Susanne Weber
Measuring Intercultural Competence Within Vocational Education
Abstract:
Intercultural competence is nowadays indispensable for effectively coping with
challenges and opportunities at the workplace. Especially with regard to globalization
and internationalization tendencies we observe an increasing number of employees
and workers having to master intercultural interaction situations. Thus, it is no wonder
that intercultural competence is claimed for as a 21 st century skill - over all
educational levels, age and work positions. In business and economy, therefore,
intercultural competencies are becoming a critical success factor of enterprises.The
aim of this study is to “model” and to “measure” the construct of “intercultural
competence”. Here, a theoretical model of intercultural competence is modeled and
measured in line with the international discussion on large-scale assessments by
following the holistic, multi-dimensional and integrative view on competence (cf.
Weinert, 2001; 2002; Winterton, 2009), specified by Ting-Toomey’s (1999) “Mindful
Identity Negotiation”-approach, Engeström’s “social cultural historical activity theory”
(1999) (see Weber, 2004, 2005, 2007) and developmental theory (cf. Bennett, 1993;
2004). The hypotheses are related to whether typical intercultural critical incidents
evoke the use of intercultural strategies and whether we can assume a skill hierarchy
of these intercultural strategies which are invariant over time and intercultural
situations.The measurement is run by an open test format using cases of intercultural
clash situations which challenge the testees to demonstrate their use of intercultural
strategies resp. intended use of strategies by essays. The studies were conducted in
the fields of business and commerce – with students of a vocational fulltime school
(N = 61; average age: 20) and Bachelor students in the field of business
administration (N= 138; average age 25). The students’ responses were quantified by
structured content analyses (cf. Mayring, 2008). The data (used strategies/not used
strategies) analyses were run by means of the dichotomous, unidimensional RaschModel. The empirical data show that the theoretical model could be confirmed partly.
1
1. Motivation and Aims
Intercultural competence is nowadays indispensable for effectively coping with
challenges and opportunities at the workplace as well as in private life. Especially
with regard to globalization and internationalization tendencies we observe an
increasing number of employees and workers having to master intercultural
interaction situations (cf. Wordelmann, 2010, p.11). In business and economy,
therefore, intercultural competencies are becoming a critical success factor of
enterprises (cf.Bergemann, 2002; Bolten, 2004; Künzer & Berninghausen, 2007).
Thus, it is no wonder that intercultural competence is claimed for as a 21st century
skill - over all educational levels, work positions and age (cf., Rychen & Salganic,
2001; Binkley, Erstad, Herman, Raizen, Ripley & Rumble, 2010; Griffin, McGaw &
Care, 2012; Gorsch & Hany, 2009). Although this increasing importance of
intercultural competence in education and human resource development is given
there exist at the moment no commonly shared conceptualization or definition neither on the phenomenon of “intercultural competence” itself (cf. Thomas, Kinast &
Schroll-Machl, 2003; Hesse, 2009; Over, Mienert, Grosch & Hany, 2008; Deardorff,
2009) nor on a basic structure of “competence” (competence model) (cf. Baethge,
Achtenhagen, Arends, Babic, Baethge-Kinsky & Weber, 2006; Winterton, 2009). My
approach tries to fill this gap – at least for a small step.
For clarifying how to measure “intercultural competence” I firstly “model” and
operationalize intercultural competence very closely in line with the international
discussion of competencies – especially, in the fields of human resource
development and workplace learning (cf., Baethge et al., 2006; Winterton, 2009) but
also with regard to international large-scale assessments on compulsory schools
level (like TIMSS, PISA etc.) (cf., OECD, 1995; 2003; Hartig, Klieme & Leutner, 2008;
Hartig, 2008), on the university level (Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA);
Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcome (AHELO): Shavelson, 2010) as
well as on the level of adult education (e.g., OECD: Adult Literacy and Lifeskills (ALLStudy); Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies
(PIACC)).
As the measurement has to correspond to the theoretical model built, it is the aim to
suggest and to run a measurement based on self-reported intercultural strategies as
reaction to an intercultural critical incident. This open test format by exploiting case
studies for presenting the critical incident and essays for collecting the responses externalizing the intention of using intercultural strategies/skills - is judged as a good
proxy of the achievement of intercultural competence.
The data won are analyzed by running calculations based on Item Response Theory
(IRT). This kind of measurement goes beyond classical test theory as it calculates
not just a sum test score, rather calculates separately probabilities (a) on testees’
individual ability and (b) on task difficulties, and maps them out on a common logitscale. The added value is given by the fact that one can locate the learner on the
same competence scale as the corresponding tasks solved by the learner with a
given probability (Bühner, 2011; Weber & Hofmuth, 2012).
This information given by the logit-scale (or Wright Map) places each learner/trainee
according to his/her ability to solve items with a certain difficulty. Thereby, it is in
principle possible to see which learner can solve which items with a probability of 0,5
or higher, but also which items are not mastered by which learners. This opens new
2
access to teaching and training means in the fields of vocational education and
training and human resource development.
2. Theoretical Considerations
The Model of Intercultural Competence
As the theoretical framework of intercultural competence is not clearly worked out it
does not wonder that there are only insufficient suggestions on how to model, train
and measure these indispensable competencies (c.f., Over et al., 2008; Layes, 2000;
Maas, Over & Mienert 2008). Suggestions and approaches are offered by different
disciplines and serve different purposes (e.g., defining curricular goals, locating
qualifications within an educational hierarchy or occupational positions and job skill
hierarchies, fostering flexibility and mobility on the labor market; cf. Winterton, 2009,
p. 691). For the field of VET the Special Issue 2009/8-9 of the Journal of European
Industrial Training, especially the included article of Winterton (2009) as well as the
Feasibility-Study on a Large Scale Assessent in VET (Baethge et al., 2006) and
connecting pre-studies on vocational competencies (cf. Baethge & Arends, 2009;
Achtenhagen & Winther, 2009; Breuer, Hillen & Winther, 2009; Winther, 2010) map
out the international discussion on modelling and measuring (intercultural)
competencies: The main differences with regard to modelling and conceptualization
of competencies are (a) whether to reduce competencies just as an “output variable”
(performance) reflecting the demands of the job (mainly claimed for by workplace
learning) or (b) to define it just as an “input variable” (knowledge, skills and
attitudes/abilities) like attributes an individual has to possess in order to perform
competently (mainly claimed for by formal education) or (c) to perceive competencies
as both “input and output variable” (the attributes a person must acquire plus their
demonstration by performance) (an approach mainly driven by scholars promoting
multi-dimensional, holistic and integrative models of competence like Weinert, 2001,
2002; Winterton, Delamare-Le Deist & Stringfellow, 2005; Baethge et al., 2006). On
the basis of my later presented approach – focussing on competencies as “input and
output variable” – the practical suggestion of the US occupational information
network (O*NET-approach) is fulfilled which is initiated by the US American Labor
Ministry and exerts a major influence on developing competence frameworks
worldwidely (Winterton, 2009, p. 684-685, 689).
