Promoting Openness toward Culture

Learning: Ethnographic Interviews

for Students of Spanish
BLAIR E. BATEMAN
937 17th Avenue SE
Minneapolis, MN 55414
Email: bate0048@umn.edu

Although learning to understand another culture is often mentioned as a benefit of foreign

language learning, merely studying a foreign language does not automatically produce cross-
cultural understanding. Many students study a language only to fulfill requirements and see
culture learning as a nonessential element of the curriculum. This article explains how
conducting ethnographic interviews can promote openness toward culture learning. Follow-
ing a brief review of the culture learning process and of attitudinal theory, the article reports
on a study that replicated Robinson-Stuart and Nocon’s (1996) San Diego State study in a
Midwestern setting. Thirty-five college students from 2 second-year Spanish classes were
introduced to ethnographic interviewing skills and assigned to interview a native speaker of
Spanish. As in the previous study, the results showed that the interviews positively affected
students’ attitudes toward the target language and its speakers as well as their desire to learn
Spanish.

ONE OF THE LONG-HELD HOPES OF TEACH-
ers of second languages and cultures is that the
study of another language will lead to positive atti-
tudes toward the target culture and its members
and a desire to interact with them. As early as 1966,
Nostrand proposed that foreign language (FL)
teaching address cross-cultural communication
and understanding, including “the psychophysi-
cal capacity to be magnanimous toward strange
ways” (p. 7). More recently, the objective of devel-
oping positive attitudes toward other cultures has
been codified in the form of national standards.
The U.S. Standards for Foreign Language Learning
(1996) included as objectives the “gain[ing of]
knowledge and understanding of other cultures”
in order to “participate in multilingual communi-
ties at home and around the world” (p. 9). The Na-
tional Curriculum of England and Wales ad-
dressed attitudes even more explicitly, listing
among the goals of FL teaching the encourage-
ment of “positive attitudes to foreign language
The Modern Language Journal, 86, iii, (2002)
0026-7902/02/318–331 $1.50/0
©2002 The Modern Language Journal
learning and to speakers of foreign languages and
a sympathetic approach to other cultures and civi-
lizations” (Byram & Morgan, 1994, p. 15).
Unfortunately, positive attitudes toward other
peoples and cultures are not an automatic prod-
uct of FL study. In 1978, Robinson decried what
she called the “Magic-Carpet-Ride-to-Another-
Culture Syndrome,” that is, the assumption that
“any type of language instruction will automat-
ically lead to a greater understanding, tolerance,
and a more positive attitude toward the target
culture” (p. 138). She pointed out that although
research had shown that the degree of students’
empathy toward and identification with the target
culture affects their second language (L2) acqui-
sition, little research had approached the issue
from the opposite direction, studying the effect
of L2 acquisition on attitude change. Robinson
furthermore asserted that “no research has
shown attitude change to be an automatic out-
come of any type of foreign language instruction”
(p. 138). Robinson’s concerns have been echoed
more recently by Byram and Morgan (1994), who
affirmed that “the assumption that language
learning leads to positive attitudes towards other
Blair E. Bateman
people and cultures cannot be held without fur-
ther reflection” (p. 40).
One important influence on students’ attitudes
is the FL requirement that many colleges have for
entrance, graduation, or both. Mantle-Bromley
(1995) asserted that
the majority of students enroll in FL classes not be-
cause they are motivated to learn another language,
but because two years of FL study are recommended
or required for college entrance. Such a requirement
does not provide sufficient motivation to continue
language study. (p. 373)
Nocon (1991) studied the attitudes of university
students who were required to take 3 semesters of
a FL. She found that requiring students to study
a FL did not positively affect their attitudes to-
ward speakers of the language or the language
itself but rather correlated with negative atti-
tudes. In addition, the study revealed hostility
toward the FL requirement. Nocon concluded
that “attitudes toward the language, hostility and
the FL requirement are inextricably linked, and
that the study of language in the required classes
does not alter that link by promoting positive
attitudes, or even by affecting attitudes” (p. 165).
Unfortunately, many students see little or no
connection between language learning and cul-
ture learning. A colleague of the author shared
the following excerpts from her students’ evalu-
ations of a second-year Spanish class. Although
the class included a cultural component in the
form of textbook articles on political and social
issues, and the teacher herself was a native of
Spain, several students complained on their
course evaluation forms about having to learn
culture at all:
The weakest aspect [of the course] was having to
learn culture. I, personally, would improve the class
by teaching more of the language and not as much,
if any, culture.
Spending a lot more time on the grammar and mak-
ing sure it is understood would help a lot. It’s great
learning the culture, but I came to learn how to
speak, listen, and write Spanish!
I feel like the concentration on culture severely de-
tracted from my learning of the language (and I pay
to learn language).
These students apparently viewed culture
learning, at least in the form of articles on politi-
cal and social issues, as separate from language
learning and therefore a nonessential element of
the curriculum. Other researchers (e.g., Nocon,
1991) have found a similar compartmentalization
319
of language learning and culture learning in the
minds of students.
THE PROCESS OF LEARNING TO
UNDERSTAND ANOTHER CULTURE
Traditional models of culture learning have
tended to view culture as a body of knowledge to
be learned (e.g., Nostrand, 1978) or as a set of
culturally appropriate behaviors (e.g., the ACTFL
Provisional Proficiency Guidelines, 1982). A more
recent constructivist perspective, as explained by
Roberts, Byram, Barro, Jordan, and Street
(2001), sees culture from a somewhat different
viewpoint. Culture, it is argued, is constructed by
people in their everyday lives, and language is the
chief instrument for doing so. Thus, in order for
individuals from different cultures to communi-
cate effectively, they must be open to engaging in
the process of negotiating meaning. Roberts et al.
referred to such individuals as “intercultural
speakers”:
An intercultural speaker is aware of both their own
and others’ culturally constructed selves. Rather than
assuming that they know in some straightforward fac-
tual way either their own or the other’s cultural
worlds, they are aware of a constant process of forma-
tion and transformation. Culture is not a given but
constituted in the everyday practices of groups and
individuals. (p. 30)
Robinson (1988) echoed this view of culture as
process:
Cultural understanding is an ongoing, dynamic pro-
cess in which learners continually synthesize cultural
inputs with their own past and present experience in
order to create meaning. As such, cultural under-
standing involves a synthesis between the learner’s
home culture, the target cultural input and the
learner as an individual. (pp. 11–12)
This position is consistent with that of specialists
in cross-cultural education (e.g., Bennett, 1993;
Paige, 1993), who view culture learning as a de-
velopmental process in which learners progress
from an ethnocentric view of the world to one in
which they acknowledge the existence of differ-
ent cultural perspectives, learn to accept cultural
differences, and perhaps even integrate them
into their own worldview.
Robinson offered a model for understanding
the culture learning process in her “Color Pur-
ple” theory of second culture acquisition (Robin-
son-Stuart & Nocon, 1996). She referred to each
