International Journal for Educational Media and Technology
2018, Vol.12, No. 1, pp.18-28

Developing Cultural Intelligence (CQ):
Designs for Blended LearningPeter W. Roux
Saga University, Kumamoto University, Japan
peteroux@cc.saga-u.ac.jp
Katsuaki Suzuki
Kumamoto University, Japanksuzuki@kumamoto-u.ac.jp
Ryuchi Matsuba
Kumamoto University, Japanmatsuba@kumamoto-u.ac.jp
Yoshiko Goda
Kumamoto University, Japanygoda@kumamoto-u.ac.jp
Building on earlier efforts to develop cultural intelligence (CQ), the current study reports on the expansion of a framework
to utilize instructional design (ID) theory and experiential learning in a blended learning environment. Japanese
university students’ intercultural learning engagement with topical online content and media, an asynchronous exchangewith international counterparts and multi-cultural workshop were tracked across one semester. CQ measures wereobtained pre-/post-course, while experience-based, in-class activities were extended with online learning reflection. Course
goals included critical thinking, supporting intercultural skills in English and building digital literacy. Results indicate
the multi-disciplinary framework’s compatibility with blended learning, and students’ intercultural learning engagement
patterns in terms of CQ were positive, supporting further course development despite not being statistically significant.
Implications for intercultural learning, the design of instruction for blended learning, learning engagement patterns andthe potential of adaptive learning are discussed against the backdrop of continued course refinement.
Keywords: cultural intelligence (CQ); experiential and blended learning; Japanese university; instructional design
The globalization of employment and the steady incursion of technology in education and training are obliging
institutions worldwide to incorporate some form of learning technology to educate and train employees, management
and students. Since 2009, the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT) has
aimed to internationalize Japanese university environments through a project called the Global 30, partially geared
towards the cultivation of ‘global citizens’ (MEXT, 2018). In previous reports (Roux & Suzuki, 2016, 2017a; 2017b;
2017c), we drew attention to the neglect of incorporating culturally sensitive methods and materials into designs foronline learning (Parrish & Linder-Vanberschot, 2010; Henderson, 2007; Clem, 2004). In a preliminary attempt to start
addressing some of these noted shortcomings, we developed a multi-disciplinary conceptual framework (Roux &Suzuki, 2016, 2017a), as a foundation for an intercultural workshop that focused on the development of cultural
intelligence (CQ). The framework incorporated instructional design (ID) theory, cultural intelligence (CQ) theory(Early & Ang, 2003; Ang, VanDyne & Tan, 2011) and experiential learning theory (Kolb, 1984). It was envisaged as
the initial step in our broader project, which seeks to develop the CQ, intercultural skill-set, or ‘global citizenship’ ofJapanese university students through an application of ID and supportive educational technologies.
Findings from this initial step indicated that our framework effectively supported intercultural, experiential learning
activities (Roux & Suzuki, 2016, 2017a), which gave preliminary support for expanding our investigation. The CQ
model offers a practical understanding of cultural learning and the development of intercultural skills, which has been
linked to the notion of a ‘global mindset’ (Roux, 2018; Lovvorn & Chen, 2010). CQ refers to an individual’s capacity
to function effectively in situations characterized by cultural diversity (Ang, Van Dyne & Tan, 2011). Conceptually,
CQ has roots in intelligence theory and can be described as an individual’s capacity to adapt to unfamiliar culturalenvironments through an application of four intelligent capacities: (1) cognition, (2) motivation, (3) behavior and (4)strategy (Early & Ang, 2003). CQ is now considered an essential skill for the modern workforce and has gained
additional popularity through adaptations in university courses (Barnes, Smith & Hernández-Pozas, 2017; Fischer,2011), organizational development (Ang, Van Dyne & Tan, 2011), and internationalized training (Livermore, 2011;
Lovvorn & Chen, 2011).

IJEMT, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2018, pp.18-28 ISSN 1882–2290

18

International Journal for Educational Media and Technology
2018, Vol.12, No. 1, pp.18-28

