International Journal for Educational Media and Technology
2019, Vol.13, No. 1, pp.27-34

Designing Instruction to develop
Cultural Intelligence (CQ): Reporting on Blended Learning
Outcomes at a Japanese University
Peter W. Roux
Saga University, Kumamoto University, Japan
peteroux@cc.saga-u.ac.jp
Katsuaki Suzuki
Kumamoto University, Japanksuzuki@kumamoto-u.ac.jp
Ryuichi Matsuba
Kumamoto University, Japanmatsuba@kumamoto-u.ac.jp
Yoshiko Goda
Kumamoto University, Japanygoda@kumamoto-u.ac.jp
As part of a broader project concerned with an application of instructional design (ID) to cultivate cultural intelligence(CQ), this study reports on the intercultural learning outcomes of a group of Japanese undergraduates. Utilizing the
project’s previously constructed framework in a blended learning environment, the course involved students in a face-toface environment that included a culturally diverse online exchange, topical lectures, classroom activities and various formsof media. Course engagement and learning feedback were tracked through a series of synchronous online surveys. Preand post-course individual and group measures of CQ were obtained online through the Cultural Intelligence Center.
Results show significant advances in CQ for the majority of participants when measured against worldwide norms.
Findings are discussed with reference to designing instruction for intercultural learning and with a consideration towards
the implications for the larger project and the development of learning in this area.

Keywords: blended learning, cultural intelligence (CQ), experiential learning, instructional design,
Japanese universities
The increasing reach and utilization of online learning continue to influence organizations globally. Computers andthe adjacent developments in ‘smart’ technologies are increasingly providing new means for personalizing learning,assisting in the design of learning through an exacting assessment of learner needs and knowledge, as well as in themeasurement and capture the learning process and its outcomes. In many ways, technology is succeeding as aformidable partner in education. Increasingly however, there appears to be an ever-widening divide between the
profusion of technological features on offer and a shortage or non-existence of teaching principles, and/or
methodologies to accompany or support it (Alonso, López, Manrique & Viñes, 2005). This trend raises a radical
challenge for educational establishments and further forefronts the central role of instructional design, given its
concern with how to meaningfully incorporate technological advances in established educational paradigms,
pedagogies and learning traditions.
The globalization of education has further led to the proliferation of online learning, connecting very different culturesand learning traditions and resulting in an increasing diversity in online learning groups. It therefore seems vital that
educationists should consider not only the cultural sensitivity and appropriateness of educational methods andpedagogies, but also the intercultural competence of course participants that engage in online environments (Parrish& Linder-Vanberschot, 2010; Rogers, Graham & Mayes, 2007; Clem, 2004). The current project (Roux, Suzuki,
Matsuba, & Goda, 2018) brings together a number of these overlapping issues through a focus on training andstructured learning as necessary components in developing intercultural skill, with specific consideration towards
utilizing online technologies to enable the development of cultural intelligence (CQ).
Cross-cultural competence, knowledge and skills are today recognized as a vital ingredient for the skill-set of a global
citizen (Fischer, 2011; Roux, 2018). Universities have long been expected to prepare graduates for future careers but
the notion that the diversity of learning environments (physical or virtual) can be exploited to support the skill
development of students seems to have been slow in gaining traction, partially perhaps due to the lack of an integrated
IJEMT, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2019, pp.27-34, ISSN 1882–2290

27

International Journal for Educational Media and Technology
2019, Vol.13, No. 1, pp.27-34