culture’s unique perspective on the world as a
320
“cultural lens,” and affirmed that second culture
acquisition occurs
when one becomes aware of one’s own cultural lens
(e.g., blue) through the recognition that a person
from another culture has a different lens (e.g., red).
Neither person can escape his or her own cultural
lens, but each can choose to overlap lenses (e.g.,
purple) in order to understand better the other’s
perspectives and arrive at shared meaning. (p. 435)
The process of learning to understand one’s
own and other cultural viewpoints challenges
learners’ sense of self, their cultural identity, and
their worldview. As a result, they may experience
a lasting change in self-concept, attitudes, and
behavior, which ideally results in greater open-
ness toward individuals of other cultures and an
increased desire to interact with them (Jurasek,
1995; Paige, 1993; Roberts et al., 2001; Robinson-
Stuart & Nocon, 1996). This increased self-aware-
ness, with the accompanying changes in attitude
and behavior toward others, is perhaps the most
compelling reason for culture learning.
HELPING STUDENTS DEVELOP AN
OPENNESS TOWARD CULTURE LEARNING
Although the importance of teaching culture is
commonly acknowledged by FL educators, some
may question whether it is possible or even desir-
able to attempt to influence students’ cultural
attitudes. Byram and Morgan (1994) answered in
the affirmative, asserting that “teachers can have
an influence over cognitive, affective and moral
development, and thereby play a significant role
in young people’s education in an international
world” (p. 39). Attitudes, however, can be diffi-
cult to change, given that they are based on mul-
tiple factors that include cognitions, affective re-
actions, behavioral intentions, and past behaviors
(Zimbardo & Leippe, 1991).
Mantle-Bromley (1995) explained that psycho-
logical theories on attitude change commonly de-
scribe attitudes as having three components: cog-
nition, behavior, and affect. In order for changes
in attitude to occur, there must be dissonance or
disagreement among the three components.
Thus, culture learning that occurs at only one or
two levels, such as in the learning of only cultural
facts (cognitive level) or appropriate cultural be-
haviors (behavioral level), may be insufficient to
affect learners’ attitudes toward the target cul-
ture. Learners must be involved affectively as well
as cognitively and behaviorally in order for atti-
tude change to occur (see also Kramsch, 1983;
Paige, 1993).
The Modern Language Journal 86 (2002)
ETHNOGRAPHY AS A TOOL FOR
PROMOTING CROSS–CULTURAL
UNDERSTANDING
One method of cultural study that has received
attention for its potential to engage learners af-
fectively, behaviorally, and cognitively is ethnogra-
phy. Originating in the field of anthropology, eth-
nography seeks to understand how people within
a given culture categorize and prioritize their ex-
perience. The ethnographer’s goal is to describe
the culture from an emic, or native, point of view;
that is, to provide “a paraphrase of what the cul-
tural insiders reveal themselves about their own
group’s behavior and experience” (Jurasek, 1995,
p. 223).
One of ethnography’s principal tools of in-
quiry is the ethnographic interview. Unlike other
types of interviews, an ethnographic interview
does not begin with a preplanned agenda or list
of questions, which may be based upon the inter-
viewer’s own cultural categories rather than those
of the interviewee. Rather, the interviewer’s goal
is to discover natural categories of meaning in the
interviewee’s mind. The interview begins with an
open-ended question (sometimes called the
“grand tour” question), which allows the inter-
viewee’s own cultural themes to emerge. The in-
terviewer then builds subsequent questions on
the interviewee’s responses. This type of inter-
view requires active listening on the part of the
interviewer, who must continually interact with
what the interviewee has said. Because the goal is
to probe in depth the interviewee’s perceptions
and beliefs, ethnographers often conduct several
interviews with the same person (Robinson-Stu-
art & Nocon, 1996; Spradley, 1979).
How Ethnographic Interviews Can Promote
Cross-Cultural Understanding
Ethnographic interviews conducted by FL stu-
dents can promote openness to culture learning
in several ways. Perhaps the most fundamental
benefit of the interviews lies in bringing students
into one-on-one contact with individuals from
other cultures. As early as 1954, Allport postu-
lated that direct contact between members of dif-
ferent cultural groups was likely to reduce preju-
dice, provided that the contact produced new
acquaintances with members of the other group
and knowledge about them. The importance of
meaningful interpersonal contact for overcom-
ing attitudinal barriers has been reaffirmed by FL
educators, including Jurasek (1995), Mantle-
Bromley (1995), Roberts et al. (2001), Robinson-
Blair E. Bateman
Stuart and Nocon (1996), and Seelye (1993). Ro-
binson-Stuart and Nocon asserted that “when the
goal of language instruction is framed as live
communication between cultures and cultural
representatives, as opposed to the acquisition of
knowledge or a scholarly skill, the process of cre-
ating shared meaning in interpersonal interac-
tion must be primary” (p. 434).
As students interact with interviewees, they
must listen attentively and ask thoughtful ques-
tions based on the interviewees’ responses. This
process encourages students to go beyond super-
ficial answers to questions and seek a deeper level
of comprehension. Each topic is probed in
depth, which contributes to increased under-
standing and rapport between students and inter-
viewees. As Roberts et al. (2001) explained,
Ethnography involves “putting oneself in someone
else’s shoes.” . . . Being in someone else’s shoes does
not make you that other person, but it is a constant
reminder to you that the experience, however tempo-
rary and unlike you, has become a part of you. (p. 38)
As a result, many student-ethnographers report
making a new friend by the end of their study—a
powerful affective outcome of the interview expe-
rience.
Besides providing insight into the interviewees’
culture, ethnographic interviews have the poten-
tial to help students learn about themselves. As
they come to understand the point of view of an
individual from another culture, students be-
come aware of aspects of their own culture that
are often invisible until seen in contrast with
other cultures. They learn that there are other
ways of looking at the world besides their own,
and begin to comprehend how they are seen by
others. This understanding can lead students to a
fuller awareness of their own culture and how it
influences the way they see the world.
Some Applications of Ethnography for Developing
Cross-Cultural Understanding
Acknowledging the potential of ethnography
as a tool for developing cross-cultural under-
standing, authors such as Barro, Byram, Grimm,
Morgan, and Roberts (1993), Hickey (1980), Ju-
rasek (1995), and Roberts et al. (2001) have ad-
vocated the use of ethnographic interviews by FL
students in study abroad settings. Among the
more ambitious of these projects is one reported
by Roberts et al. (2001) in which students in a
4-year language degree program learned ethno-
graphic methods in their second year of study,
conducted an ethnographic project abroad dur-
321
ing their third year, and wrote up their project
during their fourth year.
Unfortunately, many FL students do not have
the opportunity or the desire to study abroad. For
these students, ethnographic projects conducted
among target culture members in their own com-
munities could provide a meaningful culture
learning experience. Such “home ethnogra-
phies” are relatively common in anthropology
and sociology courses (e.g., Mabe, 1989; Schmid,
1995). In the field of FL education, however, few
studies have been published whose primary ob-
jective was for students to use ethnographic tech-
niques to learn about the cultures in their own
communities. One notable exception is a project