In line with the international discussion – especially with that in the fields of
vocational education und human resource development - my study follows a multidimensional, holistic, and integrative model approach. Furthermore, it is influenced
by Weinert’s definition of competencies: He understands competencies as “cognitive
prerequisites which are achieved by an individual or a group of individuals or can be
learned for successfully meeting complex demands and tasks as well as the
corresponding motivational, ethical, volitional and social components to solve
problems in variable situations successfully and responsibly” (Weinert, 2001, pp. 6263 and 2002, pp. 27-28; translation: S.W.). Contextualizing this general competence
framework towards intercultural issues I relay on Ting-Toomey’s “mindful identity
negotiation”-approach (1999) - mainly based on interactive communication theory in
line with Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson (1967) and social identity theory (cf.,
3
Abrams & Hog, 1990; Brewer & Miller, 1996). For specifying intercultural clash
situations I refer to Engeström’s “socio-cultural and historical activity”-theory (1999)
(see Figure 1).
Figure 1: Model of intercultural competence
Source: Own construction (see also Weber, 2005)
On this basis I define “intercultural competencies” as context-specific individual
knowledge-, skill- and attitude-oriented dispositions, which are functionally linked (by
specific content issues (e.g., arisen from cultural theories)) to successful solutions of
domain-specific
intercultural
(clash)
situations
with
their
given
challenges/affordances. This implies
 a successful self-organized mastery of complex challenging intercultural
situations by using corresponding socio-psychical dispositions [Meta/Selbstkompetenz];
 cognitive (subject-oriented [Sach-/Fachkompetenz]), motivational and
volitional (action-/activity/functional/skill-oriented [Methodenkompetenz]) as
well as social- (social communication–oriented) [Sozialkompetenz]) and
attitude-oriented [Personalkompetenz] dispositions;
 that persons can learn the necessary preconditions/dispositions for mastering
those complex situations; that they can learn how to behave, interact and
4
communicate successfully with individuals or groups from dissimilar other
cultures (these preconditions/dispositions are not given by birth or pure
maturation, rather can be learned and developed);
 that the existence of meta-competencies [Meta-/Selbstkompetenz] is
responsible for the acquisition and further development of knowledge,
strategies, motivation and volition as dispositions as well as for enabling and
supporting the successful implementation and usage of competencies in
different domain-specific complex situations (Weinert, 2001, pp. 62-63, and
2002, pp. 27-28; see also Erpenbeck & von Rosenstiel, 2003, p. XXXI;
Franke, 2005, pp. 34-35).
 “to solve problems in variable situations successfully and responsibly
(highlighted by SW)” (output/outcome-oriented) (Weinert, 2001, pp. 62-63,and
2002, pp. 27-28).
Relating this general approach to intercultural competence means to investigate how
individuals get challenged by an intercultural clash situation which can be
characterized by “different goals individuals and dissimilar others bring into the
situation”, by “different cultural mind sets people have developed within their
particular cultures”, by “existing (physical) conditions and equipment/tools people are
mediated by and have to tackle with during their interactions and problem solving”, by
“roles people have to overtake”, by “rules of behavior people work out and agree on
for their common activity” as well as by “significant others, having an interest in the
procedures and outcome of the intercultural clash situation” (cf., Thomas, 2003a, p.
46; Thomas, 2003b, pp. 98-100; Ting-Toomey, 1999; Turner, 1987; Engeström,
1999).
Themes/content driving these various intercultural affordances and challenges arise
from clashes linked to central aspects of human behavior where all cultures cope
with each other and have to solve problems during their common living together.
They are described within several cultural theories (Thomas, 2003c): like “forming inand out-groups”, “applying facework”, “making friendship/defining relationship”,
“managing conflicts”, “communication styles” (Ting-Toomey, 1999), “coping with
power”, “perceiving living together more from an individualist or collectivistic angle”,
“preferring a more masculine or feminine behavior”, “coping with uncertainty”
(Hofstede, 1993), “tackling and using scope”, “perception of time” (Hall, 1976) etc.
For mastering successfully these situations and themes the individual has to activate
his/her own dispositions as resources of intercultural acting - such like “cultural
awareness” (Schneider, 2005), “beliefs” (e.g., like reaction types: Bhawuk & Brislin,
1992; Thomas, 2003c), “knowledge” (e.g., on culture dimensions, stereotypes,
communication: Hofstede, 1993; Grosch & Hany, 2006, 2007; Hany & Grosch, 2006),
“motives” (e.g., types of goals; Layes, 2000), “emotions” (e.g., anxiety; frustration,
fun: Gao & Gudykunst, 1990), “personality traits” (e.g., empathy, openness, social
initiative, emotional stability, flexibility: van der Zee & van Oudenhoven, 2001) or “self
/ identity” (e.g., personal and social self: Ting-Toomey, 1999). On this basis the
individual creates by self-regulation own promising intercultural behavioral
strategies: such like e.g., “self-reflection”, “building perceptions and gathering
information by mindful observing”, “mindful listening”, “mindful interviewing”,
“presenting own and evoking others’ identity needs”, “facework”, “negotiation of
5
power”, “relationships”, “identity”, “building trust”, “supporting own and others’ identity
needs” etc. (Ting-Toomey, 1999; Weber, 2004; 2005; 2007). According to theories of
personal development and approaches of modelling intercultural development I
assume a rank order of these strategies (intercultural skill hierarchy) in a way, that
individuals firstly see just themselves (in an ego-/ethno-centric way); in a further step
of development they try to get out of an unpleasant situation using more nonreflected learned or imitated routines/strategies; continuously they start perceiving
significant and social others as partners or counterparts within the situation and try to
balance these relationships; in further developmental steps they start creating
something together by deep interaction and finally they are able to critically reflect
themselves within a broader context (in a humanistic/ethno-relativistic way) (cf.
Oerter & Dreher, 2002; Bennett, 1993, 2004; Weber & Hofmuth, 2012).
Individuals should use and imply these self-regulated intercultural strategies in a way
that all participants judge the interaction process as “appropriate”, “effective”,
“satisfactory” (output and outcome): that means they should feel “understood”,
“respected” and “supported”. For such a satisfactory outcome individuals involved
within the clash situation should have negotiated a commonly shared understanding
by developing a shared knowledge as well as a shared vision (Ting-Toomey, 1999;
Engeström, 1999; Weber, 2004, 2005, 2007).
As a main focus on literature is directed to the component of “intercultural skills” and
by this especially on “social interaction” between individuals departing from different
cultural backgrounds, this study narrows “intercultural competence” down to
intercultural skills resp. implied intercultural strategies. Thus, intercultural
competence can be interpreted here as social competence (Winterton, 2009, p. 690;
Loiselle, 2000; cf. also Baethge et al, 2006, p. 45).
Construction and format of test items/tasks
After modelling “intercultural competence” the question arises of how to measure its
components. As “intercultural competence” is not directly observable it is called a
“latent construct”. Just the testees’ responses are observable manifest data which
build the basis to draw conclusions about the testees’ intercultural competence (Rost,
2004, pp. 29-30). Thus, the construction and format of test items/tasks provoking
such observable, interpretable responses, get into focus and become highly
important: not only with regard to their format and correspondingly evoked response
modes (e.g., open response, multiple-choice response), but also with their
challenges and affordances (e.g., content, complexity, difficulty etc.) and
corresponding actions and activities (knowledge, skills abilities). Kanning (2009)
proposes four formats for getting such observable and interpretable outputs: (1)
capturing intercultural knowledge by running cognitive achievement tests, (2)
observing intercultural behavior in real clash situations, (3) summarizing and
describing intercultural behavior by running self-reports e.g., by modes of
questionnaires or essays and (4) drawing inferences from distal indicators (as e.g.,
“Did serve as a class speaker at school?”).
