1.2.1 Culture, Intercultural Communication, and Identity

In educational contexts, ‘culture’ is frequently regarded as the collective knowledge, traits, and characteristics that individuals inherently possess due to their association with specific (national) groups. In such educational treatment, emphasis on national cultural differences risks cultural essentialism; that is, ‘presuming that there is a universal essence, homogeneity, and unity in a particular culture’ (Reference Holliday, Hyde and KullmanHolliday, Hyde & Kullman, 2021, p. 1). This treatment of culture connects less with developing skills to interact in a multicultural world and more with stereotyping; i.e., ‘overgeneralizations of group characteristics or behaviors, which are applied to individuals of those groups’ (Reference Hughes and BaldwinHughes & Baldwin, 2002, p. 114). Moreover, it overlooks differences among individuals from particular settings as well as differences in how meaning is contested among individuals. These concerns are also relevant to intercultural and related cross-cultural research, where over the last seventy years, nation-based cultural understandings around ‘facts’ have been common in comparisons of ‘distinct’ cultures described at the level of nation; that is, descriptions of cultures on a national level based without acknowledging complexity and diversity within national cultures (Reference PillerPiller, 2017). While ‘intercultural’ and ‘cross-cultural’ are sometimes used synonymously, there are more tendencies in cross-cultural approaches to handle culture within fixed geographical lines, contrasting individuals in one community with those in another, and presupposing that such individuals will be inherently ‘different’.

I argue that individual identities and their relationships with cultures are more complex than can be represented by fixed labelling. As such, throughout I use ‘intercultural’ based on an understanding that cultural differences do not necessarily represent problems and that any differences in communication are interaction-based. This position is informed by Reference ZhuZhu’s (2019) view of intercultural communication as dynamic, emergent, and negotiated among individuals who are concurrently members of a range of categories (e.g., ethnicity, gender, religion, age, socioeconomic status, education level, and occupation, among others) that may or may not be relevant in particular moments of interaction. Identities are, therefore, complex, multifaceted, and go beyond national descriptions since individuals negotiate and navigate their identities in contexts of communication (Reference ZhuZhu, 2019). This perspective underscores the necessity for individuals to acknowledge a diversity of identities that emerge in intercultural communication.

1.2.2 Intercultural Learning

To avoid nation-based conceptions of cultures and languages and to represent them as fluid in intercultural communication, I refer to Reference BakerBaker’s (2011) intercultural awareness (ICA) to conceptualise intercultural learning. This is defined as: ‘a conscious understanding of the role culturally based forms, practices and frames of reference can have in intercultural communication, and an ability to put these conceptions into practice in a flexible and context specific manner in communication’ (Reference BakerBaker, 2011, p. 202). Thus, ICA recognises intercultural communication as driven by the functional needs of those involved, irrespective of cultural or linguistic background and it emphasises flexibility in relation to emergent communicative practices. Importantly, it does not provide specific details of how ‘forms’, ‘practices’, and ‘frames of reference’ should be understood in terms of ‘competence’, given controversies in how ‘competence’ is constituted (see discussion in Section 2.4; Reference BakerBaker, 2015). This flexibility can be crucial in exchange contexts that are marked by cultural and linguistic diversity, where complex interactions go beyond static and pre-learnt fact-based categories of knowledge and fixed ways of using English in communication. A detailed overview of ICA is provided in Section 2.6.

I also explore how student exchanges can influence connections with other individuals and communities; that is, global/intercultural citizenship (used interchangeably, though I use intercultural citizenship for its links to the discussion on intercultural citizenship education (Reference ByramByram, 2008 in Section 3.4). Intercultural citizenship education is based on preparing individuals to navigate an increasingly diverse and interconnected world by supporting the development of skills to understand and engage with individuals in multicultural contexts, and to become active, responsible citizens in multicultural communities. Its prominence in the internationalisation aims of many universities means it is a key area for exploration in student exchange research, though currently somewhat underrepresented.

1.2.3 ELF/EMF and Global Englishes

Despite the essential role of language in facilitating intercultural learning during interactions with others, its role in research on intercultural learning is frequently disregarded (Reference IshikawaBaker & Ishikawa, 2021). To address this here, I focus on an integration of intercultural learning and intercultural communication using English based on contemporary perspectives towards English use in global contexts (e.g., Reference JenkinsJenkins, 2015a; Reference Rose and GallowayRose & Galloway, 2019). Exchanges offer opportunities for students to form new perspectives towards English use in line with Global Englishes (GE), defined as ‘the linguistic and sociocultural dimensions of global uses, usages and users of English’ (University of Southampton, 2023). In accordance with GE, I adopt the view that English use is not standardised and singular, but variability and multilingualism are the reality for communication involving English in most global contexts (e.g., Reference IshikawaBaker & Ishikawa, 2021). These aspects of English use are reflected in research on English as a lingua franca (ELF) and English as a multi-lingua franca (EMF) communication; that is, ‘multilingual communication in which English is available as a contact language of choice, but is not necessarily chosen’ (Reference JenkinsJenkins, 2015a, p. 73; see Section 3.2). While some exchange students may engage with local English nativeFootnote ¹ speakers and focus on ‘standard’ language use, on other programmes, students find themselves studying alongside and socialising with other international students and using ELF/EMF in communication. In this way, communication practices contrast with prescriptivist standard language use that continues to characterise English language teaching (ELT) and learning (Reference Rose and GallowayRose & Galloway, 2019). Awareness and understanding of GE themes and practices, then, encompass pluralistic over monolithic understandings of English, recognition and acceptance of diversity and variability in English language use, and use of ELF/EMF in communication. These issues are discussed in detail in Sections 3.2 and 3.3.

4.3.1 Research Questions

In this case study, I explore the exchange experiences of fifteen Japanese university students by addressing two research questions:

1. 1. What are the factors in students’ trajectories through short-term student exchanges that offer experiences leading to intercultural learning and changes in perspectives towards English use in intercultural communication (in line with GE)?

2. 2. To what extent did short-term student exchange experiences support intercultural learning (ICA and intercultural citizenship) and changes in perspectives towards using English in intercultural communication?

The aim of question one was to develop understanding around how programmes of different character led to differences in intercultural learning and awareness of GE-related themes, in particular ELF/EMF; that is, contextual factors contributing to development, such as variations in programme type, length, and types of social contact. The aim of question two was to investigate intercultural learning that individuals experienced during student exchanges, including a focus on changes in perspectives towards using English in intercultural communication. The study looked at any changes over time by comparing items from student interviews across the longitudinal research period (pre-exchange, post-exchange, and six months later), examining individual perspectives and experiences. The focus of this study is, therefore, on students’ reports of educational practices in both the home university and on student exchange programmes, and on any changes in individual students’ perspectives.

4.3.2 Research Context

The case study was conducted at a non-language major university at which particpation in short-term international exchanges and English language learning were promoted in institutional internationalisation policy. The English department provided two ninety-minute mandatory English communication classes each week for first- and second-year students. A prescriptivist standard normative approach could be identified in the curriculum (mainstream ELT resources, certain online resources, many teacher-developed materials, assessment systems) and in many teacher perspectives (based on personal observations). However, use of ELF/EMF could be observed in communication with students, particularly in a designated open common discussion area within a self-access centre. Based on my own experiences teaching in the context, the majority of students’ English level and motivation were low. In university reports regarding alumni, most did not go on to use English or work in international contexts. The exchange programmes were managed by administrative staff in an international exchange division, established in 2015, and involved short-term experiences in diverse locations, including language study, research study, cultural exchanges, and study tours. Table 2 provides a picture of the university’s recent participation rates in short-term student exchanges (the decline is due to the pandemic).

The aims of exchanges in the setting (extracted from the university website) included: ‘gain a global perspective through overseas experience’; ‘become independent’; ‘experience different ways of living and thinking in different cultures’; and ‘develop a flexible mind’. Developing global human resources as a goal of exchanges was also explicitly acknowledged, with definitions in the setting around ‘ability to act and fulfil an active role in Japan and the world, with the flexibility to collaborate from both local and global perspectives’. I argue that intercultural citizenship is relevant to these statements, though assumptions about ideal interactions (i.e., with local native speakers) were evident in advertising material for exchange programmes offered by the university (see Section 2.4).

4.3.3 Participants and Their Exchanges

The fifteen students who contributed to this study took part in exchanges in the 2017/18 academic year were, at the time, current or former students in the English learning centre. The interviews in this case study were conducted during that time. Differences among these students included gender (eight female students, seven male), age range (nineteen to twenty-four), past international experiences (five with, ten without), programme duration (seven days to one month), as well as different types of programmes and destinations offered in the university’s exchange options. In Table 3, I have included information about the fifteen students and their selected programmes (all names are pseudonyms).

