Toward a Model for Intercultural Communication in Simulations

Abstract

The growing need for intercultural literacy in an increasingly interconnected and computer-mediated world contrasts with the dearth of investigation in best practices when designing simulations aimed at improving intercultural communication. Synthetic cultures inspired by real-world cultural traits, problem-based learning, and a social constructivist theoretical base represent core components of immersive learning environments designed to improve intercultural literacy. Through an analysis of the literature, a model is proposed primarily to promote discussion and debate about intercultural simulations. The Model for Intercultural Communication in Simulations asserts that along with those components, the Experiential Learning Cycle (ELC), natural decision making, and third place thinking form an approach in understanding how intercultural simulations should be designed. The Model for Intercultural Communication in Simulations challenges the learner to move beyond known paradigms and encourages simulation and e-learning designers to employ socially situated contexts. Accordingly, within the context of the model, a culminating evaluation of an online intercultural training simulation (ARGONAUTONLINE) follows the introduction of the model.

Keywords

ARGONAUTONLINE e-learning experiential learning cycle intercultural communication intercultural training national cultures simulations synthetic cultures third place thinking

Given the increasing demand to communicate successfully with diverse linguistic and cultural populations (Banks & McGee-Banks, 2010; Shachaf & Hara, 2007; Thomas, Kinast, & Schroll-Machl, 2010; B. E. Wiggins, 2010), intercultural training is an essential tool for anyone hoping to work and interact successfully on the global stage. Although learning foreign languages is often challenging and seemingly insurmountable for some, intercultural training can provide you with the critical edge necessary for success in any area.

Several intercultural training initiatives originally emerged as a response to a perceived lack in cultural awareness or simply as preparation for interacting with culturally diverse individuals (Landis, Bennett, & Bennett, 2004). Such endeavors often involve simulating an interaction or prompting the participant to react in such a way to invoke movement from a familiar paradigm toward acknowledgment of a different cultural construct. For example, let us assume that someone was having trouble understanding why some cultures seem to prefer direct communication and others indirect. A simulation presents a context for the learner, which the learner applies to previous experiences as well as to potentially new ones. In this scenario, the simulation might include a presentation of high- and low-context cultures. Such a simulation would benefit from the use of synthetic cultures; this argument is central to this article.

Intercultural training is rooted in traditions focused on understanding differences in perception of the real world and how communication is interpreted through culturally constructed frames (Jandt, 2007; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998). Simulations represent a vehicle whereby such complex abstractions may be conveyed in ways that promote the realization of one’s own cultural constructs and limitations, and they may help to produce the first crucial step in becoming interculturally literate.

Culture can be conceptually complex and abstract, even for those who share the same one. An approach to improving intercultural literacy is to educate the learner on the intricacies of a given national, regional, or local culture. Another approach is to present a synthesis; synthetic cultures are drawn from real cultures, but are not obviously linked to national, regional, or local cultures. This article is poised to present synthetic cultures not in a new light, but as a tenable resource to understand culture unmasked. As Fowler and Pusch (2010) recently reminded us, the 21st century has not as yet seen any new or original development in the area of intercultural simulation games. They note that synthetic cultures, as articulated by Geert Jan Hofstede, Paul Pedersen, and Geert Hofstede (2002) and earlier by Hofstede and Pedersen (1999), are the most promising solutions, perhaps due to their intrinsic theoretical value as Triandis argues in the foreword of their book Exploring Culture: Exercises, Stories and Synthetic Cultures (2002), Hofstede, Pedersen, and Hofstede, published by Intercultural Press. Synthetic cultures should not replace the use of national cultures in intercultural training. However, to become interculturally literate, it seems logical to include cultural knowledge that is specific to cultural tendencies as opposed to stereotyping or generalizing about entire national cultures. Such approaches that involve stereotypes or generalizations, although potentially beneficial for the quick and easy fix sought by newcomers, can prove harmful if only for the inclusion or implication of cultural categories.

This discussion presents a number of valuable aspects of training simulations designed to improve intercultural literacy. After a series of relevant terms are introduced, the discussion turns to the significance of metaphor in intercultural training as it pertains to simulations. Following this is a review of the literature on nondigital and digital simulations created to promote intercultural awareness and literacy. Subsequently, a model is presented to address key attributes of effective intercultural simulations. The rationale behind the model is to encourage debate on the matter of desired components of simulations and games designed to improve intercultural literacy. The primary perspective of this article is that simulations that rely on experiential, performative, and problem-based models and that incorporate synthetic cultures are effective tools in improving and enhancing intercultural communication.

The following terms are defined to unify the concepts and research hereafter presented:

Intercultural literacy refers to an individual’s ability to interact appropriately and effectively with members of other linguistic and cultural backgrounds (Diehl & Prins, 2008; Fantini, 2000; Heyward, 2002).

Intercultural communication refers to the dialogue between two or more interlocutors from “different cultures or co-cultures exchanging verbal and nonverbal messages” (Neuliep, 2006, p. 38).

National culture comprises the characteristics that differentiate residents of one country from those of another country (Hofstede & Pedersen, 1999; Klinge, Rohmann, & Piontkowski, 2009).

Synthetic culture exists only in the game or simulation for which it was created and may represent characteristics of national cultures (Hofstede & Pedersen, 1999; Klinge et al., 2009).

Surface culture implies that which is explicit and obvious about a particular culture, such as holidays and language (Shaules, 2007).

Deep culture suggests that which is implicit or obscure about a given culture, such as customs and meaning (Shaules, 2007). However, it is important to note that Hofstede and Hofstede (2005)present a similar dichotomy between the values and practices of a particular culture. This is discussed further in a subsequent section on metaphor.