In this project I decided to pick up Kanning’s third suggestion using self-reports in
the mode of essays, because (a) “intercultural competence” is more than just
knowledge (reason for rejecting suggestion one), (b) there was not sufficient time and
6
possibilities to collect a reasonable sample in realistic situations - which are normally
not standardized as test situations (reason for rejecting suggestion two) and (c) for
getting as close as possible to the phenomenon of “intercultural competence” (reason
for rejecting suggestion four). Thus, I opted for a case study presenting a critical
intercultural incident and for essays as a response mode for capturing the testees’
intended intercultural strategies to solve the clash situation. Although the critical
incident is a simulation and testees are running through this clash situation mentally,
they have actively to produce intercultural strategies to solve the intercultural clash
situation as in reality and to write this down in the essay. The critical incidents are
linked to authentic intercultural life and work situations of the testees so that they
should be motivated and get involved into the creation of self-regulated intercultural
strategies.
Psychometric model
For translating the testees’ observable responses into the non-observable
intercultural competence of the testees a psychometric model is necessary (Hartig,
2008, p. 74). Such a model defines the metric of how to relate the probability of
solving an item (use an intercultural strategy/perform an intercultural skill) or not
solving an item to the testees’ ability/competence and - the other way round - in
which way the ability/competence of a testee can be related to the probability of
solving a particular item (using an intercultural strategy/performing an intercultural
skill). With regard to the choice of an adequate psychometric for measuring
intercultural competence I refer also to the international discussion and suggestions
made within the above mentioned international large-scale assessments (cf. Baethge
et al., 2006) and pre-studies in VET (cf. Achtenhagen & Winther, 2009; Winther,
2010). Here, the suggestions and actual practice is moving away from Classical Test
Theory (CTT) towards Item Response Theory (IRT) as that provides more item,
person, and test information (Bühner, 2011, p. 494; Rost 2004, p. 12) which is
necessary and important for using tests in and across heterogeneous groups. This is
also my intention with this study: In CTT the estimate of an individual’s underlying
true score (or competence level) is simply the sum of the number of items correctly
solved, regardless of which items the individual solved. And within the item analysis a
decision on whether an item is retained or discarded of a test is based on (a) how
difficult the item is, estimated by the percentage of respondents answering the item
correctly within a particular group (using the p value) and (b) how well it discriminates
among the testees, estimated by an item-total correlation (using the point-biserial
correlation coefficient). As CTT is that sample dependent it might be useful within
small-sample local situations (like classrooms) where the test takers may not differ
much in ability level from one administration to another. But for tests and instruments
developed with the intention of being used across a wide span of ability levels and
different samples CTT is incomplete and misleading. For such purposes IRT is more
appropriate and informative.
What is the added value for the psychometric model of IRT? IRT is a model-based
measurement. It gives more appropriate information as the underlying model and the
parameter estimates (e.g., item difficulty and discrimination) are item and sample
invariant. This is possible as the researcher firstly has to create a model of the realworld phenomenon under investigation including causes and effects. The evaluation
7
of the model is run by estimating its performance (that means how good are its
estimation of the real phenomenon). Models with good model-fits are more
comprehensive in scope than it can be captured by a simple bivariate relationship.
Models help to explain, predict and understand societal phenomena and allow
generalizations (cf. Lewis-Beck, Bryman & Liao, 2004, pp. 657-659; see also Cole &
Means, 1981, pp.131-141; Bond & Fox, 2007, pp. 69-99; Embretson, 2010, pp. 1-7).
In particular, IRT uses information from both the individual testee and the item to
determine the probability of a testee with a given level of ability solving correctly a
given item. That means IRT represents a set of probabilistic models that allow to
describe the relationship between a testee’s ability level (θv) and the item difficulty
(σi) with regard to the observed testee’s response to any individual/single item (Xvi).
Thereby, the testee’s response, for any given level of θ, is a function of only the
testee’s level of ability (θ); that means there are no other factors – as in CTT like e.g.,
as exposure to a previous item of the test - than the ability level (assumption of local
independence). Furthermore, the mathematical model used to derive item
parameters in IRT (e.g., the logistic model) is based on the estimated latent ability (θ)
and not on the testee’s total score as in CTT. That means, IRT provides a single
(invariant) estimate of difficulty and discriminability, independently of which
individuals were used to calibrate the item (assumption of parameter invariance).
Thus, by using IRT we can calculate separately the testee’s individual ability and the
difficulty of the items. Simultaneously, it is assumed that both parameters (testee’s
ability and item difficulty) can be located on the testee’s personal characteristic
continuum and, therefore, can be mapped out on the same standardized logit-scale
(Wilson, 2005) (for an introduction into IRT see Embretson & Reise, 2000; Bond &
Fox, 2007; Strobl, 2010).
Consequently, the probabilistic test theory of IRT allows a model-oriented
measurement. The family of IRT offers various models for different data qualities and
structures: for nominally or ordinally scaled data, for one- or multidimensional data
structures etc. (Rost, 2004, p. 89). Within this study I chose the one-parametric
logistic modell (1PL-Modell) of Rasch as (a) we examine dichotomous data (Xvi = 1:
testee applied the intercultural strategy, and Xvi = 0: testee did not apply the
intercultural strategy) and (b) we assume – in correspondence to the literature - a
unidimensionality of the latent intercultural skill ability (θ).
For proving the hypothesized theoretical model against reality I provoke the testees
by intercultural clash situations (in the format of critical incidents respectively cases
as used within current intercultural trainings). The responses respectively the
intended intercultural strategies implied for solving the clash are collected by written
essays.
On the basis of these considerations I raise the following hypotheses:
(1) The participants do use (intend to use) the operationalized self-regulated
intercultural strategies to solve an intercultural clash situation given by a
critical incident (H1).
(2) The intercultural strategies used on the various competence levels (intended
to use) are ranked in the operationalized and proposed order (levels I to VI,
see Figure 1) (H2).
8
(3) The rank order of intercultural competence levels (Figure 1) stay the same
over time (i.e., we can observe students’ change on a stable scale) (H3).
(4) The rank order of intercultural competence levels (Figure 1) stay the same
over different intercultural clash situations/critical incidents (H4).
2. Research Methodology
Instrument
For measuring the facets of intercultural negotiation skills as defined by the model
(Figure 1) I selected two critical incidents raised from intercultural training methods
(Pedersen, 1996) where intercultural clash situations were modelled by case studies.
The first critical incident (case 1: student dormitory) narrates a conflict between two
students coming from two different cultures (Mona/Lisa for female students;
Peter/Paul for male students) who have to share a room in a student dormitory. The
main point of the conflict is that Mona/Peter interacts primarily on the basis of a more
individualistic cultural background and Lisa/Paul on the basis of a more collectivistic
cultural background. The conflict escalates when Lisa/Paul takes and loses a book
belonging to Mona/Peter (Pederson, 1996; Weber, 2005, pp. 134-135; Weber &
Hofmuth, 2012).