To provide context on these students’ programmes and motivations, they reported that their main objectives for taking part in student exchanges were to improve their English communication skills and establish international connections. Following exchanges, students reported varied individual experiences. I interpreted broad patterns in the experiences of different programmes from their accounts. Noriko, Mariko, Sayaka, Kodai, Kaori, Tomo, Takeshi, and Miki were enrolled on research-based or language study programmes conducted on international campuses where they interacted with other international students. Yuki and Masa took part in cultural and study tours in Malaysia, which involved time on culturally and linguistically diverse international campuses. Among these students, multicultural and multilingual aspects were significant in students’ reports. Mayu, Ryota, Daichi, Kiyoko and Minami participated in chaperoned group tours, organised by the home university, where opportunities to use English in intercultural communication were limited. Takeshi and Tomo participated in programmes in this grouping, but also referred to other exchange experiences in the interviews. Although the distinction between ‘study’ and ‘tourism’ experiences was somewhat ambiguous in faculty-organised and chaperoned tours, these programmes were classified as official overseas study programmes by the university and are therefore included in this study. This variation is explored in depth in the findings in Section 4.4.

4.3.4 Data Collection

The research aimed to provide a complex and in-depth description of students’ engagement in intercultural communication and intercultural learning during their exchanges. As such, it is focused on a qualitative and interpretive understanding of individual processes of learning and changes in perspectives, acknowledging that statistical measures might not fully capture individual and subjective perspectives (Reference SilvermanSilverman, 2014). It is, therefore, in line with a research trend towards qualitative research on individual trajectories through international study experiences (Reference Coleman and KingingerColeman, 2013; Reference KingingerKinginger, 2009). The study combined interviews at three points (pre-sojourn, post-sojourn, six months later), observations (institutional practices, student learning practices), and documentary data (website statements, exchange promotional material, ELT materials and resources).

In the semi-structured interviews (which I conducted), I looked at these students’ exchange experiences in terms of ICA, understandings of GE (in particular around ELF/EMF), and how intercultural citizenship could be identified in students’ reports of educational practices and individual learning motivation through their exchange trajectories (i.e., pre-, during, and post-exchange). The interviews lasted thirty minutes on average. While interview guides were utilised, the participants were given flexibility to discuss areas of personal importance pertaining to the research areas (Reference SilvermanSilverman, 2014). In the initial interviews, a rapport was established, foundational topic areas were covered, and impressions of the students’ perspectives were formed to be compared with later responses. The second interview allowed for greater individualisation and centered on the exchange experiences themselves. Follow-up questions and an exploration of unresolved and interesting emergent points were the focus of the final interviews. Participants had the option of responding in either Japanese or English, depending on their preference. I arranged translations, where necessary, and a bilingual co-worker verified the accuracy of the translations against the original texts. The inclusion of English language in certain interviews is a methodological limitation and may have restricted the comprehensiveness of some student responses. Nonetheless, the transcripts/translations were presented to the students at the conclusion of the data collection period, with an invitation for them to contribute additional thoughts on the research area, in either English or Japanese. Any feedback received could be included in the analysis. Translations are identified where they appear in the findings.

Background observational and documentary data were obtained through a process of participant observation involving observing and documenting practices in the educational setting (Reference SilvermanSilverman, 2014). In particular, I looked at institutional educational practices (curricula, learning resources), student exchange support mechanisms (provisions of learning support), individuals (including students, teachers, and international department staff, following informal interactions), and documents (as noted above). I took notes to record these data and note my own interpretations.

4.3.5 Data Analysis

In the analysis, I looked for changes in the students’ perspectives in how they talked about culture and language in intercultural communication through the data collection. I treated ‘perspectives’ as related to subjective viewpoints or opinions that may be shaped by personal experiences and background, but which may change after experiencing subjective events (e.g., intercultural communication during exchanges). In later interviews, I looked for examples of students reframing their perspectives towards language and culture. The interviews might not have provided objective ‘facts’, but they offered particular representations of perspectives and experiences in a dialogue with me, as the interviewer/researcher (Reference Byrne and SealeByrne, 2004). All data were transcribed and analysed using NVivo 11, with predetermined codes based on the conceptual areas; however, data-driven codes were also allowed to emerge given flexibility in the interviews (Reference Miles, Huberman and SaldañaMiles, Huberman & Saldaña, 2014). This coding approach ensured there was a conceptual closeness to the research areas, with an openness to new directions (Reference SilvermanSilverman, 2014). A thematic framework developed from analysis of the interview data, which involved continuous adjustments to reflect emergent data. Although the number of participants was small, the study aimed to build detailed individual accounts to document their experiences, with cross-participant comparison used to identify common thematic threads (Reference SilvermanSilverman, 2014). Findings are constructed representations of what was shared in the interview contexts as well as items from other data sources. I have attempted to be transparent in my positioning, in my approach to these topic areas, and my management of a research process. As the interpretation of the findings and the implications drawn from them are subjective, readers are encouraged to engage with the data and my interpretations and draw their own conclusions based on their own perspectives and experiences.

4.4.1 Pre-exchange Learning Experiences: Culture

The fifteen students recalled past culture learning experiences from school and ELT (including at the current university context) in ways that implied national fact-based cultural learning in cross-cultural comparisons between Japanese and other national cultures. Kaori (interview 1) stated: ‘In high school, we did a project about food and lifestyle … I learnt about differences between Japan and Canada.’ Similarly, Tatsuya (interview 1) reported: ‘I did an English project about American culture and Japanese culture … I learned that we are different.’ Such reports of culture learning were common among these students. These experiences of culture learning, reported in the first interviews, did not appear to link to the educational attempts to support international ways of thinking (i.e., intercultural citizenship).

4.4.2 Pre-exchange Perspectives: Culture

In the pre-exchange interviews, there were instances of essentialism among the participants relating to the basic cultural awareness in ICA level one. For example, Ryota (interview 1) generalised individuals within his own national culture in a comparison with a generalised understanding of individuals in the United States: ‘Japanese people are very shy … American people are more active.’ In a similar example, Daichi (interview 1) talked about his experience with an American teacher, contrasting levels of ‘tension’ with Japanese individuals: ‘His tension was very high but Japanese people’s tension is not high, so we were very tired.’ In a further example, when talking about what he had learned about culture, Kodai shared a basic surface-level cultural perspective around facts (interview 1): ‘In Japan, toilet and bathroom is divided but in Canada, same place.’ In my observations, the interviews did not reveal broad awareness of complexity of culture, though some students likely found nation-based labels as relevant in the interviews in response to the questions asked.

4.4.3 Pre-exchange Learning Experiences: English Language

Regarding ELT experiences, there was an emphasis on English-language learning as a subject of knowledge rather than learning towards communication. Students provided similar reports of secondary ELT experiences around reading and grammar-translation study and preparation for university entrance tests. Nine students explicitly reported few opportunities to use English at secondary level, illustrated by Miki (interview 1), who stated: ‘I have to speak perfect English because in high school we have to study about grammar or sentence not speaking … we only study to pass test so I think English is just a subject.’ I also interpreted connections between English study and obligation to develop English communication skills, though there were perspectives towards learning English as difficult and unnecessary in Japan given its limited use in many contexts. Tomo illustrated this point (interview 1): ‘When I was in high school, I wasn’t interested in English at all, but I study English to enter university … I can do anything without English in Japan and there is little person who speak English, so I don’t need it.’

4.4.4 Pre-exchange Perspectives: English Language Use

Pre-exchange, most students associated authentic English use with standard normative correctness, expressed by Sayaka (interview 1): ‘I want to learn American English because it’s correct English.’ This perspective was also evident in negativity towards local teachers, including from Mariko (interview 2): ‘Japanese teacher can’t teach correct English.’ Perspectives towards ‘authenticity’ as based on standard normative understandings may have been formed during the ELT experiences and practices described by these students, for example Miki in interview 1: ‘My teacher corrected all my mistakes … I believed I had to speak correct English.’ Similarly, Tomo (interview 2), when looking back to past ELT experiences, stated: ‘I studied from textbooks and used to believe English was just one’ (also indicating a changed perspective towards English use; see Section 4.4.7). The standard language preferences also implied an absence of ELF/EMF awareness; however, some basic WE-based awareness was indicated around location-based differences in English use within the ‘inner circle’, though other uses tended to be grouped under ‘non-native’. For example, Kaori (interview 1) reported: ‘Australian English is different to British English … so difficult … I prefer American English … I don’t want to learn non-native English.’

4.4.5 Pre-departure Institutional Support

Institutional support was reported by the students as limited to the provision of basic information and it did not appear to include clear specifics about programmes, as Noriko (interview 1) mentioned: ‘International centre do only the paperwork … I didn’t get much information.’ In pre-sojourn learning advice, students reported that the international division had advised them to research information about their destination national cultures. Based on reports, this advice was not focused on any potential for learning through interaction with individuals in multicultural environments. Kiyoko (interview 2) reported: ‘The university told me to learn something about the culture in Taiwan, that’s all.’ Moreover, the institution did not clearly differentiate between programme types; as a result, several students were unclear about aspects of their programmes or what constituted study, illustrated by Yuki (interview 2, translation): ‘My image of studying abroad was a bit like a travel … I’d like to make a clear distinction between them next time.’ Based on these students’ accounts, I interpreted that pre-sojourn institutional practices were not pedagogically based according to the conceptual orientation of this research, which also relates to assumptions of intercultural learning occuring automatically on stays abroad.