Significance of Metaphor in Intercultural Communication

A series of metaphors are often employed in intercultural training solutions to demonstrate the complexities of cultural nuances. These metaphors are relevant to this discussion given their ability to explain complex ideas. Metaphors are composed of two elements; the first element is the subject to which attributes are assigned and the second is the subject from which the attributes are taken. Metaphorical language is present in allegories, parables, and catachresis to communicate how one thing shares certain traits, either literally or figuratively, with another thing. Extrapolated to simulations, metaphors seek to represent something which is abstract by simulating it as something that is accessible, known, and/or familiar.

The Iceberg Metaphor

Four common metaphors in the area of intercultural training, along with a relatively new metaphor, are included in the discussion for the purposes of communicating contextual clarity about their usefulness in simulations created to improve intercultural literacy. The iceberg metaphor is perhaps the most commonly used to visually express the difference between surface and deep culture (Rimmington & Alagic, 2008). The iceberg portion above the water symbolizes surface culture; deep culture is the part of the iceberg concealed by water.

The Onion Metaphor

Perhaps equally common is the onion metaphor. The multilayered complexity of culture is akin if only in form to an onion; one must peel back layers of visible actions to reveal value-laden meaning. Hofstede and Hofstede (2005), in Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, use the onion to present a distinction between the practices and values of a given culture. Specifically, although an outsider sees or observes cultural practices, only the insider understands their cultural meaning (similar to the emic-etic distinction in linguistics and anthropology). They argue further that values are at the core of culture. These are acquired early in an individual’s life and represent general preferences of living.

The Genealogical Tree and Rhizome Metaphor

The genealogical tree metaphor signifies a diverse lineage tracing back to a common root culture (Deleuze, Guattari, & Massumi, 1988). Similarly, the rhizome metaphor portrays culture as a tangled, proliferating growth lacking a clear beginning or end and containing within its countless connections and depth unceasing opportunities for interaction among elements of the structure (Clarke, 2000).

The Cage Metaphor

The cage metaphor is a relatively new addition to metaphors that clarify the abstractness of intercultural nuances. It implies a dialogic framing of perception and meaning (Rimmington & Alagic, 2008). The adoption of multifaceted (as opposed to limited) perspectives is contingent on the realization of one’s own cultural constraints and how they affect perception.

A Common Trait

Subtle differences and similarities present themselves across these metaphors. Their most common trait is the ability to convey visually the abstract notion that culture is a collection of experiences and ways to perceiving reality from the standpoint of the individual. Intercultural simulations must achieve the same outcome. Sharing a similar capacity to demystify the abstraction that permeates cultural complexity, synthetic cultures must be taken into serious consideration when designing simulations and games that are used to improve intercultural literacy and communication.

The Synthetic and the National: Cultural Representation in Intercultural Simulations

Simulations designed to educate individuals about the complexities of intercultural communication tend to recreate either synthetic or national cultures. Although synthetic cultures permit some generalizability, national cultures rely on familiar constructs. Advantages, disadvantages, and applications of both are presented along with a discussion of how one particular simulation employed synthetic cultures embedded with cultural characteristics of real-world national cultures.

Culture of Choice: Synthetic Versus National

Incorporating a synthetic culture into an intercultural simulation represents a conscious effort to provide learners with an opportunity to explore intercultural dimensions. Accordingly, an advantage of synthetic cultures is the inherent lack of stereotypes and prejudices associated with an individual’s perception of national cultures. Several nondigital intercultural simulations have traditionally referred to national cultures with which learners interact in a real-world setting (Fowler, 2003; Hofstede & Pedersen, 1999; Jameson, 1993). Learners using such simulations engage themselves with familiar cultures. Proponents of digital and nondigital simulations posit that the added benefit of national cultures is the authenticity of the simulated event regulated by its inclusion (Fowler, 1994; Lambertini & ten Thije, 2004). The rationale to use national cultures in simulations is evidenced by a desire to mimic that which individuals can anticipate in a real context. Consequently, an objective for realism should guide the creation of intercultural training simulations, whether they use synthetic or national cultures. However, synthetic cultures do not necessarily imply that the simulated situation would lack a sense of realism. Indeed, using synthetic cultures in simulations entails benefits as well.

The Persistent Value of Synthetic Cultures

The argument for using synthetic cultures is increasingly relevant today given the global growth of virtual worlds and increasing opportunities for virtual collaboration in areas such as business, education, entertainment and edutainment, and government. Initially, the use of synthetic cultures in nondigital learning simulations supported this argument. However, synthetic cultures are equally effective in digital simulations (Ahamer, 2006; Klinge et al., 2009).

As a result of its newness, synthetic cultures represent an unfamiliar paradigm thereby urging learners to move beyond familiar methods for working with other cultures. Thus, synthetic cultures enable individuals to interact intuitively with people from other cultures due to the learning experiences drawn from working with synthetic cultures (Fowler & Pusch, 2010; Hofstede & Pedersen, 1999; Jameson, 1993). This differs from the case to integrate national cultures. Synthetic cultures identify characteristics of national cultures instead of incorporating whole national cultures (Lambertini & ten Thije, 2004). For these reasons, synthetic cultures are restricted to the confines of the simulation or game in which players and learners interact with them.

The Challenge Posed by a Synthetic Culture

Synthetic cultures represent an opportunity for learners to generalize their simulated experiences to a larger number of possible interactions. In addition, synthetic cultures encourage individuals to explore their own cultural constraints without the distasteful inclusion of personal bias or stereotyping that may occur when considering another national culture. Accordingly, generalizing aids in the realization that (a) cultural values are necessarily relative and (b) underlying differences outnumber those which can be perceived at the surface level. Synthetic cultures in simulations enable individuals to take risks, which may not be possible or advisable when interacting with national cultures in real life (Hofstede & Pedersen, 1999). Conflict may arise in simulations involving national cultures given that the learners would rely on known paradigms without realizing their cultural constraints (Antal & Friedman, 2008). Although it remains important to gain an understanding of differences among national cultures, especially in business (Beamer & Varner, 2008; Jameson, 2007), synthetic cultures in simulations offer an opportunity to rehearse and perform, almost theatrically, that which may occur in a real setting, but without the presence of cultural bias (Fowler, 1994, 2003; Jameson, 1993; Phipps & St. Clair, 2008).