underlying pedagogical approach, as Fischer (2011) points out. There are some positive indications to the contrary
however. Embarking on a new educational initiative in 2011, the Japanese government (MEXT, 2018) has set a seriesof requirements for universities to emphasize an education that would result in more ‘internationally minded’ graduates.
This vision appears to consider the fact that graduates are increasingly likely to work in diverse environments,
regardless of whether these will be based in local or global contexts, as pointed out by some authors (Livermore, 2011;
Fischer, 2011).
The expanding need for continued and deeper understandings of cultural diversity in recent years saw the notion of
CQ come to the fore. This concept is defined as ‘an individual’s capability to function effectively in culturally diverse
settings’ (Ang, Dyne & Tan, 2011). Research in this area has grown exponentially in recent years, and the concept of
CQ, through its focus on the personal capacities that would bridge cultural differences, has assisted in the integrationof the somewhat fragmented field of intercultural studies (Ang, Van Dyne & Rockstuhl, 2012). According to the
Cultural Intelligence Center, four CQ capabilities characterize the intercultural capacity of a person: (1) CQ drive, which
relates to a person’s motivation, interest and confidence in settings with cultural diversity; (2) CQ knowledge, whichrefers to knowledge about how cultures are similar or different; (3) CQ strategy, which is how a person makes sense ofculturally diverse experiences and social situations; and, (4) CQ action, which signifies a person’s capability to adapt
their verbal and non-verbal cultural behavior to appropriately suit a particular context. CQ is thus similar to, yet distinct
from, IQ (general mental ability) and EQ (emotional intelligence) in that it measures a set of capabilities necessary for
personal and professional success that focuses on multicultural contexts. CQ has been demonstrated to predict
adjustment, well-being, cultural judgment and decision-making, as well as task performance in culturally diverse
settings (Ang et. al., 2012). Studies have further shown that CQ retains predictive validity over and above demographic
characteristics, personality, general mental ability, emotional intelligence, cross-cultural adaptability inventory,
rhetorical sensitivity, cross-cultural experience, and social desirability (Ang et. al., 2012). The notion of CQ as an
encapsulating construct for intercultural training and development is therefore very appealing, since it offers a broad
yet practically useful and robust understanding that focuses primarily on the skills and capabilities needed to be
successful in situations characterized by cultural diversity, whether these are international or domestic contexts.
These trends and developments suggest that instructional designers need to remain aware of culture’s pervasive
presence in the learning process, take seriously some of the reported neglect in consideration of the cultural influencesin e-learning (Henderson, 2007; Parrish & Linder-Vanberschot, 2010) and take care to actively incorporate a culturalawareness as part of their approach to curricular design and instruction (Clem, 2004; Thomas, Mitchell & Joseph,2002). Earlier reports (Roux & Suzuki, 2016; Roux, Suzuki, Matsuba & Goda, 2017; 2018) drew attention to these
aforementioned observances which informed initial points of departure for our project. Preliminary project work
focused on the development of a multi-disciplinary conceptual framework (Roux & Suzuki, 2017) which anchored anintercultural training workshop to encourage the development of cultural intelligence (CQ) in Japanese undergraduates.
This framework utilized instructional design (ID) theory and further incorporated CQ theory (Early & Ang, 2003;
Ang, Van Dyne & Tan, 2011) and experiential learning theory (Kolb, 1984). Findings from this initial step indicated a
successful integration of theoretical departure points and the incorporation of experiential learning to develop CQ,
providing a basis for expansion of our project (Roux & Suzuki, 2017; Roux et. al., 2018).
Subsequent project expansion focused on the application of our model to the development of a semester-longblended-learning course (Roux et. al., 2018), mindful of Fischer’s (2011) contention that intercultural learning requiresa pedagogy that can support the growth of CQ. Blended learning refers to methods of learning that mixes various
event- or experience-based activities and may include live e-learning (synchronous), self-paced learning (asynchronous)
and face-to-face classrooms (Alonso et. al., 2005; Watson, 2008). The course continued for two semesters with two
separate student groups, successfully integrating our framework with the blended learning model (Roux et. al., 2018).
The project further extended a theoretical reach (Roux, 2018), toward including the notion of a ‘global mindset’, aterm which has become popular in Japanese higher education to signify some of the stated goals in theinternationalization of Japanese tertiary institutions. The concepts of CQ and a global mindset are conceptually similarin that a person with higher CQ are more likely to develop a global mindset, as is suggested by Lovvorn & Chen
(2011).
Notable developments achieved thus far through the incorporation of the blended model in our project included the
expansion of intercultural learning through online media, reflective learning captured through online means, a crosscultural asynchronous virtual exchange and the development of online tools for summative and/or formative
assessment and reflection (Roux et. al., 2018; Roux 2018). Although indicators for the development of CQ (using apaper version of the original CQ survey) (Van Dyne, Ang, Ng, & Koh, 2008) were statistically not significant asmeasured in the first semester of the course, other measures taken at the time (formative, summative assessment andcourse feedback) indicated effective intercultural learning (Roux et. al., 2018). A qualitative analysis that further
explored learners’ self-reports and reflections indicated increased confidence in areas related to intercultural skill
IJEMT, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2019, pp.27-34, ISSN 1882–2290