conducted by Robinson-Stuart and Nocon (1996)
with students of Spanish at San Diego State Uni-
versity, which is located in an area with a large
Hispanic population. For the project, 26 stu-
dents, in their second year of language study,
each conducted two or three interviews with a
native Spanish speaker from the community.
Prior to conducting the interviews, the students
practiced ethnographic interviewing techniques
in class. They also participated in classroom ac-
tivities designed to help them develop an aware-
ness of how culture influences perceptions and to
help them identify with the feelings of newcom-
ers to the community. Quantitative and qualita-
tive results indicated that the project not only
improved the students’ attitudes toward Spanish
speakers but also increased their desire to learn
Spanish.
THE PRESENT STUDY
The cultural attitudes of the participants in
Robinson-Stuart and Nocon’s study were un-
doubtedly influenced to some extent by the pres-
ence of the large Hispanic population in their
community. In order to assess the results of an
ethnographic interview project at a similar insti-
tution in a community with a less prevalent His-
panic population, the present study was con-
ducted at the University of Minnesota’s Twin
Cities campus in the spring of 1998. The student
body of the university is 80% White, and only 2%
of the students are Hispanic. Although the Twin
Cities area is home to 96,000 people of Hispanic
origin, who represent approximately 4% of the
total population, most Hispanics tend to live in
centralized neighborhoods relatively distant from
the campus. These factors made it unlikely that
most students involved in the study would have
had close association with many Hispanic indi-
viduals.
322
A second objective of the study was to provide
more information about the students’ implemen-
tation of the interview project—how much time
they spent in interviews, how much Spanish they
spoke, and the relationship between these vari-
ables and the students’ attitudes toward Spanish
and Spanish speakers at the end of the project, as
well as toward the project itself. Furthermore, be-
cause both the current study and Robinson-Stuart
and Nocon’s study involved a group of students
who were studying Spanish only to fulfill gradu-
ation requirements, the present study specifically
sought information on how the interview project
affected students’ desire to study Spanish and
their attitudes toward native Spanish speakers.
RESEARCH DESIGN
Participants
The participants in the study consisted of 35
undergraduate students enrolled in second-year
Spanish in the Spring of 1998. They were divided
fairly equally between two course sections, both of
which were taught by the department supervisor
for second-year Spanish classes. Female students
comprised two-thirds of the group. Although all of
the students were native speakers of English, most
had previous exposure to the Spanish language,
Hispanic cultures, or both; 30 had studied Spanish
in junior high school, high school, or both; 10 had
visited a Spanish-speaking country, and 1 had lived
in a Spanish-speaking country. However, 70% of
the students said that they had fewer than three
friends who were native speakers of Spanish. Of
the students, 14 (40%) reported that they were
taking Spanish primarily to fulfill graduation re-
quirements. Of these students, 8 (23%) listed the
graduation requirement as the only reason they
were studying Spanish.
Instrumentation
Background Questionnaire. On the second day of
class, students were asked to complete a back-
ground questionnaire (see Appendix A). The
questionnaire elicited information about student
demographics, previous language experience,
and reasons for studying Spanish. It also included
Likert-scale items designed to measure the stu-
dents’ attitudes toward Spanish and Spanish
speakers (adapted from Robinson-Stuart & No-
con, 1996).
Postquestionnaire. At the end of the project (the
10th week of class), the students completed a
The Modern Language Journal 86 (2002)
postquestionnaire (see Appendix B) largely pat-
terned after Robinson-Stuart and Nocon’s (1996)
postsurvey. The postquestionnaire contained the
same Likert-scale items on attitudes toward Span-
ish and Spanish speakers as the background ques-
tionnaire. In addition, it elicited information on
the students’ implementation of the interview
project, their attitudes toward it, and what they
learned from it.
Procedures
Classroom Activities. The interview project was
introduced by the researcher, who also con-
ducted all subsequent classroom activities related
to the project. The students were informed that
the course would include an interview project
with a native speaker of Spanish and that the
project would be worth 10% of their final course
grade.
During the first week of the 10-week quarter,
the students participated in two activities de-
signed to help them begin to consider the life
experiences of foreigners in the United States.
The first activity asked the students to read and
react to comments made by foreign visitors (from
Kolhs & Knight, 1994). Several students re-
marked that they had never considered U.S. cul-
ture from the viewpoint of a foreigner before and
acknowledged that some aspects of American cul-
ture must appear strange to natives of other cul-
tures. A second activity, patterned after Robinson-
Stuart and Nocon’s (1996) study, asked the
students to identify with newcomers to the com-
munity or with language-minority members by
writing a short paper recalling their own feelings
of isolation in a new situation. Robinson-Stuart
and Nocon affirmed that “students who learn to
identify those feelings that they share with target
language speakers become more accustomed to
seeing situational as well as dispositional causes of
behavior” (p. 438).
In the second week of class the students were
assigned readings on ethnographic interviewing
techniques (adapted from Robinson, 1988). Fol-
lowing a classroom discussion of the readings,
they watched a segment of the video “From the
Inside: Ethnographic Interviews in the Foreign
Language Classroom” (National Language Re-
source Center, 1997) and observed a demonstra-
tion interview conducted by the researcher. In
pairs, the students then practiced the techniques
by interviewing each other.
Conducting the Interviews. In the third week of
class, the students were asked to find a native
Blair E. Bateman
Spanish speaker to interview. Students who were
unable to find an interviewee (approximately
half of the students) were assisted by the re-
searcher. The resulting pool of interviewees rep-
resented a broad cross-section of Hispanic cul-
tures from 14 different countries.
After locating an interviewee, the students were
assigned to conduct two interviews over the next 5
weeks. They were encouraged to conduct the in-
terviews face-to-face rather than by telephone or
email. They were instructed to begin the inter-
views in Spanish but were allowed to switch to En-
glish when they became limited by their language
proficiency (provided that their interviewees were
comfortable speaking English).
Student Reports. In the final 2 weeks of class, the
students each prepared a written report on the
interview experience and presented a short oral
version of the report to their classmates. As in
Robinson-Stuart and Nocon’s (1996) study, the
students were asked to comment on (a) what they
learned about the person they interviewed,
(b) what they learned about the interviewee’s cul-
ture, (c) what they learned about their own
culture, and (d) what they learned about them-
selves. Unlike Robinson-Stuart and Nocon’s study,
however, the oral and written reports in the cur-
rent project were done in Spanish upon the rec-
ommendation of the classroom teacher, who felt
that the students’ language skills were adequate to
communicate their ideas in the target language.
Photocopies of the students’ written reports and
the researcher’s notes on their oral reports were
included in the data analysis.
Data Analysis
Quantitative Analysis. Frequencies, means, and
standard deviations were calculated for items
from the background questionnaire and the