A Cross-Comparison of Synthetic Cultures

BAFA BAFA, BARNGA, MINORIA-MAJORIA, and CULTURE AWARENESS TRAINING (CAT) are several simulation and game learning solutions that incorporate synthetic cultures (Chapel & Martin, 1999; Fowler, 1994; Klinge et al., 2009; Koskinen, Abdelhamid, & Likitalo, 2008). MINORIA-MAJORIA is focused primarily on economic features of a dyadic relationship whereby one individual or group is wealthier than the other. In BAFA BAFA, learners are split into dichotomous groups of Alphans and Betans, each with its own unique culture, nonverbal language, and ways of interpreting communication. At the core of BARNGA is an opportunity for learners to uncover new solutions to unfamiliar problems brought about by a form of nonverbal communication, similar to BAFA BAFA. The chief difference between these three simulations and the digital CAT is the designation synthetic. Although the three previously described simulations enable learners to explore culture and communication without deferring to known cultural paradigms (such as focusing on perceived or expected differences between Japanese and Portuguese), they lack the theoretical base inherent in the synthetic cultures in CAT. In addition to these, other simulations and games with cross-cultural or intercultural subject matter, but which may not incorporate synthetic cultures, include the following: AFTER NAFTA (Butler, 1996), THE UNIVERSITY GAME (Damron & Halleck, 2007), CALDER CONNECTIONS (Fowler, 2003), and KNOWLEDGE SHARING SIMULATION GAME (Oertig, 2010).

Importance of Theory, Social Constructivism, and Problems in Simulations

The combination of experiential, situated, and problem-based learning in concert with incorporating synthetic cultures may result in a thoroughly effective multimodal tool to promote and sustain intercultural literacy. CAT is examined below in greater detail and accompanies a discussion of the Experiential Learning Cycle (ELC). The importance of social constructivism in designing simulations is investigated along with the value of role-play and problem-based learning. These concepts are necessary in simulations designed to improve intercultural literacy as they provide a contextualized environment wherein deep learning can take place. This section describes the theoretical basis for the formulation of the Model for Intercultural Communication in Simulations to be articulated in greater detail below.

The Role of Theory and National Culture Traits

Synthetic cultures are most effective given a theoretical base in real-world, national cultures. The theoretical structure of CAT, its inclusion of synthetic cultures based on the traits within national culture characteristics, and its digital nature present a new solution to intercultural training needs. Two fundamental features of CAT deserve explicit mention. First, the didactic architecture of CAT is based on the ELC, first proposed by D. A. Kolb (1984) and discussed further in Baker, Jensen, and Kolb (1997) and Kayes, Kayes, and Kolb (2005a, 2005b). ELC posits four stages of learning whereby an actual (or concrete) experience is integrated into a process of subsequent stages signified by the collection of information about the experience, reflection, and the testing of learned information in a new experience (Becker, 2007, p. 40). The second feature of CAT is its inclusion of national culture characteristics embedded into synthetic cultures created for the simulation. Each synthetic culture within CAT is based on one of the four cultural dimensions first proposed by Geert Hofstede in his seminal work done with International Business Machines (IBM) (Hofstede, 1980; Klinge et al., 2009).

The relevance of CAT to this discussion is twofold. Using synthetic cultures in experiential learning is beneficial and convenient given the digital version. In their study, Klinge et al. (2009) test both digital and nondigital versions of CAT to find that the digital variant was equally valuable when compared with the traditional simulation game. CAT represents the advantage of experiential learning within the context of promoting improved intercultural literacy in a simulation or game. However, while situated learning is present in CAT, problem-based learning appears to be an additional feature of effective simulations and one lacking in CAT.

Constructivist Elements

Constructivism is applicable to improving intercultural literacy within simulations given that informational communication technologies and three-dimensional online learning systems can facilitate learning without the restrictions of prearranged facts and responses. In addition, these systems promote an environment wherein individuals and groups communicate and interact equally (Jones & Bronack, 2007, p. 92; Szkudlarek, 2009, p. 978). Noted recently by Lainema (2009), constructivism should be seen as a set of design principles and not as an articulate learning theory. Thus, simulations and games designed to improve intercultural literacy should incorporate constructivist principles.

Social constructivism posits that thinking and learning are rooted in societal and environmental frameworks. Furthermore, it suggests that the process of knowing supersedes any anticipated results (Bélisle, 2008). Situated cognition is learning as a result of communication or engagement with many human agents and processes (Rimmington & Alagic, 2008, p. 77). This remains applicable when learning is seen as a process occurring when learners work on authentic tasks carried out in the real world. It implies that learning strategies embedded in authentic situations are necessary for deep learning. Such learning occurs if embedded in the proper social or physical context. Linked to this idea of the social context is the way simulations and games enable systemic learning.

Learning and Systemic Knowledge

Simulation games mirror the way in which the mind visualizes situations and potential interactions, but also promote better learning given their ability to teach systemically. Gee (2007) notes in Good Video Games + Good Learning that simulations are built to provide a sense of how things work in the real world. They allow an individual to practice certain actions in a safe environment and to learn the consequences of such actions before trying them in real life (Gee, 2004, 2005). Simulations and games also show players (learners) the goals that they should be attempting to achieve. In this way, the mind works like a simulation. We think about the various actions we could take in a given situation, estimate the outcomes, and choose the one that best helps us accomplish our goals. Individuals learn skills, strategies, and ideas when they see how these fit into a larger system to which they give meaning. Hofstede, de Caluwé, and Peters (2010) echo this sentiment in stating that simulation games provide opportunities for the development of systemic knowledge especially when participants can use the simulation to try out new approaches or changes. Role-play represents a key area to explore such approaches or changes and is discussed next.