28

International Journal for Educational Media and Technology
2019, Vol.13, No. 1, pp.27-34

development, critical thinking and digital literacy (Roux et. al. 2019). In the second iteration of the course, we utilized
the online version of the CQS, as provided through the online service of the Cultural Intelligence Center(www.culturalQ.com) and achieved a different set of results, which is presented here as the primary focus. These
results show developments in the self-reported CQ scores of participants when compared to worldwide norms,
providing additional support for the efficacy of our framework, course design and instructional methods. For thecurrent purpose, we present an analysis and discussion of these findings and consider the implications for the designof instruction that seeks to promote the development of CQ in tertiary contexts.

Research design, Methods and Procedures
The current project continues to draw on a framework that uses an interdisciplinary approach to synthesise wellknown instructional design (ID) models (Keller’s ARCS model, 2000; ADDIE model, see Molenda, 2003) with
Experiential Learning Theory (Kolb, 1984) and intercultural theory, as represented through use of the construct of
cultural intelligence (CQ) (Ang et. al., 2011). Earlier results and findings suggested a successful integration in aframework with a design sequence that supported intercultural learning (Roux & Suzuki, 2016, Roux et. al., 2017,2018). To investigate the development of CQ, we designed and implemented a 15-week intercultural communication
course that combined: 1) traditional educational methods in a face-to-face classroom environment; 2) experiential
learning activities in a facilitated format; 3) one multi-cultural workshop; 4) online media, quizzes and feedback formats(summative and formative) to enhance and understand the intercultural learning processes; and 5) an asynchronous
online discussion forum with international counterparts. We measured CQ pre- and post-course using an online formof the CQ survey (E-CQS), provided independently through the Cultural Intelligence Centre. Figure 1 (Roux et. al.,2018) highlights the blended learning approach we followed to develop and trace CQ.

Figure 1. Outline of the research investigation (Roux et. al., 2018)
The second iteration of the investigation included 19 undergraduate (2nd and 3rd year) students who participated in a
15-week intercultural learning course. This course is typically enrolled in by students who are interested in shortand/or long-term study abroad and are purposefully selected to join a program geared toward this end (Roux &Angove, 2017). An audience analysis done at the inception of the project indicated that students in this program are
typically highly motivated learners, are predominantly Asian (mostly Japanese) and are intermediate- to advanced-level
English second-language learners (Roux & Suzuki, 2017). The gender balance for the current investigation was 63%
female, 37% male and except for one Taiwanese student, all students were Japanese. The majority of the group (64%)
reported limited to moderate prior intercultural experience. The class met weekly for a 90-minute, F2F class in a PC
lab with Wi-Fi and audio-visual equipment. An outline of the course is reproduced below (see Roux et. al., 2017).
Table 1
Course outline and description
LearningContentAssessment
& Evaluation
Research

Textbook (8 chapters)
Classroom worksheets (instructor designed)
Mini-lectures (topical contents)
Online media, surveys, feedback
International Virtual Exchange (IVE) Project (4 topics/8 weeks)
Flipped method: textbook reading/audio downloads
Online review quizzes (4) (summative & formative)
Online class feedback surveys (13) (formative)CQ Scale (E-CQS reports provided by The Cultural Intelligence Center)
Online surveys (analysis of the formative assessments)
IVE Project (analysis of exchanges with international counterparts)

IJEMT, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2019, pp.27-34, ISSN 1882–2290

29

International Journal for Educational Media and Technology
2019, Vol.13, No. 1, pp.27-34

Instructional methods included variations of facilitated group- and/or pair work, engagement with online media(audio-visual), short lectures by the instructor, an online (asynchronous) exchange with a group of Colombian college
students (IVE), and weekly learning reflections that employed online feedback and evaluation forms that weredeveloped by the instructor. To investigate to what extent intercultural education through our course influenced thedevelopment of CQ, we surveyed participants pre- and post-course (Time 1 and Time 2, respectively), using an online
version of the Expanded Cultural Intelligence Scale (E-CQS). These measured participants’ self-reported intercultural
capabilities and they received a personalized feedback report that compares their CQ with the worldwide norms. The
instructor received a group-feedback report showing a summary of scores and a group profile description. A set of
guidelines provided by the CQ Center assisted in the interpretation of the feedback. The E-CQS is offered on acommercial platform and captures a self-rated ability to perform and adapt in diverse environments which is used asa diagnostic tool for intercultural success (Ang et. al., 2011; Ang et. al., 2012). Upon completion of the online survey,
the reports are automatically generated and made available for download. The data used to generate the reports (andused for subsequent analysis here) was obtained from the CQ Center.

