Abstract
A sociologist, linguist, and Applied English professor designed a joint curriculum for Japanese students enrolled in an American Society course and for American students registered for a Modern Japanese Society and Culture course. Students collaboratively engaged in a series of short-term linked tasks, conducted in English, related to the topics of dating, weddings, elementary education, and the sempai-kohai relationship. Additionally, seven groups, with equal representation from Japanese students and American students, worked on a semester-long project in which they researched, scripted, and acted out a play about dating or weddings. Written from the sociologist’s perspective, this paper tells our story about how, grounded pedagogically in intercultural learning and learning communities, we used these activities as a way to increase students’ intercultural competence and language fluency.    

Keywords:  intercultural learning, intercultural competence, language learning, task-based learning, collaborative education, learning communities

Introduction
As Morgan (1998), O’Dowd (2003), and Otten (2003) acknowledge, intercultural competence and language proficiency do not automatically occur by simply bringing together students from different cultures. On the contrary, achievement of these objectives requires shared reflection about social experiences through carefully structured language tasks central to the process of intercultural learning (Candlin, 1987; Muller-Hartmann, 2000; O’Dowd, 2003). Moreover, involving students collaboratively in experiential, meaning-negotiation situations (Muller-Hartmann, 2000) provides not only opportunities for linguistic interaction (Met, 1994), but the development of attitudes, knowledge, and skills central to Byram’s (1997) notion of intercultural competence.

Appreciating the value of teaching culture and language as an integrated whole (Byram, Nichols, & Stevens, 2001) and embracing a pedagogical approach that foregrounds cooperative, task-based learning (Muller-Hartmann, 2000), we, a sociologist, linguist, and Applied English professor, created what we termed a joint curriculum for Japanese students enrolled in a sheltered content course called American Society and for American students registered for a course entitled Modern Japanese Society and Culture (later referred to as Japanese Society). As one component of intercultural learning, we designed a series of linked activities for students around the topics of dating, weddings, and elementary education. Short-term tasks, conducted in English, included playing an intercultural card game, working in pairs to compare Japanese and American electronic dating websites, preparing questions for and listening to speakers’ panels on intercultural marriage and the sempai-kohai relationship (the association between elders and juniors in Japanese schools, companies, and so forth and the formal/informal rules governing their behaviors), and watching and talking about a video concerning Japanese elementary education. Forming seven groups, with three Japanese students and three American students each, members also undertook a semester-long project in which they researched, scripted, and acted out a play related to dating or weddings.

This article, written from the sociologist’s perspective, chronicles our story with one caveat. Being our first sojourn into this type of collaboration, we focused our time and energy on curriculum design, recognizing that future linkages must include a systematic assessment of content and language learning outcomes. As such, we describe a pedagogical model that places a high priority on a process sensitive to the complexities of moving students beyond mere coexistence to active participation in cross-cultural exchange.

The Setting
The Japanese students enrolled in American Society attended a ten-month credit-bearing academic program at Tokyo International University of America (TIUA). Founded in 1989 through a partnership between Tokyo International University (TIU) in Kawagoe, Japan and Willamette University in Salem, Oregon, this institution, supporting global education and international exchange, serves approximately 100 Japanese sophomores and juniors annually who, while living and socializing with Americans, receive separate educational instruction. Beginning in February with a twelve week spring semester, students concentrate on cultural and language literacy under the supervision of TIUA Applied English faculty. During the six week intensive summer session and fifteen week fall semester, elective content offerings linked with Applied English courses make up the curriculum. These elective courses, taught by Willamette University professors, introduce students to subject matter such as sociology, psychology, literature, and history. The accompanying Applied English courses, staffed by TIUA faculty, then use the content for cultural, language, and study skills development.

American Society and its related Applied English course are one such pairing available each fall semester for interested TIUA students. We, the American sociologist and American Applied English professor assigned to these courses, routinely plan learning exercises geared toward exposing students to a wide variety of cultural and language experiences. Viewing our courses as inseparable, our foci, nonetheless, vary slightly with the sociologist attending to content through the use of language and the Applied English professor highlighting language abstracted from disciplinary-based materials. As a team who had worked together for eight years, we prized those teachable moments when we could connect students with their American peers. Thus, when asked by our Japanese colleague, a linguist who taught Japanese Society, to take part in linked activities with her American students, we eagerly accepted her gracious invitation.

Fortuitously, our courses enrolled equal numbers of students with 8 males and 13 females of sophomore or junior standing in American Society and 13 males and 8 females including freshmen to seniors in Japanese Society. TOEFL scores for the former group varied from 370-507, which, while low in certain cases, did not prove to be an insurmountable obstacle.  In the end, we constituted an intercultural team of faculty and students about to embark on a new learning enterprise.  

Pedagogical Orientation
Operating from the premises that all classroom pedagogy proceeded through interaction (Allwright, 1984) and that peers represented an important source of influence on intellectual and social development during the undergraduate years (Astin, 1993), we opted for a caring, relational style of collaboration among students in both courses. As Barr and Tagg (1995) discuss, our orientation emphasized the discovery and construction of knowledge among a community of learners. Consequently, students and faculty engaged in meaningful educational activities that took advantage of and celebrated our cultural and language differences (Adams, Harmon, Reneke, Thomasenia, Hartle, & Lamme, 1997).