The second critical incident (case 2: internship within a bank) narrates a conflict
between two students within an internship within a bank coming from two different
cultures (Sylvia/Laura for female students; Hendrik/Tom for male students). The main
point of the conflict is that Sylvia/Hendrik interacts primarily on the basis of a more
individualistic cultural background and Laura/Tom on the basis of a more collectivistic
cultural background. The conflict escalates when Laura/Tom try to get in contact with
Sylvia/Tom by insisting in exchanging their very private things and try to get an
appointment during working time (Pederson, 1996).
The testees were asked “With whom do you identify most?” and “How would you
react?” By these questions the testees have to perceive the situation as an
intercultural one, they have to identify the content/theme (e.g., dealing with others’
possessions), get aware of their intracultural competent behaviour, overtake the view
of the dissimilar other, tackling the social relationship, working on a solution,
questioning/reflecting their own frame of reference etc. That means they were urged
to create their intentional behaviour to solve this intercultural clash situation and to
write it down in the format of an essay.
According to the “theory of planned behavior (TPB)” of Ajzen (1991) - which is used
in manifold contexts - and the meta-study on this model run by Armitage and Conner
(2001) it is shown that “intentional/planned behavior” can explain about 30% of a
future real behavior. With regard to trainings which are preparing for future work and
life-situations this instrument can be judged as quite appropriate. For a higher validity
the critical situations and contents were selected as closely as possible to the
testees’ personal life situations to be authentic and complex.
9
Sample and Design
The first critical incident was run with students out of four different courses:
apprenticeship for clerks in the fields of insurance and industry and in the commercial
Gymnasium (N=80) in a German vocational school of business and commerce. As
only three of the four courses were able to participate at the post-test (for
organizational reasons) we got three complete data sets of N=61 students. There
were 75% female students participating with an average age of 20. Especially for
proving H3 we run for this first critical incident (case 1: student dormitory) a pre-postexperimental-control-group design. The students of the experimental group ran
through a five week long training program on developing explicitly intercultural
strategies and skills (following the idea of the curriculum-instruction-assessment-triad
in the sense of Pellegrino, 2010: this means that learning goals, training means and
assessment foci are stringently related to each other). Within the training the
students had to overtake an intercultural role play where they had the possibility to
explore, test and experience their intercultural behaviour by simulated but really
conducted skills and to cope with direct responses and consequences of their own
behavior (see for more details Weber, 2004; 2005, p. 127). The control group
consisted of 29 teacher students who were attending the introductory course in
human resource education and management. Due to ethical as well as political and
organizational reasons, it was not possible to find a school class comparable to the
experimental courses (cf. also the arguments in Shavelson & Towne, 2002). The
choice of this control group can be legitimized by the fact that the students of the
experimental courses met the conditions of the control group partially: they had a
similar school education: about 80% of the apprentices had a final high school
certificate (“Abitur”). The average age of the control group was 25. Although the
participants of the control group were older on average and, therefore, might had
more experience, I did not expect them to differ greatly from the experimental group
with regard to the issue of intercultural learning. The control group did not get an
intercultural training.
The second critical incident (case 2: internship within a bank) was run with N=138
Bachelor students of human resource education and management of the same large
German University. The sample included 61% female students. Thus, they were
quite similar with regard to education and age to the students solving the first critical
incident. For proving H4 I run for this second case just a ‘one shot measurement’.
Procedure
The students got 40 minutes time to write individually their essay on their intercultural
strategies to solve the intercultural clash situation presented by the critical incidents.
The test was run in all groups at the beginning of an intercultural training course. The
experimental group for the first case wrote the essay about the case again after the
intercultural course; the control group for the first case got no treatment on
intercultural issues.
.
10
Analyses
The verbal data won by the essays were analyzed by a content analysis (cf.,
Mayring, 2008). Thereby, it was checked whether an “intercultural self-regulation
strategy” was mentioned within the essays for solving the intercultural clash situation
- in the sense of an intention to use it within the real situation. We used the semantic
unit as unit of analysis. We scored dichotomously according to the categories of the
theoretical model (Figure 1) and the implied “construct map” (directions of increasing
and decreasing intercultural competence on the y-axe: dimension of “dispositions”)
(Wilson, 2005; Weber & Achtenhagen, 2010). That means for example: when the
“intercultural self-regulation strategy of facework” was mentioned within the essay for
solving the intercultural clash situation it was scored with “1”; if it was not used this
category was scored with “0”. Thus, every category was checked. Furthermore, a list
of anchor-codings illustrated by examples was developed (see Figure 2). The coding
was done independently by two raters. The raters were experienced in running
content analyses but were also experts in the field of intercultural issues and
competence measurement. By a rater-training beforehand they were introduced and
adjusted to this particular coding process. As there were not that much responses we
run a discourse between the two raters to categorize 100% of the material (in
analogy to the ‘dialogue-consensus validation’; cf. Huber & Mandl, 1982).
Figure 2: Anchor Codings Case 1 and 2
Level of competecies
Items/Subcategories
Coding examples
VI
Questioning
8 Questioning own frame
e.g., "Not lending my books might be not that wise. She has other
books which she will lend me." (case 1)
V
Negotiating commonly
shared understanding
2 Provoking / Evoking
e.g., "How do you make friendships in your country without inviting
people?" (case 1)
e.g ., "I would as her, why she is so hacked off." (case 2)
e.g., "We have to get along with each other for a longer time, thus I
will engage in that relationship. We have to sit down and to negotiate
some rules." (case 1)
10 Creating visions
IV
Including social content
3 Relationship
5 Conflict management
III
Escaping
4 Facework
6 Pragmatic solving
9 Quick result
e.g., "This is just a partnership of convenience. But we should respect
each others' way of living." (case 1)
e.g., "I try to make clear to her, that I seperate work and privat life.
Before we discuss private issues we have to get to know each other
better." (case 2)
e.g.," I try to find out why he took the book." (case 1)
e.g.,"I try to talk to her after work in an informal context." (case 2)
e.g., "I will not take her to task in front of her friends. But when we are
alone …." (case 1)
e.g., "Although he is bothering me, I stay friendly and plolite to him."
(case 2)
e.g., "I ignore her. She will cool down. Then we will see what we can
do." (case 1)
e.g., "I ignore her questions and talk about business issues." (case 2)
e.g.," I will buy her a new book. Then all things will be o.k." (case 1)
e.g.," I try to evade him." (case 2)
II
Presenting
1 Presenting
e.g., "I will tell him, that this is not the way dealing with others'
properties!" (case 1)
e.g., "I will tell him that I am concentrating on my job tasks!" (case 2)
I
Reflecting the Self
7 Reflecting
e.g., "When I am going to borrow a book I will always ask in advance!
That's what I am told to do." (case 1)
e.g., "I reconsider what I have done wrongly!" (case 2)
Source: Own creation
11
3. Findings
Description
As result I got the following distribution of used (intended to use) intercultural
strategies implied for solving the intercultural clash as presented in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Percentage of using intercultural strategies/skills
Level of competecies
VI
Questioning
V
Negotiating commonly
shared understanding
IV
Including social content
III
Items/Subcategories
8 Questioning own frame
Coding examples
Case 1: Student dormitory*
Exp.
Exp. Cont. Cont.