4.4.6 Student Motivations for Exchange Participation

Most students reported motivation to develop ‘global’ identities during student exchanges, illustrated by Ryota (interview 1): ‘I want to study abroad because I want to be global … I can speak to foreign people and learn new things. It will be hard to do that in Japan.’ Yuki (interview 1, translation) expressed a similar motivation alongside a view that achieving this aim in Japan would be difficult: ‘I want to place myself in an environment where I cannot use Japanese. I want to explore what kind of culture or perspective exists outside Japan and hope to utilise the experience in future.’ Therefore, there were implied expectations that international exchanges would lead to intercultural learning and the formation of a ‘global’ identity in contexts in which a reliance on the Japanese language was not possible. This motivation was linked by students to English use. For example, Noriko (interview 1) said: ‘Many Japanese people think we should study English because Japan is becoming a global country … I hope to become a global person.’ However, ‘global’ also tended to be linked to national cultural understandings, as shown by Mayu (interview 1): ‘I want to see abroad [global] views so this project is I learn American’s culture.’ Thus, understandings of ‘global’ and ‘intercultural’ among students appeared vague, at least in how they were shared in the interview contexts. While students were motivated to use English, there was also nervousness, illustrated by Noriko (interview 1): ‘I feel scared, and I worry that I can be understood in English, and if I can make friends if I make mistakes.’ Such trepidation could be linked to language learning experiences focusing on the ‘correctness’ of standard norms and limited past experience using English in communication.

4.4.7 Student Exchanges: Multicultural and Multilingual Experiences

Social Contact and International Connections. Some students (Noriko, Mariko, Sayaka, Kodai, Kaori, Tomo, Takeshi, Miki, Yuki, and Masa) characterised their experiences in terms of cultural and linguistic diversity among other students with whom they connected. There were examples in these students’ reports of acknowledging the particular nature of their encounters with individuals of diverse background, and identifying some commonalities. For example, Kodai (interview 2) stated: ‘I study with Morocco, Colombia, Korea, Italy, Turkey, Pakistan, France students … my class friends talked to me a lot so I can practise my English skill and learn about them … when we worked together I found we had a lot in common.’ Among these students, there were also reports of informal social activity with other students. Takeshi (interview 1), in reference to a language study programme in the Philippines, talked positively about opportunities to interact with a diverse range of individuals using English. He said: ‘It was so good experience for me to speak English. I could get so many friends … I can understand and feel there are other people.’ For students on such programmes in culturally and linguistically diverse campuses, there were also opportunities to organise their own time, allowing them to build relationships with other international students in social settings, illustrated by Miki (interview 2) – ‘I had a lot more free time to plan my time with friends’ – and Tomo (interview 3) – ‘In Houston, I could make my own plans to go out in the evenings with friends.’

Intercultural Learning. Among these students, there were reports of new intercultural learning formed through connections made during their exchanges. For example, Mariko (interview 2) stated: ‘In Germany I got used to speak to a lot of people. I learnt a lot of new things from them, and I want to use their ideas in the future.’ Similarly, Yuki (interview 2, translation) reported learning new ideas through interaction, and motivation to incorporate them in his own thinking: ‘I interacted with Malaysian and international students … I talked about the way people think, hobbies or relationships. I learnt new ideas and I want to absorb them … I felt a connection with those people.’ As illustrated by Mariko and Yuki, students on these programmes appeared to accept new ideas encountered in multicultural contexts and expressed a motivation to use these new ideas in the future (though the extent to which they did so is unknown). Based on connections in a multilingual environment, there were examples of new confidence using English in such learning, illustrated by Miki (interview 2) on her research-based programme at an international campus in Hong Kong:

Miki analysed and reflected on an intercultural experience and adapted to a multicultural community by acting on that reflection and speaking up in class. Miki’s experience appeared to contribute to a change in confidence. I also interpreted reflection and change, building identifications within a multicultural community from Noriko’s account (interview 3): ‘Study abroad gave me a new perspective … I learnt a lot from working with other students and I started to think differently when I was with them.’

Changing Views towards English Use. While in pre-sojourn perspectives there was a tendency to associate authentic English use exclusively with native English speakers, students percieved experiences engaging with variability in English use on their programmes as meaningful. For example, Kodai (interview 2) reported hearing new accents and using English with other international students (and was enthusiastic about building new international friendships): ‘English pronunciation was different, and I was surprised … I talked a lot, and I could feel difference between them … I want to make more abroad friends, so I want to go again.’ Similarly, Noriko observed the importance of listening to different English pronunciation to improve her own listening skills, not focusing on native English users (interview 2): ‘I want to hear a lot of English pronunciation … I need to hear more from many countries’ English. My listening will become better if I hear more pronunciation.’ These students reported an interest in further exposure to different uses of English, with pronunciation as the main area in which differences were talked about, as perhaps they were more easily identifiable as differences among these students. Changes in confidence were also evident across the accounts of students on these types of exchange, including Mariko (interview 2), who stated: ‘I could speak to many people. I think I’m a little more confident with my English now.’ It also emerged that some students were more comfortable talking to other international students, as illustrated by Takeshi (interview 2): ‘When I speak with native English speaker, I feel a little pressure to speak very well but when I talk with non-native speaker, I feel more relaxed. English is not native language for them and it’s same to me. Their English is not perfect, and mine too.’

In an illustration of longitudinal changes in perspectives towards English use, Kodai indicated changes occurred after his experience on a three-week language programme in London. Prior to his sojourn, he had spent time playing online games, using in-game chat features to communicate in English with players from Thailand (interview 1): ‘Sometimes I play internet games and then I communicate with foreign country people in Thailand … they are not correct.’ Post-sojourn, Kodai (interview 2) expressed some positivity towards non-native English use, based on positive experiences socialising with a diverse group of classmates: ‘I got to talk to people from various countries … they have their own accents and expressions. I was genuinely glad I could learn those things.’ It implied that Kodai developed more awareness of differences in English use and accepted diversity rather than defining variability as ‘not correct’, as in the first interview.

Developing ELF/EMF Perspectives. There was also an indication of changes towards accepting and using ELF/EMF in communication, as Noriko (interview 2) implied: ‘Sometimes I changed my explanation so if I say something difficult, I explain it different.’ In addition, Tomo (interview 3), after an exchange experience on a multicultural campus in the United States, reported shifting a view towards ELF/EMF: ‘I chose Houston I wanted to meet new people different cultures … before I went to USA, I thought grammar is very important, but some people talk a lot, but their grammar is not correct but if I change, we can communicate each other and learn about each other.’ Similarly, Takeshi indicated use of ELF/EMF during his exchange in a multilingual setting in Philippines. He remarked (interview 3): ‘I learned to focus on communication and not using perfect grammar or pronunciation.’

Longitudinal development of ELF/EMF perspectives is illustrated by Masa, who took part in a cultural tour to Malaysia involving time interacting with individuals on a culturally and linguistically diverse campus. He had not been abroad before and described his past English experiences as limited. Pre-sojourn, he was negative towards his own English and reported little confidence using English (interview 1, translation): ‘Because I think my English is bad. I thought I could speak more confidently if my English skills were better.’ Following his sojourn, Masa (interview 2, translation) indicated a changed view in favour of using English, noting that communication could be effective following a more flexible and less norm-regulated approach: ‘I noticed when I changed what I said, or didn’t worry about what I said, they could understand me … it felt good to talk with them … they were not native speakers but they were better than me.’ Masa accepted ‘non-standard’ English use among others, but not his own; however, later he reflected again on his English use and reported more confidence (interview 3, translation): ‘I could learn they can still understand my badly pronounced English, so it made me want to go overseas even more.’ Therefore, such experiences of intercultural communication on culturally and linguistically diverse campuses supported new ELF/EMF perspectives and included engagement in ELF/EMF in intercultural communication, though there was negativity towards own English use.

4.4.8 Student Exchanges: Focus on Target Culture and Language

Target (national) culture learning was more evident on faculty-led, group exchanges, as interpreted from thematic connections in the students’ accounts of their exchange experiences. Some students on these programmes (Mayu, Ryota, Daichi, Kiyoko and Minami, as well as Takeshi and Tomo in reference to other exchange experiences) had objectives to use English in communication with local (native English) students and develop a ‘global’ perspective. For example, Daichi (interview 1) stated: ‘I would like to be a global person … I hope to make new American friends and learn from them’ (see also Section 4.4.6). However, there were few opportunities to achieve this through interaction, as Takeshi (interview 3) remarked: ‘I’m not satisfied. We didn’t have enough opportunity to talk to American students … it’s difficult to make friends in so few minutes.’ Limited social contact with others was also a source of frustration for Ryota (interview 3), who had wanted to connect with local individuals: ‘I couldn’t send my heart to American people.’ Moreover, there was criticism towards wide use of Japanese and towards organisational decisions restricting independence, illustrated by Tomo (interview 3): ‘I don’t have any chance to speak English … almost [all] time we talked in Japanese … We don’t have to do anything by ourselves because [chaperone] do everything.’