Given the relative novelty of the CQ model however, educational and/or instructional models for the development
of CQ are scarce (MacNab, Brislin & Worthley, 2012). Research studies using the CQ construct has indicated its
application potential to university participants (MacNab et. al., 2012; Fischer, 2011), while the experiential learning
approach for CQ development have shown particular effectiveness (Ng, Van Dyne & Ang, 2009). Considering thereported need for a renewed cognizance of culture’s pervasive influence in the design of instruction (Parrish & LinderVanberschot, 2010; Clem, 2004), and given earlier successes with incorporating some online media and surveys with
our learner audience (Roux & Suzuki, 2016, 2017a), it seemed logical for our investigation to continue using technology
more comprehensively in exploring CQ development. Training and structured learning as components in thedevelopment of intercultural skill and using educational technology to augment such intercultural learning are
therefore central to the present investigation.
Increasing the use of technology as an educational tool implied a consideration of suitable models for course design
and application. Computer-assisted learning and the Internet has radically changed the teaching paradigm (Alonso,
López, Manrique & Viñes, 2005) and higher education is struggling with incorporation and adaptation of theappropriate pedagogical principles. With this consideration in mind, Watson (2008) suggests that blended learningshows significant potential, and quoting Dziuban, Hartman and Moskal (2004), he describes it as “… a pedagogicalapproach that combines the effectiveness and socialization opportunities of the classroom with the technologicallyenhanced active learning possibilities of the online environment”. Figure 1 below depicts the blended learning
continuum, as described by Watson (2004). Our course is matched by the description as highlighted.

The Blended Learning Continuum
FULLY
ONLINEalllearning
online at a
distance
no F2F

Fully
onlinecurriculum
options
for F2F,
but not
required

Mostly/fully online
select days
required inclassroomor PC lab

Mostly /fully online
in PC lab orclassroom
where
students
meet everyday

Classroom
instruction
withsignificant,required online
componentsthat extend
learning
beyond theclassroom

Classroom
instruction
integrating
onlineresources,
limited or no
requirements
for students to
be online

FACE TOFACE
Traditionalsetting withfew or no
onlineresources orcommunication

Figure 1. The Blended Learning Continuum (Adapted from Watson, 2004)
This type of learning is thus a fundamental redesign of the instructional model in that it mixes various event- orexperience-based activities, including live e-learning (synchronous), self-paced learning (asynchronous) and face-toface (F2F) classrooms (Alonso et al., 2005). Moreover, the introduction and blending of key instructional procedureswith technological aids are creating profound shifts in the learner-instructor relationship, with obvious effects on theindividual learning process. This impact is broadly seen as follows: (1) it constitutes a shift from lecture- to studentcentered instruction in that students become active and interactive learners; (2) it increases interaction between
students and instructor, between the students, and between students and content (inside or outside of the course),and (3) it integrates formative and summative assessment mechanisms for students and instructor (Watson, 2008).
Given that our project continues to refine an instructional model for the development of CQ, the qualitative aspectsof the BL approach, in terms of its potential impact on learning, appeared very suitable for our stated goals. Ourcurrent study thus reports how the BL method was utilized in the design of instruction, and how it served as anapplication of ID to cultivate and develop CQ. We provide a discussion of the course design and development,
implementation methods and present results from students’ learning engagement and response patterns as well as
selected student feedback.

Research Design, Methods and Procedures
Expanding an earlier framework aimed at encouraging intercultural learning (Roux & Suzuki, 2016, 2017a), we
designed and implemented a 15-week intercultural communication course that combined: 1) traditional F2F shortlectures; 2) experiential learning activities in a facilitated face-to-face format with groups; 3) one multi-cultural
workshop; 4) online media, quizzes and feedback to enhance learning; and 5) an asynchronous online discussion forumwith international counterparts. CQ measures were obtained pre- and post-course and used as a self-rated indicationof intercultural competence development. Fourteen undergraduate (2nd year) Japanese students enrolled in a 15-week
IJEMT, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2018, pp.18-28 ISSN 1882–2290

19International Journal for Educational Media and Technology
2018, Vol.12, No. 1, pp.18-28

course as part of an international study abroad (ISAC) preparation program (Hayase, 2017; Roux & Angove, 2017).
The average age was 19 with gender balance almost equal. An audience analysis, conducted at the inception of the
project (Roux & Suzuki, 2016, 2017a, 2017b), indicated a highly motivated, predominantly Asian group of mostlyintermediate to advanced English second language learners. The ISAC program provides higher-level, additional
English-based content classes over 3 years which can include a short or longer sojourn abroad. Students met weekly
for a 90-minute, F2F class in a PC lab with Wi-Fi and audio-visual equipment.

