FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS * VOL. 35, N O .

6 657

Defining, Teaching, and

Evaluating Cultural Proficiency
in the Foreign Language
Classroom
Julie A. Storme
Saint Mary5 College
Mana Demkhshani
Saint MaryS College

Abstract: Over the past few decades, the foreign language teaching profession has signijcant-
ly altered its understanding and practice of culture teaching. Important strides have been made
toward recognizing the development of cultural proficiency in learners as one of the primary mis-
sions of theforeign language classroom. The authors ofthis article consider recent work that has
moved the profession closer to a broadly embraced but clear definition of cultural proficiency and
propose a model for culture teaching that responds to this definition. They focus especially on
evaluation, that is, classroom testing and proficiency assessment - the latter extending beyond
the confines ofa single course.

Introduction
As foreign language teachers, we have long struggled with the question of how to teach culture
or, more precisely, how to integrate language and culture within our classrooms. In recent years,
however, we have achieved a clearer understanding of the role of culture in the foreign language
classroom. The teaching of culture has become less peripheral both within the profession and
within our classrooms; we have moved away from culture “notes” and towards culture as
process.
Nelson Brooks’ call for us to enter the “new frontier” (1971) of culture teaching has been
heeded. There have been many steps along the way, including the ACTFL proficiency guidelines
and the work of researchers such as Robinson (1981, 19851, Mantle-Bromley (1992), and Steele
and Suozzo (1994). These authors looked for guidance from the field of cross-cultural studies
(e.g., Hanvey, 1979) and the models of culture teaching proposed by Nostrand (19781, Kramsch
(19831, and Crawford-Lange and Lange (1985). Researchers in cross-cultural studies empha-
sized the importance of the affective dimension in the teaching of culture, and the models
demonstrated how culture teaching can focus on skills rather than on information (see, e.g.,
Crawford-Lange Q Lange, 1985; Galloway, 1992, 1998).
We note with satisfaction the inclusion of culture within two of the “five Cs” -Culture and

~~

Julie A. Storme (PhD, Northwestern University) is Professor of French at Saint Mary’s College,
Notre Dame, Indiana.
Mana Derakhshani (PhD, University of Utah) is Associate Professor of French at Saint Mary’s
College, Notre Dame, Indiana.
658
Comparisons - in the Standards for Foreign Language
Learning in the 21st Century (National Standards, 1999).
Specifically, Standards 2.1 and 2.2 call for learners to
demonstrate an understanding of the relationship between
the practices/products and perspectives of the culture stud-
ied. Standard 4.2 maintains that students should be able to
demonstrate an understanding of the concept of culture
through a comparison of the culture studied and their own
culture. These goals clearly envision a competency of sig-
nificant depth, comprising skills as well as information,
and one that suggests cross-cultural understanding and
even empathy.
Nonetheless, other than the implication that we prac-
tice a comparative approach, the Standards offer no sugges-
tion as to how teachers might help learners attain cultural
“understanding.” Nor do they tell us how to overcome dif-
ficulties associated with the teaching of culture long recog-
nized by teachers and researchers, such as the practical
impossibility of teachers becoming experts on all pertinent
target cultures, the challenge of teaching attitudes and
behaviors (Brooks, 1968; Schumann, 1976; Kramsch,
1983; Kramsch & Nelson, 1996), and our tendency to triv-
ialize culture (see, e.g., Patrikis, 1988, p. 18 and Galloway
as cited by Omaggio Hadley, 2001, pp. 348-49).
On the other hand, there has been no lack of excellent
articles and volumes outlining approaches that help us
meet the Standards while avoiding the pitfalls mentioned
above. In fact, the profession continues to move towards
the development of a widely embraced model of student
cultural proficiency.
Undoubtedly the most important work for French
teachers has been the American Association of Teachers of
Frenchs (AATF’s) Cultural Competence Chart (Singerman,
1996), which provides, vis-a-vis culture, something akin to
the ACTFL proficiency guidelines: descriptions of learner
profiles at various stages of competency.
The Cultural Competence Chart sidesteps the decades-
old debate of whether or not culture should be treated as
information (content-driven) or a skill (process-driven) by
embracing both.1 This is reflected by its division into two
main parts: (1) understanding culture and (2) knowledge
of French-speaking societies. The work has the additional
merit of including a section on testing (Bartz & Vermette,
19961,a particularly thorny issue when we step beyond the
confines of culture as information. The wisdom of includ-
ing a section on testing cannot be overemphasized,
because, if we truly wish to give culture a central role in our
classrooms, it must also have a central role in the evalua-
tion of our students. We cannot teach culture or integrate
culture and language teaching unless we assess cultural
proficiency and integrate language and culture testing.
Much of the Cultural Competence Chart can be general-
ized to any foreign language.2
NOVEMBEWDECEMBER 2002
The AATFs Cultural Competence Chart moves the
profession a significant step closer to the goal of teaching
cultural proficiency, but we must go further if we wish to
fully realize the kind of proficiency envisioned by the
authors of the chart and the Standards. In that spirit, we
propose the following three-stage model of culture teaching
within foreign language education.
1. Preparatory Stage: Foster the development of openness
towards the target culture(s).
A. Assess learners’ attitudes towards the target cul-
ture(s).
B. Examine the nature of culture and its determina-
tive role with regard to self-identity.
2. Teaching Stage
A. Maximize the integration of culture and language.
B. Focus on culture as process and a value system
with corresponding social conventions and institu-
tions.
3 . Evaluation
A. Classroom evaluation: Integrate the testing of cul-
tural content and skills with the testing of lan-
guage skills.
B. Assess learners’ cultural proficiency.
This model responds to generally agreed-upon recom-
mendations in that it requires the foreign language educator
to (1) integrate language and culture teaching, (2) teach
culture as a skill, not just as information, and ( 3 ) strive to
develop open-mindedness and understanding of the target
culture(s) and of foreign cultures in general. The model
treats some elements of empathy, such as open-mindedness
and curiosity, as necessary preconditions for foreign lan-
guage study, hence the assessment of attitudes and exami-
nation of the concept of culture within the preparatory stage
- and as a goal.3 The third stage incorporates an area that
remains largely neglected within the profession, namely the
evaluation and testing of students’ cultural competency4
The model proposed here is pertinent to all language-
culture classes, regardless of level or language. It is cyclical
and thus presupposes that the preparatory stage exists not
only as an initiation into language-culture teaching for
beginners, but also as a stage that will be repeated at the
outset of every additional language-culture course as well
as within a single course prior to the introduction of a new
cultural theme.
This model allows cultural information and skills to be
taught in a variety of ways: through texts, videos, guided
discovery, and simulations. Notwithstanding this flexibility,
the Standards and the Cultural Competence Chart do pro-
vide us with an organizing principle. The model’s approach
to culture teaching focuses on the first section of the
Cultural Competence Chart, “Understanding Culture,”
which describes levels of empathy toward other cultures
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS * VOL. 35, N O . 6 659