These programmes included organised communication events and cultural exchanges involving student presentations on aspects of Japanese culture to students overseas. However, these presentations did not appeal to students, as Daichi (interview 2) demonstrated: ‘We did a performance about origami . . . I just explained origami but it’s not interesting.’ In addition, Takeshi (interview 3) shared his experience of these events: ‘I talked about kimono, but it’s not my inspiration.’ Based on such comments, it implied that these students desired more substantial intercultural learning experiences, apparently aware that interactions during these organised events were superficial. Among these students, there was also a tendency to report on differences among individuals encountered during these cultural events at national levels without expressing commonalities among individuals (i.e., ICA level one). For example, Daichi (interview 2) reported: ‘American people were different to us. They are friendly but sometimes they said things that are confusing to us.’ In addition, some students on these programmes reported negative intercultural experiences following organised communication activities, relying on stereotypes in their descriptions. For example, Ryota (interview 3): ‘It was a little difficult to talk to him … he said interesting thing, but I didn’t agree. I think Japanese people is more kind.’ Kiyoko (interview 3) provided a further example of generalising individuals: ‘Taiwan people are more confident, and Japanese are more shy.’

Students on such programmes also expressed negativity towards experiences using English, in which notions of standard normative language use remained influential in the accounts and there was no indication of new ELF/EMF understandings or changes in communication practices. For example, Minami (interview 2) stated: ‘Taiwanese English is not so good, but they try to speak … I’m careful for grammar and pronunciation so I couldn’t speak.’ Daichi also commented on language use (interview 1): ‘American people speak English correctly. Sometimes it was difficult to understand them … It made me understand that I have so much to learn to communicate like them.’ In addition, there was self-criticism towards students’ own language use, and willingness to accept blame for communication breakdowns. For example, Mayu (interview 3) stated: ‘They spoke so fast, it was hard to understand. But they are using English correctly. I have to practise more.’ These experiences, therefore, did not appear to support new ELF/EMF perspectives.

4.4.9 Post-exchange

On returning from exchanges, students were required to write a report and deliver a presentation for study credits as part of formal post-sojourn requirements at the university, reported by Tomo (interview 2): ‘I did presentation about America trip and culture about the hotel and food after coming back.’ I observed that these presentations tended to involve descriptions of basic information about organisational aspects of the programmes and cultural generalisations about the host countries. The students reported that educational direction was not provided to help students unpack their experiences. For example, Sayaka (interview 2) reported: ‘I made presentation with my friend … I didn’t get help.’ Despite internationalisation statements on the university website around developing global perspectives from student exchanges, these post-sojourn educational practices appeared focused on fact-based culture learning rather than on intercultural perspectives. Post-sojourn, there were student claims of greater motivation to engage in intercultural learning; however, other university concerns obstructed how this motivation translated into new learning practices, illustrated by Minami (interview 3), who stated: ‘I want to learn more about different cultures … but I have to do many tests this year so it’s hard to use the self-access centre.’ Motivation to study English was also expressed in the post-sojourn period, including by Yuki (interview 2, translation): ‘I hope to create English sentences on a daily basis, such as keeping a diary or translating conversations … I haven’t been able to do so because of my studies.’ Mariko (interview 2) also reported difficulties: ‘I’d like to learn about English but now I’m doing experiments, so I don’t have time.’ Extending learning was, therefore, affected by other commitments, limiting the extent that potentially important learning could be consolidated or built on post-sojourn.

4.5.1 Mayu

Profile. Mayu, a twenty-one-year-old third-year biology student, took part in a ten-day faculty-led US cultural tour alongside twenty-three other students from the home university. Mayu reported motivation to use English in intercultural communication and develop an intercultural identity through communication with individuals from the local destination community. The tour involved university and high-school visits where the students presented on aspects of Japanese culture to local students, followed by brief and staged communication exchanges. As stated in Section 4.4.8, complaints emerged towards organisational aspects of the programme, including around a lack of independence, rigid schedules, and few opportunities to use English in intercultural communication. Pre-departure, Mayu was active in the university’s self-access centre, regularly using English in communication with teachers.

1. Interview 1: I want to see abroad views, so this project is I learn American’s culture. I will visit university and high school because I do presentation on Japanese culture. My group topic is educational snack … American students are interested in Japanese culture.

In interview 1, Mayu reported motivation to participate in her exchange to learn ‘America’s culture’. While this may be based on challenges expressing her perspective in the interview context, it also implied a basic understanding of culture at the national level, without talking about differences among individuals. She also talked about culture in general terms (as she did in later interviews) in comments linked to awareness of ‘culture as a set of shared behaviours, beliefs, and values’ (level one), based on her generalisation of culture.

1. Interview 2: The truth is [I did] three presentations in high school and university … this project is not recommended because schedule … We can do nothing, we don’t have time to meet people … American students are very interested in politics, but we are not interested.

In the second interview, Mayu talked about her required presentation (on educational snacks; i.e., common snacks some students enjoy during periods of study). She had expected presentation content would appeal to local students in these cultural exchange events (interview 1); however, in such practices, there were risks of promoting learning around national-level cultural differences. This kind of activity did not imply connections would form with others in line with intercultural citizenship. Mayu complained about the programme timetable and organisation, and about not having time to connect with local students. In a report of communication with students during these events, Mayu relied on a basic comparison between those she talked to, and a shared Japanese perspective (as she saw it) around a lack of interest in politics. This perspective may also be associated with level one awareness of ‘others’ culturally induced behaviour, values, and beliefs and the ability to compare this with our own culturally induced behaviour, values, and beliefs’.

1. Interview 3: I want to know a variety of cultures. So, because, like food is very difficult. Many people, many countries, I like food, so I want to know many countries food.

Later, Mayu reported motivation to engage in further culture learning, though she continued to focus on surface-level aspects of culture, connected with level one. She talked about culture in general understandings as shared in the behaviours, beliefs, and values of members of particular communities.

4.5.2 Yuki

Profile: Yuki was a nineteen-year-old first-year engineering student who participated in a ten-day cultural tour to Malaysia. He was accompanied by seven other Japanese students and a professor from the home university. The programme included several days working and socialising with other international students on a culturally and linguistically diverse university campus. The group stayed in a university dormitory on campus. Yuki reported spending time with Malaysian, Chinese, Indian, Sudanese, and Turkish students. It was his first time overseas. He opted to take part in the exchange based on his interest in learning new ideas from individuals outside Japan. He reported few past experiences using English outside formal classroom settings. All interviews are translations.

1. Interview 1: I also always wanted to go abroad. Also, I heard that experiencing foreign cultures and learning different perspectives would change my own way of thinking.

In the pre-exchange interview, Yuki expressed motivation to learn new ways of thinking and an expectation that they would influence his understandings of culture. It implied interest in developing an international identity through connection with others. He was open to new intercultural experiences and appeared willing to develop new understandings. Yuki grouped culture under the label ‘foreign’, implying a basic comparison-based understanding of national cultures, which, in the analysis, I linked to awareness of ‘others’ culturally induced behaviour, values, and beliefs and the ability to compare this with our own culturally induced behaviour, values, and beliefs’ (level one).

1. Interview 2: It was normal that things were different. When I came across different customs, I tried to ask someone about it, think about it myself and understand. Even in Japan there are people who have different styles. I tended to keep a distance from those people, but I started making efforts to approach these people.

On return, Yuki reported awareness of differences among those he interacted with on the international campus, observing differences among people as ‘normal’, indicating learning about other perspectives and accepting these perspectives, connecting with intercultural citizenship. Yuki also reported a change from formerly avoiding cultural differences to seeking out differences during his sojourn. He reported engagement in processes of personal reflection when he encountered some perceived difference, linked in this research to level two awareness of ‘others’ culturally induced behaviour, values, and beliefs and the ability to compare this with our own culturally induced behaviour, values, and beliefs’. Yuki also expressed a recognition of diversity among individuals in Japan; that is, awareness of ‘individuals as members of many social groupings including cultural ones’ and ‘multiple voices or perspectives within any cultural grouping’ (level two). It implied that his characterisation of identity went beyond national descriptions on recognition of differences among individuals.

1. Interview 3: Mindset towards others. It became less frequent to feel like ‘Why they can’t understand?’ and I became able to embrace unexpected, new ideas from others.

In the final interview, Yuki talked about adapting to new ideas encountered overseas, which connected with his pre-sojourn objectives, indicating a successful exchange experience. As he ‘embraced’ new ideas, it implied there was fluidity in his intercultural communication experiences as he responded to requirements of interactions and adapted to new perspectives. This flexibility in communication may be linked to level two awareness of ‘cultural understanding as provisional and open to revision’. Yuki apparently delinked language, culture, and individual identities; thus, in his account, ICA learning was observed from level one towards a more intercultural position in level two. It may also link to re-examining existing ideas following connections he made overseas, informally in a multicultural community (an aspect of intercultural citizenship). Particular experiences afforded by his programme that allowed him to socialise with others in a culturally and linguistically diverse environment appeared to offer intercultural learning experiences that he perceived as personally meaningful.