Course designs for CQ
In line with our project goals, and cognizant of Fischer’s (2011) contention that intercultural training needs a pedagogy
that can support the development of CQ, we designed a course that would reflect this goal in content, depth andscope. We incorporated ID principles that would ensure the effective dissemination of learning, track and evaluate
the learning process itself and deliver research data for a learning analysis. This complex set of goals, with theaccompanying rationale and content examples are displayed in Table 1. Three broad areas of the course are covered:
1) learning content, 2) assessment and evaluation and 3) research. Each of these domains are then broken down intosummarized segments, indicating the relevant learning considerations and rationale in relation to CQ development.
Table 1An intercultural learning course to develop CQ , using a blended learning approach§

Learning
content

Assessment&
Evaluation

Research

Course Element
Textbook(8 chapters)§

Classroom
worksheets§§

Mini-lectures (8)Experiencecentred learning
activities
Multi-cultural
workshop (1)§§Online media§

IVE Project(4 topics/8 weeks)§

Homework§

Onlinereviewquizzes (4)Online feedback
surveys (13)§§

IVE Project§

CQ Scale§

Online(weekly)§

IVE ProjectsurveysContent and Rationale
Title: ‘Culture and Conflict: Changing the World for the Better’
Developing cultural understanding - CQ knowledge/behaviour.
Instructor-developed, topical experience- and/or content-based
worksheets to enhance the text. Focused on personal CQ development
and linguistic support.
Short topical lectures developed to enhance the text.
Topical activities (brainstorm, group & pair discussions, minipresentations, ‘show-and-tell’ activities, etc.) to enhance conceptual
understanding and peer-interaction.
Title: ‘Does race matter?’ Voluntary attendance to an open workshop.
Mixed audience with local and international students.
Topical videos, talks provided by teacher and/or students. Eg: YouTube& TED Talks. Subtitles provided where possible.
Moodle based, asynchronous online discussion exchange withinternational counterparts to develop linguistic skills (English as a 2 ndlanguage) and intercultural competence.
Reading for comprehension, listening, vocabulary study and answering
topical questions in relation to the content.
Summative quizzes for learning assessment purposes
Formative evaluation for a qualitative understanding of learning progress
and problems.
Qualitative evaluation of online discussions to gage levels of interaction,issues, topics and potential problems.
Surveyed pre/post course to establish a self-measurement of cultural
intelligence and the postulated development thereof.
Formative/summative evaluations and feedback were combined in one
survey-type quiz to provide a sense of learning progress.
Analysis of online discussions to obtain a quantitative and qualitative
sense of engagement and learning patterns.

Textbook study consisted of academic-type readings with comprehension activities, Japanese translations ofvocabulary and downloadable materials. Classroom work typically consisted of facilitated group- and/or pair work,
engagement with online media, short lectures, online (asynchronous) discussion with international and local
counterparts, and weekly learning reflections, utilizing online feedback/evaluation formats developed by the instructor.
The course further utilized four (summative, quiz-type format) evaluations for grading purposes that also included
formative evaluation sections for continued course design purposes. The online discussion forum (Moodle-based),entitled ‘International Virtual Exchange project’ (IVE) (see https://iveproject.org/) is hosted at the Muroran Instituteof Technology and maintained through a Japanese government funding grant. The program connects local and
IJEMT, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2018, pp.18-28 ISSN 1882–2290

20International Journal for Educational Media and Technology
2018, Vol.12, No. 1, pp.18-28

international colleges and currently incorporates 9 countries. The asynchronous forum relies on English as a lingua
franca (ELF) and we were teamed with colleges in Tokyo and Colombia. A multi-cultural workshop (Roux & Suzuki,
2016, 2017a) was embedded as an additional intercultural learning experience within the larger course framework. As
an indicator of intercultural education and its influence on the development of CQ, we surveyed participants pre- andpost-course with the Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS) using a 7-point Likert type scale. The CQS captures a self-rated
ability to perform and adapt in diverse environments and can be used as a diagnostic tool for intercultural success(Ang et al., 2011; Fischer, 2011).

Course implementation
The 15-week course plan with weekly lesson contents is shown below (Table 2) with the concomitant learning elements
and research dimensions.
Table 2
An intercultural learning course to develop CQ

1
2

§
§
§

5
6
7
8

Chapter 1: Thinking about
Culture§Explanation and enrolment:
IVE Project – Unit 1:
Introduction§

Chapter 2: Hidden Culture &Differences§§

Review 1: Chapters 1&2
IVE Project – Unit 2: My
Place

§

Chapter 3: Conflict3
4

Lesson contents
Introduction
CQ Scale§§§

Chapter 4:
Identifying Conflicts
Review 2: Chapters 3&4
IVE Project – Unit 3: Eventsin our lives§