Undeniably, our commitment to such an approach required extensive organization and coordination, since we intended to merge the content of three separate courses: American Society, Applied English, and Japanese Society. Scheduling five multi-hour meetings, we followed Minkler’s (2002) advice by not only talking at length about our teaching philosophies, but collectively designing curricula and syllabi, devising common lesson plans, and conceiving of complementary activities reinforcing interdisciplinary links. Additionally, ongoing dialogue about our specific course objectives anchored each session. 

Philosophically, we agreed that team work and carefully crafted linked activities would give students the opportunity to integrate learning through interactive experiences (Hamm & Adams, 2002). Moreover, we aspired to build a sense of community that involved consensus and conflict as students joined together in completing assigned group tasks (Harris, 1989; Wiley, 2001). To attain such ends, we consciously redefined ourselves as coaches (Barr & Tagg, 1995) and guides (Hamm & Adams, 2002) rather than dispensers of authoritative knowledge.
 
In executing our plan, we realized that a number of crucial decisions had to be made.  First, we determined that two of our three topic areas, mainly selected for their high level of student interest, would match: 1) interpersonal relationships, dating, and weddings and 2) elementary education. The remaining unit was left to the instructor’s discretion with poverty and homelessness chosen in American Society and adolescence in Japanese Society. Second, we fixed our topic order, starting with dating and weddings followed by elementary education and ending with poverty or adolescence, thereby giving students ample time to complete their semester-long projects. Third, we came up with learning tasks that would, hopefully, promote a richer cultural and language exchange.

Ultimately, we divided these learning tasks into two tracks. Described later, Track 1 included one-time only linked activities featuring students and invited guest speakers who, as cultural informants, described and answered questions about electronic dating websites, intercultural marriage, elementary education, and sempai-kohai relationships. Especially for Japanese students, these exercises afforded them the opportunity to learn culture and language as they communicated with native speakers about familiar and stimulating topics, thereby increasing their motivation to speak (Olson, 2002; Rivers, 1988; Stoller, Hodges, & Kimbrough, 1995).  

In Track 2, we created learning communities in which seven groups, with equal representation from Japanese students and American students, would carry out a long-term linked project on some aspect of dating or weddings. As a pedagogical approach, learning communities promoted an active process of learning wherein students used knowledge and personal experiences in cultivating sustained classroom alliances for academic and social gains (Harada, Lum & Souza, 2002-2003; Howard & England-Kennedy, 2001; Matthews & Smith, 1996). In accord with Coombe (1999), an ethic of caring undergirded these communities as we stressed respect for opposing opinions, personal connections among faculty and students, and a concern for the well-being of others (Lewis, Schaps, & Watson, 1996; Noblit & Rogers, 1995).

Obviously, we faced the additional challenge of bringing together two culturally distinct groups, one of them whose members were non-native speakers. Mindful of this situation, intercultural learning became a core curricular principle through which students expanded their understanding of another culture’s values, behaviors, and communication patterns while simultaneously raising awareness of their own (Bredella, 2003; Kaikkonen, 1997).  As a result, intercultural learning coupled with learning communities helped us to achieve our overarching goal of intercultural competence. 
Adopting Byram’s (1997) model of intercultural competence, our objectives adopted in each course, with varying degrees of emphasis, strove to: 

• develop intercultural attitudes that demonstrated a willingness to decenter or relativize one’s own beliefs,
• increase knowledge of social processes and their resulting products, and
• refine skills of discovery and interaction leading to the ability to interpret and apply what had been learned. 

For the Japanese students in American Society and Applied English, language acquisition represented another chief objective. Subscribing to the position held by a growing number of educators (Byram & Fleming, 1998; Bryam & Morgan, 1994; Kramsch, 1983; Liaw & Johnson, 2001; Met, 1994; Muller-Hartmann, 2000), we wedded language learning with content learning. Hence, instructional exercises enabling students to regularly communicate with professors and their peers extended possibilities for linguistic interchange (Met, 1994).
 
To assist us in this intercultural undertaking, we hired a tutor who, given her rich and varied background, exemplified Bochner’s (1986) version of a mosaic multicultural individual. Not only had she been a student at TIU in Japan and TIUA in the United States, she obtained a two-year scholarship to study and graduate from Willamette University. More than any other student we knew, she had become bicultural, preserving, even enhancing her Japanese identity, while displaying an intimate understanding and respect for American ways of life. In reality, her duties went far beyond her role as tutor, since she operated as our cultural and language liaison who identified and brokered instances of misunderstanding and miscommunication. Being an internationally experienced person, she, as Wilson (1993) depicts, built bridges over which others could walk, a critical key to our success.