4.5.3 Noriko

Profile. Noriko was a twenty-one-year-old female third-year pharmacy student who spent a month in Germany on a research-based project alongside other international students, also on a culturally and linguistically diverse campus. English was used there in formal and informal settings. She conducted a short pharmacy-related research project on the programme under the supervision of English-using German teachers. She was joined by one other student from her home university. The host institution arranged all programme content, including add-ons, and provided accommodation in student apartments. In addition to pharmacy-specific learning, Noriko was motivated by opportunities to develop her English skills, communicate with individuals on her programme, and develop ‘global skills’, as she put it. She was socially active on her programme, reporting new friendships with individuals from a range of backgrounds. Prior to her sojourn, Noriko regularly utilised the home university’s self-access centre to engage in communication with teachers, though she reported few experiences of intercultural communication outside the university setting. It was her first time abroad.

1. Interview 1: Some American people are very kind, and they laugh at my jokes very much. But in case of England people, they didn’t laugh at my jokes. For example, so, fly soup joke that I did to Tom, he didn’t laugh at it, and he asked what mean … I freeze. However, in case of American people Daniel or Sam, they laughed at that. So, it’s different between American and England.

In the pre-exchange interview, Noriko indicated a basic conceptualisation of culture in generalised comparisons between British and American people, without commenting on individual differences within national groups, and treating individuals and their national cultures as inextricably linked. She also emphasised cultural differences over commonalities connected to level one awareness of ‘culture as a set of shared behaviours, beliefs, and values’.

1. Interview 2: We did a lot of work together and talked about it after classes … When I talk with foreign people, I could learn new things. It’s very new thing, it’s interesting and sometimes the culture … sometimes foreign countries knowledge is not similar to us and it’s strange … That knowledge gave me new ideas and sometimes it broke my obstacles. So, I like talking with people and I like to observe those foreign countries’ culture.

Post-sojourn, Noriko talked about group activities she was involved in and was positive about learning new things from ‘foreign’ people. Noriko also referred to similarities and differences in a cross-cultural comparison between Japanese people (‘us’) and foreign people (singular ‘they’). She connected her own thinking and behaviour to members of her own national group in the use of ‘us’, indicating (in a moment of the interview) awareness of ‘our own culturally induced behaviour, values, and beliefs and the ability to articulate this’ (level one). However, there also appeared to be a shift in her perspective indicating acceptance of differences and awareness of ‘others’ culturally induced behaviour, values, and beliefs and the ability to compare this with our own culturally Induced behaviour, values, and beliefs’. Her apparently diverse intercultural experiences during her exchange in formal and informal settings indicated enhanced within-level development of ICA in understandings of later components in level one. There was also indication of intercultural citizenship development, of new ideas formed in a multicultural community breaking ‘obstacles’ and providing new perspectives.

1. Interview 3: I have thought about my study abroad a lot … So, for example, I’m Japanese, so I know about Japanese. I work, or I play, with Japanese moral and I, we, think or consider about something with Japanese ethics. However, foreign people do the same. So, in Germany, people think about something with Germany ethics or moral. As a result, sometimes the fundamental thing is different. Sometimes I think the idea will be the opposite.

In the final interview, Noriko indicated further reflection on intercultural learning experiences during her exchange. She talked about different ‘ethics’ among individuals, and how people from different cultures consider ethics from their national perspectives; that is, awareness of ‘our own culturally induced behaviour, values, and beliefs and the ability to articulate this’ and ‘others’ culturally induced behaviour, values, and beliefs and the ability to compare this with our own culturally induced behaviour, values, and beliefs’ (level one). This comment also implied rethinking notions of common sense according to different individuals, formed during experiences in a multicultural community during her exchange. However, Noriko continued to rely on national understandings without talking about differences among individuals within settings (i.e., level one, in my interpretation).

4.5.4 Miki

Profile. Miki was a twenty-four-year-old fifth-year student on a six-year pharmacy course. She spent a month on a research-based programme at a university in Hong Kong where she studied herbal medicine under the supervision of a local teacher in English in a similarly diverse environment as Noriko. She stayed in a hall of residence with other students. Miki attended the programme independently. She was motivated to participate based on research activities, using English, and learning from others in an international setting. As a second-year student, she took part in a language study programme in the United States. Comparing the two experiences, she reported more independence on the Hong Kong programme and a more controlled experience in the United States alongside other Japanese students. In Hong Kong, she studied and socialised with other international students and reported several social experiences.

1. Interview 1: Sometimes when I talk with foreign country people, they have very interesting thinking, I think. So, I want to talk with many foreign country people, and I want to know many thinking.

In the first interview, Miki reported a desire to connect with new people and learn new ideas and perspectives. She was enthusiastic about opportunities to gain new intercultural experiences. Her use of ‘foreign country people’ and ‘interesting thinking’ also implied awareness of ‘others’ culturally induced behaviour, values, and beliefs and the ability to compare this with our own culturally induced behaviour, values, and beliefs’ (level one) and ‘the relative nature of cultural norms’ (level two).

1. Interview 2: I think there are no students who didn’t speak in the class. I think it was very interesting, as I said, students could share many questions … We did some projects together, for example interviewing students activity … People were different to what I thought. I was surprised sometimes because they said things I didn’t expect. I learnt new ideas from what I thought … I became confident talking with many people … they are not mother language, so I think it’s easy to understand … we change what we say to help each other.

In the second interview, Miki talked about perceived differences in classroom behaviour among other international students, linked to awareness of ‘the relative nature of cultural norms’ (level two). Miki went on to talk about differences she observed among people she interacted with on her international campus as unexpected, which I linked to awareness of ‘cultural understanding as provisional and open to revision’ (level two), also mentioned in Section 4.4.7. Educational experiences in project work alongside others in a multicultural setting indicated some intercultural citizenship development around reconsidering her pre-existing perspectives in favour of new thinking, after time in a multicultural environment.

1. Interview 3: The most thing is I was talking with many people in English. I could talk with many people in English. I could talk with people I didn’t know, and I got confidence to talk with many people of different nationalities … They all taught me different things.

Six months later, Miki reported positively on her intercultural communication experiences and connections she formed with other students on her programme. These encounters appeared to support ICA learning, as she identified that individuals she spent time with were influenced by diverse factors, consituting an awareness of ‘multiple voices or perspectives within any cultural grouping’ (level two) from which she could learn as her confidence grew. It also indicated flexibility towards emergent communication practice. She expressed a view that communication with other language students was easier and that students adapted what they said, when necessary, to ensure there was understanding in particular moments in communication. Based on such language use, Miki was able to learn different things from those she was around. In her account, ICA learning may be seen as within level two, from awareness of ‘the relative nature of cultural norms’ in the first interview to awareness of ‘cultural understanding as provisional and open to revision’ later (i.e., enhanced level two learning). Miki appeared to enjoy her experience and perceive meaning from engagement with diversity among the individuals with whom she connected. She remarked she had learnt ‘new ideas’ from those she connected with in a multicultural community during her exchange.

4.7.1 Pre-exchange

Short-term student exchanges are popular (JASSO, 2018; Reference Perry, Stoner and TarrantPerry, Stoner & Tarrant, 2012) and they are important aspects in relation to HE internationalisation (e.g., Reference KillickKillick, 2015; Reference KnightKnight, 2008). It is therefore necessary to explore various aspects of these experiences in trajectories through exchanges, including pre- and post-exchange experiences and perspectives. As the students indicated in their responses, past experiences of culture in learning were handled in cross-cultural educational approaches around shared knowledge, traits, and characteristics among people from named national cultures (Section 4.4.1). However, such representations of culture as a set of factual information specific to particular national communities simplifies and essentialises cultural meanings as learnable knowledge (Reference McConachyMcConachy, 2018), and has been widely critiqued in intercultural educational practice (e.g., Reference IshikawaBaker & Ishikawa, 2021; Reference Scollon, Scollon and JonesScollon, Scollon & Jones, 2012). Such representation is, I argue, unlikely to prepare students for the varied intercultural communication experiences during student exchanges, which are more dynamic and complex than in these traditional educational representations.

Pre-exchange perspectives towards English-language use appeared to be influenced by past language learning experiences and a focus on standard norms (Section 4.4.3; see also Reference Mayumi and HüttnerMayumi & Hüttner, 2020). These influences were particularly evident in the curricula and teaching practices of secondary-level language grammar-translation teaching for university entrance examination preparation (e.g., Reference Humphries and BurnsHumphries & Burns, 2015). Students reported limited past learning focus on communication and few past opportunities to use English in practice (Section 4.4.3). It was understandable, then, that prior to going abroad, students were anxious about using English. Motivations for participating in student exchanges centred on developing ‘global’ identities and intercultural learning, which the students linked to English language use (Section 4.4.6), and which reflect how English and internationalisation are linked in Japanese national educational policies (Reference Eades, Goodman and HadaEades, Goodman & Hada, 2005; Reference Yamagami, Tollefson and SeargeantYamagami & Tollefson. 2011). While there were expectations that exchange contexts would automatically lead to intercultural learning and opportunities to use English in intercultural communication among the students, there was a tendency to conceptualise this learning around national cultural understandings in the pre-exchange period (Section 4.4.1).