and degrees of ability to observe and analyze the target cul-
ture(s). Thus, the Cultural Competence Chart is an essen-
tial part of the model in that it provides a set of guidelines
that identifies various stages of cultural competence. (The
stages pertinent to the present article are reproduced in
Appendix A.)
The AATF’s chart is incomplete in an important way:
The stages for empathy begin with desirable levels of cul-
tural competence, but omit descriptors of the levels of
competence that precede Stage 1. It is precarious to assume
that lower levels are merely the absence of the descriptors
mentioned in Stage 1. In other words, it is just as important
to understand and describe ineffective behaviors and close-
minded attitudes toward other cultures as it is to highlight
desirable ones.
Table 1 is an adapted version of an ethnocentrisdeth-
norelativism scale by Milton Bennett (1993, p. 29) that
describes early, undesirable stages of cultural awareness.5
Unlike the AATF’s Cultural Competence Chart, we have
separated the descriptors of (1) attitudedaffective respons-
es, (2) effects on self-identity,and (3) behaviors. Each atti-
tudinal level is described by its characteristic emotional
stance towards the target culture. The behavioral descrip-
tors are broad and relate primarily to judging, adaptation,
and interpretation; many similar behavioral descriptors are
used in the Cultural Competence Chart.
Preparatory Stage
The profession has long understood the importance of pos-
itive learner attitudes towards the target culture. Recently,
we have recognized that positive attitudes towards the tar-
get culture are a significant aspect of learner’s cultural com-
petence and their ability to acquire the target language (see
Kramsch, 1996, 1983; Robinson, 1985; Mantle-Bromley,
1992; Schumann, 1976.) Given learner attitudes’ dual sta-
tus as facilitating medium and end goal, we must find ways
to both guide and assess them within our classrooms. The
following activities are designed to implement the prepara-
tory stage of our proposed model, a stage specifically dedi-
cated to fostering open, positive, and inquisitive learner
attitudes towards the target culture(s).6
Let us turn first to the question of assessing learner
attitudes. Barn and Vemette (1996, p. 77) suggest making
use of a “semantic-differential”assessment that asks learn-
ers to categorize lists of positive and negative attributes
according to the rubrics of native versus target culture(s).
Similarly, Steele and Suozzo (1994, p. 122) suggest using
attitude and belief tests devised by psychologists.7
Steele and Suozzo also suggest having students write
down five important things they know about the target cul-
ture and five adjectives describing it (pp. 122-23).
Although this task will undoubtedly elicit stereotypes, a
general impression of a learner’s attitude can be gained by
considering whether or not the descriptions are exclusive-
ly negative, positive, or mixed. In fact, any activity requir-
ing learners to report what they know about a target cul-
ture or to describe it will give us some insight into their
attitudes towards it.