Group Group Group Group
t1
t2
t1
t2
Case 2: Internship in a bank**
"one shot"
33
56
17
17
0
11
8
36
28
24
38
24
38
1
0
3 Relationship
5 Conflict management
18
48
41
67
21
34
21
34
2
6
Escaping
4 Facework
6 Pragmatic solving
9 Quick result
28
85
11
57
80
36
31
93
24
31
93
24
8
9
23
II
Presenting
1 Presenting
34
52
76
76
24
I
Reflecting the Self
7 Reflecting
25
36
21
21
27
2 Provoking / Evoking
10 Creating visions
*Case 1: N=61 of the experimental group (=100%); N=29 of the control group (=100%)
**Case 2: N=138
Source: Own creation
By this distribution (Figure 3) and a comparison by using the traditional total sum
score for the whole sample (Figure 4) it is shown that the students use (intend to use)
the operationalized “intercultural self-regulated interaction strategies/skills” for solving
the intercultural clash. Furthermore, they improved significantly over time. As there
are no changes for the control group we can associate the change to the treatment
(intercultural course) (see Weber, 2003; 2005, pp. 251-252). To monitor the overall
effect for all levels I counted the corresponding averages of the percentages for t1
and t2 for the experimental and the control group: t1 (ExpG)=30,1% (N=61); t2
(ExpG)= 48,9%; t1(ContG)=37,9% (N=29); t2 (ContG)=37,9%. The values for t1 and
t2 for both groups were compared by the Chi-Square-Test for independent samples,
the incline of the ExpG-values from t1 to t2 by the McNemar change test (cf. Siegel &
Castellan, 1988). Figure 4 shows the results under one-tail assumptions. The effect
sizes for the McNemar Test (ES=0,22) and the Chi-Square Test at t2 (ES=0,31) can
be classified as medium (cf. Bühner & Ziegler, 2009, pp. 298-299). Hypothesis H1,
therefore, must not be rejected.
12
Figure 4: Intercultural strategies / skills: comparison between experimental and
control group
Source: Own creation
Nevertheless, from this calculation - on the basis of the total sum score - we do not
get enough information on the testee’s intercultural ability/competence or the difficulty
to use an intercultural strategy nor information on the probability to which a testee
with a particular competence is able/competent to use an intercultural strategy with a
particular difficulty.
Item Response Analyses
By an additional step the data were analyzed by means of the dichotomous,
unidimensional Rasch-Model (1PL model) using the software Conquest (Wu, Adams,
Wilson & Haldane, 2007).
This model describes the probability distribution of the testees’ dichotomously given
responses (Xvi) as dependent variable in relation to the independent variables
(testee’s ability θv and the item difficulty (σi)). The responses determine the
probability by which the testee v with an ability level of θv will give a correct response
on item i with a difficulty of σi: p (Xvi = 1|θv, σi) (Wright & Stone, 1979, pp. 15–17).
The whole equation for the simple Rasch-Model is based on an exponential function
(Bühner, 2011, p. 497; Rost, 2004, p. 121):
(1)
With Xvi = 1:
13
(2)
With Xvi = 0:
(3)
It becomes overt that the possibility for a correct response is a conditional probability
which depends on the testee’s individual ability θv but also on the item difficulty (σi):
if the testee has a higher ability as the item difficulty is (θv > σi), there will be a
positive difference between personal ability and item difficulty (θv - σi) – that means
the probability that the item gets correctly solved is higher than 50%. On the contrary
if the item difficulty is higher than the ability of the testee (θv < σi) a negative
difference occurs and says that the probability is higher than 50% that the item does
not get solved correctly (Strobl, 2010, p. 8).
Figure 5 shows the “Wright map” - as empirical correlate to the theoretically
hypothesized model respectively the theoretical competence model in Figure 1 - for
the pre- and post-test.
Figure 5: Wright Map: Case 1: “Student Dormitory” – pre- and post-test comparison
Source: Own calculation in accordance with Wilson, DeBoeck and Carstensen (2008, p. 109)
The Wright map visualizes on the right side the difficulty of the items/used
intercultural strategies within the essay for solving the intercultural clash situation ranked with regard to the difficulty (easy items are mapped at the bottom; difficult
14
items are mapped at the top of the logit-scale). On the left side the students’
competencies are mapped with regard to their ability level (low ability is mapped at
the bottom; difficult items are mapped at the top of the logit-scale). The numbers
represent the items/used intercultural strategies within the pre-test (items 1-10) and
used intercultural strategies within the post-test (parallel/same items 11-20). The “X”
on the left side represents the individual testees with their ability/competencies. The
information can be read as follows: The probability that item no. 7 is solved by the
individual represented by the six “Xs” in the same line is 0,5. The probability that
these six individuals are using the intercultural strategy no. 8 “questioning own frame
of reference” is less probable than 0,5.
With regard to the rank order the results show that the items/use of intercultural
strategies are empirically scaled in the same order as theoretically proposed within
Figure 1. Remarkable is that the rank order of the identical items/used strategies is
nearly the same for the post-test except item/intercultural strategy no. 18
“questioning own frame of reference” which became more easy in t2 (decreasing on
the logit-scale) and item/intercultural strategy no. 1 “presenting” which became more
difficult over time. The shift of the whole items block to the bottom demonstrates that
the probabilities to solve these items/to use these intercultural strategies became
easier to the students while mastering the intercultural clash situation – interpretable
as learning effect. Furthermore, all fit-statistics show that the Item Response Model
chosen is able to describe and characterize the intercultural competence of the
testees:
-
All items can be judged as different: Chi Square Value = 527,83; df = 19; p=
0,000.
-
The discrimination index for all items is 0,22 < d < 0,77´. That means the items
reflect differences in student achievement.
-
The items have a broad difficulty scope as their estimates range from -2,095
to 3,567.
-
The individuals‘ ability scope (EAP / PV) range also very broadly from -4,371
to 3,497.
-
The
Spearman
Rank
Correlation:
(prevs.
post-test):
rs=0,78; p=0,01 shows a similar rank order of the items/used intercultural
strategies in t1 and t2.
-
The reliability of the measurement scale is high: Cronbachs Alpha = 0,89.
-
The students’ achievement changed significantly over time with a high
practical relevance: t-test for dependent samples (pre- vs. post-test):
T=5,903; p=0,000; df=9; ES=1,75 (very high); N=61.
On the basis of these results I can stay with the hypotheses H2 and H3.
With regard to H4 and proving whether the proposed rank order of the intercultural
competencies is stable between different intercultural clash situations (cases) an
15
additional study with case 2 “Internship within a bank” was run. The descriptive data
are presented by Figure 6. A similar calculation applying the dichotomous,
unidimensional Rasch-Model by using the software Conquest (Wu, Adams, Wilson &
Haldane, 2007) came to the following Wright map (Figure 6) and results:
Figure 6: Wright Map: Case 2: “Internship within a bank”
Source: Own calculation in accordance with Wilson, DeBoeck and Carstensen (2008, p. 109)
The results show that the students just use the easy strategies as no. 6 “ pragmatic
solving”, no. 9 “quick result” and one more theoretically judged difficult strategy no. 5
“conflict management”. All other strategies are used with a relatively low probability.
This result can be interpreted in a way (a) that the situation was too difficult or (b) that
the situation does not afford the highly ranked strategies or (c) the students did not
perceive the given situation as an intercultural (clash) situation and, therefore, did not
apply intercultural strategies. The third interpretation alternative seems plausible as
the students use “conflict management”, but probably in a more intra-cultural way.