Reports of pre-departure institutional support mechanisms did not reveal a provision of any intercultural learning support initiatives, contradicting the university’s website statements on intercultural learning and internationalisation, as well as neglecting the important role of pre-departure support (see Section 4.3.2; e.g., Reference Jackson and JacksonJackson, 2020). Furthermore, there did not appear to be comprehensive institutional examination into the quality of intercultural learning or intercultural communication provided by specific experiences; as a result, there were gaps between the expectations and realities of exchange learning, institutionally and among participants (see Reference KoyanagiKoyanagi, 2018). These gaps may also relate to assumptions of overseas learning as leading automatically to intercultural learning in the context of HE internationalisation, though as noted, such learning is not guaranteed (Reference JonesJones, 2017). Some students were unclear about differences in programme types and what constituted study (Section 4.4.5), reflecting related research perspectives on the lack of distinctions between programme types (Reference Engle and EngleEngle & Engle, 2003). Moreover, the advice given to students emphasised learning about the target (national) culture, without considering the potential benefits of interacting with people from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds. This advice did not take into account the opportunities for learning that arise from engaging in multicultural and multilingual contexts.

4.7.2 Exchange Experiences

Students who participated in sojourns in culturally and linguistically diverse settings experienced more substantial intercultural learning and developed new perspectives towards using English in intercultural communication, consistent with ELF/EMF (Section 4.4.7; Reference JenkinsJenkins, 2015a; Reference SeidlhoferSeidlhofer, 2011). In contrast, group exchanges led by faculty members tended to focus on target culture learning, but opportunities for intercultural communication were limited. Students on those programmes did not report any changes in perspectives towards using English in intercultural communication and tended to express only basic cultural awareness associated with ICA level one (Section 4.4.8; Reference BakerBaker, 2011). These experiences were characterised by wide use of Japanese and limited socialisation outside the group, as aspects almost built into the design of these kinds of programme. This design is problematic for intercultural learning occurring through interaction with others (e.g., Reference Cubillos and IlventoCubillos & lvento, 2018), and students are unlikely to encounter new ideas or perspectives (Reference Isabelli-García, Churchill and DuFonIsabelli-García, 2006). While short programmes may be easy to set up in group tours, they do not always provide time for students to engage in new educational settings or form meaningful relationships with others. These kinds of experiences may still be perceived by students as important, but here the students criticised these programmes for having few chances to connect with others and few opportunities for independence. Indeed, many student complaints were focused on organisational factors around providing minimal exposure to English and engagement with others (Sections 4.4.8 and 4.5.1). These exchange practices, then, did not match students’ motivations to develop international connections and intercultural perspectives (see also Reference Mitchell, McManus, Tracy-Ventura, Mitchell, Tracy-Ventura and McManusMitchell, McManus & Tracy-Ventura, 2015). The findings suggest that target culture and language practices in group cultural tours, despite the ambitions of these programmes around intercultural learning, are unlikely to meet the intercultural learning goals of HE internationalisation.

In the students’ pre-departure aspirations, there was a preference to learn from teachers who were native English speakers and engage only with native English users (Section 4.4.4). However, these aspirations did not reflect the learning potential from ELF/EMF use as realities of exchange programmes. Students also reported motivation to participate in exchanges around developing ‘global’ identities, though this was vague in students’ understanding. It appeared to link primarily to English-language learning (i.e., global identity = speaking English; Section 4.4.6). This equating of a ‘global’ identity with speaking English (based on standard norms) risks reinforcing the dominance of native English speakers in educational practices. On language use, standard language practices were evident in target-language approaches involving simplistic connections (in student motivations and institutional expectations) between ‘inner circle’ standard uses and authenticity (Section 4.4.8; see also Reference Trentman, Diao, Diao and TrentmanTrentman & Diao, 2021). Students saw speaking English as a way to access intercultural learning opportunities and participate in international multicultural communities, but there was a lack of awareness of multilingualism in exchange settings. Thus, the complexity and diversity of English use in different contexts, as well as the role of ELF/EMF, were not features of any new learning about English use, as reported by the students on these types of programmes (i.e., faculty-led group tours). However, among students on experiences in culturally and linguistically diverse settings, there was evidence of changes in perspectives towards English use, and a recognition of its complex and diverse nature, as well as the role of ELF/EMF (see discussion in Section 4.8).

4.7.3 Post-exchange

There was a lack of comprehensive post-sojourn educational opportunities, which may have impacted the students’ ability to identify intercultural learning that took place during their experiences (see Reference Holmes, Bavieri and GanassinHolmes, Bavieri & Ganassin, 2015; Reference Messelink, Van Maele and Spencer-OateyMesselink, van Maele, & Spencer-Oatey, 2015). There was also a tension between students’ motivation for post-exchange learning and other university obligations, which could undermine the perceived benefits of internationalisation through exchanges provided by universities Additionally, the extent to which students reported new post-exchange motivations was affected by university demands outside of the exchange contexts, further highlighting a mismatch between stated internationalisation policies and educational practices. There is a clear need for universities to provide comprehensive support for students before, during, and after their exchange programmes to fully realise the benefits of these experiences.

4.8.1 Pre-Exchange Perspectives: Culture and English Language Use

Pre-exchange perspectives among the students were largely based on surface-level understandings of culture (at least in how they were shared in the interviews; Section 4.4.2). These included several examples of basic awareness of culture linked to ICA level one (Reference BakerBaker, 2011). For some students, essentialist comments were observed in their accounts throughout data collection, in relation to how students conceptualised language and culture in communication (Sections 4.4.8 and 4.5.1). Such essentialist perspectives in the pre-exchange period may impact on how students engage in meaningful intercultural communication if it limits the extent to which they adapt to cultural diversity. In facilitating intercultural learning through interaction, I have argued that there is a key role of language (though, as noted, it is often minimised in research [Reference IshikawaBaker & Ishikawa, 2021]); hence, I have integrated an additional focus on perspectives towards English language use. In the research, authenticity in English use in association with standard norms and awareness of ELF/EMF was not indicated in the pre-departure interviews, though some awareness of variety-based differences was evident (particularly in terms of ‘inner circle’ differences; Section 4.4.4). This association of authenticity in English use in students’ pre-exchange perspectives may limit their ability to engage in meaningful intercultural communication in multilingual contexts where variable English use goes beyond this narrow conception of ‘authenticity’.

4.8.2 Intercultural Awareness

After engaging in social contact and interaction in culturally and linguistically diverse contexts, some students experienced new learning towards ICA level two (Reference BakerBaker, 2011). Specifically, international connections formed in multicultural and multilingual environments were found to be effective in promoting such shifts towards level two (Section 4.4.7). For example, Yuki’s experience on a multicultural campus led to a disconnection of language, culture, and individual identities towards perspectives associated with level two (Section 4.5.2), and Miki indicated within-level two learning (Section 4.5.4). Indeed, within-level development was significant for some students, at levels one (Section 4.5.3) and two (Section 4.5.4). The research suggests that smaller ICA learning can occur within particular levels, representing enhanced learning within particular levels. However, other students’ accounts were coded at level one following experiences in programmes characterised by target culture and language learning, and few intercultural communication opportunities, as interpreted from the interview accounts. These findings suggest that a focus on the fluidity of cultures and languages in communication through exposure to diverse perspectives, as provided on multicultural programmes, is more effective for ICA learning than the more essentialist approaches characterising other exchange experiences. The findings are also consistent with Reference BakerBaker’s (2015) assertion that ICA learning is not necessarily smooth or linear, and individuals may display aspects of a particular level at one point and then a different one at another point.

4.8.3 Intercultural Citizenship

The study demonstrated that engaging with culturally diverse communities during exchanges, especially through social interactions (Section 4.4.7), encouraged international identifications that could be associated with intercultural citizenship. As noted, intercultural citizenship is a significant objective of international education (Reference KillickKillick, 2015), and is in accordance with the notion that such identifications can develop through interactions with individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds in multicultural communities, even if these communities are temporary (Reference ByramByram, 2008). In particular, students who engaged in collaborative activities within multicultural communities reported changes in their intercultural perspectives, with some displaying a connection with intercultural citizenship (Section 4.4.7). For example, Noriko (Section 4.5.3) reflected on, and rethought, her past cultural perspectives, while Yuki also formed connections with others in a temporary multicultural community during his exchange (Section 4.5.2). Additionally, Miki’s engagement in a multicultural community led to a basic connection with intercultural citizenship as she learnt new ideas following reflection, accepting and adapting to new perspectives (Section 4.5.4). As students engage with diversity in these settings, they are exposed to new ideas, perspectives, and practices, which can lead to shifts in their intercultural perspectives and identities. New ways of thinking and acting with an international perspective were not, however, present among students on other programmes. The findings suggest that some connection with intercultural citizenship is possible with particular exchange experiences and can be more clearly linked to HE internationalisation goals.