Chapter 5: Values and Belief
Systems§

Workshop: ‘Does race matter?’§

Chapter 6: The role of Values
in Intercultural Conflict

11

§
§

Review 3: Chapters 5&6
IVE Project – Unit 4 (final):
Plans for the future

12

§

9

10

Learning elements§

Content orientation & overview§§

Mini-lecture & activities toaddress CQ development
Learning reflection 1 (online)
Asynchronous online discussion
for linguistic &CQ development
Mini-lecture & activities toaddress CQ development
Learning reflection 2 (online)
Online Quiz 1:
Summative evaluation
Learning reflection 3 (online)
Mini-lecture & activities toaddress CQ development
Learning reflection 4 (online)
Mini-lecture & activities toaddress CQ development
Learning reflection 5 (online)
Online Quiz 2:
Summative evaluation
Learning reflection 6 (online)
Mini-lecture & activities toaddress CQ development
Learning reflection 7 (online)
Multi-cultural workshop
Learning reflection
Mini-lecture & activities toaddress CQ development
Learning reflection 8 (online)
Online Quiz 3:
Summative evaluation
Learning reflection 9 (online)
Mini-lecture & activities toaddress CQ development
Learning reflection 10 (online)
Mini-lecture & activities toaddress CQ development
Learning reflection 11 (online)
Online Quiz 4:
Summative evaluation
Learning reflection 12 (online)§

Learning reflection 13 (online)

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Chapter 7: Perceptions
§
§

13

§

Chapter 8: Stereotypes
§
§

14

§

Review 4: Chapters 7&8

15

§
§

Consolidation & reflection
Conduct CQ Scale§

Research elements
CQ Scale: Time 1§

Formative feedback 1(online)§Qualitative analysis of
online discussions§

Formative feedback 2(online)§Formative feedback 3(online)§Formative feedback 4(online)§Formative feedback 5(online)§Formative feedback 6(online)§Formative feedback 7(online)§Analysis of audience
feedback§

Formative feedback 8(online)§Formative feedback 9(online)§Formative feedback 10(online)§Formative feedback 11(online)§Formative feedback 12(online)§Formative feedback 13(online)CQ Scale: Time 2§

Our framework (Roux & Suzuki, 2016, 2017a) supported an integration with the BL model (Fig. 1), and interculturallearning contents to develop CQ (Table 2) could thus be adapted in such a way as to combine F2F instruction with
online elements. The final design thus incorporated all the elements as described thus far, with relevant components
IJEMT, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2018, pp.18-28 ISSN 1882–2290

21International Journal for Educational Media and Technology
2018, Vol.12, No. 1, pp.18-28

for data collection. Steps 1-4 in the project are visualized in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Outline of steps in the investigation
To assess and track student progress in relation to our intercultural education course and its influence on CQ
development, we surveyed participants pre- and post-course with the Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS) using a 7-point
Likert type scale. The CQS captures a self-rated ability to perform and adapt in environments characterized by diversity
and has been used for research purposes as a diagnostic tool to measure intercultural competence (Ang, Van Dyne &Tan, 2011; Fischer, 2011). To track learning progress, summative and formative evaluations (see Table 2) took placeat 4 intervals, providing a sense of learner engagement and performance, used as feedback to guide instruction.
Learner responses were captured using online survey forms (via Google). These provided a useful and ongoing meansof tracking learning engagement, adding an adaptive dimension to the design of instruction as the course progressed.
The visual below depicts all the theoretical and practical elements for this investigation.

Figure 3. A blended learning model for developing CQ (Adapted from Roux & Suzuki, 2017b, c).

Results
We present the results as follows: (1) summative assessment (4 online quiz-type reviews) to show student learning andperformance; (2) a sample of learner feedback to accompany the summative assessment across the 4 quizzes; (3) astatistical analysis of the pre- and post-course CQ surveys to determine if there was a significant change in these selfrated scores; (4) learner feedback regarding the IVE to enhance understanding of intercultural learning; (5) a summaryof learning feedback gathered as part of the formative reviews conducted throughout the course, specifically in
IJEMT, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2018, pp.18-28 ISSN 1882–2290

22International Journal for Educational Media and Technology
2018, Vol.12, No. 1, pp.18-28

relation to intercultural skill development and CQ. Results for the multicultural workshop will be reported elsewhere
to continue earlier reports (Roux & Suzuki, 2017a) on its development.