Playing the Role

Participants in a digital simulation interacting with synthetic cultures should possess some knowledge about the subject in the simulation and should have some preparation prior to starting the role-play. As mentioned above, using synthetic cultures in simulations prevents participants from deferring to known stereotypes specific to a national culture (Rimmington & Alagic, 2008, p. 41). However, effective role-play necessitates some specific prior information about the simulated subject; otherwise, the participant may not be able to become engaged with the synthetic cultures in the simulation.

Rehberger (2006) posits four stages to maximize the utility of an educational simulation employing role-play as a core component. These four stages (readiness, roles, reaction, and reflection) share some similarity in design and definition with the four phases of D. A. Kolb’s (1984) ELC. Crookall and Thorngate (2009) highlight the capacity of simulations and games to give the participant an opportunity to reflect on the simulated experience. For the intercultural simulation, introducing cultural dimensions to participants may serve to educate them about specific cultural traits to be included in the simulation. Prior information provides a context of familiarity whereby the learner is able to participate actively in the role-play, and it connects to the first parts of both Rehberger’s and Kolb’s constructs. Although this introduces some familiarity with the situation, the simulation still challenges learners given that the synthetic cultures only integrate partial characteristics of national cultures. Moreover, the simulated becomes real for the learner when some amount of prior preparation about the role and the situational environment is presented on starting the simulation. Prior preparation would only accompany the initial stage of the simulation.

Intercultural simulations that employ role-play as part of a decision-making training exercise assist participants to learn the context and culture of the simulation (Hofstede & Pedersen, 1999). Thus, when learners lack information about subsequent simulated situations, they can make decisions based on the learning that occurred in the previous socially situated context of the simulation.

The Value of Problems

Another relevant contribution of constructivism to simulations gauged at improving intercultural literacy is problem-based learning. Diehl and Prins (2008) note that individuals enjoy learning about how others generate solutions to problems in the multicultural setting of Second Life (SL). However, other research suggests that embedding problems within simulations aid in active and collaborative learning. Furthermore, collaborative learning helps to establish the learners’ perspectives on intercultural matters as they pertain to the context of the simulation (Bélisle, 2008; Saatci, 2008). Although problem-based learning is apparently advantageous in improving intercultural communication in simulations and other e-learning endeavors, it is limited in application and deserves greater consideration when creating future simulations. Case studies often form the content of intercultural training simulations in lieu of problem-based learning (Saatci, 2008; Tjie, 2002). Although these are valuable tools, problem-based experiential learning challenges learners to explore new solutions to familiar problems or those that learners have not previously experienced.

SL and Intercultural Learning

As discussed above, intercultural literacy has been defined as the result of acknowledging that culture is not a rigid, unchanging entity. Effective intercultural learning is the sum of previous experiences and is developed through new interactions (Heyward, 2002). Furthermore, intercultural literacy is the result of operating in a socially supportive context wherein collaboration is emphasized over rivalry. However, it must be noted that cross-cultural involvement does not necessarily lead to a yearning for further cross-cultural experiences. Moreover, cross-cultural contact does not lead to or create intercultural literacy (Diehl & Prins, 2008). In their study of SL, Diehl and Prins (2008) assert that SL has the potential to serve as a useful tool to promote and teach intercultural literacy. However, SL is embedded and architecturally designed with cultural elements unique to Linden Labs (McMinn, 2009). As such, it is a technological, structural, and cultural pastiche requiring further inquiry before we advance the notion that it serves as a medium for the enhancement of intercultural literacy. SL notwithstanding, it is imperative that we present models of ideal design as to the components of any simulation or game that aims to advance intercultural literacy and communication.

The Model for Intercultural Communication in Simulations

What should an effective simulation designed to improve intercultural communication contain? Figure 1 presents the core components of the Model for Intercultural Communication in Simulations. The image of two individuals shaking hands in front of a world map signifies the objective of intercultural literacy for the purposes of this discussion. This result is made possible by the alignment of (a) desired outcomes, (b) a conceptual framework, and (c) simulated content. These three facets are based on an analysis of the literature and are presented solely to promote discussion of best practices when designing simulations to result in improved intercultural communication. Following a detailed description of the conceptual framework is an examination of ARGONAUTONLINE, an intercultural training simulation.

Figure 1.

A model for intercultural communication in simulations

Desired Outcomes

The ability for individuals to gain awareness of their own culture and how it aids the perception of other cultural traditions should be a desired outcome of simulations that are designed to improve intercultural literacy. Accordingly, it should be understood that the ability to be interculturally literate (to interact appropriately and effectively with members of other linguistic and cultural backgrounds) is another desirable outcome.

Conceptual Framework: Social Constructivism

Social constructivism belongs in the conceptual framework given its assertion that thinking and learning should be rooted in societal and environmental frameworks. When learners work on authentic tasks carried out in the simulated real world, learning strategies embedded in these situations lead to deep learning (Bélisle, 2008; Vygotsky, 1978). If rooted in the proper social or physical context, deep learning is an outcome.

Conceptual Framework: Systemic Knowledge, Good Learning, and Empowered Learners

Good simulations use technologies that illuminate how the human mind works, and they incorporate sound learning principles. Simulations often evoke a sense of how things work and interrelate in the real world. They allow the learner to test one’s actions in a safe environment and also to learn the consequences before using them in real life. Simulations also help to demonstrate to players the goals for which they should strive or at least attempt to do so. Thus, the mind works like a simulation game (Gee, 2005, 2007). We think about the various actions we could take in a situation, estimate the outcomes, and choose the one that best helps us accomplish our goals. People learn skills, strategies, and ideas when they see how they fit into a larger system to which they give meaning. Put simply, one should be able to see the pieces that make up the puzzle as well as to see the puzzle as a cohesive structure of puzzle pieces.