4.8.4 Changing Perspectives towards English Use in Intercultural Communication

As noted, ICA acknowledges the functional needs of intercultural communication regardless of cultural or linguistic background (Reference BakerBaker, 2015). It does not rely on preconceived notions or stereotypes associated with specific cultures or ways of using language, and it recognises intercultural communication beyond cultural or linguistic differences. By acknowledging the functional needs of intercultural communication, ICA recognises that individuals adapt to specific contexts and requirements of communication situations, taking into account the diverse perspectives and communication practices that may be involved. ICA learning on multicultural and multilingual campuses was accompanied by new confidence in using English in multilingual settings (Section 4.4.7). Changes in perspectives were interpreted in some accounts towards the use of English in intercultural communication (i.e., awareness of diversity beyond standard uses, accepting and using ELF/EMF). As noted in particular contexts, and as in related findings, there were extensive socialisation opportunities with other international students (e.g., Reference SchartnerSchartner, 2016). The findings suggest that when students engage in intercultural communication on such campuses, they develop new perspectives on English language use, particularly with regard to ELF/EMF (Section 4.4.7). These perspectives align with research emphasising fluid negotiation of meaning in communication, in which language practices are independent of one’s membership of a particular ‘circle’ of language users (Reference JenkinsJenkins, 2015b). Some students indicated flexibility in their use of English, beyond adherence to standard norms, in order for communication to be successful. This included changing language structures and repeating or rephrasing statements (Sections 4.4.7 and 4.5.4). There were perceptions among students that communication with other international students was more equal than communication with native language users (e.g., Reference Csizér and KontraCsizer & Kontra, 2012). This shift in perspective towards English language use is a crucial outcome for exchange students as it shows how confidence in using English can increase following communication experiences in multilingual contexts (Section 4.4.7). Short-term student exchange experiences can therefore lead to new perspectives on using English that reflect the realities of its use in global contexts, despite the influence of pre-sojourn ELT experiences on students’ language perspectives evident in the pre-exchange period.

The study also revealed that students on faculty-led and home university-organised group tours did not develop a deeper understanding of the potential of ELF/EMF. Indeed, these students had only superficial contact with others during their sojourns. The lack of contact with target native speakers (see also Reference Baker-Smemoe, Dewey, Bown and MartinsenBaker-Smemoe et al., 2014), which was evident in certain exchange reports (Section 4.4.8), led some students to express feelings that their exchange experiences had on some level been a failure, as found in related research findings (Reference Çiftçi and KaramanÇiftçi & Karaman, 2018). The study highlights the importance of addressing native-speakerist perspectives in exchange practices in ways consistent with the contemporary pedagogical frameworks discussed in Section 3.3 (Reference Matsuda and MatsudaMatsuda, 2017; Reference Rose and GallowayRose & Galloway, 2019; Reference SifakisSifakis, 2019), in particular transcultural education (Reference IshikawaBaker & Ishikawa, 2021).

5.3.1 Programme Design

To design effective short-term exchange experiences, it is important to align exchange learning with the expectations of students and the internationalisation goals of universities. Students often have specific goals and interests in mind when participating in exchange programmes, such as intercultural learning and using English in intercultural communication, which need to be represented in exchange learning experiences. Specific internationalisation goals that universities hope to achieve through their exchange programmes, such as promoting intercultural citizenship, also need to be addressed in exchange programmes (and not assumed to occur automatically from experiences abroad). To ensure that programmes meet individual and institutional expectations, it is important, therefore, to tailor programmes accordingly, including faculty-led group programmes. Programmes in culturally and linguistically diverse campuses are likely to provide learning that meets these expectations, as evidenced in the case study in Section 4, though building in further formal and informal opportunities for students to connect with one another may help produce greater benefits.

Incorporating ICA, GE, and intercultural citizenship within exchange educational practices can help connect programmes with internationalisation policies around global responsibilities, as well as help to address student motivations to develop global identities and English skills. These areas contrast with practices that focus on native speaker standard norms and educational characterisations of culture based on comparisons at the national level. To incorporate ICA, GE, and intercultural citizenship education, opportunities for diverse intercultural communication experiences should be provided in study and socialisation alongside other international students. While there may be some practical advantages in faculty-led university-organised programmes (in terms of planning and management), programmes may be more effective in terms of HE internationalisation by building in more independent socialisation opportunities as well as opportunities to work alongside other international students (e.g., group projects, social events). If the objective of HE internationalisation is to develop openness to, and skills for engagement with, multicultural communities, then increasing opportunities to connect with a diverse range of partners is more likely to align with these internationalisation aims.

5.3.2 Home University-Based Learning Support

Home universities play an important role in providing support and reflection in the predeparture period, particularly as intercultural learning on student exchanges is not guaranteed, (e.g., Reference Jackson and JacksonJackson, 2020). In the design of pre-departure innovations, practitioners should consider how they may be designed to focus on commonalities, collaboration, and connections with others. Learning may be effective when it is designed around developing awareness of the fluidity of cultures beyond an emphasis on knowledge of specific cultures (i.e., towards ICA level two). Learning can then focus on commonalities among individuals over differences, and it should emphasise connections with communities at different levels (local, national, global). Students should also be provided with explicit content on the concept of intercultural citizenship so that they can design concrete learning goals around developing international identifications (which may also help address vagueness in understandings of ‘global’ in their motivations). For pre-exchange learning, content on the plurality of Englishes, language ownership, standard language, and examples of ELF/EMF use in multilingual settings may support expanded views towards using English. Indeed, such content may lead to new knowledge as a foundation for developmental multilingual communication experiences during exchanges, in terms of broadening perspectives towards English use. On return, implementing components through independent guided reflections or face-to-face reorientations can help students process their experiences, particularly as students may otherwise remain unaware of what they have learned (Reference Holmes, Bavieri and GanassinHolmes, Bavieri & Ganassin, 2015; Reference Messelink, Van Maele and Spencer-OateyMesselink, van Maele, & Spencer-Oatey, 2015). Students may be supported as they identify varied and complex intercultural learning experiences after returning following pedagogically framed guidance designed around ICA, intercultural citizenship, and GE.

5.4.1 Introduction

Given this Element’s research focus on student exchanges, it is important to incorporate practical aspects that complement the conceptual orientation and help address points raised in the research findings. As such, I now outline a series of learning tasks designed to elicit individual thought on culture and language in communication, to help develop connections with intercultural citizenship, and to help students reflect on the global role of English. These activities may be relevant to pre-departure training or in-exchange learning, or used post-exchange to build on learning. They are organised into five types, each with a specific focus, detailed in each sub-section. On completion of these activities, or activities like them, students should be offered reflective opportunities to consider how individual perspectives may change.

5.4.2 Type One: Reflection and ICA

These activities encourage students to critically examine their own cultural perspectives and assumptions. By engaging in self-reflection, students may become aware of how their perspectives shape their interactions with others. This awareness can be important in exchange settings in terms of navigating diverse intercultural communication experiences.

Cultural Definitions. Provide definitions of culture from an online search, including local examples and essentialist examples. Students consider which definitions they most agree with before they search online for their own definitions. Students then write a summary in an online forum to share their perspectives around the following (adapted from Reference BakerBaker, 2012):

1. 1. What is culture to you?

2. 2. Are definitions important? Why/why not?

The aim is to help students reflect on their own understandings of culture and on any of their own cultural assumptions. By exploring different definitions, students can become aware of complexities in culture, and move beyond essentialist understandings. The online forum promotes discussion and exchange of ideas so students can learn from each other.

Teacher Interviews. Students interview teachers using guiding questions. Questions should stimulate an open exchange of views on any topic of relevance. In these examples, following work on cultures and individuals, students discuss the following with a teacher:

1. 1. What are stereotypes to you?

2. 2. What stereotypes do you know about your teacher’s country, your country, your local community?

3. 3. What problems do stereotypes cause?

4. 4. Do you sometimes use stereotypes? If so, when?

This task provides an opportunity for students to discuss different perspectives on stereotypes and culture, including on the impact of stereotypes on different levels of community. The task encourages students to reflect on how to manage stereotypes when engaging with individuals.

Interview Task. Students ask questions to a friend or family member. Encourage students to ask follow-up questions based on responses:

1. 1. What does culture mean to you?

2. 2. How do people in your community show culture?

3. 3. Are there things about your culture you don’t like?

4. 4. What can people in your community teach others?

5. 5. What is the impact of others’ cultures on you?

6. 6. Have you ever been surprised by the behaviour of someone you’ve met from another country?

7. 7. What things do you have in common with people from other countries?

8. 8. Have you noticed ‘errors’ made by a non-native speaker of your first language that did not impede communication?

Students explore their own and others’ cultural perspectives through personal connections. Using open-ended and follow-up questions, they should aim to think about commonalities among people. By engaging with friends or family members, students can gain insight into other perspectives.

Roleplays. Students work in groups to define ‘common sense’ according to individual/local perspectives. They make a list of ten ‘common sense’ behaviours and then work together to consider alternative common sense, acting these behaviours out via roleplays in classrooms/videos for other students to think about.