ETHNOCENTRISM-ETHNORELATIVISM SCALE*
______~

Attitudinal Levels and

Affective Descriptors Effect on Self-Identity Behavioral Descriptors
Stage A
Denial Oblivious to the role of culture with Unknowingly imposes native culture’s
Ignorance regard to one’s identity and values value system on target culture
documents and behaviors
Stage B
Defense Threat of loss of identity Judges target culture as inferior
Hostility Refuses to adapt
Self-criticism Denigration of native culture Judges target culture as superior
Infatuation Mimics target culture
Stage C
Minimization Reestablishes comfort by seeking Ability to make superficial changes
Emotionally neutral and focusing on targevnative cultural in behavior but largely inflexible
similarities and/or cultural universals
*Adapted from Bennett (1993.p. 29)
I
I I
660
Teachers can modify the activity by asking learners to
write down things they like and dislike about the target cul-
ture (Steele & Suozzo, 1994, p. 37). Since negative feelings
are specifically sought, there is no “wrong answer” stigma
associated with them. Responses to native descriptions of
the target culture(s) or reports of personal experiences with
those culture(s) can also provide glimpses into learners’
attitudes. Finally, learners can be asked to observe how the
target culture(s) are represented in the American media.
It bears repeating that the assessment of learner atti-
tudes in the preparatory stage is not part of evaluating a
student’s cultural proficiency (that question is examined
later). The general approximations extrapolated from these
activities, while not appropriate for student evaluation, are
adequate to provide the teacher with a foundation on
which to build the teaching stage of the model.
The preparatory stage extends beyond the assessment
of learners’ attitudes. It provides a perfect venue for foster-
ing open and positive attitudes towards the target cul-
ture(s>.By focusing on stereotypes and their meanings and
consequences, we can readily segue from attitude assess-
ment to a critical examination of attitude development.
Steele and Suozzo (1994) suggest that learners com-
pare American images of the French with French images of
Americans (pp. 47-49). Without help, most learners would
find this assignment overwhelming, but teachers can facil-
itate the task by integrating a step-by-step analysis of
stereotypes into their classrooms. For example, the teacher
could first have students view American images of the tar-
get culture such as those in advertisements, videos, films,
and news programs. The learners then articulate the ideas
and attitudes about the target culture that these images
convey. The second step involves bringing in images of
American culture from the media of the target culture(s).
Learners articulate the meanings of these images, and then
teachers invite them to analyze both the nature (e.g., posi-
tive vs. negative) and veracity of the two sets of images. The
point is to teach learners to be able to judge images of the
target culture(s) with a critical eye. Steele and Suozzo
(1994) suggest that this kind of activity also demonstrates
the difficultyof reducing the complexities of any particular
culture to a manageable presentation (pp. 47-48).
Another effective tool is the presentation of images that
run counter to commonly perceived stereotypes. These are
easily located in magazines, videos, and films. In a rapid
sampling, we were able to locate pictures of skyscrapers in
Africa; a North African university with pictures represent-
ing a diversity that could easily be associated with an
American university; and healthy, vibrant children from
sub-Saharan Africa. Conversely, we should hesitate to fill
our classrooms with images that reinforce whatever pre-
existing negative or stereotypical perceptions our learners
might have of the target culture(s).
NOVEMBEWDECEMBER 2002
Several researchers have suggested that open and posi-
tive attitudes towards target cultures can be developed by
introducing the perspective of cultural anthropology into
the foreign language classroom, thereby allowing learners
to better understand the relationship that exists between
culture and self-identity (see, e.g., Robinson, 1985; Steele
& Suozzo, 1994; Mantle-Bromley, 1992.) Mantle-Bromley
(1992) presents an activity that illustrates both the influ-
ence of culture and the diversity of values within a single
culture. She suggests that learners be asked to consider
whether phrases such as “everyone calls their grandfather
‘Pops”’or “People drive on the right side of the road rep-
resent culture-bound or individual behaviors (p. 122).
To understand the relationship between culture and
self-identity, learners must understand the impact of their
own culture on their sense of identity. The exercise recom-
mended by Mantle-Bromley (1992), described above,
begins to address this concern, but it is necessary to draw
the connection more clearly
Teachers can encourage learners to explore their iden-
tities by asking them to draw pie charts that represent var-
ious aspects of their “American” identity. Providing a list of
identity descriptors for learners to consider (e.g., individu-
alism, love of liberty, popular culture, etc.) facilitates the
task. Teachers may subsequently invite students to create
their own descriptors. Having learners compare their iden-
tity pie charts and acknowledge differences and similarities
can provide a springboard for a discussion of the role that
culture plays in the formation of identity. Teachers could
collect similar charts from members of the target culture(s)
who are willing to share their perspectives with the learn-
ers. It is important that learners see several of these charts,
lest one individual’s efforts be interpreted as representing
the whole of a target culture.
As the Standards suggest, comparative analyses offer
the most effective path towards an understanding of the
role of culture on identity. Bymes (1991) uses such an
approach when she has learners compare a series of read-
ings that progress from texts in the native language about
the native culture to texts in the target language about the
target culture.
Not all texts, however, will reveal the impact of culture
on identity. Care should be taken to select texts that rely
upon common assumptions and that exist in both the
native and target cultures. Travel guides, etiquette manuals,
and, occasionally, advertisements are particularly rich texts
with regard to value systems and thus provide valuable
resources. By reading these or similar kinds of texts from
both native and target cultures, learners have an opportu-
nity to understand, compare, and critique underlying cul-
tural assumptions.
Many cultural products offer similar opportunities.
Possible products include report cards; thank you notes;
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS * VOL. 35, N O . 6
calendars; children’s stories; and wedding, birth, and death
announcements.
Such an analysis would begin by inviting learners to
articulate the differences and similarities that they observe
between a cultural product from a target culture and its
native-culture equivalent. Subsequently, teachers ask learn-
ers to interpret their observations according to underlying
cultural values. In short, teachers ask the learners to look
for cultural values that explain the differences and similar-
ities they have observed.
It is important to remember that the primary goal of
these activities is not to convey information about the tar-
get culture(s) (although that may indeed occur), but rather
to illustrate that different cultures produce different
assumptions, values, and products.
Teaching and Classroom Evaluation
In a very real sense, the classroom evaluation stage of this
model shapes, perhaps even determines, the content and
the approach of the model’s teaching stage. The classroom
activities must prepare the learners for their classroom
evaluation; in other words, this method will not work
unless we follow the golden rule of “testing what we
teach.” If we test neither the learners’ cultural knowledge
nor their skills, the teaching of culture becomes marginal-
ized because they will understand that the answer to the
proverbial question “Is this on the test?” is a very clear
“no.”
What follows are a number of classroom evaluation
activities that integrate the teaching of language and the
teaching of culture through a thematic approach. Most of
these items function as classroom learning activities as
well. To illustrate the approach, we have selected one of the
most common themes within the French language class-
room: the cultural aspects of food and dining. Finally,