Student learning and performance
Results from the summative assessment from scores obtained across the 4 quizzes show a class average performanceof 88% for this learning assessment component (Table 3). The high average performance could perhaps be explainedby the fact that we used an open-book test format to gain maximum engagement with the learning material, and thateach quiz covered only two textbook chapters with 10 multiple-choice questions for each chapter. Pointedly, and as
part of a formative assessment, students responded to specific learning moments or issues which are included here toshow learner response but will be analyzed at a later stage. A further content-related written task was included in eachquiz to check comprehension and pick up on issues with the learning content; however, this task was not formallyassessed as part of the student grade.
Table 3Contrasting summative and formative feedback across four course reviews

Summative
Feedback
Methods Average& Tools
score

Review
Quiz 1

Review
Quiz 2

90%

90%

Review
Quiz 3

85%

Review
Quiz 4

90%

Results (sample): Formative Feedback
Samples from the free comment section of reviews

S1: I can learn some ideas of culture in this class; this is valuable time.
S2: I didn’t prepare by reading so the class was a little difficult.
S3: I have never think about culture deeply… this time I could learn about culture. In addition, I could
learn that culture can divided into 3 parts. Before this lecture, I think culture depend on each country orcommunity. But now I think culture have more deep meaning. For example, visible culture, hidden
culture and cultural roots. Visible culture can change easily, however hidden culture is difficult to change.
Hidden culture and cultural roots are difficult to understand, so sometimes cause conflict. I understood
why conflicts happen between communities. Chapter 1 and 2 are good contents to think about culture
which surround us.
S4: I had a good study about culture through the lessons. I want to use the knowledge which I learned
when I interact with international people.
S1: I could learn about conflicts. I was surprised because conflicts have positive synergy and negative
aspects.
S2: People are different; we should try to understand others.
S3: It was difficult for me to learn about conflict because there were many kinds in conflict.
S4: Lesson about chapter 3 and 4 was very interesting especially, there are negative conflict and positive
conflict.
S1: When I compare my answer with my partner, I found differences in ranking… each person has own
values and opinions.
S2: This chapter was difficult for me.
S3: I found it difficult to think of my important personal or cultural values. Through this chapter, I
could know what the belief and value for me is deeply. Moreover, I realized I am happy now.
S4: I want to make a habit of learning or something such as learning other language or practice sports.
Do you know good way to continue to something?
S1: I wanted to study about textbook's passage. I didn't understand the chapters deeply. The way ofactive learning was good. However, I would like to study or get to know further about conflict andculture.
S2: I learned many things from this class, for example it is important to take another perception when
you encounter some difficulties. The class is good time for me.
S3: It is difficult for me to understand this chapter. However, through read this chapter more deeply, I
found that it is interesting and important for me to understand another person.
S4: This class was very interesting because there are a few chances that I can learn and discuss cultural
conflict and working with a group. Thank you very much for teaching this class.

IJEMT, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2018, pp.18-28 ISSN 1882–2290

23International Journal for Educational Media and Technology
2018, Vol.12, No. 1, pp.18-28

Learner feedback
Table 3 further provides selected samples from the learning feedback we collected as part of the review quizzes. Theseshow a variety of responses that we will analyze in full and report elsewhere; for present purposes, we summarize
observations into three broad themes: (1) specific learning content-related thoughts, opinions and questions; (2)general learning observations regarding both the contents and process of learning; and (3) student reflections thatsignified a very personal engagement with the class/learning contents, such as thought-provoking/challenging
questions and/or particularly emotional responses. Methods that bring together learners’ previous experiences, linkconceptual foundations with practice and encourage reflection are pivotal to learning (Lewis & Williams, 1994) andare the hallmarks of experiential learning, one of the core principles embedded in our framework (Roux & Suzuki,
2017a). In reading these student learning reflections, we were impressed with the level of engagement and depth of
consideration displayed. The depth and variety of reflection support the contention that learning is not only a very
personal process, but also that this process can be tracked and captured via technological means and analyzed to
improve teaching and learning. It appears that our framework, which incorporated the online feedback surveys, in
combination with the BL approach managed to capture these learning processes very well.

CQ development
Results from the analysis of the pre-/post-course CQ surveys were a central indicator for the development ofintercultural competence in this course and we applied it here to augment the formative feedback we collected. We
used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test to compare the two matched samples (treatment 1 – pre-, and treatment 2 – postcourse) to assess whether the mean ranks of our group differ. This test was chosen because of the low N size (13)and provide the results in Table 4. The Z-value is -1.74 and the p value is 0.08; therefore, the result is not significant at
p ≤ 0.05. The W-value is 20.5 and the critical value for N = 13 at p ≤ 0.05 is 17. Therefore, the result is also notsignificant at p ≤ 0.05. Given the very small group size (N=13), we expected that it would be statistically difficult toshow significant changes on the CQS for the course.
Table 4
Results from the CQ surveys pre- & post-course

