguistic competence<\/h3>\n

There are different internal and external factors that might impact the development of IC and the learning of a second language. Kohli Bagwe and Haskollar (2020), in their systematic literature review, have found 11 variables and two sub-variables affecting the IC growth. These variables are categorised into (1) programme characteristics and (2) demographic characteristics, some of which include gender, age and linguistic capability. Although many did not find a significant relationship between gender and IC (El Ganzoury, 2012; Kobayashi, 2009; Tinkham, 2011), others argued that males are more ethnocentric, and less effective in adapting themselves to different intercultural encounters (Chen, 2008; Lai, 2006). Some studies\u2019 findings indicated that females made greater gains than their male counterparts (Nichols, 2011; Rexeisen and Al-Khatib, 2009) while Warell (2009) found that the former made lesser gains than the latter after their intercultural experience. Concerning the relationship between age and IC, different studies yielded varied conclusions. While no association was found in several studies (El Ganzoury, 2012; Kruse et al.<\/em>, 2014; Pierson, 2010; Tinkham, 2011), some others did find a correlation between age and IC development. For example, Warell (2009) showed that younger participants made greater improvement in IC while the opposite was proved to be true by Kobayashi (2009) and Steuernagel (2014). Regarding language proficiency, although there was no significant quantitative relationship between this factor and IC growth found in Lai (2006), Park (2006), and Chen (2008), the last research\u2019s qualitative data revealed that language level was positively associated with IC. Huang (2021) also found a significant relationship between English proficiency and the development of knowledge and skills aspects of IC. Although language proficiency has not been identified as a key factor in many ICC models, its importance has been acknowledged (Fantini, 2009) with it being listed as a contributor to IC (Arasaratnam, 2016).<\/p>\n

Language proficiency is also a variable associated with linguistic competence development of those participants involved in VE programmes. For example, Lin (2014) found that VE participants with lower level of target language (i.e. elementary) made greater progress than intermediate or advanced proficiency participants. However, Spring et al.<\/em> (2019) indicated that learners with higher proficiency level tend to exhibit greater improvement in oral fluency.<\/p>\n

Some variables that have been assumed to play a role in language teaching and learning include \u201cthe role of the first language, setting differences and the role of instruction, age differences, individual learner differences and gender differences\u201d (Shehadeh, 1999, p. 256). Important studies have been done to investigate the extent to which individual differences may influence the way learners learn a second language and their various levels of success (Larsen-Freeman, 2018). The results of these studies can offer teachers insights into comprehensible input and output, which enables them to enhance their learners\u2019 language learning. Larsen-Freeman (2018) emphasises that \u201c[it] is no exaggeration to state that more than 100 dimensions in which learners differ have been identified\u201d and more variables are expected to be added to the list in the future (p. 59).<\/p>\n

Previous research has found that age and gender are two of the factors leading to second language learners\u2019 differential success. In terms of age, although \u201cthe precise nature\u201d of the relationship between this factor and the success in the learning of an additional language is still controversial, the existence of this relationship is \u201cundeniable\u201d (Mu\u00f1oz & Singleton, 2011, p. 1). Several empirical studies (Cenoz, 2002; Garc\u00eda Mayo& Garc\u00eda Lecumberri, 2003; Mu\u00f1oz, 2010) have showed that young learners might greatly benefit from significant exposure to authentic target language environment while older learners might benefit from formal foreign language learning environment (Hyland & Hyland, 2019). In terms of gender, empirical research has found some gender-related differences regarding \u201cthe negotiation of meaning, dominance, interpersonal relations, and opportunities for comprehensible input and output\u201d (Shehadeh, 1999, p. 257) when both men and women are involved in interactions between native speakers and non-native speakers (Pica et al.<\/em>, 1989) or between non-native speakers and non-native speakers (Gass & Varonis, 1986). In addition, when dealing with mixed-gender tasks, males tend to utilise the conversation to develop their productive skills while females are likely to use it to improve their receptive skills (Shehadeh, 1999). A study using a database of 27,119 Dutch adult learners showed that females performed better when it comes to speaking and writing (van der Slik, van Hout, & Schepens, 2015). Furthermore, gender seems to have an influence on language learning strategies with female learners employing more of them than their male counterparts (Montero-SaizAja, 2021).<\/p>\n