because we are French teachers, the examples are drawn
from French-speaking societies but, once again, they could
be readily adapted to other cultures.
The activities presented below presuppose a certain
amount of cultural information. It is important that learn-
ers have had opportunities to learn the assumed informa-
tion and that they have already practiced doing similar
activities during class time before using any of the exam-
ples as test items. The activities themselves make evident
the requisite cultural information, which has numerous
sources, including photos, textbooks, personal experience,
and books.
As much as possible, teachers should convey the
information to learners through a discovery process that
requires them to articulate observed cultural features with-
in a cultural product or perspective. Many of the activities
we describe are discovery activities, that is, they can also be
used as a means of conveying new information to learners
661
while simultaneously developing their skills of cultural
observation and analysis.
Most of these activities lend themselves to either an
oral or written format. We have included recommended
levels, but these can be scaled up or down with minor
modifications. For the purposes of this article, the instruc-
tions are written in English.
Theme 1: Organization and Composition of Meals
As either a learning-discovery activity, learners:
Label sample menus as FrencUCaribbean (etc.) or
American (Novice)
Categorize lists of foods: aperitif, entree, plat principal,
etc. (Novice)
Identify the part of the meal shown in a video or photo
(Novice)
Create a traditional French menu and justify the choic-
es made (Intermediate)
Write a paragraph advising a friend how to prepare a
meal that will make French/African/North African
guests feel at home (Intermediate)
Theme 2: Table Manners and Polite Behavior
Associated with Dining
Interpretation of artifacts (Novice or Intermediate)
Provide learners with a photo of a dining scene from a
Francophone culture. An obvious choice might be a
North African meal where diners are seated on the
floor and eating from a common plate with their
hands.
Ask the learners to complete the following activity:
Based on this photo, what preliminary conclusions
can you draw concerning table manners and polite
behavior associated with dining in this culture? Refer
to specific elements of the photo that support your
answer.
Scenarios: Learners interpret a scenario such as the fol-
lowing two: (Intermediate)
(1) You’re a French exchange student studying in the
United States. Your American friend calls you
because she is travelling to France to visit family.
She wants you to verify what kind of advice she
should give her husband and children regarding
table manners and polite behavior. React to what
she tells you, indicating whether or not she should
modify her advice to her family.
‘Je leur ai dit qu’il est tres important detre a l’heure.
On fait une mauvaise impression si on arrive en
retard. Je ne veux pas leur donner l’idee que nous
sommes indifferents a les voir! J’ai repete aux
enfants de poser les mains sur les genoux quand ils
ne sont pas en train de manger et de ne pas trop
parler. Je leur ai deja explique qu’en France, on
662
garde toujours la fourchette dans la main gauche
sans poser le couteau sur l’assiette. Est-ce qu’il y a
dautres conseils importants que j’ai oublies?”
(2) Upon her return, your friend calls you again to ask
you about some of the things that happened when
she and her family shared a dinner with their rela-
tives in France. Try to explain to her what she does-
n’t understand.
“Nous etions reGus avec une chaleur inimaginable.
En general, tout s’est tres bien passe. I1 y avait
quelques moments un peu tendus. Nos cousins
n’ont pas compris que les enfants ne voulaient pas
essayer une cuisine tres differente. Je crois qu’ils
etaient un peu vexes quand les enfants ont refuse
d’essayer du pate ou du fromage francais. Une fois
ils ont dii etre tres irrites car ma cousine a demande
a Alex s’il voulait encore un peu de dessert. I1 a gen-
timent repondu ‘merci,’ mais elle ne lui a pas
reservi! Mais, ce n’est pas grave. Cetait un grand
plaisir de les voir.” (See Appendix B for transla-
tions.)
Reading exam on an appropriate excerpt from an eti-
quette manual (Intermediate)
Read the text and complete the following table. Then
write two to three sentences that compare table man-
ners as they are presented in this text with American
table manners.
lpour toutes situations I dans un contexte formel
deconseille:] I 1
The question of evaluation criteria is of critical impor-
tance. Clearly the above activities require learners to create
with the target language at their appropriate level of profi-
ciency,B but the evaluation of their performance must not
be restricted to linguistic features, otherwise we do not, in
effect, integrate the teaching of language and culture. At the
very minimum, this requires that responses be culturally
appropriate as well as linguistically accurate. Continuing
with our theme of “table manners and polite behavior,” we
might administer the following test item:
Your French pen pal is coming to the United States
and asks you to give her some pointers about how to
behave at the dinner table with your family. Using a
series of imperatives, give her some advice, pointing
out differences between American and French rules
of behavior at the table.
For this item, the learners’ evaluation mark would be
lowered if he or she gave advice inappropriate to French
culture, such as “keep your hands on your lap,” even if the
language produced was entirely accurate. The role of cul-
NOVEMBEFUDECEMBER 2002
ture in the evaluation of testing items, however, should rise
above this minimum level. Teachers need to develop evalu-
ation criteria specific to the cultural dimension of their
classroodtesting items and convey them to their learners.
Sample evaluation rubrics appear in Table 2.
Evaluation, Stage 8:
Assessing Learners’ Cultural Proficiency
Up to this point, our discussion of evaluation has focused
on classroom tests, written or oral. Our model, however,
proposes a second stage of evaluation, that is, assessing a
learner’s cultural proficiency. This stage of evaluation is
separate from classroom testing. The attitudinal levels or
stages of empathy outlined earlier in our own chart and in
the AATFs Cultural Competence Chart are difficult to mea-
sure through classroom tests, which do not offer an appro-
priate format or frequency for cultural testing. Similarly,
cultural proficiency evaluations are not appropriate tools
for classroom testing or for the calculation of a grade.9
On the other hand, evaluation of cultural proficiency,
like oral proficiency testing, provides useful information to
the learner and teacher alike and can serve as a tool for pro-
grammatic assessment.To assess learners’ cultural profi-
ciency, we must have a tool to assess the various levels of
competence (see Appendix A and Table 1). Envisioning
such an instrument is a formidable obstacle. The profession
has only begun to give serious thought to developing the
requisite measures of cultural proficiency.However, we will
not move ahead unless we continue to imagine what such
measures might look like. With this concern in mind, we
examine the specific challenges involved and offer some
recommendations on how we might respond to them.
Perhaps the most obvious question is, “How do we
measure attitudes?” Measuring a learner’s curiosity, open-
ness, adaptability, and recognition of complexity are no
small task. The limitations of the activities suggested for
assessing attitudes in the preparatory stage that were elab-
orated earlier, namely that they provide only an approxi-
mation of level of empathy, render them useless for the pur-
pose of evaluating cultural proficiency. In fact, any self-
reporting of attitudes would be unreliable, because learners
can easily “learn” the attitudes the teacher wants and report
them as their own when, in fact, they are not (Yousef,
1968).
Nor is hfficulty limited to the measurement of the atti-
tudinavaffective descriptors. Behaviors may be more out-
wardly visible than affective reactions, but how do we create
situations where we can observe learner behaviors in their
interactions with individuals from the target culture? Role-
play offers a less satisfactory tool for measuring cultural
competency than for measuring linguistic competency.
Another difficulty arises by virtue of the fact that there
is no necessary correspondence between a learner’s cultur-
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS * VOI.. 35. NO. 6 663