Learner feedback from the International Virtual Exchange
Results from the learner feedback regarding the International Virtual Exchange (IVE) are shown below in Figure 4.
These responses encapsulate a central question related to learners’ qualitative estimation of the cultural learning theyexperienced during their participation in this online, asynchronous forum. We reasoned that these could be usefully
added to the previous CQ survey data, together with other formative feedback to provide additional depth tounderstanding their learning development in the area of intercultural competence. It is noteworthy that across the 4
topic areas covered by the IVE, constituting almost 8 weeks of participation, students self-reported writing between
80-100 comments (in total), while receiving a similar total amount of responses in return. This is not a very highnumber considering the period of time and suggests that there was a limited engagement within the forum that might
have been influenced by the fact that there was limited class-time made available, its asynchronous format and the factthat it was not ‘instructor-driven’, i.e. participation carried no reward except the potential benefit coming from themutual personal investment of engaging with foreign peers. Nevertheless, as the graph below shows, a number of
positive observations can be drawn from student reflections.

IJEMT, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2018, pp.18-28 ISSN 1882–2290

24

International Journal for Educational Media and Technology
2018, Vol.12, No. 1, pp.18-28

Figure 4. Learner reflections from the International Virtual Exchange (IVE)
As for the IVE impacting on the improvement of cultural understanding and knowledge, as well as the motivationfor exploring this area further, the majority of students self-rated very positively, indicating interest, enjoyment and awish to continue themselves and/or offering it as a recommendation to peers. A smaller but significant group indicatedthat their PC skills, in their own estimation, were not sufficient. Observations from the F2F situation supported thiscontention, as the instructor were often occupied with student queries regarding the use of the Moodle platform for
uploading pictures, and/or other media, as well as fairly simple procedures in replying to comments. This finding
deserves more investigation considering that these students all use smartphones for communicative purposes. A final
observation relates to their fairly low rating of confidence/skill using English with other English 2 nd language users,
and indications that it might have been perceived as a pervasive problem that could have affected the low number of
exchanges reported earlier.

Self-estimated cultural learning feedback
Results from learner feedback regarding their self-estimated cultural learning across the course is provided in Figure
5 below. Considering our investigation goals, it was timed to coincide with the learning reviews/quizzes and aimed at
capturing a comprehensive sense of the intercultural learning impact students experienced as the course progressed.
Questions were designed to incorporate students’ self-rated impressions of knowledge gains, interpersonal
skill/behavior and strategies, and an attempt to link these to a sense of personal growth/change. These questions
mirror broad themes addressed by the course and we reasoned that having these elements as reflective points in thereviews could help retain an interest for the broader project goals in students’ minds. Options for feedback range from
judging the course as having little impact to gaining new insight/knowledge and interpersonal behavior change with a perspective
to the future and finally, an impact on personal growth. Although results here vary across the four reviews, Review 3 was
rated highest, but with all reviews indicating impactful impressions on student minds. This is a positive result withrespect to our project goals but will need further investigation both in terms of depth and breadth, which will beobtained through a more comprehensive qualitative analysis.

IJEMT, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2018, pp.18-28 ISSN 1882–2290

25

International Journal for Educational Media and Technology
2018, Vol.12, No. 1, pp.18-28

Figure 5. Learner reflections: Impact of the course on intercultural learning

Discussion of findings
1)

High scores on summative assessment and very positive levels of engagement with formative assessment tasks
indicate successful application for the instructional method used in this investigation, i.e. blended learning.
Summative assessments have traditionally been used as high-stakes evaluative instruments; however, the shift in
the learning paradigm emanating from the blended methods approach is now increasing opportunities for using
summative and formative methods as complementary means to understand learning (Looney, 2011). This
blending of assessment approaches, together with ready access to learning materials, we believe, added to higher
levels of engagement with the content. In addition, since the course was conducted in English, a second language
for our students, we reasoned that increasing content exposure would also benefit language learning, even though
it was not a directly measured as such. As a result of the online format, students had ready access to their answers
and scoring and could approach the teacher easily in the F2F setting. Digital literacy is today identified as one of
the four domains of 21st century skills required from students (Kivunja, 2015) and our approach in blending
summative and formative assessment in an online format, we believe, exemplifies an approach to learning thatallows for maximum engagement with content, simultaneously supporting the development of other academic
skills.

