1-F1
Developing cultural intelligence (CQ) in blended environments:
Understanding and assessing experiential learning methods
Peter W. Roux
peteroux@cc.saga-u.ac.jp
Associate Professor
Saga University
Saga, Japan

Ryuchi Matsuba
matsuba@kumamoto-u.ac.jp
Professor
Kumamoto University
Kumamoto, Japan

Katsuaki Suzuki
ksuzuki@kumamoto-u.ac.jp
Professor
Kumamoto University
Kumamoto, Japan

Yoshiko Goda
ygoda@kumamoto-u.ac.jp
Professor
Kumamoto University
Kumamoto, Japan

As educational technologies continue to expand in scope and depth, their application in traditionaland blended learning environments pose a challenge to long-standing educational practices. One
such approach, experience-based learning (EBL), has long been a favorite of educationists in a broad
range of disciplines. Since the EBL method has been so closely and enduringly associated with otherlearning theories, it seems relevant to consider its role and relevance in a blended environment, sinceadvances in the application of modern learning technologies is bound to have a profound impact on
this more traditional educational approach. The current study aims to explore the role of EBL in a
blended, in-class environment where it was applied to support the development of interculturalcompetence (ICC) in Japanese undergraduates. Given our project’s larger concern with developing
a comprehensive pedagogy for the cultivation of cultural intelligence (CQ) in higher education, we
specifically wish to address the potential value of EBL in blended environments by giving attention
to issues such as assessing EBL and its role and impact on CQ learning and -skill development. To
assist our understanding of EBL’s promise in this regard, we present data concerning the efficacy
and impact of EBL activities from earlier stages of our project. Analysis of the data is then used tofurther problematize the question of CQ learning gains and how these could/should be obtained andanalysed to demonstrate CQ development. We conclude that the role of EBL in developing CQ holds
strong application potential for blended environments but requires a thorough understanding of its
purpose and scope; and to achieve this, a proper assessment of EBL’s impact on learning and skill
development is necessary.
Key words: instructional design; cultural intelligence; experiential learning; blended learning;
Japanese higher education

INTRODUCTION
Globalization has increased the cultural diversity that exists within both domestic and multinationalorganisations. This multicultural reality in work and academic environments is likely to increase even further invirtual worlds as online learning, teleworking and business exchange expand by means of the Internet (Fischer,2011; Roux & Suzuki, 2017). Governments worldwide have long relied on colleges and universities to prepare
the future workforce. In recent years it has been further recognized that a sufficiently capable, and internationallymobile workforce needs more than mere academic preparation to succeed and thrive in a globalized world. As aresult, higher education institutions are increasingly involved in helping students to develop a set of adjacent softskills alongside the required academic and professional qualifications that they are likely to need, regardless of
their chosen career path (Sit, Mak & Neill, 2017; Suharti, Handoko & Huruta, 2019). Human resource
development research has recognized that people with a ‘global mindset’ often adapt to and engage more
successfully with work environments characterized by high levels of diversity (Kedia & Mukherji, 1999; Roux,
2018). Similar research in the field of intercultural competence has highlighted the personal abilities that
encapsulates the skills necessary to work in culturally diverse situations (Ang, Van Dyne & Tan, 2011; Leung,Ang & Tan, 2014). Recent developments in this area have suggested the notion of cultural intelligence (CQ) to
denote the set of intercultural competencies that characterize a person who can adapt and work in diverse
environments with ease and efficiency (Livermore, 2011; Ang, Van Dyne & Rockstuhl, 2012).
The current study forms part of a larger project that is concerned with the development of a comprehensive
pedagogy for the cultivation of CQ in higher education (Roux & Suzuki, 2017; Roux, Suzuki, Matsuba & Goda,301