Another factor that might impact second language development is task repetition. Task repetition refers to when the same or slightly different task is repeated (Bygate & Samuda, 2005) with the first performance of the task viewed as a preparation for the subsequent task performances (Ellis, 2009). According to Patanasorn (2010), there are three types of repetition, namely exact task repetition (i.e., same content is repeated following the same task procedure), procedural repetition (i.e., same procedure is repeated using different content) and content repetition (i.e., same content is repeated following different procedure). Many empirical studies have indicated that this variable is positively correlated with the increase in various aspects such as fluency and complexity (Bygate, 2001); accuracy (Carver & Kim, 2020); lexical complexity (Gass et al.<\/em>, 1999); self-correction of lexical and grammatical forms (Hawkes, 2012) and overall second language performance development (Kartchava & Nassaji, 2019) (see more impacts of task repetition in Khezrlou, 2021). In this present study, learners\u2019 participation of previous VE (if any) with same\/vaguely altered content or procedure or both repeated might be seen as a preparation for their performance of the present VE programme (i.e., Virtual Culture Trip). Moreover, participating in VE experience is believed to be one of the very few ways for those learners who live in monolingual and monocultural contexts to have domestic or international intercultural encounters. Previous VE experiences, hence, can be considered previous intercultural experiences, which are listed as one of the variables impacting IC development (Kohli Bagwe & Haskollar, 2020). Although Lai (2006), Kruse et al.<\/em> (2014), and Raabo (2011) found a negative correlation between these two, the opposite was proven by many others (e.g., El Ganzoury, 2012; Palsa, 2010; Steuernagel, 2014).<\/p>\n

The disagreement in the impacts of age, gender and language proficiency on growth in IC and linguistic competence highlights the need for more empirical evidence on their relationships, especially in the context of a VE programme. Also, there is a lack of research looking into the impacts of previous VE experience on the development of language and IC. Therefore, we aim to investigate if age, gender, English level or prior VE experience could be the determinants of learners\u2019 perceived IC and linguistic development after the VCT programme.<\/p>\n

Research questions<\/h3>\n

While the growing body of literature has enhanced our knowledge about students\u2019 development of intercultural and linguistic competence through their VE participation, existing studies have mostly focused on participants from western, often better resourced countries (see the IVE project for an exception: https:\/\/iveproject.org\/<\/a>). The present study aims to extend our understanding about the impacts of VE using ELF in both synchronous and asynchronous modes of interactions by involving students of various English levels (i.e., from pre-intermediate to advanced) from different countries (i.e., Vietnam, Poland, Turkey, Belarus, Taiwan, Egypt and Mongolia) without relying on native speakers. We are also interested to explore if and how students\u2019 interest in the discussion topics will change since it might be an indication of the impact of the programme. Specifically, we set out to address the following research questions:<\/p>\n

RQ1: What impact do English learners perceive the 8-week VE programme to have on their language skills and IC?<\/p>\n

RQ2: Did students\u2019 interest in any of the discussion topics change as a result of the VE programme?<\/p>\n

RQ3: What factors (i.e., age, gender, self-perceived English level or previous VE experience) appear to be significant in determining the learners\u2019 perception on their linguistic and IC improvement?<\/p>\n

Methodology<\/h3>\n

Participants and Context<\/h4>\n

We decided to create a VE programme based on a syllabus comparable to a normal language classroom with a focus on current events to make it relevant to learners. The programme invitation was sent to teachers of English and English learners from different countries through the authors\u2019 personal network and social media. More than 100 teachers and students from 16 countries were involved in at least one activity of the VCT programme with 68 students from seven countries, namely Vietnam, Poland, Turkey, Belarus, Taiwan, Egypt, and Mongolia initially registering and participating until the completion of the VCT. Although the students\u2019 participation rate was sustainably high with around 60 attending each online meeting, only 48 students using ELF in the programme agreed to participate in the research. Therefore, the analysis focused on the data of those 48 respondents (31 females and 17 males). Student ages ranged from 15 to 37 and their English proficiency ranged from A2 (pre-intermediate) to C1 (advanced) with most being A2 and B1 learners based on their defined level of English at school or their (local) standardised English test scores (e.g., TOEIC, Cambridge Key English Test, General English Proficiency Test – Taiwan) reported in their pre-survey responses. 25 participants had no previous VE experience while 23 of them did (see Table 1 for more participant information).<\/p>\n

Table 1. An overview of participant profiles<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\nGender<\/td>\nTotal count<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
<\/td>\n<\/td>\nFemale<\/td>\nMale<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Countries<\/td>\nBelarus<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n7<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Egypt<\/td>\n7<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n9<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Mongolia<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Poland<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Taiwan<\/td>\n4<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n7<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Turkey<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Vietnam<\/td>\n4<\/td>\n7<\/td>\n11<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
English level<\/td>\nA2<\/td>\n10<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n11<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
B1<\/td>\n19<\/td>\n12<\/td>\n31<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
B2<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
C1<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Age<\/td>\n15-18<\/td>\n26<\/td>\n10<\/td>\n36<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
19-23<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
24-29<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
30-35<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
>35<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Experience of VE before<\/td>\nNo<\/td>\n14<\/td>\n11<\/td>\n25<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Yes<\/td>\n17<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n23<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