postquestionnaire. Paired t tests were used to
compare means from the pre-post attitude items
and from the pre-post question on how likely
students were to continue studying Spanish. Pear-
son product-moment correlations were used to
explore relationships among variables in the
study. In addition, because one of the research
questions dealt with the project’s effect on stu-
dents who listed graduation requirements as their
only reason for studying Spanish, t tests were con-
ducted comparing the requirement-only group
with other students on items from the back-
ground questionnaire and the postquestionnaire.
Qualitative Analysis. Qualitative data from the
students’ responses to open-ended questions on
323
the postquestionnaire and from their final re-
ports were analyzed according to Tesch’s (1990)
model. A list of topics from the students’ re-
sponses was made, and individual questionnaire
responses were coded by topic. Similar responses
were grouped together in order to identify com-
mon themes, and a descriptively worded sum-
mary for each theme was written. The students’
final reports were also coded by topic, and the
textual excerpts for each topic were examined
together in order to identify commonly recurring
themes that related to what the students had
learned about Spanish-speaking people and cul-
tures, their own culture, and themselves.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Student Implementation of the Interview Project
Number and Location of Interviews. The majority of
the students (73%) conducted two interviews with
their native informants as assigned. The remain-
ing 27% conducted only one interview, citing lo-
gistical constraints such as difficulty contacting
their interviewees or scheduling appointments. A
few students reported that their interviewees did
not return phone calls; consequently, new inter-
viewees had to be found for these students, and in
some cases there was not enough time remaining
in the 10-week quarter for them to conduct two
interviews. The majority of the interviews (83%)
were conducted face-to-face, most commonly in
the interviewee’s home. The remaining 17% of
the interviews were conducted by telephone. The
telephone interviews were significantly shorter
(M ⫽ 26.0, SD ⫽ 9.4) than interviews conducted
in person (M ⫽ 44.2, SD ⫽ 22.9) according to a t
test (t ⫽ ⫺2.45; p ⬍ .05).
Length of Time Spent in Interviews. The length of
time spent in interviews varied considerably.
Whereas the students spent an average of 71 min-
utes total with their interviewees, some spent up
to 135 minutes, while others spent only 15 min-
utes. Statistically significant correlations were
found between the length of time the students
spent in interviews and their answers to three of
the questions on the postquestionnaire: “How
much did the interview project improve your un-
derstanding and respect for Spanish speakers?”
(r ⫽ .45, p ⬍ .01); “How would you rate the value
of the interview project to you personally?” (r ⫽
.38, p ⬍ .05); and “Would you recommend that
the interview project be required in future Span-
ish classes?” (r ⫽ .57, p ⬍ .001). In other words,
the more time the students spent with their inter-
324
viewees, the more personal benefit they reported
deriving from the project. It should be pointed
out, however, that the direction of these relation-
ships is not clear. Although it may be true that
spending more time in interviews had a greater
impact on the students’ attitudes, it may also be
true that students who initially had more positive
attitudes toward Spanish speakers and toward the
project itself were willing to invest more time in
the interviews than students who entered the pro-
ject with less positive attitudes.
Amount of Spanish Spoken in Interviews. The
amount of Spanish spoken in the interviews also
varied considerably. The postquestionnaire asked
the students to estimate the percentage of time
that Spanish was spoken. Although the students
reported speaking Spanish an average of 43% of
the time in the interviews, 4 students spoke exclu-
sively in Spanish, and 11 students spoke no Span-
ish at all. No significant correlations were found
between the amount of Spanish students spoke in
interviews and their resulting attitudes toward
Spanish and Spanish speakers, or toward the in-
terview project itself. Implications of this finding
will be discussed later.
Attitudinal Effects
Pre-post comparisons of the Likert-scale ques-
tionnaire items revealed little change in the stu-
dents’ attitudes toward Spanish and Spanish
speakers or in their plans to continue studying
Spanish beyond the requirements. The students’
responses only to postquestionnaire items, how-
ever, indicated that the project did have an im-
pact on their attitudes. The postquestionnaire
asked the students to rate several aspects of the
project on a 6-point Likert scale, with 1 repre-
senting a negative response and 6 a positive re-
sponse. In answer to the question “How much did
the interview project improve your under-
standing and respect for Spanish speakers?” 80%
of the students responded with a 4, 5, or 6, indi-
cating that the project had a positive impact on
their attitudes toward Hispanics.
When asked how much the interview project
increased their desire to learn Spanish, 60% of
the students responded with a 4, 5, or 6, indicat-
ing a strong or moderate increase in their desire
to learn Spanish. Although most of the students’
plans to continue studying Spanish beyond the
requirements remained unchanged, the fact that
the majority reported an increased desire to learn
the language points to a possible affective impact
of the project.
The Modern Language Journal 86 (2002)
In response to the question “How would you
rate the value of the interview project to you
personally?” 74% of the students responded with
a 4, 5, or 6, indicating that they felt the project
had been of value to them. When asked if they
would recommend requiring the interview proj-
ect in future Spanish classes, 74% of the students
responded with a 4, 5, or 6, indicating that they
would recommend continuing the project. These
outcomes are encouraging, given the reluctance
of many students in required language programs
to engage in culture-learning activities.
In summary, most students reported that the
project was worthwhile and that it positively af-
fected their attitudes toward Spanish speakers
and their desire to learn the language.
Outcomes for Students Who Took Spanish Only to
Fulfill Requirements
Of particular interest in this study was the ef-
fect of the project on the 23% of the students who
listed graduation requirements as their only rea-
son for studying Spanish. The background ques-
tionnaire revealed significant differences be-
tween these students and those who were taking
Spanish for other reasons; the requirement-only
group rated their own Spanish skills lower, had
less previous experience with foreign languages,
and were less likely to continue studying Spanish
beyond the requirements than students who re-
ported other reasons for studying Spanish (see
Table 1).
Results of the postquestionnaire indicated that
the requirement-only group, in comparison with
other students, was significantly less likely to re-
port an increased desire to study Spanish as a
result of the project. The requirement-only group
also appeared less likely to report that the project
improved their understanding of and respect for
Spanish speakers, or to recommend that the pro-
ject be required in future Spanish classes, al-
though these differences were not statistically sig-
nificant (see Table 2). Perhaps these results are
not surprising, given the fact that these students
approached the study with more negative initial
attitudes. Attitude change takes time, and the
limited scope and time frame of the interview
project was apparently not sufficient to have a
measurable impact on the attitudes of these stu-
dents.
Qualitative Findings
One of the most striking features of the quali-
tative data was the diversity of the students’ inter-
Blair E. Bateman 325
TABLE 1
Differences between Students Taking Spanish for Requirement Only and Other Students:
Background Questionnaire