By working in groups and defining common sense from different perspectives, students reflect on their own cultural assumptions and how they compare with those of others. By considering alternative behaviours, they can gain an understanding of different perspectives based on different reasoning.

5.4.3 Type Two: Dialogues

Activities that involve dialogue and interactions with other individuals provide opportunities for students to engage directly with different perspectives. These experiences may enhance ICA by allowing students to share experiences, perspectives, and insights.

Find Someone Who. Students complete a ‘Find someone who … ’ task, completed outside class over a defined period of time (one to two weeks). Students seek respondents with characteristics outlined in items and ask follow-up questions. The aim is to collect different perspectives and reflect. Possible items: [Find someone who …] has travelled overseas; has studied abroad; has a different eye colour to you; wants to live in another city; has had their name spelt incorrectly; reads books by non-local authors; is interested in the same future job as you; is interested in a different future job than you; has a hometown in another country; is interested in a particular country; has different fashion style to you; has used English in the last week; regularly speaks a non-standard language dialect; can speak a language that is not English or Japanese; has a friend in another country; has had a successful intercultural communication experience.

In this task, students seek out individuals with different characteristics and experiences. By asking follow-up questions and collecting different perspectives, they can think about both differences and commonalities among people, including those of a similar background. This task also promotes reflection and self-awareness, as students may realise some of their own assumptions through the process.

Email Exchange. Email exchange, or exchanges via social media, communication apps, or online educational forums, can be effective to connect students with students in other settings and learn about new people and new experiences. Students discuss topics (e.g., global issues) or receive questions from teachers to ask one another.

Email exchange is useful for intercultural citizenship education in student exchange training to encourage connections with others from different backgrounds and engage in discussions on various topics. Students may learn about global issues and develop understandings of, and respect for, different perspectives.

Interviews. Students prepare interview questions for international students in their university communities (if interviewees are willing). It may be possible to arrange particular events at which interviews can be conducted such as international student fairs, language exchange events, intercultural educational workshops, or international student club meetings. Interview questions should be designed to avoid surface-level cultural representations by focusing on commonality and community.

Students engage in conversations with international students in their university community. Through these interviews, students can practise intercultural communication skills, gain understanding of others, and connect with others in the (multicultural) community.

University Events. Organising social events may be designed around sports activities, student parties, video game competitions, movie evenings, and student discussion events.

Through collaboration, students engage in communication and problem-solving while working with students from different backgrounds. The organisation of events, and the events themselves, are opportunities for intercultural learning through engagement with others.

5.4.4 Type Three: Observations

Engaging in observation of real-world situations can help students to examine their surroundings and think about different practices. Students may become more attuned to intercultural differences and similarities and more aware of diversity around them in home or exchange settings.

Looking around You. Students visit a public space (e.g., train station, university cafeteria) and discreetly observe other people. Guiding questions might include: What languages can be heard? How are the students connected to other people? Students write short reports about their observations and are challenged to avoid stereotyping in descriptions.

The task encourages students to be mindful of diversity around them while observing people in a public space. The task may also help students to reflect on their own perspectives and challenge stereotypes.

Analysing Photographs. The following activity is based on Oxfam Global Citizenship in the Classroom: A Guide for Teachers, available at https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/. Locate four or five photos online of people involved in current news affairs in different international locations. Include photos without obvious identifying features (e.g., flags, famous people). Students look at the photographs and answer questions:

1. 1. Where do you think the photo is from? Why?

2. 2. What do you think might be happening outside the frame of the photo? Why?

3. 3. What do you think happened before the photo was taken? Why?

4. 4. What do you think happened after the photo was taken? Why?

The task encourages students to critically reflect on different perspectives by putting themselves in the shoes of others. This task helps students to connect with peoples’ complex lives in different parts of the world and think about the diversity of perspectives.

English in the Community. Students explore uses of English in their localities and take three photos of English use (e.g., signs, posters, menus, etc.). Photos are posted online forum, with answers to the following:

1. 1. Where was each photo taken?

2. 2. What does each photo show?

3. 3. Why is English included in the examples?

4. 4. What are your thoughts on the use of English in each photo?

By taking photos, students reflect on how English is used in their immediate environment. The task prompts students to analyse the use of English in different contexts and to consider why it is included in certain examples. This aims to help students think critically about the global spread of English.

5.4.5 Type Four: Research for GE Understanding

Research activities help students explore topics, promoting awareness of GE (in particular ELF/EMF). By conducting research, students may gain a broader perspective towards GE and intercultural communication.

Textbook Research. Students select any English textbook and conduct a research task by answering the following (responses shared on an online forum):

1. 1. Which textbook did you select?

2. 2. Why did you select this textbook?

3. 3. Which countries are represented in the textbook?

4. 4. How many native speakers are represented in the textbook?

5. 5. How many non-native speakers?

6. 6. To what extent is there representation of cultural diversity? How do you feel about that?

7. 7. Do you think the textbook is useful for intercultural communication?

By analysing a textbook, students can identify any biases or omissions in the content and become more aware of how different cultures and varieties of English are represented in the materials they use. This task can also help students develop their intercultural communication skills by reflecting on how the textbook may or may not prepare them for interactions with people from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds during student exchange.

YouTube Research. Students find a YouTube video of someone (same first-language user) using English on any topic, and answer the following:

• What do you think about the person’s accent?

• Do you think the person uses English successfully?

• What is good about the person’s English?

• What connections are there between the person and you?

This task can help students to develop a more inclusive perspective of the English language and to appreciate the diversity of English. Additionally, by reflecting on the connections they have with the person in the videos, students may build confidence in their own ways of using English.

Research Diversity in English Use. Students work in small groups to analyse and compare different ways English is used in specific locations as a means to promote awareness of diversity in English use. Students find audio examples or video clips of people speaking English from particular locations. Research can be shared in presentation tasks, including maps and images. Following presentations, class discussions on understanding and valuing linguistic diversity can help students to reflect on how new awareness of GE (focusing on ELF/EMF) may inform their own language use and communication practices.

The tasks aim to help students see that English is not monolithic, but diverse and constantly evolving.

Students may develop understandings of English as a global language and its impact on the world. For student exchanges in diverse settings, this kind of task may provide important foundational learning for intercultural communication using English with different partners overseas.

5.4.6 Type Five: Intercultural citizenship

These activities aim to connect learning to intercultural citizenship and help build responsibility towards other communities, beyond local and national communities. By engaging in, and reflecting on these activities, students may develop understandings of the interconnectedness of different communities in the world.

Reflecting on the World. In groups, students discuss global news events and make a list of a few in which they are interested. Students engage with these news events and critically reflect on the impact of these events on individuals and communities worldwide. As events may not have a direct impact on the students’ lives, teachers can provide questions to encourage connections with other perspectives. Students then consider solutions to problems in their selected events, shared in classwork/online forums.

By discussing and reflecting on these events, students can think about the interconnectedness of global issues and the importance of collaboration and intercultural communication in addressing these issues. Additionally, the task encourages students to consider the perspectives and experiences of other individuals, which can support a connection with intercultural citizenship.

Self-Selected Texts. Students select two news articles (in any language, using internet translations tools) covering the same item and write a summary of the issue. They also consider the following:

1. 1. Why is this issue important to you?

2. 2. Why is this issue important to your local community?

3. 3. Why is this issue important for your country?

4. 4. Why is this issue important to the global community?

5. 5. How did reading about this issue make you feel?

6. 6. What activities can someone engage in to share information about this issue, or help in some way?

By selecting news articles in different languages, students are exposed to diverse perspectives. The prompts encourage students to think about the relevance of the issue from a personal to a global level, and to reflect on their responses and potential actions they can take.

Sustainable Development Goals. Students select and focus on one United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) and answer the following, based on online research:

1. 1. Why is it important to you?

2. 2. Why is it important to your university community?

3. 3. Why is it important to your country?

4. 4. Why is it important to the global community?

5. 5. What action can you take to support this SDG?

6. 6. How can you work with other individuals to support this SDG?

On completion, students make a poster that can be used in tasks in other classes (e.g., wall readings in which teachers write a list of questions based on the posters, then put up posters on walls around classrooms so that students can read each poster as they seek answers to questions provided by the teacher). Posters can also be displayed elsewhere on campuses.

This task helps students develop their understanding of particular issues and how they connect to their local communities and the global community. By focusing on SDGs, students can consider how different communities react to global issues.

Newspaper-Making: Students receive a set of photos (twenty to thirty), presented on paper or online, of current global events. Students work in groups and select two photos of particular individual concern. They design a newspaper front cover with written reports and headlines alongside their photos. On completion, work can be shared with others for discussion.

Here, students engage with current global events by selecting and analysing photos. Students think critically about different perspectives and consider the impact of these events on individuals in different communities. Working in groups also promotes collaboration, and sharing different work can lead to further insights about the issues presented.

As stated in Section 5.4.1, it is crucial to provide opportunities for students to reflect following engagement in these tasks (which may be used in pre-departure training, in-exchange learning, and in post-sojourn learning). By combining the concepts in this research with practical learning, and addressing issues raised in the findings, exchange students may have more impactful learning experiences.