For the two months, student participants were required to communicate on a weekly basis in both synchronous (90-minute videoconferencing on Zoom and Microsoft Teams) and asynchronous (writing on the discussion board Padlet and speaking on the video-based platform Flipgrid) ways. Specifically, for each week, students were provided with some guiding questions about one topic and were requested to write their answers on Padlet before the meeting. Every Saturday, they had the chance to discuss the topic with other international students. After each Saturday chat, students were requested to reflect on their own learning on Flipgrid. Table 2 below illustrates the weekly topics, goals, activities, and technologies used in the VCT project. <\/em>We wish to clarify that the programme was not designed based on IC theory, but instead to mirror the usual syllabus that English learners expect to see in their classrooms. However, IC was used as the theoretical anchor for interpreting our data.<\/p>\n

Table 2. An overview of the VCT activities.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Week <\/strong><\/td>\nTopic<\/strong><\/td>\nActivities<\/strong><\/td>\nObjectives<\/strong><\/td>\nTechnologies<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1<\/td>\nGetting to know you<\/td>\nWriting: self-introduction
\nOnline meeting (Saturday chat):
\n+ Two truths and a lie: Small talk
\nReflective video<\/td>\n		To prepare the ideas on the topic for the online meeting
\nTo break the ice
\nTo get to know each other
\nTo improve communication skills<\/td>\n		Padlet
\nFlipgrid
\nZoom
\nMentimeter<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2<\/td>\nDaily life (amidst Covid-19 pandemic)<\/td>\nWriting about daily lives during the pandemic
\nOnline meeting (Saturday chat):
\n+ Discussion; Presentation
\nReflective video<\/td>\n		To prepare the ideas on the topic for the online meeting
\nTo feature the changes of daily life amidst the Pandemic
\nTo learn about life during the Covid 19 time around the world
\nTo improve communication skills<\/td>\n		Padlet
\nFlipgrid
\nZoom
\nMentimeter<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3<\/td>\nHobbies, leisure, and entertainment<\/td>\nWriting about the topic
\nOnline meeting (Saturday chat):
\n+ Talent show; Discussion
\nReflective video<\/td>\n		To prepare the ideas on the topic for the online meeting
\nShow participants\u2019 talents and share stories around it.
\nTo cheer everybody up during the global pandemic time
\nTo exchange information about their leisure activities<\/td>\n		Padlet
\nFlipgrid
\nZoom
\nMentimeter<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4<\/td>\nTravel and holidays<\/td>\nWriting about the topic
\nOnline meeting (Saturday chat):
\n+ Presentation; Group discussion; Q&A
\nReflective video<\/td>\n		To prepare the ideas on the topic for the online meeting
\nTo introduce famous tourist destinations of each country
\nTo improve presentation and communication skills<\/td>\n		Padlet
\nFlipgrid
\nZoom
\nMentimeter<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5<\/td>\nFood<\/td>\nWriting about the topic
\nOnline meeting (Saturday chat):
\n+ Traditional food and drink presentations; Group discussion; Q&A; Idiom challenge
\nReflective video<\/td>\n		To prepare the ideas on the topic for the online meeting
\nTo present and understand about traditional foods and drinks around the world
\nTo improve communication skills
\nTo learn idioms about food<\/td>\n		Padlet
\nFlipgrid
\nMicrosoft Teams
\nMentimeter<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6<\/td>\nSocial life (family\/friends)<\/td>\nWriting about the topic
\nOnline meeting (Saturday chat):
\n+ Group discussion; Q&A; Idiom race
\nReflective video<\/td>\n		To prepare the ideas on the topic for the online meeting
\nTo talk about family and friends
\nTo learn idioms about friends and family<\/td>\n		Padlet
\nFlipgrid
\nMicrosoft Teams
\nMentimeter<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7<\/td>\nJob\/Work\/Study<\/td>\nWriting about the topic
\nOnline meeting (Saturday chat):
\n+ Job presentation; Group discussion; Q&A
\nReflective video<\/td>\n		To prepare the ideas on the topic for the online meeting
\nTo talk about jobs and study
\nTo learn about traditional jobs and strange jobs in the countries<\/td>\n		Padlet
\nFlipgrid
\nMicrosoft Teams
\nMentimeter<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8<\/td>\nGala show<\/td>\nOnline meeting (Saturday chat):
\n+ My top Five; Feedback time
\nReflective video<\/td>\n		To reflect on the programme experience
\nTo celebrate the success of the project<\/td>\n		Microsoft Teams
\nMentimeter
\nFlipgrid<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Evaluating IC<\/h4>\n

In order to evaluate and define IC, we rely heavily on the field of intercultural education and FL education. Specifically, we employ Byram\u2019s ICC model (1997), as it has become highly influential since its inception (East et al., 2022). His model consists of linguistic, sociolinguistic, discourse and intercultural dimensions. IC refers to the essential characteristics of an ideal \u201cintercultural speaker\u201d as follows:<\/p>\n