Conceptual Framework: Recognition Primed Decision (RPD)

Given that intercultural exchanges are accompanied by variables such as time constraints and stressful environments where not all information is available, inclusion of the RPD model is advisable when conceptualizing intercultural simulations (Salas, Rosen, Held, & Weissmuller, 2008). It is an extension of natural decision making and is useful in simulations whose purpose is to simulate situations where the individual must rely on logic and experience to generate complex decisions made in potentially stressful and risk-prone environments. This is especially the case when all information needed to make a decision is not available. Thus, these are the formative elements of the model’s conceptual framework.

Conceptual Framework: ELC

D. A. Kolb’s (1984) and Kolb and Kolb’s (2010) contribution to the adult learning process is an important component of the framework given its focus on experience. To be interculturally literate implies experience with individuals of other linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Consequently, the focus of simulations aimed at improving this skill must be on learners within the context of experience. Furthermore, placing the focus on human and social experience gives the participant greater “control over the content and form of the simulation events and evolution” (Crookall, Martin, Saunders, & Coote, 1986, p. 356).

Conceptual Framework: Third Place Thinking

Recalling the cage metaphor, third place thinking refers to thinking in terms of the ability to observe one’s own cage, or interpretive frame for understanding real-world input, while observing another’s cage (Rimmington & Alagic, 2008). The third place is essentially that space which emerges from successful communication of two or more viewpoints between interlocutors representing different cultural perspectives. As present in other intercultural metaphors, the notion of the third place is conceptually helpful given its power to demystify the abstractness of intercultural communication.

Simulated Content

The content of the simulation may integrate synthetic or national cultures, or both depending on the needs of the learners. Synthetic cultures offer the following advantages:

generalizability,

the implied need for learners to be intuitive,

they exhibit aspects of national culture characteristics,

they challenge self-exploration, and

the greater opportunity to take risks.

However, the rationale to use national over synthetic cultures in a simulation may be due to individual needs for quick solutions to short-term problems. In any case, role-play and problem-based learning should form the essentials of the simulated content.

Reflection

Although these elements are integral parts of this model, it is important to note that as a model, it requires testing and scrutiny. Lederman (1992) emphasizes the importance of debriefing for experientially based learning. She presents a model for the debriefing process, which contains a similar structure to many instructional design models (e.g., G. Wiggins & McTighe, 2005) that analyze and examine the learning objective, consider the confines of the situation, review strategies selected and implemented, and evaluate the experience. Oertig (2010) also underlines the importance of debriefing and presents an approach to using the Moodle learning management system as a forum to debrief students. Crookall (2010) highlights the perilous dearth of debriefing in the simulation and gaming field, but acknowledges that some scholarship in the areas has begun to discuss debriefing. These insightful contributions stress the importance of debriefing in simulation games. For the model presented in this article, it is imperative that a debriefing occur once a given intercultural simulation has concluded. A worthy choice is Lederman’s Model of Systematic Assessment of the Debriefing Process. The Model for Intercultural Communication in Simulations as presented in this article is a critical attempt in the beginning of the 21st century to promote discussion and debate on issues of intercultural training, awareness, and communication. It has been created based on the theoretical underpinnings present in the literature. It is essential to test this model in some capacity provided proper debriefing is not ignored. Accordingly, the next section will assess an intercultural training simulation through the lens of the Model for Intercultural Communication in Simulations.

Analysis and Discussion: ARGONAUTONLINE

It is essential to analyze at least one currently available simulation or game designed to improve intercultural literacy. For this purpose, the author explored several possibilities, including contacting companies that have an e-learning design department or branch (Nogginlabs, Educational Management Corporation, etc.), corporations that offer intercultural training (Kwintessential, etc.), and universities with an instructional design program. Despite numerous attempts to gain access to online intercultural training simulations, the author was successful in only one endeavor. An animated presentation of ARGONAUTONLINE, an e-learning intercultural training simulation, shall suffice the need to explore and analyze relevant simulations within the context of the Model of Intercultural Communication in Simulations. Accordingly, this analysis and discussion shall assess this simulation against the key points illustrated by the Model of Intercultural Communication in Simulations presented in Figure 1.

ARGONAUTONLINE is a proprietary resource for intercultural trainers, consultants, and novice learners new to the field of intercultural communication. It is wholly designed with the business professional (managers, executives, etc.) in mind. The approach behind this simulation started as a research project and later developed into an intercultural training method. Finally, it went to the web as ARGONAUTONLINE. It is a for-profit product of a joint-venture between CBI-Transdemica and is available globally.

A series of screenshots taken from the ARGONAUTONLINE, Kwintessential Cross Cultural Solutions (2009)¹ e-learning intercultural training simulation are presented as Figures 2 through 6. These figures are taken directly from screenshots provided in a client-oriented presentation. The ARGONAUTONLINE simulation is presented as a learning platform that includes information specific to cultures, interactive tutorials, and work assessments. According to the presentation, ARGONAUTONLINE is designed to help expatriates moving abroad, global virtual teams, and general employees and executives seeking better understanding of the complexity of cultural issues on an international scale.

Figure 2.

Cultural feelings and preferences prompt

Figure 3.

National stereotypes

Figure 4.

Trust and negotiation

Figure 5.

Negotiating with Belgians

Figure 6.