al proficiency and his or her linguistic proficiency. This
renders the integration between language and culture,
which we have repeatedly called for, problematic. Unless
the evaluation relies on cultural products that are highly
visual, there will inevitably be a compounding of skills for
learners with lower levels of linguistic proficiency.
Finally, the kind of cross-cultural skills that we are
hoping to develop, and therefore assess, do not progress in
a linear fashion and are not comprehensive. For example,
it is possible for a learner to exhibit ethnorelativistic behav-
iors with regard to the food of a target culture, but to
remain ethnocentric with regard to the culture’s perspec-
tive towards women. Furthermore, we should not be satis-
fied with learners who do not react ethnocentrically to the
classroom’s target culture(s), but who remain ethnocentric
in their interactions with other foreign cultures.
Are there any solutions to the problems elaborated
above? No doubt they will be minimized to the extent that
our assessment focuses as much as possible on outward
and visible behaviors. The question remains, however,
when and where are we able to observe learners’ behaviors?
Ideally, this would be a kind of field exam: Drop learners
off in the target culture for a day and see how they do.The
“ideal” field exam, however, is, practically speaking,
impossible to administer.
If role-play does not provide an effective alternative,
cultural simulations may. Since the learners have had no
prior opportunity to discover from the teacher what the
“correct” response is regarding their conduct within a sim-
ulated culture, cultural simulations can provide an oppor-
tunity to observe spontaneous behaviors. In other words,
they circumvent the problem encountered by Fathi Yousef
(1968), namely, that learners “learn” the behavior the
teacher wants and then artificially adopt it. As a conse-
quence, their behavior during the test is not a genuine
reflection of how they would behave in a real-life situation
within the target culture.
Michael Byram (1997) has given considerable atten-
tion to the challenge of assessing cultural proficiency, and
in particular to the assessment of attitudes; his suggested
use of portfolios is very interesting. However, he himself
acknowledges that his examination of assessment takes
place on the level of principle (1997, p. 88). Furthermore,
many of the proposed forms of assessment rely on analysis
of learners’ choices (sometimes life choices) or self-analy-
sis and seem more oriented towards his “sojourner” than
language learners engaged in a course of study.
For models of assessment more closely connected to
the latter group, we can turn to the Standards for guidance
(National Standards, 1999). The Standards envision lan-
guage learners who are able to demonstrate their under-
standing of a target culture by discussing, examining, and
analyzing its practices, perspectives, and products
(Standards 2.1 and 2.2) and who are able to make compar-
isons between their own culture and the target culture
(Standard 4.2). It is perfectly possible, then, to use such
demonstrations of understanding as an instrument to mea-
sure a learners’ cultural proficiency, since behaviors exhib
ited during the completion of these demonstrations can be
observed and categorized according to the indicators of
cultural competence found in the AATF’s chart and our
own (see Appendix A and Table 1).
Assessing a learner’s level of cultural proficiency
through his or her observation and analysis of a culture

EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR CULTURE-FOCUSED EXERCISES

Criterioi 1 2 3 4
Accuracy Analysis is based primarily Analysis includes both Analysis is mostly accurate Analysis has no
on counter-to-fact counter-to-fact with few statements counter-to-fact statements
statements and factual statements that are counter-to-fact or and very few that are of
of questionable accuracy questionable accuracy
Evidence No evidence is cited Evidence is cited, but Most of the analysis is All of the analysis is
without any supporting supported with evidence supported with evidence
explanation and some supporting and supporting
mlanation explanation
Judgments Statements are mostly Some judgmental or Few judgmental or Very few or no
and judgmental or stereotypical stereotypical statements, stereotypical statements, judgmental or
Stereotypes with no awareness with little unawareness with awareness of which stereotypical statements,
of them as such of the presence of statements are judgmental with keen sensitivity
stereotypical statements or stereotypical to their presence
664
seems a simpler endeavor, because it is relatively easy to
match a learner’s analysis of a cultural product or perspec-
tive to one of the stages of competence. If, for example, a
student arbitrarily judges a cultural product/perspective as
inferior, he or she demonstrates a cultural competence at
the defensive stage. Alternatively, a Stage 2 student would
refrain from or qualify judgment. For the most part, the
need to integrate language and culture teaching requires
that evaluations of learners’ cultural proficiency be con-
ducted in the target language.
There are, however, notable exceptions to this general
practice. To address differing levels of cultural versus lin-
guistic competence, we must allow for the occasional use of
the native language in the administration of cultural profi-
ciency testing. A limited and focused use of the native lan-
guage would allow teachers to extend such testing to soci-
eties beyond those of the target culture(s) and effectively
test learners with low levels of linguistic competence but
high levels of cultural competence (a very typical situation
for some “heritage” speakers of Spanish or other immigrant
languages). Since cultural proficiency testing, like oral pro-
ficiency testing, would typically take place infrequently and
outside the confines of the classroom, occasional use of the
native language for the purposes of a proficiency test does
not represent a significant departure from the call to inte-
grate language and culture teaching.
Cultural proficiency assessment that covers different
aspects of the target culture and extends to a culture other
than the target culture(s) (even simulated cultures) pro-
vides the best opportunity for learners to demonstrate a
broad level of cultural competency that extends to multiple
features of the target culture(s) and gives them a chance to
show that they are able to transfer their competence from
one culture to another.
Mindful of the difficulties, we recommend the follow-
ing steps towards the implementation of cultural proficien-
cy assessment:
Conduct‘ cultural proficiency testing primarily for the
target culture(s) of the classroom, but include some
proficiency tests on a culture unfamiliar to the learner.
Both types of proficiency tests should be assessed
according to the descriptors for the various levels of
competence in the cultural competency charts referred
to in this article (i.e., curiosity, tolerance for ambiguity,
etc). In other words, cultural proficiency tests are not
evaluated on the basis of specific knowledge about the
culture used for the test; they are evaluated on the basis
of the learner’s ability to adapt, his or her proclivity to
form premature judgments, and so forth. Specific
knowledge of a culture is measured through classroom
evaluation and testing.
Assess learners’ cultural proficiency through the use of
cultural simulations such as BaFa BaFa or Barnga.10
NOVEMR E WDECEM H ER 2002
These and other cultural simulations attempt to create
situations that mimic various aspects of visiting a for-
eign culture. Learners are aware that they are partici-
pating in a simulations, but are given no guidance as to
how they should behave in the “foreign” culture. These
simulations involve many participants and thus it is
essential to have several teacher-observers. It will
undoubtedly be necessary to rely on self-reporting for
such questions as “How did you feel?” “How did you
behave?” and “How do you interpret what happened?”
Due to the complexity of the observation and the need
to rely on self-reporting, these assessment tools, simi-
lar to other cultural proficiency assessments, are
designed primarily to give useful feedback to the learn-
er. Other possible sources of measures of cultural pro-
ficiency include interview protocols used by organiza-
tions such as the Peace Corps, and intercultural train-
ing handbooks (see for instance Brislin, 1986, or Byrd,
1993).
Assess cultural proficiency testing by having the learn-
er analyze a scenario or photo of a cultural product or
perspective. The learner’s analysis should include (1) a
description of the culture, (2) an interpretation of the
culture, and ( 3 ) a description of his or her hypotheti-
cal behavior if he or she were to participate in the situ-
ation depicted in the scenario or photo (some specific
examples can be found in Bartz & Vermette, 1996, pp.
77-80, 82 and Steele & Suozzo, 1994, pp. 127-30,
132-35).
For proficiency tests based on the classroom’s target
cultures, cultural products could include television com-
mercials, excerpts or descriptions of laws, brief interviews
with native speakers of the target language, or photos of
various scenes (political demonstrations, weddings, funer-
als, and so on). Alternatively, scenarios of cross-cultural
misunderstanding could be located or created. An example
follows:
An American student who recently arrived in France
went to visit the family of the French exchange stu-
dent who attended your school last year. The student
sends you the following letter. Write a response in
which you explain the role of food in French culture.
Also explain how you would behave if you found
yourself at the dinner described in the letter.
“Les Francais donnent trop dimportance a la noum-
ture. La premiere chose qu’on fait quand on entre
dans une maison, c’est de se mettre a manger. La table
est deja mise m@meavant notre amvee! Et puis, on
reste trop longtemps a table. Hier soir, nous y etions
pendant trois heures. Pourquoi pas manger plus rapi-
dement pour faireautre chose ensemble? Aux Etats-
Unis, nous sommes beaucoup plus pratiques. Le
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS. VOL. 35, N O . 6
diner chez moi ne dure jamais plus d u n e demie
heure.” (See Appendix B for translation.)
Conclusion
Defining from the outset what we mean by “cultural profi-
ciency” and how we intend to assess it is crucial in our
effort to foster this proficiency in our students. Teaching
for cultural proficiency lends itself to various approaches,
as long as we include culture as content within our foreign
language courses. We must find ways to assess cultural
proficiency, despite the challenges of correlating attitudes
and behaviors with specific levels of competence.
An enormous amount of progress has been made
toward a common definition of cultural proficiency and an
understanding of what culture teaching entails, and how it
can be integrated into foreign language education. It is now
time for the profession to embrace a preparatory stage and
conduct assessments of culture learning both within the
classroom and for cultural proficiency writ large.
1. For early discussions of information-based versus process-
driven culture teaching, see Lange and Lange, 1985, and
Heusinkveld, 1985.
2. This is especially true of the section “Understanding
Culture,” but also true to some extent for the section on
“Knowledge of French-Speaking Societies,” which contains