In the end, our pedagogical orientation embodied what Murray and Bollinger (2001) labeled as reactive autonomy in which teacher-directed learning activities, once initiated, transferred responsibilities to students who then organized resources and negotiated cultural and language differences in completing assigned tasks. Through their active contributions, they played an instrumental part in shaping the attitudes, knowledge, and skills central to their growth as interculturally competent adults (Candlin, 1987; Muller-Hartmann, 2000)

Linked Courses
For scheduling purposes, the sociologist planned to teach American Society in a 60 minute time slot on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. To insure a common time when Japanese students and American students could meet, the linguist and Applied English professor held their classes during the same 90 minute instructional period on Tuesdays and Thursdays when the sociologist was also available. As such, we arranged for students to come together on seven separate occasions over the 15 week semester to participate in the short-term and long-term linked activities described below.

Track 1:  Short-Term Linked Activities
In American Society and Applied English, we adopted an educational model for linked activities taken from the field of service-learning that consisted of preparation, action, reflection, and evaluation (Rice, 1996). To prepare Japanese students, the sociologist offered content instruction about the upcoming short-term linked activity, the Applied English professor practiced English, and the cultural liaison/tutor provided academic and language support two evenings per week. Action entailed the actual coming together of Japanese students and American students as they collectively participated in these one-time only exercises under guided faculty supervision. Reflection gave Japanese students the chance, through various written and oral assignments, to process the meaning of these linked activities within the sociological framework presented to them during the preparation phase. Finally, ongoing evaluation made it possible to tailor the curriculum to changing student and faculty needs.
 
Applying this model to our first unit on interpersonal relationships, dating, and weddings, we thought that an inspection of electronic dating websites might prove fascinating. As part of our advance preparation (see Table 1 for pre- and post-language exercises for each linked activity), (see PDF file) Japanese and American students located websites from their respective countries that were then screened by the linguist for their appropriateness as shared learning tools. Additionally, the sociologist explored with Japanese students how dating practices in general and electronic dating specifically affected the mate selection process in the United States.

Our first linked meeting, representing the action phase, began by forming seven mixed groups, so Japanese students and American students could take part in an intercultural card game conceived by the Applied English professor. Drawing two cards from an age-related pile and a “slice of life” pile, student talked about their favorite food at age 5-6, their most beloved holiday costumes at 9-10 or their fondest memory of their grandparents at 13-14, or . By describing past memories and experiences, students found a common ground on which to interpersonally connect. In bridging what may have previously been perceived as an irreconcilable cultural and language gap, they could begin to see how it might be possible for them to work together on future linked activities. 

Moving onto the subject of dating, we divided students into cross-cultural pairs whose assigned task was to access pre-approved Japanese and American dating websites, dialogue about their similarities and differences, and identify the underlying values made evident by this comparison. While a general discussion ensued, facilitated by the linguist, it was only during oral reflection in the next American Society class period when Japanese students realized that websites in their country had a more serious, family-oriented approach whereas American websites seemed somewhat casual and individualistic reinforcing idealistic notions of falling in love with the perfect mate.

Realizing the need for ongoing assessment, we judged our first linked activity as particularly successful in increasing students’ awareness about their own beliefs, knowledge, and practices concerning interpersonal relationships and dating. Moreover, Japanese students gained language experience in listening, speaking, and reading English together with their American peers. Nonetheless, we noted that American students dominated the general discussion, a fact that we attributed to the advantage of speaking in their native language and their greater familiarity with an interactive style of learning. To remedy this situation, we consciously incorporated a system of “turn-taking” to assure more equal participation in future linked activities.

Our next linked meeting occurred two weeks later after students in American Society received sociological and language instruction about weddings, alternative weddings, non-marital cohabitation, intermarriage, and intercultural marriage. On this occasion, Japanese students hosted the class session, a rotating responsibility, by greeting an American student at the classroom door and inviting her/him to sit together for the upcoming panel presentation. As a planned second activity, they heard from four professors and administrators from Japan, Ecuador, Germany, and Greece about their intercultural marriages to partners from Italy and the United States. After answering a common set of questions supplied to them by the sociologist, students queried the panelists. To avoid the possible domination by American students, Japanese students produced a list of questions in advance to which they referred when the sociologist, as panel facilitator, took turns soliciting their participation. Written reflections afterwards proved enlightening as Japanese students elaborated upon their newly found understanding of the complexities of intercultural marriage beyond what they had read about and discussed in American Society.

Prior to the next linked activity scheduled two weeks later, Japanese students’ studied the United States’ educational system through reading, lecture, conversation, and videos.  Coming together with their American peers, they watched a 15 minute video about a typical day in a Japanese elementary school produced by the linguist. Adopting the protocol established earlier, each American student greeted a Japanese student and asked her/him to sit together for today’s class session. After viewing the video, students, working in pairs, engaged in lively exchanges based on questions supplied by the linguist about school cleaning responsibilities, lunches, walking groups, classroom activities, and so on. Alternating between Japanese students and American students, the linguist asked them to speculate about the reasons for these sometimes striking educational differences. Grounded in what they had learned during preparation and action, Japanese students in American Society further reflected orally and in writing about the larger social significance these intriguing cross-cultural insights evoked.

The fourth and last short-term linked activity involved a presentation about the sempai-kohai relationship by TIUA administrators and our own cultural liaison/tutor. Each guest speaker met with two mixed groups of Japanese students and American students to explain this relationship and answer their questions. Japanese students also acted as cultural informants contributing stories about their own sempai-kohai experiences. As such, American students learned firsthand about a style of interaction largely unknown to them in the United States.