Results
Developing cultural intelligence (CQ)
Participants’ CQ development were measured pre- (T1) and post-course (T2), using an online version of the Expanded
Cultural Intelligence Scale (E-CQS). Figure 2 shows a comparison of the results for T1 and T2, relative to theworldwide norms. Four observations can be made when average score differences between T1 and T2 are considered:(1) there were positive incremental increases on all four self-rated CQ dimensions measured in this group; (2) the
increases at T2 surpassed the worldwide average for three of the CQ factors: CQ knowledge (63 vs. 56), CQ action (69 vs.
68), the CQ strategy factor (72 vs. 71), and (3) the CQ knowledge factor increased most markedly (11 average points), and(4) the average self-rated scores for the group – including the reported increases between T1 and T2 – fall within themoderate range (i.e., in the middle 50% of the worldwide norms). Taken together, and in view of the incremental
advances from T1 to T2 relative to the world norms, these results broadly indicate that the intercultural education andtraining provided through our course positively impacted the development of CQ.
90
80
Average scores

70
60

72

77

79
71
63

50

52

40

72

71
63

56

69

68

30
20
10
0
T1 Self-Rated CQ
T2 Self-Rated CQWorldwide norms

Drive
72
77
79

Knowledge
52
63
56

Strategy
71
72
71

Action63
69
68

Figure 2. T1/T2 Comparison of self-rated average CQ scores against worldwide norms
A comparison between self-rated CQ average scores and the worldwide norms presented in Table 2 indicates thepercentage of change noted in each CQ factor. As pointed out earlier, the CQ knowledge dimension showed the mostsignificant increase (21%), followed by – in diminishing ranked order – the dimensions of CQ action (10%), CQ drive(7%) and CQ strategy (1%). Table 2 further compares the T1/T2 comparative changes vis-à-vis the reported worldwide
norms on the four CQ factors, and respectively as follows: (1) CQ knowledge increases by 11 points; (2) CQ action
increases by 6 points; (3) CQ drive increases by 5 points; and (4) CQ strategy increases by 1 point. On average, all CQ
factors therefore improved for the measured period between T1 and T2.
IJEMT, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2019, pp.27-34, ISSN 1882–2290

30

International Journal for Educational Media and Technology
2019, Vol.13, No. 1, pp.27-34

Table 2
T1/T2 Comparison and analysis for self-rated CQ average scores against worldwide norms
T1/T2 average
T1 compared/
Dimension% Change
score changes
worldwide norms
7 points less
CQ Drive
7
72 → 77 (5)T2 compared/
worldwide norms
2 points less

CQ Knowledge

52 → 63 (11)21

4 points less7 points greater

CQ Strategy

71 → 72 (1)1

0 points difference

1 point greater

CQ Action

63 → 69 (6)10

5 points less1 point greater

Given the overall relative increases that the group achieved between measurements, we conducted a paired-samples ttest for dependent samples to determine the significance of the increases for each of the CQ dimensions. The
reasoning here was primarily to check the significance for our small group’s performance within the larger scope ofour project, but also as a measure of the potential effectiveness of the current iteration of the course. The results
obtained for this group (N = 19) were as follows (see Table 3): (1) CQ knowledge increases were significant at p < 0.5,
with the value of t = 6.44 (M: 0.72); (2) CQ action increases were significant at p < 0.5, with the value of t = 2.98 (M:0.4) (3) CQ drive increases were not significant at p < 0.5, with the value of t = 0.38 (M: 0.05) (4) CQ strategy increases
were not significant at p < 0.5, with the value of t = 1.23 (M: 0.04). The current iteration of the course therefore provides
some encouraging results but should be viewed with some caution, given the small sample size (N=19).
Table 3.
Difference score calculations and T-values for CQ factors: Pre- & post measures
CQ Knowledge
Mean: 0.72
t is 6.439854.
p is <.00001
Result is significant at
p < 0.05.