some generic descriptors applicable to other languages
(Singerman, 1996).
3. For an example of differing points of view on whether or not
empathy should be considered a precondition or a goal of for-
eign language instruction, see Robinson, 1985, p. 95, and
Wylie, 1981, p. 2.
4. As stated previously, the work of the AATF National
Commission on Cultural Competence does include a section
on testing in the volume Acquiring Cross-cultural
Competence, but most of the sample testing items are directed
towards the category “Knowledge of French-Speaking
Societies,” which is more information- than process- oriented.
Another important contribution to the evaluation of cultural
knowledge and proficiency is Michael Byram’s (1997) book,
Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Com-
petence. Bartz’s and Vermette’s (1996) and Byram’s (1997) mod-
els invite us to think creatively about how to evaluate culture
learning and to build upon their work. Steele and Suozzo
(1997) also offer a chapter on assessment (pp. 120-38), as
does Heusinkveld (1997) in her recent volume. Beyond these
authors, there is little to be found.
5. We are grateful to Corinne Mantle-Bromley for introducing
us to Bennett’s model during her 1995 ACTFL session.
6. This is a preparatory stage and, as such, does not involve any
testing or other evaluation that might be factored into a stu-
dent’s grade. While we believe that it is critical to test our
learners’ cultural knowledge, skills, and proficiency, such eval-
uation generally takes place within the teaching stage of our
665
proposed model.
7. There are, however, problematic aspects to the use of such
tools. Stereotypes are ubiquitous and often triggered by seman-
tic associations. Some researchers do not attribute our aware-
ness of stereotypes to the presence of negative attitudes, but
point instead to a reductionist system the human mind uses as
a type of mental shorthand (see, e.g., Fiske and Taylor, 1991,
or Ryan et al., 1996.) In an association exercise, for instance,
many people might put “dumb” next to “blonde,” but it is
unlikely that all of them genuinely believe that blondes are
dumb. This unintended consequence is less likely to occur in
tests designed by psychologists, but we should be attentive to
our own qualifications and ability to administer such tests.
8. For novices, this may often mean that the activity focuses on
comprehension rather than production. However, with some
modifications, many of the intermediate-level activities could
be transformed into novice-level output activities where learn-
ers would be required to produce words instead of sentences.
9. As much as possible, cultural proficiency testing should par-
allel the format and frequency of other proficiency tests such
as the Oral Proficiency Interview.
10. Barnga is available from Intercultural Press and Bafa Bafa
is distributed by Simili 11.
References
Bartz, W., & Vermette, R. (1996). Testing cultural competence.
In A. J. Singerman, Ed.: Acquiring cross-cultural competence:
Four stagesfor students of French (pp. 75-83). Lincolnwood, IL:
National Textbook Co.
Bennett, M. J. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A develop-
mental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R.M. Paige, Ed.,
Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 21-71).
Yarmouth, MA: Intercultural Press.
Brooks, N. (1971). Culture: A new frontier [guest editorial].
Foreign Language Annals, 5, 54-61.
Brooks, N. (1968). Teaching culture in the foreign language
classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 1, 204-17.
Brislin, R. W., et al. (1986). Intercultural interactions: A practi-
cal guide. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural commu-
nicative competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Byram, M., & Carol Morgan, C. et al. (1994). Teaching-and-
learning language-and-culture. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters
Ltd.
Byrd, M. (1993). The intracultural communication book. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Byrnes, H. (1991). Reflections on the development of cross-
cultural communicative competence in the foreign language
classroom. In B. Freed, Ed., Foreign language acquisition
research and the classroom (pp. 205-18). Lexington, MA: D. C.
Heath.
Carey, S. R., Park, B., & Judd, C. M. (1996). Assessing stereo-
type accuracy: Implications for understanding the scientific
process. In 0.N.Macrae et al., Eds., Stereotypes and stereotyping
(pp. 121-57). New York: Guilford Press.
666
Crawford-Lange, L. M. & Lange, D. L. (1985). Doing the
unthinkable in the second-language classroom: A process for
the integration of language and culture. In T. i? Higgs, Ed.,
Teaching for proficiency,the organizing principle (pp.. 139-77).
Lincolnwood, IL.: National Textbook Co.
Fiske, S. J., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition, 2nd ed. New
York:McGraw Hill.
Galloway, V. (1998). Constructing cultural realities: “Facts”
and frameworks of association. In Harper, J., Lively, M., &
Williams M., Eds., The coming of the age of the profession: Issues
and emerging ideas for the teaching of foreign languages
(129-40). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Galloway, i? (1992). Toward a cultural reading of authentic
texts. In H. Bymes, Ed., Languagesfor a multicultural world in
transition (pp. 87-121). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook
co.
Hanvey, R. (1979). Cross-cultural awareness. In E.C. Smith &
L. E Luce, Eds., Toward internationalism: Readings in cross-cul-
tural communication. Rowley, MA: Newbeny House.
Heusinkveld, l?, Ed. (1997). Pathways to culture: Readings on
teaching culture in the foreign language class. Yarmouth, ME:
Intercultural Press.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the
source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Kramsch, C. J. & Nelson, l? (1996). Empathy toward other cul-
tures. In Alan J. Singerman, Ed., Acquiring cross-cultural com-
petence: Four stages for students of French (pp.11-13).
Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Co.
Kramsch, C. J. (1983). Culture and constructs: Com-
municating attitudes and values in the foreign language class-
room. Foreign Language Annals, 16,437-48.
Mantle-Bromley, C. (1992). Preparing students for meaningful
NOVEMBEWDECEMBER 2002
culture learning. Foreign Language Annals, 25, 117-28.
National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project
(1999). Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st
Century. Yonkers, NY:Author.
Nostrand, H. L. (1978). The emergent model (structural inven-
tory of a sociocultural system) applied to contemporary
France. Contemporary French Civilization, 2, 277-99.
Omaggio Hadley, A. (2001). Teaching language in context, 3rd
ed. Boston, MA:Heinle & Heinle.
Patrikis, l? (1988). Language and culture at the crossroads. In
A. J.Singerman, Ed., Toward a new integration of language and
culture [Reports of the Northeast Conference on the Teaching
of Foreign Languages] (pp. 13-24). Middlebury, VT: Northeast
Conference.
Robinson, G. L. N. (1985). Crosscultural understanding. New
York:Pergamon Press Ltd.
Robinson, G. L. N. (1981). Issues in second language and cross-
cultural education: Theforest through the trees. Boston: Heinle &
Heinle.
Schumann, J. H. (1976). Social distance as a factor in second
language acquisition. Language Learning, 26, 13543.
Singerman, A. J., Ed. (1996). Acquiring cross-cultural compe-
tence: Four stages for students of French. Lincolnwood, IL:
National Textbook Co.
Steele, R., & Suozzo, A. (1994). Teaching French culture: Theory
and practice. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Co.
Wylie, L. (1981). The civilization course. In G. V. Santoni, Ed.
Socittt et culture de la France contemporaine (pp. 1-17). Albany,
NY State University Press of New York.
Yousef, E S. (1968). Cross-cultural testing: An aspect of the
resistance reaction. Language Learning, 18, 227-34.
 -
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS VOL. 35, NO. 6 667