In conclusion, Track 1 short-term linked activities, employing service-learning instructional techniques, served several key purposes: to initiate the formation of what we hoped to be close intercultural connections between students, to develop the interpersonal skills to work across cultures, and to acquire knowledge about the values and norms characterizing other ways of life. Such task-based learning afforded Japanese students the added benefit of practicing English with native speakers. Complimenting this type of collaboration, the Track 2 long-term linked group project offered another promising avenue for educating students interculturally.    
 
Track 2: Long-Term Linked Group Project
Track 2 consisted of a long-term linked project that involved seven groups, with three Japanese and three American students each, who researched, scripted, and acted out a play about dating or weddings. We expected that Japanese students and American students would be excited about taking part in sustained cross-cultural work for two primary reasons. First, many American students had ties to Japan that included majoring in Japanese Studies, preparing to study in Japan, formerly residing in Japan, or descending from Japanese ancestry. Second, the majority of Japanese students, as survey results revealed over the years, came to TIUA to meet American people, study English, and experience American culture. Thus, the project presented an extraordinary opportunity for both groups to satisfy some basic interests and needs.

Aware of their heightened curiosity about dating and weddings, we came up with 15 project options and requested that students rank their top three preferences. Based on their first, second, or third choice, we assigned them to one of the following groups:  intercultural dating between a Japanese student and an American student (two project teams), interracial dating, intercultural marriage between a Japanese student and American student, interracial marriage, Navajo wedding ceremony, or homosexual commitment ceremony. During the same class session as the intercultural marriage panel, students received the announcement of their groupings. Gathering for their first official meeting, they greeted one another, exchanged contact information, and reviewed the project task list specifying the steps involved in project planning and implementation (Table 2).  (see PDF file)   


In addition, students divided themselves into three pairs with one Japanese student and one American student each whose task was to find books, articles, and movies related to their chosen topic. As a complementary activity, the sociologist and linguist arranged 60 minute library training sessions for students to obtain special directions and a four page handout from one of the university librarians about locating hard copy and online resources in encyclopedias, magazines, and newspapers. The sociologist also developed a handout of her own detailing the proper format for putting together bibliographies. Likewise the Applied English professor prepared a series of language exercises geared toward helping Japanese students identify at least five references (for a group total of 15), type a bibliography, and understand the unfamiliar vocabulary used in articles and movies (see Table 2 for a listing of language exercises).

At the same time, groups organized regular planning meetings to consult and assign assorted tasks. As the semester progressed and students became more knowledgeable about their project topic, they turned their attention to script design. At this juncture, Japanese students worked on a script outline separate from American students to afford them greater latitude and comfort in generating their own ideas. To assist them in this effort, the sociologist and Applied English professor created two handouts that delineated how and what to incorporate in their script proposals plus they devoted extra class time to answering questions and reviewing preliminary drafts.

Having approximately three weeks to generate an outline, Japanese students met outside of class to confer on script details such as characters, setting, and story line as well as dialogue, music, costumes, and props. At the first of three linked class meetings explicitly dedicated to project work, Japanese students distributed copies of their script outline to American students, summarized their ideas orally, and invited a collaborative exchange among all group members about how this proposal might be further expanded upon and improved. By the end of this class period, responsibility shifted to the American students who, enrolled in Japanese Society as a writing-centered course, were charged with transforming this outline into a more polished script due two weeks later.

Meeting together, we, the three professors and cultural liaison/tutor, read and critiqued their initial drafts. Returning our written comments to each group, we instructed them to make the necessary revisions before moving into the final two-week phase of production. A flurry of activity now absorbed students as they assembled costumes, located music, and designed sets for their on-stage performances. Production meetings and advice-seeking consumed most of the second linked class period while dress rehearsal for the upcoming evening extravaganza occupied students’ attention at the third and last linked session.
 
Advertising the event campus wide, students presented their 20-25 minute plays before what we considered to be a packed audience, about 50 students, faculty, and administrators, on a rainy December evening during the last week of classes. As an example of just one excellent performance, six students acted out three scenes about the proposal, marriage, and everyday life of an intercultural couple. In the first scene, Scott, an American working in Japan, spoke of his return to the United States with his best friend, Masahiro. The dilemma confronting him was: what do I do about my Japanese girlfriend, Mari? While he struggled with the downside of uprooting her from her native Japan, he had already made a decision; he was going to propose to her that very evening. Mari’s best friend, Rie, joined them in this conversation as they awaited Mari’s arrival. With the departure of Masahiro and Rie, Scott, fumbling for the right words, made a stereotypical American proposal, on his knees, offering Mari an engagement ring and his everlasting love.

In scene two, Scott and Mari were blissfully wed in a secular American style wedding ceremony with music, gowns, attendants, marital vows, and the wedding processional. To the regret, but laughter of the audience, the “kiss” by the bride and groom took place behind a censor sign. After one thwarted attempt, the bride succeeded in throwing her bouquet to a male in the audience, which, as one might imagine, “brought down the house.”