Requirement Other
Only Students
Question (n ⫽ 8) (n ⫽ 26) t
In your opinion, what is the level of your Spanish?a M ⫽ 2.25 M ⫽ 3.00 ⫺3.84*
SD ⫽ 0.46 SD ⫽ 0.55
How much experience with foreign language(s) M ⫽ 2.13 M ⫽ 4.93 ⫺3.18*
have you had?b SD ⫽ 1.96 SD ⫽ 2.82
How likely are you to continue studying Spanish M ⫽ 2.00 M ⫽ 4.00 ⫺4.64*
beyond the requirements? SD ⫽ 1.07 SD ⫽ 1.04
aStudents answered this question on a scale ranging from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). bA numerical value was
calculated to represent the students’ previous language experience as follows: 1–2 years of Spanish in high
school ⫽ 1; over 2 years in high school ⫽ 2; one or more college classes ⫽ 3; visited Spanish-speaking country
⫽ 1; lived in Spanish-speaking country ⫽ 5; Spanish spoken in home ⫽ 5. Corresponding experience in other
foreign languages was assigned one-half of the values assigned to Spanish. These values were then summed to
yield a variable representing overall language experience.
*p ⬍ .001.

view experiences. Some students reported that
their interviewees were open and communicative
and furnished a wealth of cultural insights. The
students appreciated interviewees who had re-
flected on their experiences with both U.S. and
Hispanic cultures, and who enjoyed talking about
their culture. Other students reported difficulty
in getting their interviewees to speak in depth
about cultural topics. This difficulty may have
been a function of the students’ inexperience in
conducting interviews, or it may have simply been
that some interviewees were less talkative or less
reflective than others about their culture.
Another factor that influenced the students’
interview experiences was the effort that they
were willing to put into the project. The signifi-
cant correlation between time spent in interviews
and the students’ overall attitudes toward the
project suggests that the students who were will-
ing to put the most effort into the project derived
the most benefit. This comment was, in fact,
made by several students.
What Students Learned about Spanish-Speaking
People and Cultures. The postquestionnaire asked
the students “What did you learn about Spanish-
speaking people and cultures from listening to
other students’ presentations?” The following are
the themes most commonly mentioned: (a) Many
Hispanic cultures have similar values and beliefs,
(b) Hispanic people tend to be more family-ori-
ented than Americans, (c) gender roles in His-
panic countries differ from those in the United
States, (d) many Hispanic people have similar
perceptions of American culture, (e) Hispanics,
like Americans, are all different. Some of these
statements, such as the observations about fami-
lies and gender roles, represent generalizations
that the students made about Hispanic cultures
after hearing their classmates’ presentations and