Appendix A
Part I of the AATF4 Cultural Competence Chart (Singeman 1996, pp. 11-15)
A. Empathy Toward other Cultures
Coordinators: Claire Kramsch (University of California, Berkeley) and
Pauline Nelson, (Bethany College, West Virginia)

Indicators of Competence
Upon completing Stage 1, the learner:
is curious about similarities and differences between the home and the target culture.
shows willingness to understand the differences encountered.
Upon completing Stage 2 , the learner:
is tolerant of differences between the home and target culture.
is open and accepting of different peoples.
recognizes the depth and complexity of cultural differences.
shows an active interest in the search for understanding of the target culture.
Upon completing Stage 3, the learner:
is aware of the problem of accepting the norms of another culture while maintaining one’s own values and
identity
shows fair-mindedness and tolerance in trying to solve an embarrassing situation or a cross-cultural conflict.
can adjust behavior and conversation according to the situational context and to the expectations of participants.
Upon completing Stage 4, the learner:
recognizes the importance of understanding manifestations of the target culture in terms of its own context.
is aware of hisher own cultural perspective and of how this perspective influences one’s perception of
phenomena.
can act and react in a culturally appropriate way while being aware of hidher “otherness”

B. Ability to Observe and Analyze a Culture

Coordinators: Alain Ranwez and Ann Williams-Gascon (Metropolitan State College of Denver)

Upon completing Stage 1, the learner:

can give examples of the relationship between language and culture (e.g., different forms of oral address, depend-
ing on social relations and situation).
can identify a few characteristics of the target culture as cultural patterns (e.g., businesses and government offices
in France may close for as long as two hours at lunch time).
can identify a few common cultural differences between home and target cultures (e.g., the presentation of
American and French meals).
can identify some commonly-held images of the target culture as stereotypes (e.g., “the French drink wine with
their meals”).
Upon completing Stage 2, the learner:
can demonstrate understanding that cultural values, patterns, and institutions cannot be used to predict the
behavior of all individuals ( e g , not all French people avoid creating relations with their neighbors to preserve
their privacy).
can give examples of an observer’s own cultural biases with understanding of the target culture (e.g., being embar-
rassed by kissing on the cheek between female friends in France).
can give an example of how cultures change over time (e.g., in some workplaces in France the noon mealtime has
been shortened considerably).
can discuss ways in which cultural norms and values are transmitted (e.g., the role of parents as models and teach-
ers of values).
can give examples of one culture influencing another (e.g., the popularity of American-style fast-food restaurants
in France).
Upon completing Stage 3, the learner:
can give examples of social behaviors that express the target culture’s underlying value system (e.g., the reluctance
668 NOVEMBEWDECEMBER 2002

of French people to invite casual acquaintances into their homes is an expression of their concept of friendship,
their value of privacy, and their general distrust of outsiders).
can describe and explain important elements of major institutions in the target culture (e.g., can describe the bac-
calaureate exam and its importance in the French educational system).
can interpret social phenomena within the context of the target cult (e.g., fewer and fewer French people attend
religious services regularly).
can describe some major forces that influence culture and cultural change ( e g , the role of technology: the Minitel,
television, etc.).
recognizes that a culture is not uniform and can identifjr the principal subcultures of the target culture (e.g., the
increasing importance of Moslem culture in France).
Upon completing Stage 4, the learner:
can critique phenomena of the target culture with a minimum of bias (e.g., can discuss the various political par-
ties in France objectively, whether on the “left” or on the “right”).
can interpret social phenomena at several levels of generalization (e.g., can discuss the development of the role of
women in the world, in France in general, and in a given French social class).
can describe the multifaceted character of sociocultural phenomena (e.g., the historical, social, religious, eco-
nomic, and political dimensions of the growing North African population in France).

Appendix B. Translations

(I) I told them that it’s very important to be on time. You make a bad impression if you’re late. I don’t want them to get the
idea that we don’t care about seeing them! I told the children several times to keep their hands in their lap when they’re
not eating and not to talk too much. I explained that the French always keep their fork in their left hand and don’t put the
knife down. Did I forget anything important?

( 2 ) We received a warm welcome. In general, everything went well. There were a few awkward moments, but nothing
much. Our cousins didn’t understand that the children didn’t want to try different foods. I think that they were a little
annoyed when the kids refused to try pate or French cheese. One time, my cousin asked Alex if he wanted some more
dessert. He very politely answered yes, but she didn’t give him any more. It was nothing, really. It was wonderful to see
them.

( 3 ) Food is too important to the French. The first thing you do when you come into a house is to sit down and eat. The
table’s already set and waiting even before you arrive! And then, they spend too much time at the table.Yesterday,we were
there for three hours. Why don’t they have quicker meals so that you can do other things together? In the United States,
we’re much more practical. Dinner at my house never lasts more than a half an hour.