2)

Learner feedback and learning analysis provided through the online feedback formats indicate activated learning
processes, providing support for the combination of experiential- and blended learning formats. Results fromthe learning feedback that were collected from a formative feedback component that was integrated with every
quiz provided very useful insights with regard to student engagement with the learning contents. As indicatedpreviously, this blended form of learning assessment gave opportunities for students to assess their own
understanding, going beyond the correct/incorrect dualism typical of summative scores. Importantly for
instruction purposes, gathering information and data about learner comprehension helps to build a knowledge
base about what is practical and beneficial (both in the content and the manner of presentation) (Looney, 2011).
Since course development always continues, this is a crucial capacity to expand and is being usefully accomplishedthrough the online survey formats. We see our current approach as a precursor to utilizing more extensive
technological tools and envisage that future developments here could expand into learner analytics and adaptive
learning. Essentially, learning analytics is the process of capturing and analyzing all the digital footprints oflearners as they engage with an institution of learning to help improve teaching and learning (Sclater, Peasgood& Mullan, 2016). In a review on international practices in this burgeoning field, Sclater et. al., (2016, p. 5) points
to four advantages of instituting learner analytics in higher education, stating that it could act as a tool for (1)quality assurance and improvement; (2) boosting retention rates; (3) assessing and acting upon differential
outcomes among the student population; and (4) as an enabler for the introduction and enabling of adaptive

IJEMT, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2018, pp.18-28 ISSN 1882–2290

26

International Journal for Educational Media and Technology
2018, Vol.12, No. 1, pp.18-28

learning.
3)

Although the pre/post CQ surveys did not indicate statistically significant support for the intercultural skill
development aimed at with our course, there are important reasons to consider in understanding this result. These
include the small sample size, moderating influences such as personality and the impact of variables not accounted
for here. In a study that correlated CQ developments with cultural essentialism beliefs, Fischer (2011) measured
the effects of a brief intercultural training intervention as part of a New Zealand university course (N=107) but
found no significant effect for the tested hypotheses. Among his findings were the observation that personality
factors constituted a powerful moderating effect on results. He contends that intercultural interventions havesome effectiveness in increasing intercultural awareness in that such learning is often instigated and developed
through participation in such activity. Given CQ’s 4-factor model that encapsulates intercultural development on
the metacognitive, cognitive, motivational and behavioral levels, we could further analyze results at this level toascertain effects; however, our small sample size mitigates against proving significance and would perhaps bebetter followed up in future investigations with larger groups.

4)

Broad measures of the course’s effectiveness should consider the combined results from the student feedback
regarding the IVE, course content and personal reflections. Methods that bring together learners’ previous
experiences, link conceptual foundations with practice and encourage reflection are pivotal to learning (Lewis &Williams, 1994) and are the hallmarks of experiential learning, one of the core principles embedded in ourframework (Roux & Suzuki, 2017a). In reading student learning reflections, we were impressed with the level ofengagement and depth of consideration displayed. The depth and variety of reflection support the contention
that learning is not only a very personal process, but also that our framework, in conjunction with the BL approach
managed to track and capture these developments well.

Conclusion and implications for future research
The pace of application and expansion of technology in modern learning environments continue to create pressures
for instructional designers to ensure that principles of learning remain intact. Building on earlier efforts aimed at thedevelopment of cultural intelligence (CQ) (Roux & Suzuki, 2017a) through an application of instructional design (ID),the current study reported on the expansion of our framework using a blended learning (BL) approach at a Japanese
university. Findings indicate that the BL approach could be successfully integrated with the framework and brought
about commendable advantages for the F2F environment. Noted positive developments relate to the expansion ofintercultural learning activities through online media, reflective learning experiences captured through online means,a cross-cultural asynchronous virtual exchange and online tools for summative and/or formative evaluation andreflection. Indicators for the development of cultural intelligence (CQ) were statistically not significant, although otherforms of evaluation showed effective intercultural learning, in addition to learners’ self-reported, increased confidence
in areas related to intercultural skill development, critical thinking and digital literacy. Implications from this study
point to the utility of integrating our framework with the BL approach and its subsequent potential to provide insights
into general, and intercultural learning processes. Additional utility of the framework was observed in the course
engagement patterns, which included its capacity to track and provide insights into intercultural learning and -skills
development. Findings here indicate a comprehensive capacity of our framework to capture and assist inunderstanding the necessary elements of learning behaviors. We are cautiously optimistic that with continued
refinement our framework and the blended learning method will be further integrated into course design anddevelopment in conjunction with possible application in designs for adaptive learning in the area of developing CQ.

References
Alonso, F., López, G., Manrique, D., & Viñes, J. M. (2005). An instructional model for web-based e-learning education
with a blended learning process approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 217–235.
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Tan, M. L. (2011). Cultural intelligence. The Cambridge Handbook on Intelligence. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Barnes, K. J., Smith, G. E., & Hernández-Pozas, O. (2017). What’s Your CQ? A framework to assess and develop
individual student cultural intelligence. Organization Management Journal, 14(1), 34–44.
Clem, F. A. (2004). Culture and motivation in online learning environments. Association for Educational Communications
and Technology, 183–192.
Dziuban, C. D., Hartman, J. L., & Moskal, P. (2004). Blended learning. Research Bulletin, Educause Center for Applied
Research (ECAR), 7, 1-12.
Earley, P.C. & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural Intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford
University Press.