2018; 2019a; 2019b; 2020). The project brings together the fields of instructional design and educational
technology (ID&T) with developments in the areas of human resource training and CQ learning in Japanese higher
education (Roux & Suzuki, 2017). Building on a unique framework that sought to synthesize well-known methods
and models from these mentioned disciplines (Roux & Suzuki, 2017), the project expanded to a full-fledged
blended (BL) university course to cultivate CQ in Japanese undergraduates (Roux et al., 2018; 2019a; 2019b).
Research in these overlapping areas suggest that experience-based learning (EBL) is often a preferred
method of learning, if not fundamental to the development of intercultural competence (Leung et al., 2014). Given
the fast-developing progress of educational technologies however, traditional educational methods (such as EBL),
have received renewed scrutiny and instructors have come under increased pressure to adapt (Alonso, López,Manrique & Viñes, 2005, 2008; Roux, Suzuki, Matsuba & Goda, 2020; Kirste & Holtbrügge, 2019). The current
paper presents another attempt at assessing the contribution of EBL to CQ learning design, by essentially posing
two interrelated questions: (1) what is the relevance and role of EBL in CQ learning and development; and (2)how can this role of EBL be effectively assessed to demonstrate its effectiveness in blended environments?
Earlier research findings
EBL has long been a favored approach in designing learning interventions in the fields of education,
training and development, and also intercultural skill development (Leung et al., 2014; Andresen, Boud & Cohen,
1995). Despite being widely utilized in educational contexts, little research has been done to explore EBL’s
potential in blended environments (Barnes, Smith & Hernández-Pozas, 2017; Roux et al., 2019; 2020; Kirste &Holtbrügge, 2019). Earlier efforts in the current project highlighted the role of experience-based learning (EBL)in a blended environment as a valuable element in the development of CQ. Findings indicated that although theuse of EBL as a learning approach in a blended context likely combined to develop CQ, it was far less clear exactly
how this was achieved (Roux et al., 2020). The role of EBL in CQ education is assumedly complex and thealthough the rationale for its use appear to be clear and not lacking validity, the means for assessing its use andefficacy remains to be thoroughly investigated (Roux et al., 2020; Gosen & Washbush, 2004). The integrative
framework which formed the foundation of our investigation is reproduced in figure 1.

Figure 1. A model for integrating EBL, instructional design thinking and cultural learning

As outlined in earlier research work (Roux & Suzuki, 2017), the EBL model (Kolb, 1984) informed
our basic design thinking and subsequent methodology. EBL has proven success ratings in interculturaltraining and learning and demonstrated effectiveness in CQ training and research (Barnes, Smith &Hernández-Pozas, 2017; MacNab, et al., 2012; Ng, Van Dyne & Ang, 2009). As a pedagogical approach inhigher education, it has garnered support for its ability to help develop intercultural awareness andeffectiveness in students (Barnes et al., 2017; Fischer, 2011; MacNab et al., 2012). In our model (figure 2),
placing EBL alongside the chosen ID models (ADDIE & ARCS) allows their individual components to be302

utilized in the development of CQ. Preceding studies utilizing this framework indicated that weaving these3 models together enabled a design and implementation process (a blended course) that positively impacted
CQ learning for undergraduates at a Japanese university (Roux et al., 2018; 2019a; 2019b).
While this framework successfully incorporated EBL with ID, much of the detailed application workneeds to be disentangled in order to understand EBL’s contribution to CQ in blended environments. In linewith our purpose here, it was reasoned that obtaining these insights would throw light on assessing the role,value and assessment of EBL’s unique contribution to CQ learning. In this regard, EBL has been described
as a method with the capacity to transform experience into learning (Kolb, 1984). Our current effort therefore
attempts to address the potential value of EBL in blended environments by giving attention to more detailed
issues such as how to understand and assess the precise role and efficacy of EBL in CQ learning. To explicate
this more closely in view of our current purpose, figure 2 below (adjusted from Roux & Suzuki, 2017)highlights the cultural learning content in relation to the relevant learning steps in the EBL model.

Figure 2. Detailed outline of the intercultural course/workshop learning design to show EBL activities
This breakdown formed the basic design thinking embedded in our approach to an initial multicultural
workshop geared toward CQ learning and were expanded into a semester-long blended course (Roux et al., 2018;2019a). Although earlier findings indicated that the course was successful in elevating CQ developments, otherfindings pointed to the necessity for further refinements and description of instructional procedures (Roux et al.,2019a). Moreover, while the various ways for assessing learning outcomes provided insights into different
elements of the blended CQ course, the specific impact of EBL and the associated use of online support were notsufficiently descriptive in terms that would show the contribution of EBL (Roux et al., 2020). The general thrustof the shortcomings therefore indicate the need for a more sophisticated approach to assess the role of EBL; thiswould in turn give insights to the ‘how’ of CQ learning and its underlying pedagogical support.