The rank order differs significantly from that of the first case: Spearman Rank
16
Correlation: Case 1: t1 vs. case:2: rs=0,37 (n.s.); Case 1: t2 vs. Case 2: rs=0,18 (n.s.)
(without Item 8); N=9 categories; N=138.
The model fits are again acceptable:
-
All items can be judged as different: Chi Square Value = 199,27; df = 8; p=
0,000.
-
All items are within the confidence interval: All T-values for MNSQ (weighted):
n.s.
-
Items have a difficulty scope: estimates range from -1,727 to 3,728.
-
Individuals‘ ability scope: EAP / PV range from -2,296 – 0,031.
-
The scale measures reliably: Cronbachs Alpha = 0,79.
-
Items reflect differences in student (low) achievement: discrimination index for
all items: 0,09 < d < 0,39.
I have to reject my hypothesis H4 with regard to the content: The rank order does not
stay the same although Figure 3 shows the clear rank order of the solution
percentages. Thus, I cannot confirm the theoretically hypothesized construct map
over different intercultural clash situations/different cases. The hypothesis H4 has to
be rejected.
4. Summary and Discussion
Summary
The aim of this study was to “measure” the construct of “intercultural competence”
within vocational education and training (VET). For clarifying what to measure I
modelled intercultural competence very closely to the international discussion
(Weinert, 2001; 2002; Baethge et al., 2006; Winterton, 2009) by focussing on
dispositions and performance getting challenged by affordances and requirements of
a particular situation; here: by an intercultural clash situation/critical incident. The
main dispositions of intercultural competence: “knowledge”, “skills” and “attitudes”,
can be performed on various ability levels. My focus was to measure facets of
intercultural skills operationalized by using different intercultural self-regulated
strategies which represent different levels of intercultural performance. The main
challenge for this measurement was to create tasks representing intercultural clash
situations, challenging the testees and provoking them to perform these different
observable intercultural strategies. I used two critical incidents of Pedersen (1996)
being authentic to the testees’ current life situations. The responses were given in an
open essay format. Thus, the testees had to identify themselves with a person in the
critical incident and to develop responses for solving the intercultural clash.
With regard to our results it was possible to provoke such responses from the
testees: they formulated within their essays their intentions how they would perform
in such a particular situation. Thereby, they used a wide range of intercultural
strategies representing different levels of intercultural competence (see Figure 1)
17
(accepting H1). The analyses by IRT - calculating the probabilities of response rates
and corresponding model fits – confirm the theoretical model of a skill hierarchy as
suggested by the construct map (Figure 2) (accepting H2).
The implementation of a pre-post-experimental-control group design shows that the
assumed levels of intercultural skill hierarchy are stable over time – at least for this
particular case (Figure 3) (accepting H3).
Implying another critical incident (case 2) shows that the testees just intend to use
more simple “intercultural” strategies on a low level. Furthermore, the probability for
choosing intercultural strategies are significantly not in the same rank order as
assumed by the hypothezised skill hierarchy (see Figure 3) (rejection of H4).
Discussion and Quality Control
The fact that competencies are defined with its two aspects of non-directly
observable “dispositions” and directly observable “performance” requires a sound
theoretical foundation on “situations”, “content”, “dispositions” and “output/outcome”
respectively their interrelatedness as done in Figure 1. For the first steps in
measuring this complex multidimensional model I restricted the model towards three
dimensions: “skills/strategies” as one facet of the dispositions, “situations” (including
content) and “levels” with regard to achievement levels of skills and difficulties of
situations. Furthermore, I restricted the levels towards a dichotomy (used (=1)/ not
used (=0)). This restriction covers and therefore measures only a small part of
“intercultural competence”. We have to have this in mind when interpreting the
results. Nevertheless, it seems to be a worthwhile approach to start with and to figure
out distinctive rubrics and stable scales for each of the competence dimensions (e.g.,
different categories for intercultural themes for describing the competence dimension
“content” and levels of cognitive activity and development for describing the
competence dimension “dispositions”. In this study I varied the situations by using
different cases including different themes to challenge different levels of responses
for verifying the hypothesized intercultural strategy/skill hierarchy: according to
Weinert’s definition (2001, 2002) it is necessary “to solve problems in variable
situations successfully and responsibly”. Within the international discussion on
measuring competencies there is a debate about the problem of modelling
individuals’ dispositions and task difficulties on a one-dimensional scale (Shavelson,
2010; Yuan, Steedle, Shavelson, Alonzo & Oppezzo, 2006). The opponents in this
discussion argue that learning and development occur also discontinuously and
mastering situations includes different facets of dispositions for various
extents/amounts at the same time. That means we have to look for action-profiles
which depend on the extent and resilience of theoretical and empirical results we find
for a particular competence dimension under investigation.
With regard to the quality check (Rost, 2007; Bühner, 2011) we tried to be “objective”
as we administered the data collection in each group in more or less the same way.
All participants got the paper-and-pencil test sheets with the same test instruction,
the introduction was done in the same way. The test was run within the formal course
time at the beginning of an intercultural training course and for the post-test at the
end of the course time.
The reliability can be judged as given as the coding processes are done
systematically, consistently, and rule-driven with regard to anchor-codings and the
18
theoretical model (Kolbe & Burnett, 1991, p. 247; Kassarjian 1977; Mayring, 2008, p.
145).
With regard to the validity we stay with “face validity” as the responses are strongly
bound to the case to be solved. Thus, the intended intercultural strategies mentioned
in the responses are very close to the actions realized in a similar realistic situation
(see also the meta-analyses on “intention” related to the “theory of planned behavior
(TPB)” (Ajzen, 1991) explaining 30% of real acting: Armitage & Conner, 2001).
Limitations and further research
We are still at the beginning of modelling and measuring (“intercultural”)
competencies. Thus, there are still limitations which stimulate for further research:
Firstly, we up to now implied only two different intercultural clash situations. By
implying more we can see whether the intercultural strategy/skill hierarchy can be
replicated. Furthermore, it seems to be necessary to specify intercultural clash
situations more precisely with regard to the content themes and to formulate the
critical incidents more as an intercultural clash problem to get more insight into the
phenomena arising in the second study. For rising validity it might be also worthwhile
to measure intercultural competence by multiple instruments. In any case the sample
and format of tasks has to be enlarged. Additionally, a specification of the model
(e.g., for a partial credit model or/and multiple dimensions) and integrating other
psycho-social components (e.g., knowledge, attitudes) as well as further variables
(e.g., experiences abroad, age, etc.) might give more insight into curriculuminstruction-assessment-issues (Weber & Achtenhagen, 2010).
5. Theoretical and educational significance of the research
Describing and visualizing (facets of) intercultural competencies is an essential step
for fostering important 21st century skills in a sustainable way. By IRT one can map
out the difficulty of items separately from the individuals’ ability estimates. That
means we can by this detailed analyses (a) locate the level of achieved intercultural
competence an individual has and (b) locate tasks with their corresponding difficulty.
On this basis we can foster and develop intercultural competence to achieve the next
competence level. Thus, this approach might help to plan and implement HRD driven
interventions – and might give hints for adequate and successful assessment and
evaluation procedures.