TABLE 2
Differences between Students Taking Spanish for Requirement Only and Other Students: Postquestionnaire

Requirement Other
Only Students
Question (n ⫽ 8) (n ⫽ 26) t
How much did the interview project improve your M ⫽ 4.00 M ⫽ 4.41 ⫺0.76
understanding and respect for Spanish speakers? SD ⫽ 1.41 SD ⫽ 0.97
How much did the interview project increase M ⫽ 2.50 M ⫽ 3.85 ⫺2.26*
your desire to learn Spanish? SD ⫽ 1.51 SD ⫽ 1.41
Would you recommend that the interview M ⫽ 3.88 M ⫽ 4.44 ⫺0.81
project be required in future Spanish classes? SD ⫽ 1.89 SD ⫽ 1.22
*p ⬍ .05.
326
after conducting their own interviews. In the
author’s opinion, such generalizations are a nor-
mal part of culture learning and do not necessar-
ily constitute stereotypes. As students become ac-
quainted with more individuals from the target
culture, they begin to realize that generalizations
do not apply to everyone (La Brack, 1993). This
realization is suggested by the following students’
comments: “I always had a stereotyping image,
because of [our textbooks], that all Spanish-
speaking people were ver y religious, and that
isn’t true.” “I learned things not in books. His-
panic people, just like Americans, are all differ-
ent.”
The themes addressed in the students’ final
reports included those mentioned previously, as
well as topics such as religion, friendship, food,
holidays, traditions, racial prejudice, and poli-
tics. The students generally framed their discus-
sions of these topics as paraphrases or summa-
ries of the interviewee’s statements (“Roberto
feels that . . .” or “in Juanita’s opinion . . .”),
structuring that is indicative of their efforts to
understand the interviewee’s point of view. Al-
though some reports contained mostly cognitive-
level information in the form of facts, other re-
ports showed evidence of affective response to
the project, such as one student’s expression of
empathy with her interviewee’s experiences in
the United States (names have been changed
and the quotation has been translated from
Spanish):
During my interview with José, he spoke about his
problems with stereotypes. In Florida there are many
Dominicans. They have been stereotyped for their
violence and criminal acts. When José told people,
“I’m from the Dominican Republic,” many people
were afraid of him. . . . I’ve known José for almost a
year and I think he’s very nice. I can’t imagine people
not trusting him. I can imagine how he feels. When
he told me about this, I felt bad for the stereotypes
that I have had.
What Students Learned about American Culture. In
response to the question “What did you learn
about American culture from listening to other
students’ presentations?” the most commonly
mentioned themes included: (a) The United
States is a country of freedom and opportunity,
(b) U.S. and Hispanic cultures are very different,
(c) as Americans we lack knowledge about other
cultures, (d) our views are biased by affluence
and materialism. It is interesting that the notion
of the United States as a land of opportunity was
salient in the students’ minds at the conclusion of
the project. According to the students’ reports,
The Modern Language Journal 86 (2002)
many of the interviewees came to the United
States for better work or educational opportuni-
ties or for more freedom (one was a former gov-
ernment official from Cuba who had sought
asylum in the United States). Other topics men-
tioned in the students’ papers were American
independence and individualism, racism and
prejudice, and the diversity of nationalities and
ethnic groups represented in the United States.
Although such comments perhaps suggest that
the students had not reflected much on cross-cul-
tural issues prior to the project, they do seem to
indicate that the students gained new awareness
of their own culture. One student remarked that
the project helped her see her culture in a new
light: “[The project] gave me an outsider’s per-
spective about a culture I’ve always lived in and
taken for granted.”
What Students Learned about Themselves. Further
evidence of the project’s influence on the stu-
dents’ attitudes was found in their responses to the
question “What did you learn about yourself from
your interaction with the person you inter-
viewed?” The following are the most common re-
sponses: (a) I am fortunate for what I have, (b) I
learned that I can carry on a conversation with a
native Spanish speaker, (c) I had misconceptions
and stereotypes that need to change, (d) my Span-
ish is very limited.
Several students remarked that they had been
forced to reevaluate their own cultural miscon-
ceptions and stereotypes:
[I learned] that sometimes I can be egocentric in
assuming that people think the same way I do about
a way of living or life.
Although this interview made me uncomfortable
about my knowledge of people and cultures, I am
desirous to learn and admit that I don’t know
enough. We need to continue broadening our hori-
zons and not judge until we’ve been in another per-
son’s shoes.
One student made the following comment in her
paper:
Now I understand that at times people from other
cultures have a vision of the world that is different
from mine. The views are not bad or good but they
are different. I believe that the interview gave me the
opportunity to see things through the eyes of another
person.
CONCLUSIONS
This study confirms that ethnographic inter-
views can be an effective tool for positively influ-
Blair E. Bateman
encing students’ attitudes toward members of the
target language community and toward culture
learning in general. The project provided the
opportunity for the students to interact person-
ally with a native Spanish speaker, which many
had never done. At the cognitive level, the stu-
dents reported learning much factual informa-
tion about Hispanic cultures (e.g., foods, tradi-
tions, gender roles, etc.). For many students, the
project had an affective impact as well. Results of
attitude scales on the postquestionnaire pointed
to an increase in understanding of and respect
for Spanish speakers, and the students’ responses
to open-ended questions and their final reports
suggested that many of them achieved a degree
of empathy and understanding for the experi-
ences of their interviewees.
The interviews apparently had less impact on
the students’ desire to study Spanish. Most stu-
dents’ plans for future language study remained
unchanged at the end of the interview project. In
particular, the students who were studying Span-
ish only to fulfill graduation requirements ap-
peared to be less affected by the project than
those who were studying Spanish for other rea-
sons.
Of particular interest in the study was the lack
of any demonstrable relationship between the
amount of Spanish spoken in the interviews and
the students’ resulting attitudes toward Spanish
and Spanish speakers, their desire to learn Span-
ish, or their perception of the project’s value to
them personally. It was anticipated that the stu-
dents who spoke more Spanish would perhaps
achieve a greater degree of rapport with their
interviewees, and thus derive greater benefit
from the project than the students who spoke
little or no Spanish during the interviews. This
was apparently not the case. Given that meaning-
ful learning experiences were reported even by
students who spoke very little Spanish with their
interviewees, perhaps interaction with native
speakers should be encouraged from the outset
of language study. If students in beginning lan-
guage classes were introduced to ethnographic
interviewing skills and were given opportunities
to use these skills in their native languages, the
process of culture learning described here could
be initiated quite early and be continued
throughout students’ language study.
LIMITATIONS
The design of the current study imposed cer-
tain limitations on the strength of the conclu-
sions that were drawn from the quantitative data.
327
The sample size was relatively small and was fur-