RESEARCH DESIGN & METHODS
In line with the current purpose, which is to reconsider and assess EBL’s unique contribution to CQ
learning, we focus attention on: (1) learning reflection surveys, (2) class reviews (comprising formative
assessments of the content and instruction) and (3) a set of questions that formed part of a learning reflection
checklist. Table 1 provides a detailed breakdown of the instructional modalities, the learning assessment elements
and the questions that were identified as potentially indicative of EBL’s postulated impact on learning. Four303

different groups are presented. Groups 1 and 2 participated in a multi-cultural workshop for CQ learning and wereasked to provide feedback on their learning preferences. Groups 3 and 4 participated in a 15-week semester
blended course aimed toward CQ development. We acknowledge that it is not possible to compare the groups;
instead, we aimed to emphasize their responses on the learning feedback as a means to investigate the impact of
EBL. To assist the analysis, we include previously published data (group 1) (Roux & Suzuki, 2017) and add
similar contrastive data (group 2) to expand the opportunities for analysis and understanding. Slight adjustments
to surveys/learning assessments are noted where applicable. The ensuing discussion aims to further problematize
the question of EBL gains and how these could/should be obtained and analysed to understand CQ learning.
Table 1. Key instructional modalities/forms for a learning impact analysis of EBL
Learning
Instructional
assessment
Learning statements for research purposes
modalityelements
1. I learn best by myself, quietly reading or studying.
2. I learn best in a small group, studying and talking.
1. Learning
3. I learn best when a teacher talks and explains in a lecture.
Cultural learningstatements
4. I learn best when I can use technology (PC, smart device) toworkshop 1
write, watch and do research.
(Roux & Suzuki,
2017)
EBL-based workshop elements
2. Five EBL-based
1. Cultural symbols drawing
instructional
Group 1 (2017)
2. ‘Group areas act’elements: Activity(N = 47)
3. Learning gap / Interactive quizzes& group-based
4. Lecture
discussion
5. Multi-cultural groups
Learning statements 1-4 as above.
1. Learning
5. I enjoy interacting with people from different cultures. *statements
Added for Workshop 2
Cultural learning
workshop 2
EBL-based workshop elements
2. Five EBL-based
1. Cultural symbols drawing
instructional
Group 2 (2018)
2. ‘Group areas act’elements: Activity(N = 40)
3. Learning gap / Interactive quizzes& group-based
4. Lecture
discussion
5. Multi-cultural groups
1. Activities in a group or with a partner are useful for learning.
2. Working online using a smartphone or PC is useful forlearning.
Blended course 1
3. Reading a textbook and answering questions is useful forlearning.
Group 3 (2018)
4. Listening to a lecture by the teacher is useful for learning.
(N = 27)
Learning reflection
5. Watching a video or short movie clip about a topic is useful-----------------------checklist
for learning.
Blended course 2
6. Participating in an online exchange with foreign students isuseful for learning.
Group 4 (2019)
7. Having a class where there are different ways of learning is(N = 33)
interesting and useful.

RESULTS
Results from cultural learning workshop 1 (group 1)
As highlighted in table 2, the marked areas of somewhat agree and agree displays increased agreement forquestions 2, 3 and 4, as observed pre/post workshop 1. Notably, these 3 questions all relate to an interactive
element (whether with classmates, the instructor, or a learning tool). Although this is not a significant finding in
itself, the impact of the short workshop on the learning statements is nevertheless noticeable and shows thatparticipants react positively if there is something/someone to engage with in a blended situation.

304

Table 2. Learning statements pre- & post workshop 1 (group 1)
Workshop 1
Learning statement
1. I learn best by myself,
quietly reading or studying
2. I learn best in a small group,
studying and talking.
3. I learn best when a teacher
talks and explains in a lecture.
4. I learn best when I can use
technology (PC, smart device)
to write, watch and search foranswers.

DisagreeSomewhatdisagree

NeutralSomewhat
agree

Agree

Time
1

Time
2

Time
1

Time
2

Time
1

Time
2

Time
1

Time
2

Time
1

Time
2

0

4.3

10.6

8.5

36.2

34

27.7

27.7

25.5

25.5

6.4

2.1

8.5

4.3

27.7

25.5

40.4

46.8

17

21.3

2.1

0

10.6

10.6

34

17

46.8

59.6

6.4

12.8

0

0

27.7

19.1

29.8

29.8

23.4

29.8

19.1

21.3

Results from cultural learning workshop 2 (group 2)
Likewise, table 3 reflect similar shifts in the learning statements as observed in workshop 1. However,there is also a shift in statement 1 for this group, possibly indicating that these participants prefer this style. For
this workshop, a fifth question was added to consider the combination of instructional choices, which seemed avery popular consideration among participants and thus indicated that instructional variety could be a key
ingredient during a workshop. In retrospect, workshop 2 was less interactive and occurred in a lecture hall, whereas
workshop 1 was more interactive, groups were pre-organized around tables facing each other. These choices may
explain the lesser shift in questions 2-4 and the different result in observed when question 1 is compared.
Table 3. Learning statements pre- & post workshop 2 (group 2)
Workshop 2
Learning statement
1. I learn best by myself,
quietly reading or studying
2. I learn best in a small group,
studying and talking.
3. I learn best when a teacher
talks and explains in a lecture.
4. I learn best when I can use
technology (PC, smart device)
to write, watch and search foranswers.
5. I learn best when I canfollow a combination of theprevious ways (1-4).