Temporal differences

Figure 2: Cultural Feelings and Preferences Prompt

Participants in ARGONAUTONLINE are expected to indicate their feelings in degrees along a metric which is flanked on the left by the word neutral. Figure 2 shows how each tab is a word for a given national culture. Once the dials are set, the participant may receive feedback based on the input after clicking a button. This set up is useful for individuals seeking a quick solution to a potentially short-term issue. However, the feedback given may only take into consideration participants from a certain culture. In other words, this online simulation is gauged at an audience of a specific national culture. It assumes the existence of prejudices and stereotypes that may persist given the presence of national culture identified above each tab.

Figure 3: National Stereotypes

Situational prompts, the communication of a task, and the presentation of two strategies help provide the context in Figure 3. This simulation acknowledges the presence of stereotypes and offers opportunities to proceed with or without them in the ensuing task. In any case, it is unclear whether participants will be prompted by further situations requiring them to choose from a prearranged set of fixed responses. Content at this stage has been designed to be general in application to a wide range of business-related functions. Participants are likely to perceive some risk given the potentially unfamiliar set of circumstances presented and given that this simulation is designed for those seeking a quick fix.

Figures 4 and 5: Trust, Negotiation, and Interaction With a National Culture

Figures 4 and 5 suggest that a participant is expected to choose from prearranged responses throughout much of the simulation. Furthermore, national cultures form the focal point of ARGONAUTONLINE in terms of improving intercultural literacy. This contrasts with the work done on synthetic cultures. However, the presented situations appear to be generalized whereas the decisions participant choose to make are specific to their experiences and perceptions of the simulated culture. In other words, utilizing national cultures may be worthwhile given generalized situational tasks.

Figure 4: Trust and negotiation

Figure 4 presents a problem-based approach. It shows a set of options from which participants are to choose the most applicable (and previously formulated) negotiating strategy. However, the nature of the problem and its relevance to participants are unclear.

Figure 5: Negotiating with Belgians

Figure 5 presents a set of experiential responses unique to Belgians. However, such practice may encourage participants to stereotype Belgians. If this simulation has been designed for intercultural novices, it is strange to presuppose knowledge specific to a national culture presented first as a guessing game, then as a prompt to learn more about Belgians.

It may be more effective to present an intercultural interaction using an amalgamation of national culture traits (shared by Belgians and others) in the form of a synthetic culture. Feedback could be proffered to address lessons learned. A set of statements, similar to those in Figure 5, could be listed to encourage participants to understand the intercultural differences instead of promoting stereotypical and familiar notions associated with national cultures.

Figure 6: Temporal Differences

In a monochronic orientation toward time, tasks are completed sequentially and time is segmented into units; time is scheduled (Hall & Hall, 1990; Neluliep, 2006). A polychronic orientation characterizes time as a fluid in which many tasks can be carried out simultaneously; time is not measurable (Neuliep, 2006). In an effort to illustrate how individuals perceive these differences, Figure 6 shows a graphic representation of individuals from both types of time orientation. National cultures are circumvented in this simulation’s first apparent use of what appears to be a representation of a synthetic culture. This may challenge how participants understand their own perception of time, thus encouraging cage painting as discussed in the section on metaphors.

By extension, situational and problem-based approaches could be used to solidify conceptually the perceptual differences in time across cultures. Participants could then be prompted to suggest the national cultures with which they have experienced such differences, if any experience exists. Finally, each participant could then be shown a list of national cultures often associated with the particular temporal or spatial phenomenon.

For the concepts demonstrated in Figure 6, the use of national cultures in an intercultural simulation appears constructive for two reasons. First, it encourages participants to question conceptually how they understand time relative to other cultures. Second, the participants of this simulation likely seek a quick fix to a perceived problem in successful intercultural communication, as surmised above.

A recent research study by B. E. Wiggins (2011) presents new information about differences in temporal perception due to preexisting linguistic representations. The results show that the cultural background of simulation or e-learning designers may impact the design of instructional content. Results indicated that the use of a linear (left to right) way of explaining time was not as effective for collectivist students as compared to individualist students. The reason for the difference is likely due to the way native speakers of Chinese (which formed the majority of the collectivist sample) conceptualize time. As noted previously by Boroditsky (2001) and Fuhrman and Boroditsky (2010), Chinese speakers possess both vertical and horizontal cognitive metaphors for time; native speakers of English by comparison only possess horizontal metaphors for time.

Conclusion

Simulations that rely on experiential, performative, and problem-based models, incorporating synthetic and national cultures, seem to be effective tools in improving and enhancing intercultural literacy. However, and as the above analysis and discussion have shown, practical application of national cultures in a simulation appears to have both merits and drawbacks. Perhaps a merging of synthetic and national cultures in a simulation would be effective given an inductive approach at educating participants about nuances of intercultural communication. The ARGONAUTONLINE simulation screenshots did not explicitly suggest the inclusion of neither the RPD Model nor the ELC. Nevertheless, from the little content present in the screenshots, it appears that participants of the ARGONAUTONLINE simulation would likely be expected to make decisions based on less than desirable information.

It is unfortunate that a more thorough evaluation of several intercultural e-learning simulations and games was not possible. One may argue that the assessment of the ARGONAUTONLINE simulation is not sufficient to measure the model presented in this article. However, the point of the Model for Intercultural Communication in Simulations, as previously mentioned, is first to promote discussion and debate, but should also act as a design model for simulations whose participants should gain a deeper intercultural literacy. The model is rich in theory; the next step is development and testing.