ther subdivided in order to compare the stu-
dents in the requirement-only group with the
students studying Spanish for other reasons. The
multiple tests of significance for means and cor-
relations from such a small sample compound
the likelihood of a Type I error. An additional
limitation of the study was the lack of a com-
parison group. The inclusion of a group of stu-
dents who did not conduct ethnographic inter-
views would allow for verification that the
changes in attitude observed were in fact a result
of the interview project.
Another limitation of the study was imposed by
the time constraints of the university’s 10-week
quarter system, which allowed for only one or two
interviews to be conducted. If Robinson-Stuart
and Nocon (1996) were correct in concluding
that students and interviewees become more at
ease and more open with each other in successive
interviews, it would certainly be desirable for stu-
dents to conduct additional interviews. Given the
positive correlation found between the students’
attitudes and the time they spent in interviews, it
seems likely that more personal interaction with
interviewees would have a greater impact on stu-
dents’ understanding of and respect for Spanish
speakers.
An additional issue that deserves attention is the
logistical challenges involved in setting up ethno-
graphic interviews. Any project involving one-on-
one pairing of students with interviewees requires
significant effort in locating individuals willing to
be interviewed, obtaining their consent, and
scheduling appointments with them. Teachers
who undertake such a project should be aware that
much of the work of coordinating the project may
fall on them. Fortunately, most urban areas in the
United States contain large enough populations
of Spanish speakers (and many other languages)
that interviewees can be found, provided that the
teacher and the students are willing to do the work
of finding them. Robinson-Stuart and Nocon
(1996) and Seelye (1993) offered other alterna-
tives as well, such as conducting interviews by
email, having an entire class interview a single in-
dividual, or pairing students in FL classes with stu-
dents in ESL classes to interview each other. Given
the potential of interview projects for promoting
cross-cultural understanding, the planning and
coordination work is certainly worth the effort.
SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
In light of the view taken here of culture learn-
ing as a process, studies such as the present one
328
that rely mainly on pre-post survey data probably
do not yield a complete picture of the students’
learning. Each student involved in an ethnogra-
phy project brings a different set of life experi-
ences, background knowledge, and perceptions
to the project, and these perceptions are refined
in different ways as the student conducts inter-
views and reflects on what he or she learned.
Likewise, each individual interviewed contributes
a unique set of experiences and perceptions to
the learning process. There exists a need for de-
scriptive or interpretive studies to provide insight
into the process of students’ culture learning, in
addition to measuring its results at the end of an
ethnography project. Qualitative research tech-
niques such as focus groups, participant inter-
views, participant observation, or case studies
may contribute much to our understanding of
the culture learning process. Furthermore, longi-
tudinal studies could help to determine whether
ethnographic interview projects produce lasting
effects on students’ attitudes and their willingness
to continue to participate in culture learning af-
ter they leave the FL classroom.
REFERENCES
ACTFL Provisional Proficiency Guidelines. (1982). Hast-
ings-on-Hudson, NY: ACTFL Materials Center.
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Barro, A., Byram, M., Grimm, H., Morgan, C., &
Roberts, C. (1993). Cultural studies for advanced
learners. In D. Graddol, L. Thompson & M. Byram
(Eds.), Language and culture (pp. 55–70). Cleve-
don, England: BAAL & Multilingual Matters.
Bennett, J. M. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A devel-
opmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R.
M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experi-
ence (2nd ed., pp. 21–71). Yarmouth, ME: Intercul-
tural Press.
Byram, M., Morgan, C., & colleagues. (1994). Teaching-
and-learning language-and-culture. Clevedon, En-
gland: Multilingual Matters.
Hickey, L. (1980). Ethnography for foreign language
learners. Foreign Language Annals, 6, 475–481.
Jurasek, R. (1995). Using ethnography to bridge the gap
between study abroad and the on-campus lan-
guage and culture curriculum. In C. Kramsch
(Ed.), Redefining the boundaries of language study
(pp. 221–249). Boston: Heinle.
Kohls, L. R., & Knight, J. M. (1994). Developing intercultu-
ral awareness: A cross- cultural training handbook (2nd
ed.). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Kramsch, C. (1983). Culture and constructs: Communi-
cating attitudes and values in the foreign language
classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 16, 437–448.
The Modern Language Journal 86 (2002)
La Brack, B. (1993). The missing linkage: The process
of integrating orientation and reentry. In R. M.
Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience
(2nd ed., pp. 241–279). Yarmouth, ME: Intercul-
tural Press.
Mabe, A. (1989). How do you teach world cultures?
International students in the classroom. Urban An-
thropology, 18, 53–63.
Mantle-Bromley, C. (1995). Positive attitudes and realis-
tic beliefs: Links to proficiency. Modern Language
Journal, 79, 372–386.
National Language Resource Center. (1997). From the
inside: Ethnographic interviews in the foreign language
classroom [videotape]. (Available from National
Language Resource Center, San Diego State Uni-
versity, 5500 Campanile Drive, BAN 426, San Di-
ego, CA 92182-7703)
Nocon, H. D. (1991). Attitudes and motivation of beginning
students of Spanish at a border university. Unpub-
lished master’s thesis, San Diego State University,
CA.
Nostrand, H. L. (1966). Describing and teaching the
sociocultural context of a foreign language and
literature. In A. Valdman (Ed.), Trends in language
teaching (pp. 1–25). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nostrand, H. L. (1978). The “Emergent Model” applied
to contemporary France. Contemporary French Civi-
lization, 2, 277–294.
Paige, R. M. (Ed.). (1993). Education for the intercultural
experience. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Roberts, C., Byram, M., Barro, A., Jordan, S., & Street, B.
(2001). Language learners as ethnographers. Cleve-
don, England: Multilingual Matters.
Robinson, G. L. (1978). The magic-carpet-ride-to-an-
other-culture syndrome: An international per-
spective. Foreign Language Annals, 11, 135–146.
Robinson, G. L. N. (1988). Crosscultural understanding:
Processes and approaches for foreign language, English
as a second language and bilingual educators. New
York: Prentice-Hall.
Robinson-Stuart, G., & Nocon, H. (1996). Second cul-
ture acquisition: Ethnography in the foreign lan-
guage classroom. Modern Language Journal, 80,
431–449.
Schmid, T. J. (1995). Classroom-based ethnography: A
research pedagogy. Teaching Sociology, 17,
323–329.
Seelye, H. N. (1993). Teaching culture: Strategies for inter-
cultural communication (3rd ed.). Lincolnwood, IL:
National Textbook.
Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Fort
Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Standards for foreign language learning: Preparing for the 21st
century (2nd printing). (1996). Lawrence, KS: Al-
len Press.
Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and
software tools. New York: Falmer.
Zimbardo, P. G., & Leippe, M. R. (1991). The psychology
of attitude change and social influence. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.
Blair E. Bateman 329