In the third and final scene, the actors and actresses thoughtfully depicted some of the challenges facing a married intercultural couple. They lightheartedly dealt with the matter of food when Scott, in an uncharacteristic outburst, exclaimed that he could no longer stomach the same Japanese dinner over and over again. Thankfully, Scott’s mother, Sarah, unexpectedly arrived to avert a heated argument. Trying to be culturally sensitive, she asked Scott how to greet Mari in Japanese, but then proceeded to hug her, making Mari very uncomfortable. Sensing some tension, Sarah learned of Mari’s distress over her inability to prepare American style food. Graciously, Sarah offered to teach Mari American cooking if Mari reciprocated by giving Sarah lessons on Japanese cuisine. With harmony reestablished, Mari took advantage of the calm to tell David and Sarah about her pregnancy. Overjoyed, Scott embraced Mari as she explained that, similar to American custom, her parents would pay a visit to help out mother and baby. The scene ended with Scott telling Mari to call her parents with the wonderful news.
    
Without exaggeration, all seven groups produced top-notch performances. Their efforts were warmly received by an appreciative audience who offered an enthusiastic ovation for their work. With show time winding down, students gathered at a cast party afterwards to eat pizza and celebrate their success. With the final project script and bibliography submitted three days later, a demanding, but rewarding educational exercise in intercultural collaborative learning drew to a close.   
 
Linked Activities Evaluation
We routinely solicited feedback from students and one another to better evaluate and modify our curriculum and integrated lesson plans. After each short-term linked activity, we, the sociologist and Applied English professor, requested written commentary from the Japanese students which, for the most part, revealed their enthusiasm and excitement about the cross-cultural opportunities afforded them. When surveyed at the end of the semester, the majority of Japanese students and American students liked or strongly liked the linked activities with one notable exception: the intercultural card game (Table 3) (see PDF file). Mainly, students reported that we did not give them ample time or adequate explanation about the rationale and rules of the game. Therefore, they were puzzled about what they were doing and why they were doing it.

The remaining activities received far more positive feedback for various reasons.  Particularly, the intercultural marriage panel and the sempai-kohai panel (especially for Americans) piqued students’ interest in cultural practices with which they may have been largely unfamiliar (Table 3) (see PDF file). The viewing of and discussion following the elementary education video was also favorably evaluated, since they could talk about themselves and their own experiences, compare divergent systems of education, and discover alternative styles of learning. In truth, the long-term linked project required more constant vigilance and monitoring. Therefore, we put in place an ongoing system of assessment which we now describe.
  
Student Evaluation
Our interim evaluation of long-term linked projects began two weeks after the initial formation of groups when we asked Japanese students and American students to furnish written responses to our open-ended questions: how is your group working out? What has worked well and what has not been going well? Among the 21 Japanese students, having good discussions, recognizing the need for more meetings, holding these meetings, divvying up task assignments among group members, and anticipating an interesting, challenging, and fun project were the most commonly cited answers (Table 4). While the 21 American students made similar remarks, they also mentioned that the Japanese students’ had difficulties in expressing their ideas and that they had attempted to include them in group conversations (Table 4).  (see PDF file)

Two weeks later, replying to the same questions, Japanese students noted the progress made on script development with some of them calling attention to their good group discussions while others reported on the problems associated with scheduling and attending project meetings. Overwhelmingly, American students characterized group interaction positively stating that script development received the highest priority now that most background research had been finished. They too raised concerns about meeting scheduling and attendance (Table 4). (see PDF file)

As Japanese students progressed on their basic script outline, we queried them about how we could help beyond what we had done in terms of handouts, verbal instructions, and in-class activities. They indicated: listen to our ideas and give us feedback (33%) or nothing in particular, because you have already offered your advice (43%). Responding to their former concern, the sociologist added a class session to go over script ideas with each group while the Applied English professor scheduled group conferences to review written drafts.
 
When polled at the end of the semester, most Japanese students and American students liked or strongly liked the long-term linked project and gave almost unanimous support for its continuation (Table 3). As shown in Table 5, they valued the opportunity to join together in a fun and enjoyable activity with others from another culture to increase their understanding of dating and weddings. As for improvements, Japanese students recommended more class contact and further explication of the project rationale. Along with the need for more time, American students proposed additional cross-cultural training and a wider range of project topics from which to choose.

From the student perspective, this long-term linked activity went incredibly well. It allowed them to forge close bonds with five peers as they worked across cultures putting faith in their abilities to listen and discuss. While certain problems did surface, such as difficulties in expressing ideas and in attending meetings, students seemed remarkably open and amenable to seeking solutions to whatever cultural and language hurdles they sometimes encountered. 

Faculty and Cultural Liaison/Tutor Evaluation
Our evaluation of Track 1 and Track 2 linked activities took place during monthly debriefing meetings along with shorter conversational exchanges after the seven class periods when we met together. To be honest, the tutor, our cultural liaison, was our window into how students perceived and reacted to our planned curriculum. During our linked sessions, she circulated among student groups, as did we, to answer questions, iron out language and cultural misunderstandings, and offer her advice. Moreover, she attended every American Society class and held regular tutoring hours two times per week. Establishing a close relationship with Japanese students and American students, she elicited their trust, thereby enabling them to more honestly communicate with her about persistent problems.