The model presented in this article is an attempt to promote discussion and debate in designing simulations for intercultural literacy. The Model for Intercultural Communication in Simulations does not contend to be perfect; however, it posits that its core elements should be present in an intercultural simulation educating learners to become more adept at communicating within the complex structures created by linguistic and cultural diversity in an increasingly interconnected and computer-mediated world.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

First, I express my sincere gratitude to the three reviewers for their kind effort, time, and suggestions. I would also like to thank Allen Partridge, PhD, associate professor of communications media at Indiana University of Pennsylvania and e-Learning Evangelist for Adobe Systems for encouraging me to submit this manuscript to Simulation & Gaming.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Bio

Bradley E. Wiggins is fascinated by the educational potential of simulations and games. His research interests include intercultural communication, language and social interaction, e-learning, and anything involving cultural or linguistic diversity. His dissertation investigated the influence of culture and e-learning design on learning in an online environment. He loves to cook Indian and Thai dishes for his German wife.Contact: bradley.wiggins@uafs.edu.

References

Ahamer

(2006). Ready-to-use simulations: SURFING GLOBAL CHANGE: Negotiating sustainable solutions. Simulation & Gaming, 37, 380-397. doi:10.1177/104687810628777210.1177/1046878106287772

Antal

A. B.

Friedman

V. J.

(2008). Learning to negotiate reality: A strategy for teaching intercultural competencies. Journal of Management Education, 32, 363-386. doi:10.1177/105256290730879410.1177/1052562907308794

ARGONAUTONLINE, Kwintessential Cross Cultural Solutions. (2009). Cultural awareness for global business impact: E-learning for intercultural success. London, England: Transdemica Oy and Coghill & Beery International Ltd. Retrieved from http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/online/cultural-awareness-training.html

Baker

A. C.

Jensen

P. J.

Kolb

D. A.

(1997). In conversation: Transforming experience into learning. Simulation & Gaming, 28, 6-12.

Banks

J. A.

McGee-Banks

C. A.

(Eds.). (2010). Multicultural education (7th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Beamer

Varner

(2008). Intercultural communication in the global workplace (4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Becker

(2007). Pedagogy in commercial video games. In Gibson

Aldrich

Prensky

(Eds.), Games and simulations in online learning (pp. 21-47). Hershey, PA: Information Science.

Bélisle

(2008). E-learning and intercultural dimensions of learning theories and teaching models. E-Learning Papers, 7, 1-18. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/downloaddoi=10.1.1.138.254&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Boroditsky

(2001). Does language shape thought? English and Mandarin speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43, 1-22.

10.

Butler

J. K.

(1996). AFTER NAFTA: A cross-cultural negotiation exercise. Simulation & Gaming, 27, 507-516.

11.

Chapel

W. B.

Martin

J. S.

(1999). Intercultural negotiation training. Business Communication Quarterly, 62, 121-125. doi:10.1177/10805699990620021910.1177/108056999906200219

12.

Clarke

R. L. W.

(2000). Root versus rhizome: An “epistemological break” in (Francophone) Caribbean thought? Journal of West Indian Literature, 9(1), 12-41.

13.

Crookall

(2010). Serious games, debriefing, and simulation/gaming as a discipline. Simulation & Gaming, 41, 898-920.

14.

Crookall

Martin

Saunders

Coote

(1986). Human and computer involvement in simulation. Simulation & Games, 17, 345-375.

15.

Crookall

Thorngate

(2009). Acting, knowing, simulating, gaming. Simulation & Gaming, 40, 8-26.

16.

Damron

R. L.

Halleck

G. B.

(2007). Generating cross-cultural training data for THE UNIVERSITY GAME. Simulation & Gaming, 38, 556-568.

17.

Deleuze

Guattari

Massumi

(1988). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. London, England: Athlone Press.

18.

Diehl

W. C.

Prins

(2008). Unintended outcomes in Second Life: Intercultural literacy and cultural identity in a virtual world. Language and Intercultural Communication, 8, 101-118. doi:W.W80/Î4708470802139619W.W80/Î4708470802139619

19.

Fantini

(2000). A central concern: Developing intercultural competence. SIT Occasional Papers Series: Addressing Intercultural Education. Training, & Service, 2, 25-33.

20.

Fowler

S. M.

(1994). Two decades of using simulation games for cross-cultural training. Simulation & Gaming, 25, 464-476. doi:10.1177/104687819425400410.1177/1046878194254004

21.

Fowler

S. M.

(2003). CALDER CONNECTIONS: An intercultural simulation game. Simulation & Gaming, 34, 292-297. doi:10.1177/104687810303400200810.1177/1046878103034002008

22.

Fowler

S. M.

Pusch

M. D.

(2010). Intercultural simulation games: A review (of the United States and beyond). Simulation & Gaming, 41, 94-115.

23.

Fuhrman

Boroditsky

(2010). Cross-cultural differences in mental representations of time: Evidence from an implicit non-linguistic task. Cognitive Science, 34, 1430-1451. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01105.x10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01105.x

24.

Gee

J. P.

(2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. London, England: Routledge.

25.

Gee

J. P.

(2005). Why video games are good for your soul: Pleasure and learning. Melbourne, Australia: Common Ground.

26.

Gee

J. P.

(2007). Good video games + good learning. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

27.

Hall

E. T.

Hall

M. R.

(1990). Understanding cultural differences: Germans, French, and Americans. Boston, MA: Intercultural Press.

28.

Heyward

(2002). From international to intercultural: Redefining the international school for a globalized world. Journal of Research in International Education, 1, 9-32. doi:10.1177/14752409021100210.1177/147524090211002

29.

Hofstede

G. J.

Pedersen

(1999). Synthetic cultures: Intercultural learning through simulation games. Simulation & Gaming, 30, 415-439. doi:10.1177/10468781990300040210.1177/104687819903000402

30.

Hofstede

G. J.

(1980). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.

31.

Hofstede

G. J.

Pedersen

P. B.

Hofstede

(2002). Exploring culture: Exercises, stories, and synthetic cultures. Boston, MA: Intercultural Press.

32.

Hofstede

G.J.

(2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

33.