DisagreeSomewhatdisagree

NeutralSomewhat
agree

Agree

Time
1

Time
2

Time
1

Time
2

Time
1

Time
2

Time
1

Time
2

Time
1

Time
2

0

0

7.5

10

42.5

25

50

60

0

5

0

0

12.5

10

22.5

15

55

55

10

20

0

0

5

0

30

25

55

52.5

10

22.5

2.5

0

37.5

20

35

45

22.5

27.5

2.5

7.5

2.5

0

0

0

35

25

17.5

27.5

45

47.5

Results from the blended course: Learning feedback checklist (groups 3 & 4)
As stated earlier, a 15-week blended course to cultivate CQ was designed, keeping in mind our originalframework and the original workshop as outflow. To consolidate this course, a learning reflection checklist was
designed with an eye to the self-assessment of learning gains and the impact of the mode of instruction. As outlined
in table 1, six broad questions related to learning were recorded on a 6-point Likert scale and are analysed here toform an idea of the usefulness of the participants experienced. As is observable from both checklists (figures 3 &4), the clear majority of responses fall in the (5-6 definitely useful) range. Comparing the different modes of
instruction across the 2 checklists shows even further increases in the learning preferences for the second checklist.
Of note in both learning checklists are elevated preferences for questions 1 (group activities), 4 (lectures), 5 (audiovisual) and 6 (instructional variety). For the 2nd group, these preferences are even further elevated.

305

Figure 3. Group 3 – Results from a learning reflection checklist

Figure 4. Group 4 – Results from a learning reflection checklist

FINDINGS & DISCUSSION
The current paper represents a further attempt at assessing EBL’s contribution to CQ learning design, by
essentially posing two interrelated questions: (1) what is the relevance and role of EBL in CQ learning anddevelopment; and (2) how can this role of EBL be effectively assessed to demonstrate its effectiveness in blended
environments? These questions were explored by means of analysing the participant feedback during two
intercultural learning workshops and two learning reflection checklists following two semester-long blended
courses to develop CQ. Findings from the two workshops highlight that participants favoured instructional variety
and group-based learning activities, which is reiterated in similar findings from the blended courses. Participantsalso reported preferences for receiving lectures by the instructor, engagement with audio-visual materials and anincreasing preference for doing online work using PCs/smart devices. Previous research ventures in this project(Roux & Suzuki, 2017; Roux et al., 2018, 2019a, 2019b, 2020) linked CQ learning to similar analyses and foundsupport that CQ development was achieved through the instructional design and methods. It remains difficult toisolate the direct impact of EBL’s exact contribution to the CQ learning process, however.

306

These findings lend some justification to the reported design and methodology. While positive – given thefairly recent growth of learning in blended environments – the findings are hardly surprising when consideringthat they merely support the established consensus regarding ‘active learning’: participants like to be engaged andachieve better results when they are actively occupied and can use various learning tools comfortably during
learning. The findings thus appear to confirm the consensus that individual learning – which is at the centre of
EBL – remains difficult to assess and measure effectively (Gosen & Washbush, 2004). In terms of EBL, theindividual learning response is mostly measured through self-assessment and this aspect might well have to be
explored in a more individualized and qualitative manner. Future work will need to explore this contention bydelving deeper into the individualized understandings of CQ learning and development.

CONCLUSION
The current study aimed to explore the role of EBL in a blended, face-to-face environment where it wasapplied to support the development of intercultural competence (ICC) in Japanese undergraduates. Given our
project’s larger concern with developing a comprehensive pedagogy for the cultivation of cultural intelligence(CQ) in higher education, we specifically addressed the potential value of EBL in blended environments by giving
attention to issues such as assessing EBL and its role and impact on CQ learning and -skill development. To assist
our understanding of EBL’s promise in this regard, we presented data concerning the efficacy and impact of EBL
activities from two workshops and two blended courses in our project. This analysis was used to problematize thequestion of CQ learning and how it could/should be obtained to demonstrate CQ development. We conclude thatthe role of EBL in developing CQ holds strong potential for blended environments but requires a thoroughunderstanding of its purpose and scope; and to achieve this, a proper assessment of EBL’s impact on learning anddevelopment is necessary. Findings point toward the necessity for building more individualized understandingsof intercultural learning if an appropriate EBL pedagogy is to be developed for CQ growth.