Unencumbered by the power inequities inherent in the student-professor relationship, she had the best read on what was happening.  Based on her input, our own observations, and students’ verbal feedback (that did not necessarily appear in their written status reports), we uncovered some “unhealthy” interaction dynamics among two of the seven groups. Oddly enough, difficulties, in one group, stemmed not from cultural or language misunderstandings, but from a personality clash between two American students who could not reach agreement on any aspect of their long-term project and whose apparent inability to compromise threatened to splinter the group. Averse to participating in this conflict, Japanese students took to the sidelines and watched. Our attempts at diplomatic intervention eventually resulted in an uneasy truce between the two individuals involved. Nonetheless, acrimonious feelings remained until the final performance when one of them admitted: “Because even though hating the project throughout its creation, watching the plays and the energy of all those involved at the end was so surprising and so satisfying that all that bitterness transformed into joy and appreciation for having worked as we did.”  

In the second instance, the group found themselves hampered by a self-assured American student who wanted it her way, since she had extensively researched their topic, interracial marriage, and knew the most about it. Unfortunately, she possessed many common misconceptions that the sociologist tried to tactfully counter by recommending movies and other relevant resources that would call into question her firmly entrenched beliefs. Additionally, we coached the Japanese students in this group to take advantage of the script outline as a way to interject their ideas. While she never really changed, students managed to proceed despite her.  
In contrast, interactions between members of the other five groups proceeded relatively smoothly. Of course, they had their fair share of stumbling blocks, but their willing and flexible attitude to resolve their disagreements resulted in a generally positive experience. Moreover, their indefatigable dedication and genuine interest in each other provided the extra incentive to reach consensus. In many ways, they epitomized our vision of learning communities, composed of caring, motivated students, who respectfully came together in the spirit of intercultural cooperation for academic and social gains.
 
As for ourselves, we professionally benefited from the planning and execution of this linked curriculum. We thrived on the excitement generated by testing different pedagogical styles and working as a team. Moreover, we found it gratifying to be in an environment that stretched us beyond our own cultural boundaries toward heightened intercultural competence. Equally as important was the renewed enthusiasm for teaching and learning that we derived from this experience. We found ourselves reinvigorated and even more deeply committed to intercultural education based on its transformative potential for faculty and students. 

Conclusion
Although encouraged by the success of this collaboration, we fully realize the need for further improvement. Taking into consideration student feedback, we could search for other means of intercultural training or make sure that we sufficiently explain the rationale and rules for the existing game. As for other short-term linked activities, they could be retained or scaled back to reallocate the time to the long-term project, thereby satisfying students’ needs to: clarify expectations, seek advice from faculty and the cultural liaison/tutor, and solve some of the attendance problems occurring with out-of-class meetings. Whatever tradeoffs we decide to make, we have passed the pilot stage and must now institute more systematic measures for assessing content and language learning outcomes. Without such important yardsticks in place, we cannot make any claims that we have achieved our original learning objectives. 

As an “experiment” in intercultural collaborative learning, we believe that we developed a valuable pedagogical model that led to a progressive change in students’ attitudes and a mounting curiosity in and readiness to learn about dating, weddings, and elementary education in another country. Moreover, as topical knowledge expanded, their abilities to understand and interpret customs, traditions, and events from another cultural perspective and relate it to their own correspondingly grew. Communicating in English, they applied their newfound knowledge and skills to researching, scripting, and performing a play of their own creation. In the end, through this structured, but fluid, process of intercultural learning, students and faculty moved closer to acquiring some of qualities central to Byram’s (1997) conception of intercultural competence.   

Acknowledgements
The author wishes to extend her deep appreciation to her colleagues, Miho Fujiwara and Julie Varga, and former student and sociology major, Harumi Namise, for their unwavering support in making this collaboration a reality.

Table 1 English Language Exercises for Short-Term Linked Activities Used by Applied English Professor in Her Class Sessions with Japanese Students

LINKED ACTIVITY	PRE-LINKED ACTIVITY LANGUAGE EXERCISES	POST-LINKED ACTIVITY LANGUAGE EXERCISES
Intercultural card game	Listened to the Applied English professor explain in English the basic rules and format of the game before meeting the American students. Asked the Applied English professor questions about the unfamiliar vocabulary she used to describe the game.	Prepared a short written reaction paper in English analyzing the significance of intercultural group work.
Computer dating websites	Practiced verbal translation of information from Japanese websites into English.	Discussed in English similarities and differences between Japanese and American dating websites.
Intercultural marriage panel	Wrote a list of questions in English to ask panelists. Practiced saying each question in English before meeting the panelists.	Paired Japanese students to talk in English about the advantages and disadvantages of intercultural marriage. Changed partners three times to practice speaking in English and to listen to a variety of reactions to the panelists’ comments. Verbally shared with the entire class the important ideas learned in the paired conversations.
Elementary school video	Rehearsed an oral explanation in English of their own Japanese elementary school experiences in anticipation of the questions they would be asked by their American peers.	Paired Japanese students to discuss in English their answers to questions formulated by the Applied English professor about the education video and subsequent exchanges with their American peers. Wrote their answers to these questions in English based on their earlier paired conversations.
Sempai-kohai panel	No preparation. Specially designed activity exclusively for American students.	No debriefing.  Specially designed activity exclusively for American students.