.
19
References
Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. (Eds.) (1990). Social identity theory: Constructive and critical
advances. New York: Springer.
Achtenhagen, F. & Winther, E. (2009). Konstruktvalidität von Simulationsaufgaben:
Computergestützte Messung berufsfachlicher Kompetenz – am Beispiel der
Ausbildung von Industriekaufleuten. Bericht für das BMBF. Göttingen: Seminar für
Wirtschaftspädagogik.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50 (2), 179–211
Armitage, C. J. & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A
Meta-Analytic Review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471-499.
Baethge, M., Achtenhagen, F., Arends, L., Babic, E., Baethge-Kinsky, V., & Weber,
S. (2006). PISA-VET – A Feasibility-Study. Stuttgart: Steiner.
Baethge, M. & Arends, L. (Eds.) (2009). Feasibility Study VET-LSA. A comparative
analysis of occupational profiles and VET programmes in eight European
countries. International Report. Bonn: BMBF.
Bennett, M. J. (1993). Toward ethnorelativism: A developmental model of
inter-cultural sensitivity. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural
experience (pp. 21-71). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Bennett, M. J. (2004). Becoming interculturally competent. In J. Wurzel (Ed.), Toward
multiculturalism: A reader in multicultural education (pp. 62–77). Newton, MA:
Intercultural Resource Corporation.
Bergemann, N. (2002) (Hrsg.). Interkulturelles Management. 3., Aufl. Berlin:
Springer.
Bhawuk, D.P.S., & Brislin, R. (1992). The measurement of intercultural sensitivity
using the concept of individualism and collectivism, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16, 413-436.
Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M. & Rumble, M. (2010). Draft
White Paper 1: Defining 21st century skills. Melbourne: ACTS.
Bolten, J. (2004) (Hrsg.): Interkulturelles Handeln in der Wirtschaft. Sternenfels:
Verlag Wissenschaft und Praxis.
Breuer, K., Hillen, S. & Winther, E. (2009). Comparative international analysis of
occupational tasks and qualification requirements fort he labor market and
assessment tasks at the end of VET in participating countries – Business and
Administration. In M. Baethge, & L. Arends (Eds.), Feasibility Study VET-LSA. A
comparative analysis of occupational profiles and VET programmes in eight
European countries. International Report (pp. 71 – 84). Bonn: BMBF.
Brewer, M., & Miller, N. (1996). Intergroup relations. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Bühner, M. (2011). Einführung in die Test- und Fragebogenkonstruktion (3.,
aktualisierte und erweiterte Aufl.). München: Pearson Studium.
Bühner, M. & Ziegler, M. (2009). Statistik für Psychologen und Sozialwissenschaftler.
München: Pearson Studium.
Cole, M. & Means, B. (1981). Comparative studies of how people think. Cambridge:
Havard College Press.
Deardorff, D. K. (2009). The Sage Handbook of Intercultural Competence. Los
Angeles et al.: Sage.
Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y.
Engeström, R. Miettinen & R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on Activity Theory
(pp. 19-38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20
Embretson, S. E. (2010) (Ed.). Measuring Psychological Constructs. Washington:
American Psychological Assosiation.
Embretson, S. E. & Reise, S. (2000). Item Response Theory for Psychologists.
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Erpenbeck, J., & von Rosenstiel, L. (2003) (Hrsg.). Handbuch Kompetenzmessung.
Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel.
Franke, G. (2005). Facetten der Kompetenzentwicklung. Bielefeld: Bertelsmann.
Gao, G. & Gudykunst, W. B. (1990). Uncertainty, anxiety, and adaptation.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14, 303-317.
Gorsch, C. & Hany, E. (2009). Entwicklungsverlauf kognitiver Komponenten des
inter-kulturellen Verständnisses. In M. Byram & A. Hu (Hrsg.) Interkulturelle
Kompetenz und fremdsprachliches Lernen; Modelle, Empirie, Evaluation (S.87103). Tübingen: Narr Verlag.
Graf, A. & Mertesacker, M. (2010). Interkulturelle Kompetenz als globaler Erfolgsfaktor: Eine explorative und konfirmatorische Evaluation von fünf Fragebogeninstrumenten für die internationale Personalauswahl. Zeitschrift für Management, 5
(1), 3-27.
Griffin, P. B., McGaw, B., & Care, E. (2012) (Eds.), Assessment and Teaching of 21st
Centruy Skills. Dordrecht et al.: Springer.
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday.
Hany, E. & Gorsch, C. (2006). Entwicklung interkulturellen Verständnisses.
Konstruktion eines psychometrischen Verfahrens. Bericht Nr.4 aus dem
Forschungsvorhaben zur interkulturellen Kompetenz. Erfurt: Universität Erfurt.
Hartig, J. (2008). Psychometric Models for the Assessment of Competencies. In E.
Klieme, D. Leutner & J. Hartig (Eds.), Assessment of Competencies in Educational
Contexts (pp. 69–90). Göttingen: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
Hesse, H. (2009). Zur Messung interkultureller Kompetenz aus psychologischer
Sicht. In M. Byram & A. Hu (Hrsg.) Interkulturelle Kompetenz und
fremdsprachliches Lernen; Modelle, Empirie, Evaluation (S. 161-172). Tübingen:
Narr Verlag.
Hofstede, G. (1993). Interkulturelle Zusammenarbeit. Wiesbaden: Gabler.
Huber, G. L. & Mandl, H. (1982) (Eds.). Verbale Daten. Weinheim, Basel: Beltz.
Kanning, U. P. (2009). Diagnostik sozialer Kompetenzen (2., aktualisierte Auflage).
Göttingen [u.a.]: Hogrefe.
Kassarjian, H. H. (1977). Content Analysis in Consumer Research. Journal of
Consumer Research 4, H. 1, 8–18.
Klieme, E., Hartig, J. & Rauch, D. (2008). The Concept of Competence in
Educational Contexts. In J. Hartig, E. Klieme & D. Leutner (Eds.), Assessment of
Competencies in Educational Contexts (pp. 3–22). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Kolbe, R. H. & Burnett, M. S. (1991). Content-Analysis Research: An Examination of
Applications with Directives for Improving Research Reliability and Objectivity.
Journal of Consumer Research 18, H. 2, 243–250.
Künzer, V. & J. Berninghausen (2007) (Hrsg.). Wirtschaft als interkulturelle
Herausforderung. Business Across Cultures. Frankfurt: IKO
Layes, G. (2000). Grundformen des Fremderlebens. Münster: Waxmann.
Le-Deist, F. & Winterton, J. (2005). “What is competence?” Human Resource
Development International, Vol. 8 (1), 27-46.
Lewis-Beck, M. S., Bryman, A. & Liao, T. F. (2004) (Eds.). The Sage Encyclopedia of
Social Science Research Methods. Vol. 2. Thousand Oaks et al.: Sage.
Loiselle, J. (2000). Interkulturelle Handlungskompetenz. Frankfurt/M.: Lang.
21
OECD (1995). Literacy, Economy and Society. Results of the First International Adult
Literacy Survey. Paris: OECD.
OECD (2003). The PISA 2003 Assessment Framework – Mathematics, Reading,
Science and Problem Solving Knowledge and Skills. Paris: OECD.