CQ Action

CQ Drive

CQ Strategy

Mean: 0.4
t is 2.981997. p is .0032
8. Result is significant at
p < 0.05.

Mean: 0.05
t is 0.380387. p is 0.7041
3. The result is not signi
ficant at p < 0.05.

Mean: 0.04
t is 1.22655. p is 0.2216
9. The result is not signifi
cant at p < 0.05.

Discussion of findings(1) A primary purpose of the current investigation was to obtain an independent CQ measure for the impact of ourblended-learning approach to intercultural skill development with a group of undergraduate students. Based on
the independent report measures provided by the CQ Center (2018), the overall finding that there were positive
incremental increases (within the moderate range) on all four self-rated CQ dimensions for this group is therefore
very encouraging. This finding was further strengthened through the statistically significant improvements
observed with the subdimensions of CQ knowledge and CQ action, suggesting that these dimensions, in particular,
were supported through our course. The CQ knowledge dimension is defined as a person’s knowledge about how
cultures are similar and/or different and includes a knowledge of values and norms, business practices, leadership
patterns and socio-linguistic behaviours (Ang et. al., 2012; Cultural Intelligence Center, 2018). In contrast, the CQ
action dimension refers to a person’s capability to adapt verbal and non-verbal behaviour so that it is appropriate
across cultural contexts (Ang et. al., 2012; Cultural Intelligence Center, 2018). For these 2 CQ dimensions, weunderstand then that our learners self-rated their CQ development as gaining significant improvements, whichhighlights the theoretical (knowledge-related) and linguistic aspects of the cultural learning contents provided in
the undergraduate course.
A comparatively similar study in New Zealand (Fischer, 2011) reported significant CQ knowledge increases
following a brief intercultural intervention embedded in university course and concluded that such interventions
are effective in raising intercultural awareness, especially in the sense of providing students with a “reality check”(Fischer, 2011, p. 773) in terms of their intercultural skills and abilities. The finding that students’ CQ knowledge(or cognition) can be developed through university academic courses is also reported elsewhere (Eisenberg, Lee,
Brück, Brenner, Claes, Mironski & Bell, 2013; Van Dyne, Ang, Ng & Koh, 2008), and the incremental increases
in this dimension reported here as a result of our course can therefore further support similar studies in this area.
It is further noteworthy that a significant increase in CQ action was observed in our study. Eisenberg et. al. (2013)
postulates that university lectures typically emphasise cognitive aspects of intellectual development, whereas theemotional and behavioral (or experience-based) dimensions of learning are often neglected. Since the practical
IJEMT, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2019, pp.27-34, ISSN 1882–2290

31

International Journal for Educational Media and Technology
2019, Vol.13, No. 1, pp.27-34