Table 2 Steps Involved in Completing the Final Long-Term Linked Group Project and Examples of English Language Preparatory Exercises

PROJECT TASKS	ENGLISH LANGUAGE EXERCISES
Each pair found 5 references related to their project topic.  This involved: Preparing a bibliography. Reading, watching, and interviewing identified references. Meeting as a group to discuss what they had learned. Deciding on a project focus. Doing research to gather additional information on their project focus.	Applied English professor spent time: Assisting students’ search for literature in English relevant to their project topic. Reviewing written instructions from the sociologist for compiling a bibliography. Helping students edit drafts of their typed bibliographies. Explaining unfamiliar vocabulary in the articles and books that students had located.
Regularly scheduled group meetings – once a week.	The Applied English professor received regular oral and written feedback about group work and offered remedies about communication problems as they arose
Japanese students worked independently of American group members to come up with script ideas at regularly scheduled weekly meetings.	Applied English professor devoted time: Reviewing written instructions from the sociologist about script development. Facilitating students’ conversation in English about their initial script ideas. Designing a script template to record in English thoughts about characters, dialogue, setting, props, costumes, etc
Japanese students shared their script ideas orally and in writing with their American group members.	Applied English professor took charge of: Teaching students how to summarize their script ideas in English. Aiding with the editing of written scripts. Orally debriefing with students about intercultural difficulties that surfaced when discussing their ideas with American group members.
American group members authored a more fully developed script incorporating Japanese students’ written ideas.	The Japanese professor offered assistance to the American students in crafting a script.
Final project preparation included: Revising and rehearsing script Preparing costumes, music, and sets.	At this stage, the Applied English professor mainly worked with students on pronunciation, voice projection, voice intonation, and memorizing their lines.
Performed project script.	No other language assistance provided.
Turned in final version of written script.	No other language assistance provided.

Table 3 Summary of Student Feedback about Short-Term and Long-Term Linked Activities

LINKED ACTIVITY1	JAPANESE STUDENTS LIKE/STRONGLY LIKE	AMERICAN STUDENTS LIKE/STRONGLY LIKE	JAPANESE STUDENTS DO ACTIVITY AGAIN	AMERICAN STUDENTS DO ACTIVITY AGAIN
Intercultural card game	31% (5 of 16)	40% (8 of 20)	47% (7 of 15)	47% (9 of 19)
Computer dating websites	79% (11 of 14)	75% (15 of 20)	79% (11 of 14)	95% (18 of 19)
Intercultural marriage panel	94% (15 of 16)	40% (8 of 20)	100% (16 of 16)	95% (18 of 19)
Elementary school video	94% (15 of 16)	75% (15 of 20)	94% (15 of 16)	95% (18 of 19)
Sempai-kohai panel	81% (13 of 16)	85% (17 of 20)	81% (13 of 16)	100% (19 of 19)
Dating/wedding group project	79% (11 of 14)	70% (14 of 20)	100% (16 of 16)	90% (18 of 20)

1. Some students chose not to answer all questions about linked activities.

COMMENT1	JAPANESE STUDENTS OCTOBER 15 (n=21)	AMERICAN STUDENTS OCTOBER 15 (n=21)	JAPANESE STUDENTS OCTOBER 31 (n=21)	AMERICAN STUDENTS OCTOBER 31 (n=21)
Good group discussions	67% (14)	33% (7)	33% (7)	90% (19)
More meetings to work out project details	29% (6)	5% (1)	14% (3)
Meetings regularly scheduled	19% (4)	14% (3)	19% (4)	10% (2)
Problems  scheduling and attending meetings		10% (2)	38% (8)	24% (5)
Tasks already divided	29% (6)	14% (3)	14% (3)	19% (4)
Work proceeding on script			38% (8)	38% (8)
Most research completed			14% (3)	29% (6)
Efforts made to include Japanese students in project discussions	10% (2)	24% (5)		5% (1)
Difficulties among Japanese students in expressing ideas		19% (4)	5% (1)
Interesting, fun, challenging project	19% (4)	14% (3)	10% (2)	5% (1)
Other	14% (3)	14% (3)	24% (5)	14% (3)

1 Percentages exceed 100%, because students could give multiple answers.   

    
Table 5 Reasons Students Recommended Doing Long-Term Linked Dating/Wedding Group Project Again and Suggestions for Improvement

REASONS TO DO IT AGAIN1	JAPANESE STUDENTS (n=16)	AMERICAN STUDENTS (n=20)
Opportunity to talk, work, perform with students from another culture	25% (4)	30% (6)
Increase understanding of dating and weddings in another culture	25% (4)	30% (6)
Fun, enjoyable, interesting activity	50% (8)	20% (4)
Challenging		15% (3)
Other		10% (2)
SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT2	JAPANESE STUDENTS (n=16)	AMERICAN STUDENT (n=20)
More classes together	31% (5)
More time to complete all parts of the project	6% (1)	15% (3)
More cross-cultural training before forming groups		20% (6)
More explanation of project rationale	12% (2)
Wider range of topics than just dating and weddings		10% (2)
Other	12% (2)

1 Percentages exceed 100%, because students could give multiple answers.       

2 Not everyone who completed the survey offered suggestions for improvement, so the percentages do not add up to 100%.

References

Adams, D., Harmon, C., Reneke, S., Thomasenia, L. A., Hartle, L., & Lamme, L. (1997). Project Friends: A multi-age learning community. Early Childhood Education Journal, 24(4), 217-221.