IJEMT, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2018, pp.18-28 ISSN 1882–2290

27

International Journal for Educational Media and Technology
2018, Vol.12, No. 1, pp.18-28

Fischer, R. (2011). Cross-cultural training effects on cultural essentialism beliefs and cultural intelligence. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(6), 767–775.
Hayase, H. (2017). Achievements and Problems of the International Study Abroad Curriculum: Fostering Global
Citizens in the Liberal Arts Course at Saga University. Journal of the Organization for General Education, 5, Saga
University, 99–114.
Henderson, L. (2007). Theorizing a multiple cultures instructional design model for e-learning and e-teaching. In A.
Edmundson (Ed.), Globalized e-learning cultural challenges, 130–153. Idea Group Inc. (IGI).
International Virtual Exchange Project. (2018). https://iveproject.org/
Kivunja, C. (2015). Unpacking the Information, Media, and Technology Skills Domain of the New Learning Paradigm.
International Journal of Higher Education, 4(1), 166–181.
Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.
Lewis, L. H., & Williams, C. J. (1994). Experiential learning: Past and present. New Directions for Adult and Continuing
Education, 1994(62), 5–16.
Livermore, D. (2011). The Cultural Intelligence Difference Special E-book Edition: Master the One Skill You Can’t Do Without inToday’s Global Economy. New York: AMACOM.
Looney, J. W. (2011). Integrating Formative and Summative Assessment. OECD Education Working Papers, 58, OECD
Publishing.
Lovvorn, A. S., & Chen, J.S. (2011). Developing a Global Mindset: The Relationship between an International
Assignment and Cultural Intelligence. International Journal of Business and Social Sciences, 2(9), 275–283.
MacNab, B., Brislin, R., & Worthley, R. (2012). Experiential cultural intelligence development: Context and individual
attributes. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(7), 1320–1341.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). (2018). Japan. http://www.mext.go.jp/en/
Ng, K.-Y., Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. (2009). From Experience to Experiential Learning: Cultural Intelligence as a
Learning Capability for Global Leader Development. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8(4), 511–
526.
Parrish, P., & Linder-Vanberschot, J. A. (2010). Challenges of multicultural instruction: Addressing the challenges ofmulticultural instruction. International Review of Research in Open and Distance learning, 11(2), 1–19.
Roux, P.W. (2018). Developing a Global Mindset: Designs for Blended Learning. Journal of the Organization for General
Education, Vol. 6, Saga University, Japan.
Roux, P. W. (2017). Designs for developing cultural intelligence. Poster presented at the 1st International Conference andFestival on Intercultural Dialogue through the Arts: Community Development, Education and Policy, Fukuoka, Japan.
Roux, P. W., & Angove, D. L. (2017). A curriculum for intercultural learning. Poster presented at the 1st International
Conference and Festival on Intercultural Dialogue through the Arts: Community Development, Education and Policy, Fukuoka,
Japan.
Roux, P. W., & Suzuki, K. (2016). Designing Instruction for developing Cultural Intelligence (CQ) Online: Preliminary
explorations into experiential, intercultural classroom learning. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference onMedia in Education 2016. Japan Association for Educational Media Study, 422–427.
Roux, P. W., & Suzuki, K. (2017a). Designing Online Instruction for Developing Cultural Intelligence (CQ): A Reportfrom a Classroom-Based Workshop. International Journal for Educational Media and Technology, 11 (1), 87–96.
Roux, P. W., & Suzuki, K. (2017b). Designing Online Instruction for developing Cultural Intelligence (CQ):Intercultural journeys in a blended learning environment. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Mediain Education 2017. Japan Association for Educational Media Study.
Roux, P. W., & Suzuki, K. (2017c). Designing Online Instruction for developing Cultural Intelligence (CQ):Intercultural journeys in a blended learning environment. Presented at the 15th International Conference on Media in
Education 2017. Japan Association for Educational Media Study, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Sclater, N., Peasgood, A., & Mullan, J. (2016). Learning Analytics in Higher Education: A review of UK and International
practice. Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC), UK.
Watson, J. (2008). Blended Learning: The Convergence of Online and Face-to-Face Education. North American Council
for Online Learning, 572, 16.

IJEMT, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2018, pp.18-28 ISSN 1882–2290

28