nature of experience-based learning adds an additional dimension to the learning process (Kolb, 1984), andspecifically to intercultural learning (Macnab, 2012), our project has strived to incorporate this as a foundational
principle since inception. Eisenberg et. al. (2013) reports that this CQ dimension is “… readily affected byextensive, purposefully designed experiential learning interventions” (p. 616). It is therefore particularly
encouraging that our participants observed an enhanced sense of confidence in the CQ action/behavior dimension
upon completion of the course. While these findings are a meaningful result within the larger scope of our project,
it should be reiterated that the current sample is small and very localized in the present research context, in
addition to the fact that our course is still technically in a developmental phase. We are however, encouraged by
the current set of results that appear to support findings elsewhere in this area.
(2) Although developments in the CQ drive- and CQ strategy-dimensions were less pronounced (not statisticallysignificant), these factors nevertheless showed improvements. CQ drive refers to a person’s motivation, interest
and confidence in functioning effectively in culturally diverse settings and includes both intrinsic and extrinsic
interest components, as well as a measure of self-efficacy (Ang et. al., 2012; Cultural Intelligence Center, 2018).
Our learners progressed well in this regard as a result of our course intervention and achieved a result thatcompares favourably with the stated worldwide norm for this dimension of CQ. A similar result was in evidence
for the CQ strategy dimension which improved to slightly exceed the given worldwide norm. CQ strategy, signifying
a meta-cognitive dimension, refers to how a person makes sense of culturally diverse experiences, for example
making judgments about their own thoughts or those of others. It thus includes an underlying cultural awareness,
as well as cognitive aspects of planning and checking in social situations characterized by cultural diversity (Anget. al., 2012; Cultural Intelligence Center, 2018). In slight contrast to the Eisenberg et. al. (2013) study, who foundpronounced effects on both CQ-cognition and -strategy, our results did not show a statistically significant effect for
the CQ strategy/metacognition dimension. This result could be indicative of participants’ self-assessed, relative (lackof) confidence development pertaining to this CQ dimension. This result might indicate a contextual factor,
namely the largely homogenous population of our students and the absence of regular international counterparts
on campus. These circumstances imply that fewer opportunities for exposure to intercultural exchange that could
develop these skills in a ‘real-world’ manner, exist. These insights deserve further exploration and potential
development in a future course iteration.
(3) It is further important to contrast these findings with other indicators obtained from earlier iterations of thiscourse and the overarching goals of our project. Earlier qualitative findings, gleaned from formative andsummative participant performance, course feedback and measurements, indicated advances that could be tied
positively to CQ developments (Roux & Suzuki, 2017; Roux et. al., 2018, Roux et. al., 2019). The current results
further enhance and help to validate these earlier findings to some degree; however, in view of the small sample
size we interpret the present result with some caution. Furthermore, the current study utilized an online versionof the CQ measurement, whereas our earlier study made use of the original paper-based version. A cursory
comparison between the two CQ measurements indicates a utilization of the same CQ-factor-structure in bothversions; however, questions in the E-CQ version were expanded and also made available in Japanese. It therefore
may be that these two factors lead to a quantitatively different result for the separate iterations of our course.
These observations are speculative at this stage however and will need to be further explored.
(4) Intercultural measurement instruments need to demonstrate construct validity and measurement equivalenceacross cultures and the CQS has demonstrated reliability in these areas (Ang et. al., 2018). Given that the CQS isa self-rating scale, a number of studies have also sought to replicate findings with multinational samples and foundshort and longer-term consistency, a good internal consistency reliability, as well as predictive validity (Ang et. al.,2007; Van Dyne et. al., 2008; Ang et. al., 2012). Findings from the present investigation, which used the E-CQS
with a Japanese population, potentially lend further support to these cited studies and, with replication in otherJapanese tertiary contexts, could add to the growing literature on the multinational validation of CQ.
(5) Considering the application of our framework (Roux & Suzuki, 2017) in conjunction with a blended learning
approach (Roux et. al., 2018), the current set of results are encouraging. The assessment and research elements
we designed fitted seamlessly with other course elements and combined well with existent approaches in blended
learning formats for further course iteration, suggesting that our framework is functional and adaptable. The
framework’s multi-disciplinary integration of ID theories and models, CQ theory, experiential learning theory
and the blended learning approach has demonstrated value through repetition in the current study. We areencouraged to continue in this vein for at least two reasons: (1) there is an existent challenge to provide a pedagogy
for intercultural learning in higher education (Fischer, 2011; Eisenberg et. al., 2013), and (2) there is an ongoingcall for instructional designers to infuse and deepen their methods, materials and practices with due consideration
to an increasingly diverse, global student audience (Clem, 2004; Henderson, 2007, Lovvorn & Chen, 2011). We
IJEMT, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2019, pp.27-34, ISSN 1882–2290

32

International Journal for Educational Media and Technology
2019, Vol.13, No. 1, pp.27-34

are therefore considering applications of this framework to similar, but larger and more internally diverse
participant groups, and expanding it to online environments which could include more instructors.