Allwright, R. L. (1984). The importance of interaction in classroom language learning. Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 156-171.

Astin. A. W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning--A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, 27(6), 12-25.

Bochner, S. (1986). Coping with unfamiliar cultures: Adjustment or culture learning? Australian Journal of Psychology, 38(3), 347-358.

Bredella, L. (2003). What does it mean to be intercultural? In G. Alred, M. Byram, & M. Fleming (Eds.), Intercultural experience and education (pp. 225-239). Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.

Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Byram, M., & Fleming, M. (1998). Introduction. In M. Byram & M. Fleming (Eds.), Language learning in intercultural perspective: Approaches through drama and ethnography (pp. 1-10). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Byram, M., & Morgan, C. (1994). Teaching-and-learning language-and-culture. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.

Byram, M., Nichols, A., & Stevens, D. (2001). Introduction. In M. Byram, A. Nichols, & D. Stevens (Eds.), Developing intercultural competence in practice (pp. 1-8). Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.

Candlin, C. N. (1987). Towards task-based language learning. In C. N. Candlin & D. Murphy (Eds.), Language learning tasks (pp. 5-22). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall International.

Coombe, K. (1999). Ethics and the learning community. In J. Retallick, B. Cocklin, & K. Coombe (Eds.), Learning communities in education: Issues, strategies, and contexts (pp. 86-104). New York: Routledge.

Hamm, M., & Adams, D. (2002). Collaborative inquiry: Working toward shared goals. Phi Delta Pi Record, 38(3), 115-118.

Harada, V. H., Lum, D., & Souza, K. (2002-2003). Building a learning community: Students and adults as inquirers. Childhood Education, 79(2), 66-71.

Harris, J. (1989). The idea of community in the study of writing. College Composition and Communication, 40, 11-22.

Howard, A., & England-Kennedy, E. S. (2001). Transgressing boundaries through learning communities. Journal of Cooperative Education, 36(1), 76-82.

Kaikkonen, P. (1997). Learning a culture and a foreign language at school--Aspects of intercultural learning. Language Learning Journal, 15, 47-51.

Kramsch, C. J. (1983). Culture and constructs: Communicating attitudes and values in the foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 16(6), 437-448.

Lewis, C. C., Schaps, E., & Watson, M. S. (1996). The caring classroom’s academic edge. Educational Leadership, 54(1), 16-21.

Liaw, M.-L., & Johnson, R. J. (2001). E-mail writing as a cross-cultural learning experience. System, 29(2), 235-251.

Matthews, R., & Smith, B. L. (1996). Learning communities: A structure for educational coherence. Liberal Education, 82(3), 4-9.

Met, M. (1994). Teaching content through a second language. In F. Genesee (Ed.), Educating second language children: The whole child, the whole curriculum, the whole community (pp. 159-182). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Minkler, J. E. (2002). ERIC review: Learning communities at the community college. Community College Review, 30(3), 46-63.

Morgan, C. (1998). Cross-cultural encounters. In M. Byram & M. Fleming (Eds.), Language learning in intercultural perspective: Approaches through drama and ethnography (pp. 224-241). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Muller-Hartmann, A. (2000). The role of tasks in promoting intercultural learning in electronic learning networks. Language Learning & Technology, 4(2), 129-147.

Murray, G. L., & Bollinger, D. J. (2001). Developing cross-cultural awareness: Learning through the experiences of others. TESL Canada Journal, 19(1), 62-72.

Noblit, G. W., & Rogers, D. L. (1995). In the meantime: The possibilities of caring. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 680-685.

O’Dowd, R. (2003). Understanding the “other side”: Intercultural learning in a Spanish-English e-mail exchange. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 118-144.

Olson, K. (2002). Content for conversation partners. ESL Magazine, 5(1), 22-24.

Otten, M. (2003). Intercultural learning and diversity in higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7(1), 12-26.

Rice, K. (1996). Strengthening service-learning through faculty and student affairs partnerships. In M. G. Ender, B. M. Kowalewski, D. A. Cotter, L. Martin, & J. DeFiore (Eds.), Service-learning and undergraduate sociology: Syllabi and instructional materials (pp. 14-20). Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.

Rivers, W. M. (1988). Opening doors and windows through interactive language teaching. Babel, 23(1), 6-14.

Stoller, F. L., Hodges, R., & Kimbrough, J. (1995). Examining the value of conversation partner programs. Applied Language Learning, 6(1 & 2), 1-12.

Wiley, M. (2001). Rehabilitating the “idea of community”. Journal of Basic Writing, 20(2), 16-33.

Wilson, A. H. (1993). Conversation partners: Helping students gain a global perspective through cross-cultural experiences. Theory into Practice, 32(1), 21-26.