Oerter, R. & Dreher, E. (2002). Jugendalter. In R. Oerter & L. Montada (Hrsg).
Entwicklungspsychologie, 5. Aufl. (pp. 258-318). Weinheim et al.: Beltz.
Over, U. , Mienert, M., Grosch, C., & Hany, E. (2008). Interkulturelle Kompetenz:
Begriffsklärung und Methoden der Messung. In T. Ringeisen, P. Buchwald & C.
Schwarzer (Eds.), Interkulturelle Kompetenz in Schule und Weiterbildung (pp. 6579), Münster: Lit Verlag.
Maas, R., Over, U., & Mienert, M. (2008). Dimensionen interkultureller Kompetenz
von Lehrern: Die Entwicklung eines Fragebogens. In T. Ringeisen, P. Buchwald &
C. Schwarzer (Eds.), Interkulturelle Kompetenz in Schule und Weiterbildung (pp.
81-95), Münster: Lit Verlag.
Mayring, P. (2008): Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken.
Weinheim: Beltz.
Pedersen, A. B. (1996). Double-Loop Thinking: Seeing Two Perspectives. In H. N.
Seelye (Ed.), Experiential activities for intercultural learning, Vol. 1. (pp. 105–111).
Yarmouth, Me.: Intercultural Press.
Pellegrino, J. W. (2010). The Design of an Assessment System for the Race to the
Top: A Learning Sciences Perspective on Issues of Growth and Management.
Princeton: Educational Testing Service.
Rost, D. H. (2007). Interpretation und Bewertung pädagogisch-psychologischer
Studien. Eine Einführung (2. Aufl.). Weinheim: Beltz.
Rost, J. (2004). Lehrbuch Testtheorie – Testkonstruktion (2., vollständig
überarbeitete und erweiterte Aufl.). Bern: Huber.
Rychen, D.S., & Salganik, L. H. (2001) (Eds.). Defining and selecting key
competencies. Seattle et al.: Hogrefe & Huber.
Shavelson, R. J. (2010). Measuring College Learning Responsibly. Accountability in
a New Era. Stanford, CA.: Stanford University Press.
Shavelson, R. J., & Towne, L. (Eds.) (2002). Scientific research in education.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Strobl, C. (2010). Das Rasch-Modell. Eine verständliche Einführung für Studium und
Praxis. Mering: Hampp.
Thomas, A. (2003a). Das Eigene, das Fremde, das Interkulturelle. In A. Thomas, E.U. Kinast & S. Schroll-Machl (Hrsg), Handbuch interkulturelle Kommunikation und
Kooperation, Bd. 1 (pp. 44-59). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Thomas, A. (2003b). Interkulturelle Wahrnehmung, Kommunikation und Kooperation.
In A. Thomas, E.-U. Kinast & S. Schroll-Machl (Hrsg), Handbuch interkulturelle
Kommunikation und Kooperation, Bd. 1 (pp. 94-116). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht.
Thomas, A. (2003c).Theoretische Grundlagen interkultureller Kommunikation und
Kooperation. In A. Thomas, E.-U. Kinast & S. Schroll-Machl (Hrsg), Handbuch
interkulturelle Kommunikation und Kooperation, Bd. 1 (pp. 19-31). Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Thomas, A., Kinast, E.-U. & Schroll-Machl, S. (2003) (Hrsg.). Handbuch
Interkulturelle Kommunikation und Kooperation Band 1 und 2. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating across cultures. New York: Guilford Press.
22
Turner, J. H. (1987). Toward a sociological theory of motivation. American
Sociological Review, 52, 15 – 27.
Van der Zee, K. I., & Van Oudenhoven, J. P. (2001). The Multicultural Personality
Questionnaire: Reliability and validity of self- and other ratings of multicultural
effectiveness. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 278–288.
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J., & Jackson, D. (1967). The pragmatics of human
communication. New York: Norton.
Weber, S. (2004). Interkulturelles Lernen – Versuch einer Rekonzeptualisierung.
Unterrichtswissenschaft, 32 Jg., 143-168.
Weber, S. (2005). Intercultural Learning as Identity Negotiation. Frankfurt am Main:
Lang.
Weber, S. (2007). Mindful Identity Negotiation and Intercultural Learning at Work.
Lifelong Learning in Europe, XII, (3), 142-152.
Weber, S. & Achtenhagen, F. (2010). Molare didaktische Ansätze zur Förderung
forschungs- und evidenzbasierter Lehr-Lern-Prozesse. In J. Seifried, E. Wuttke, R.
Nickolaus & P. F. E. Sloane (Hrsg.), Lehr-Lern-Forschung in der kaufmännischen
Berufsbildung - Ergebnisse und Gestaltungsaufgaben. Zeitschrift für Berufs- und
Wirtschaftspädagogik / Beihefte: Bd. 23. (S. 13–26). Stuttgart: Steiner.
Weber, S. & Hofmuth, M. (2012). Messung unterschiedlicher Facetten von
interkultureller Kompetenz. In Niedermair, G. (Hrsg.), Kompetenzen entwickeln,
messen und bewerten (pp. 209-222). Linz: Trauner..
Weinert, E. (2001). Concept of Competence: A Conceptual Clarification. In D. S.
Rychen & L. H. Salganik (Eds.), Key competencies for a successful life and a wellfunctioning society (pp. 45-65). Seattle et al.: Hogrefe & Huber.
Weinert, E, (2002) (Hrsg.), Leistungsmessungen in Schulen. 2 Aufl. Weinheim &
Basel: Beltz.
Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing measures. An item response modeling approach.
Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wilson, M., De Boeck, P. & Carstensen, C. H. (2008). Explanatory Item Response
Models: A Brief Introduction. In J. Hartig, E. Klieme & D. Leutner (Hrsg.),
Assessment of Competencies in Educational Contexts (pp. 91–120). Göttingen:
Hogrefe.
Winterton, J. (2009). Competence across Europe: Highest common factor or lowest
common denominator? Journal of European Industrial Training, 33, 681-700.
Winterton, J., Delamare-Le Deist, F. & Stringfellow, E. (2005). Typology of
knowledge, skills and competences: Clarification of the concept prototype. Final
Draft. Thessaloniki: CEDEFOP.
Winther, E. (2010). Kompetenzmessung in der beruflichen Bildung. Bielefeld:
Bertelsmann.
Wordelmann, P. (Hrsg.). (2010). Internationale Kompetenzen in der Berufsbildung:
Stand der Wissenschaft und praktische Anforderungen. Bielefeld: Bertelsmann
Verlag.
Wright, B. D. & Stone, M. H. (1979). Best Test Design. Chicago, IL: MESA Press.
Wu, M. L., Adams, R. J., Wilson, M. & Haldane, S. A. (2007). ACER CONQUEST.
Version 2.0. Camberwell: ACER Press.
Yuan, K., Steedle, J., Shavelson, R., Alonzo, A. & Oppezzo, M. (2006). Working
memory, fluid intelligence, and science learning. Educational Research Review, 1,
83–98.
23
Univ.-Prof. Dr. Susanne Weber
Institute of Human Research Education and Management, Munich School of
Management, Ludwig-Maximilians–University Munich
Ludwigstr. 28 RGIII, D-80539 Munich (Germany)
Tel. X-172-5626790
susanne.weber@bwl.lmu.de
24