APPENDIX A
Prequestionnaire for Students

Name ______________________________
1. Sex: ⵧ Male ⵧ Female
2. Native language: __________________
3. In your opinion, what is the level of your Spanish? (check one)
ⵧ poor
ⵧ fair
ⵧ good
ⵧ very good
ⵧ excellent
4. How good would you say you are at school work in general?
ⵧ poor
ⵧ fair
ⵧ good
ⵧ very good
ⵧ excellent
5. How much experience with foreign language(s) have you had? Check one or more boxes in each column.
In Spanish In other languages (which? ________________)
ⵧ none before attending the U of M ⵧ none
ⵧ 1–2 yrs. in jr/sr high school ⵧ 1–2 yrs in jr/sr high school
ⵧ over 2 yrs. in jr/sr high school ⵧ over 2 yrs in jr/sr high school
ⵧ one or more college classes ⵧ one or more college classes
ⵧ visited Spanish-speaking country ⵧ visited foreign country
ⵧ lived in Spanish-speaking country ⵧ lived in foreign country
ⵧ Spanish was spoken in my home ⵧ language was spoken in my home
ⵧ other __________________________ ⵧ other ________________________________
6. Why did you decide to study Spanish?
7. How many friends and/or acquaintances do you have that are native speakers of Spanish?
ⵧ none ⵧ 6–10
ⵧ 1–2 ⵧ over 10
ⵧ 3–5
8. Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements by circling one letter for each item.
A ⫽ strongly agree
a ⫽ agree
? ⫽ uncertain
d ⫽ disagree
D ⫽ strongly disagree
A a ? d D Learning Spanish will help me make more Spanish-speaking friends.
A a ? d D Knowing Spanish will allow me to help others who are less fortunate than I am.
A a ? d D A language requirement exposes students to a necessary subject.
A a ? d D Knowing Spanish will help me get a better job.
A a ? d D I would like to travel to a country where Spanish is spoken.
A a ? d D I would enjoy living in a Spanish-speaking country.
A a ? d D Learning Spanish will be useful if I decide to study another language later.
A a ? d D Spanish will be useful to me after I leave school.
A a ? d D Learning Spanish will help me acquire new ideas and broaden my outlook.
A a ? d D Learning Spanish will help me understand people from other cultures.
9. How likely are you to continue studying Spanish beyond the requirements?
ⵧ definitely not
ⵧ probably not
ⵧ possibly
ⵧ probably
ⵧ definitely
330 The Modern Language Journal 86 (2002)

APPENDIX B
Postquestionnaire for Students

Name ______________________________
Please answer the following questions as completely and honestly as possible. Your responses to these questions will
not affect your grade on the interview project.
1. How many interviews did you conduct with your interviewee? _____ interview(s)
2. For each interview, please tell in what week of the quarter (1–10) the interview was conducted, and the location
where it was conducted.
Interview 1 Week: ____ Location: _______________________________________________
Interview 2 Week: ____ Location: _______________________________________________
3. Approximately how long was each interview?
Interview 1: _______ minutes
Interview 2: _______ minutes
4. Approximately what percent of the time did you speak Spanish in the interviews? ______%
5. How would you rate the person you interviewed as a good source of cultural information for this project? Circle
one number.
poor source 1 2 3 4 5 6 excellent source
of information |____|____|____|____|____| of information
Please explain your rating:
6. Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements by circling one letter for each item.
A ⫽ strongly agree
a ⫽ agree
? ⫽ uncertain
d ⫽ disagree
D ⫽ strongly disagree
A a ? d D Learning Spanish will help me make more Spanish-speaking friends.
A a ? d D Knowing Spanish will allow me to help others who are less fortunate than I am.
A a ? d D A language requirement exposes students to a necessary subject.
A a ? d D Knowing Spanish will help me get a better job.
A a ? d D I would like to travel to a country where Spanish is spoken.
A a ? d D I would enjoy living in a Spanish-speaking country.
A a ? d D Learning Spanish will be useful if I decide to study another language later.
A a ? d D Spanish will be useful to me after I leave school.
A a ? d D Learning Spanish will help me acquire new ideas and broaden my outlook.
A a ? d D Learning Spanish will help me understand people from other cultures.
7. How likely are you to continue studying Spanish beyond the requirements?
ⵧ definitely not
ⵧ probably not
ⵧ possibly
ⵧ probably
ⵧ definitely
8. How much did the interview project improve your understanding and respect for Spanish speakers?
not at 1 2 3 4 5 6 very
all |____|____|____|____|____| much
9. How much did the interview project increase your desire to learn Spanish?
not at 1 2 3 4 5 6 very
all |____|____|____|____|____| much
10. How would you rate the value of the interview project to you personally?
not at 1 2 3 4 5 6 very
all valuable |____|____|____|____|____| valuable
Blair E. Bateman 331
11. Would you recommend that the interview project be required in future Spanish classes?
not at 1 2 3 4 5 6 highly
all |____|____|____|____|____| recommended
12. What did you learn about Spanish-speaking people and cultures from listening to other students’ presentations?
13. What did you learn about American culture from listening to other students’ presentations?
14. What did you learn about yourself from conducting the interviews?
15. What other comments, if any, do you have about the project?

SWCOLT/CCFLT Joint Conference

The Southwest Conference on Language Teaching (SWCOLT) will hold its 20th anniversary conference
in conjunction with the Colorado Congress of Foreign Language Teachers (CCFLT).

A Peak Ahead, A Peek at the Past

March 13–15, 2003
Denver, CO

For information regarding the conference or to be included in the publications, please contact:

Audrey Cournia, Executive Director

1348 Coachman Dr.
Sparks, NV 89434
Phone: 775-358-6943
Fax: 775-358-1605
Email: CourniaAudrey@cs.com Web: www.learnalanguage.org/swcolt