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.
Alonso, F., López, G., Manrique, D., & Viñes, J. M. (2008). Learning objects, learning objectives and learning
design. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(4), 389–400.
Andresen, L., Boud, D. & Cohen, R. (1995). Experience-based learning: Contemporary issues. In: G. Foley (Ed.)
Understanding Adult Education and Training, (Second Edition) (pp. 225–239). Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L, & Rockstuhl, T. (2012). Cultural intelligence: Origins, conceptualization, evolution, andmethodological diversity. In M. J. Gelfand, C. Chiu, & Y. Hong, (Eds.) Handbook of Advances in Culture
and Psychology (pp. 273–322). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Tan, M. L. (2011). Cultural intelligence. In R. Sternberg & S. B. Kaufman (Eds.), The
Cambridge Handbook on Intelligence, (pp. 582–602). 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.
Eisenberg, J., Lee, H., Brück, F., Brenner, B., Claes, M., Mironski, J. & Bell, R. (2013). Can business schools
make students culturally competent? Effects of cross-cultural management courses on cultural intelligence.
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12(4), 603–621.
Fischer, R. (2011). Cross-cultural training effects on cultural essentialism beliefs and cultural intelligence.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(6), 767–775.
Gosen, J., & Washbush, J. (2004). A review of scholarship on assessing experiential learning effectiveness.
Simulation & Gaming, 35(2), 270–293.
Kedia, B. L., & Mukherji, A. (1999). Global managers: Developing a mindset for global competitiveness, Journalof World Business, 34(3), 230–251.
Keller, J. M. (1997). Motivational design and multimedia: Beyond the novelty effect. Strategic Human Resource
Development Review, 1(1), 188–203.
Kirste, L., & Holtbrügge, D. (2019). Experiential learning in the digital context: An experimental study of online
cultural intelligence training. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 30(2), 147–174.
Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Leung, K., Ang, S., & Tan, M.L. (2014). Intercultural competence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology
and Organizational Behavior 1(1), 489–519.

307

Livermore, D. (2011). The Cultural intelligence difference special e-book edition: Master the one skill you can’t
do without in today’s global economy. New York: AMACOM.
Macnab, B., Brislin, R. & Worthley, R. (2012). Experiential cultural intelligence development: context andindividual attributes. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(7), 1320–1341.
Macnab, B., Brislin, R. & Worthley, R. (2012). An experiential approach to cultural intelligence education.
Journal of Management Education 36(1), 66–94.
Roux, P.W., Suzuki, K., Matsuba, R. & Goda, Y. (2020) (forthcoming). Developing cultural intelligence (CQ)
through experiential learning: Considering relevance and rationale in blended environments. The Journalof Information and Systems in Education 19(1).
Roux, P.W., Suzuki, K., Matsuba, R. & Goda, Y. (2019a). Examining the self-perceived development of cultural
intelligence (CQ) in a blended learning environment. The Journal of Information and Systems in
Education 18(1) 69–76.
Roux, P.W., Suzuki, K., Matsuba, R. & Goda, Y. (2019b). Designing instruction to develop cultural intelligence(CQ): Reporting on blended learning outcomes at a Japanese university. International Journal for
Educational Media and Technology, 13(1), 27–34.
Roux, P.W. (2018). Developing a global mindset: Designs for blended learning. Journal of the Organization for
General Education, 6, 146–156. Saga University, Japan.
Roux, P.W., Suzuki, K., Matsuba, R. & Goda, Y. (2018). Developing cultural intelligence (CQ): Designs forblended learning. International Journal for Educational Media and Technology, 12(1), 18–28.
Roux, P.W., & Suzuki, K. (2017). 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.
Sit, A., Mak, A. S., & Neill, J. T. (2017). Does cross-cultural training in tertiary education enhance cross-culturaladjustment? A systematic review. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 57, 1–18.
Suharti, L., Handoko, Y., & Huruta, A. (2019). Linking cultural intelligence and adaptive performance: dointercultural interactions and Host University Support™ play important roles? Business, Managementand Education, 17, 36–48.
Thomas, M., Mitchell, M., & Joseph, R. (2002). The third dimension of ADDIE: A cultural embrace. TechTrends,
46(2), 40–45.

308