Hofstede

G.J.

de Caluwé

Peters

(2010, August 5). Why simulations games work - In search of the active substance: A synthesis. Simulation & Gaming OnlineFirst, 1-20. DOI: 10.1177/104687811037559610.1177/1046878110375596

34.

James.

(2007). Reconceptualizing cultural identity and its role in intercultural business communication. Journal of Business Communication, 44, 199-235. doi:10.1177/002194360730134610.1177/0021943607301346

35.

Jameson

D. A.

(1993). Using a simulation to teach intercultural communication in business communication courses. Business Communication Quarterly, 56, 3-8. doi:10.1177/10805699930560010210.1177/108056999305600102

36.

Jandt

F. E.

(2007). Intercultural communication: A global reader. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

37.

Jones

J.G.

Bronack

S.C.

(2007). Rethinking cognition, representations, and processes in 3D online social learning environments. In Gibson

Aldrich

Prensky

(Eds.), Games and simulations in online learning (pp. 89 - 114). Hershey, PA: Information Science.

38.

Kayes

A. B.

Kayes

D. C.

Kolb

D. A.

(2005a). Developing teams using the Kolb team learning experience. Simulation & Gaming, 36, 355-363.

39.

Kayes

A. B.

Kayes

D. C.

Kolb

D. A.

(2005b). Experience learning in teams. Simulation & Gaming, 36, 330-354.

40.

Klinge

Rohmann

Piontkowski

(2009). Intercultural sensitization with synthetic cultures: Evaluation of a computer-based multimedia learning tool. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33, 507-515. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.07.00110.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.07.001

41.

Kolb

A. Y.

Kolb

D. A.

(2010). The learning way: Meta-cognitive aspects of experiential learning. Simulation & Gaming, 40, 297-327.

42.

Kolb

D. A.

(1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Retrieved from http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/experience.htm

43.

Koskinen

Abdelhamid

Likitalo

(2008). The simulation method for learning cultural awareness in nursing. Diversity in Health and Social Care, 5, 55-63. Retrieved from http://www.citeulike.org/pdf_options/article/2548342?fmt=pdf

44.

Lainema

(2009). Perspective making: Constructivism as a meaning-making structure for simulation gaming. Simulation & Gaming, 40, 48-67.

45.

Lambertini

ten Thije

J. D.

(2004). Die Vermittlung interkulturellen Handlungswissens mittels der Simulation authentischer Faelle. [The transmission of intercultural know-how by means of simulating authentic situations.] Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 5, 175-198. Retrieved from http://www.verlag-gespraechsforschung.de/2004/kompetenz/175-198.pdf

46.

Landis

Bennett

J. M.

Bennett

M. J.

(Eds). (2004). Handbook of intercultural training (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

47.

Lederman

L. C.

(1992). Debriefing: Toward a systematic assessment of theory and practice. Simulation & Gaming, 23, 145-160.

48.

McMinn

S. W. J.

(2009). Knowing culture in second life: International literacy and the technological know how in a virtual world. Research, Reflections and Innovations in Integrating ICT in Education, 1-3, 616-621. Retrieved from http://www.formatex.org/micte2009/book/616-621.pdf

49.

Neuliep

J. W.

(2006). Intercultural communications: A contextual approach (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

50.

Oertig

(2010). Debriefing in Moodle: Written feedback on trust and knowledge sharing in a social dilemma game. Simulation & Gaming, 41, 374-389.

51.

Phipps

St. Clair

(2008). Intercultural literacies. Language and Intercultural Communication, 8, 69-71. doi:10.1080/1470847080227078610.1080/14708470802270786

52.

Rehberger

(2006). A model for teaching with digital role-play simulations. In Cohen

Portney

K. E.

Rehberger

Thorsen

, Virtual decisions: Digital simulations for teaching reasoning in the social sciences and humanities (pp. 29 - 46). Mahwah, NJ: Taylor & Francis.

53.

Rimmington

G. M.

Alagic

(2008). Third place learning: Reflective inquiry into intercultural and global cage painting. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

54.

Saatci

(2008). Problem-based learning in an intercultural business communication course: Communication challenges in intercultural relationships in internationalizing small- or medium-sized enterprises. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 22, 237-260. doi:10.1177/105065190731193110.1177/1050651907311931

55.

Salas

Rosen

M. A.

Held

J. D.

Weissmuller

J. J.

(2008). Performance measurement in simulation-based training: A review and best practices. Simulation & Gaming, 40, 328-377. doi:10.1177/104687810832673410.1177/1046878108326734

56.

Shachaf

Hara

(2007). Behavioral complexity theory of media selection: A proposed theory for global virtual teams. Journal of Information Science, 33, 63-75.

57.

Shaules

(2007). Deep culture: The hidden challenges of global living. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.

58.

Szkudlarek

(2009). Through Western eyes: Insights into the intercultural training field. Organization Studies, 30, 975-986. doi:10.1177/017084060933898710.1177/0170840609338987

59.

Thomas

Kinast

E. U.

Schroll-Machl

(Eds.). (2010). Handbook of intercultural communication and cooperation: Basics and areas of application. Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH.

60.

Tjie

C. B.

(2002). Conflict and roles in simulations. Simulation & Gaming, 33, 486-489. doi:10.1177/104687810223861210.1177/1046878102238612

61.

Trompenaars

Hampden-Turner

(1998). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding diversity in global business. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

62.

Vygotsky

(1978). Mind in society. London, England: Harvard University Press.

63.

Wiggins

B. E.

(2010). An exploratory study of virtual collaboration using Facebook. Journal of Communications Media Studies, 2, 122-135.

64.

Wiggins

B. E.

(2011). The impact of cultural dimensions and the coherence principle of multimedia instruction on the achievement of educational objectives within an online learning environment (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, PA.

65.

Wiggins

McTighe

(2005). Understanding by design (Expanded 2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.