Conclusion
The current study presents a further iteration in a project that seeks to develop cultural intelligence (CQ) through theapplication of instructional design (ID) theory and methods. For the present iteration, specific goals were to obtainan independent measurement of the effects on CQ development – utilizing the online service of the Cultural Intelligence
Center (www.culturalQ.com) and to consolidate the blended learning approach into our existing framework (Roux &Suzuki, 2017; Roux et. al., 2018). Results show that CQ scores for our group of participants increased on average,
when compared to worldwide norms. Although these increases remain within the moderate range, two of the CQ subdimensions demonstrated statistically significant increases, whereas other indicators showed that our group ofparticipants enhanced their CQ as a result of the intercultural learning course. Current findings further support earlier
reports from this project (Roux & Suzuki, 2016, 2017; Roux et. al., 2018), validating earlier discoveries. We areencouraged that the findings appear to provide further support for the efficacy of our framework, course design andinstructional methods. Future research work will aim to repeat the current investigation in an effort to replicate theresults and refine instructional methods with Japanese student groups, but also aim toward applications with diverse
groups in Japanese educational settings. In keeping with larger project goals, further efforts will also be given tounderstanding some of the processes that nurture intercultural learning and the development of CQ, and more
specifically, how these might benefit from the application of online technologies.

Acknowledgements

This study was partially supported by a special education budget of the Organization for General Education at
Saga University, Japan.

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, & 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. 27–322). 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.
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C. Ng, K.Y., Templer, K.J., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N.A. (2007). Cultural Intelligence:
It’s measurement and effects on cultural judgement and decision making, cultural adaptation and task
performance. Management and Organization Review, 3, 335 – 371.
Cultural Intelligence Center. (2018). www.culturalQ.com
Clem, F. A. (2004). Culture and motivation in online learning environments. Association for Educational Communications
and Technology, 27th, Chicago, IL, 183–192.
Eisenberg, J., Lee, H., Brück, F., Brenner, B., Claes, M., Mironski, J. & Bell, R. (2013). Can business schools makestudents culturally competent? Effects of cross-cultural management courses on cultural intelligence. Academy ofManagement 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.
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, (pp. 130–153). Idea Group Inc. (IGI).
Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.
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.
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, R. (2012). An experiential approach to cultural intelligence education. Journal of Management Education, 36, 6694.
Molenda, M. (2003). In search of the elusive ADDIE model. Performance Improvement, 42(5), 34 – 36.
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.
IJEMT, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2019, pp.27-34, ISSN 1882–2290

33

International Journal for Educational Media and Technology
2019, Vol.13, No. 1, pp.27-34

Rogers, P.C., Graham, C.R. & Mayes, T.C. (2007). Cultural competence and instructional design: Exploration research
into the delivery of online instruction cross-culturally. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55, 197-217.
Roux, P.W., Suzuki, K., Matsuba, R. & Goda, Y. (2019). (Forthcoming) Examining the self-perceived developmentof cultural intelligence (CQ) in a blended learning environment. Journal of Information and Systems in Education, 19.
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 for blended
learning. International Journal for Educational Media and Technology, 12(1), 18-28.
Roux, P. W., & Angove, D. L. (2018). A Curriculum for Intercultural Learning: The International Study Abroad
Curriculum (ISAC). In P. W. Roux, S. Herrera, S. Weston, & E. M. Matsumoto (Eds.), Tiempo 4All: Celebrating 20
years of NPO Tiempo Iberoamericano, Special Commemorative Edition. Fukuoka: Tiempo Iberoamericano. Retrieved fromhttps://tiempo.jp/symposium.html
Roux, P.W., & Suzuki, K. (2017). Designing online instruction for developing cultural intelligence (CQ): A report froma classroom-based workshop. International Journal for Educational Media and Technology, 11(1), 87–96.
Suharti, L., Handoko, Y., & Huruta, A. (2019). Linking cultural intelligence and adaptive performance: do interculturalinteractions and Host University Support™ play important roles? Business, Management and Education, 17, 36-48.
Thomas, M., Mitchell, M., & Joseph, R. (2002). The third dimension of ADDIE: A cultural embrace. TechTrends, 46(2),40–45.
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., Ng, K.Y., & Koh, C. (2008). Development and validation of the CQS. In S. Ang & L. Van
Dyne (Eds.) Handbook of Cultural Intelligence (pp. 16-38). New York: M.E. Sharpe.
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., Ng, K.Y., Rockstuhl, T., Tan, M.L. & Koh, C. (2012). Subdimensions of the four-factor modelof cultural intelligence: Expanding the conceptualization and measurement of cultural intelligence. Social andPersonality Psychology Compass, 6(4), 295 – 313.
Watson, J. (2008). Blended Learning: The Convergence of Online and Face-to-Face Education. North American Council
for Online Learning, 572, 16.

IJEMT, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2019, pp.27-34, ISSN 1882–2290

34